Should FH wizards use VPPs?

[AnotherSkip]

Unfortuneately I don't think we can really contextualise this properly. There were few enough times that my VPP got in the way in my game that it wasn't a big deal. the few times that it did the Gm did talk to me about it afterwards and it went better from then on.

 

Essentially part of the problem with a VPP is trust.

 

Do you trust the player in question to do all the math and use it properly?

 

If the answer is yes then there is no problem.

If the answer is no then don't let them have a VPP.

If the answer is maybe then you need to decide whether a rules/SFX/balance call every session at a minimum is decent or not.

 

that is the only problem with VPP IMNSHO.

 

Do you trust them.

[AnotherSkip]

Ignore this count bumper

[Markdoc]

I should point out that I have nothing against the use of VPPs in FH: indeed, earlier in the thread I stated that I specifically allow them in my games.

 

I am not too keen on allowing VPPs and then giving extra freebie points for them. VPPs have never been a huge problem in my game: they give a mage flexibility at the cost of raw power. To me, the freebie points give a little too much power.

 

As for the issue of mages being weak, I must admit it has never occurred in my game or any of the games I have played in. However, we did not have systems which specifically limited powers on a "level" basis, so perhaps that balances things out.

 

cheers, Mark

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Markdoc

I should point out that I have nothing against the use of VPPs in FH: indeed, earlier in the thread I stated that I specifically allow them in my games.

 

I am not too keen on allowing VPPs and then giving extra freebie points for them. VPPs have never been a huge problem in my game: they give a mage flexibility at the cost of raw power. To me, the freebie points give a little too much power.

 

As for the issue of mages being weak, I must admit it has never occurred in my game or any of the games I have played in. However, we did not have systems which specifically limited powers on a "level" basis, so perhaps that balances things out.

 

cheers, Mark

I dont limit access to spells on a "character level" basis either -- the only restriction is really cost, opportunity, and time, which is very steep in context. On a 3 per night ratio (and I give 3 for good playing -- Im known to hand out 2 and even 1 point for substandard play -- really good play will gain 4 from time to time, and super memorable excelent play will net 5) it takes 6 sessions of scrimping and saving to pick up another "spell level" and to increase even 1 School Skill by +1, while other non Spellcasters are free to spend their points on whatever as they go.

[Killer Shrike]

More time to reply now that Im at work...

 

The 1 Charge requirement on Wizard's Spells also really limit the usefulness of the VPP, combined with the requirement to prepare the spells ahead of time, and the usage of Charges eating their real cost for 1 Day from the VPP when used combine to mechanically restrict the power of the VPP.

 

Then you have the time requirement of actually learning spells to a "known spells" list, in conjunction with a -1/10 AP Skill Roll in a high Active Point magic system. This introduces an additional requirement of maintaining numerous skills (or alternately an expensive talent) to learn spells to the "known spells" list of available Power Constructs at a steep cost to the Spellcaster.

 

Then, all spells native to the setting are either made by me as the GM or approved of by me. If a player wants to make a spell in game, there is a time consuming process required, with multiple opportunities for GM suppression and roadblocking.

 

All in all, Wizards have a very difficult time of it, especially initially in the critical 125 point starting range and for at least 50 points beyond that. In particular, they have too few spells per day, and then cant do anything else bcs all of their points went into their Spellcasting.

 

The Doubling Adder allows them to have a few more spells per day but of the same AP limit and puts the Spellcaster closer to parity with other professions whose abilities are usable constantly within the context of the paradigm Im using.

 

All in all a tight system -- steep cost but marked pay off for perseverence.

 

Load balancing does show that at higher character points the doubling does have more of an impact (bcs the VPP itself is bigger, so the doubling has a larger effect obviously), but the costs involved are still very high for the Spellcaster, other professions are similarly deadly in their own right, and a certain amount of buffness in a high point Wizard type is expected in the context of high-level High Fantasy. The confluence of magic items, rival Spellcasters, and extrodinary abilities possessed by non Spellcasters at that point range make for a power mixture that Im perfectly comfortable with.

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/GreyHEROContent/Magic.htm

[Galadorn]

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

 

Should I consder buying a VPP for a wizard character in FH to reflect the vast number of (relatively) minor spells he knows?

 

We've talked about frameworks alot in this discussion board. But I will restate the framework system I use in my campaign:

• 
  1. Multipower 30 pt.s
  2. VPP 5 pt.s
  3. Defenses (outside any framework)

 

Starting character points for my campaign are 50+50. Active point caps on spells are (in almost all cases) 30 points.

 

Why do I make players take a 5 pt. VPP? To facilitate effects:

• 
  1. Gandalf casting his sticky, continuous, multi-colored fire spell; like he did in the tree with the worgs surrounding him (the "Out of the Frying Pan, Into the Fire" Chapter). He used pine cones for this spell.
  2. Gandalf casting non-detect spells on the treasure he and Bilbo hid at the end of The Hobbit.

 

These are neat effects, I think: I think they give the Hobbit alot of color, richness and character. But, I'm not going to try to account for every miniscule spell that characters might have, and I don't expect them to either. Hence the VPP.

 

Also the VPP can add points to an attack, provide needed defenses that are logically justifiable to a wizard in my campaign, but we forgot to account for. Also they provide some color and cultural development that will make the playing experience in my campaign, much better for players and GM, alike.

 

Not only wizards have VPPs; but clerics, and spell-casting bards, as well.

[tesuji]

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

 

My thoughts on VPPS for spells in a fantasy game.

 

In most fantasy games, number of spells known is a significant thing for character power. A mage who knows 50 spells will be more powerful than one who knows 10, even if their power level is the same.

 

Putting the spells in a VPP takes that out of the point balance equation, barring house rules requiring points to be spent per spell known. (If you are going to charge a pittance per spell known, use a multipower!)

 

In a more high magic game, where you want magicians to be over the top somewhat, say an ars magica thing where balancing mages vs non-mages is not a desirable thing, this wont be a problem.

 

In actual play, in a superhero game or two, the VPP mage tended to become the "easy-answer man." Whatever the problem was, the group began to first turn to him to "come up with a spell". This did not start that way, but his access to "practically any power" became easier and easier to look towards.

 

In COMBAT, his VPP was not a problem. The Ap cap and time to dial in a new power and skill rolls were alol very limiting. It was his use out of combat to dial in any answer to a strategic issue. Do we need a team jet? Nope, warlokc can dial us up a teleport or mass flight.

 

One of the more telling examples was late in the campaign when the bad guys had some people holed up in a desert town. The wanted to scope the area and talk to someone inside so they had the mage dial up a transform and turn the leader of the team into a dog who could talk. So the mutt storlls into town sniffs some cans then make his way to the hostages...

 

meanwhile, the catguy team member scout stealthy guy stood arouns back at the van with his thumbs up his...

 

strategically, dialing "any spell" in a VPP can make a whole lot of other character's abilities other than combat useless.

 

So, i do not allow VPPS for fairly unlimited scope in even my supers games... and wont even consider them for a FH one. The versatility is just too potent to balance off against non-magical guys.

[TheQuestionMan]

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

 

Love this thread

[xanatos]

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

 

Ok... Now... I'd like to give my players the option for a small Cantrip VPP... (The 20 points one... 10 + 10). Now my question is: should I cap the number of spells my player can have in this pool? Or can they write 200 pages of small cantrips? Mmmh... They are "cantrips"... I could see them as direct manipulation of magic (so the fact that they have to write them before using is a "meta-rule" to make the game faster)

 

--- bye

[Galadorn]

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

 

Love this thread

 

Thanks.

 

The point I think that has to be made, is that VPPs are limited by special effect. For your average wizard in my campaign, shapechanging is not possible. And each power has to be justified by a rationale that is relevant to the character's special effect.

 

For example, for Gandalf to suddenly turn his nose into dogs nose, so he can sniff out the enemy is not a part of Gandalf's rationale for his special effect (divine archetypical magic). Not only is it gauche, it's downright silly.

 

Now if the player could come up with a rationale for Gandalf to have enhanced smell (proxy animals sniff for him), that would work out fine. But I leave the burden of proof and rationale to the player. Putting the burden of proof on the player, has created some very interesting, subtle, and excellently justified spells from VPPs, in my experience .

 

And making the player justify it is time consuming, I don't allow much time for the player to come up with a rationale. This usually happens between games. Of course, my VPPs are only five points at this point - not much of a threat to game balance.

[Blue Jogger]

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

 

Ok... Now... I'd like to give my players the option for a small Cantrip VPP... (The 20 points one... 10 + 10). Now my question is: should I cap the number of spells my player can have in this pool? Or can they write 200 pages of small cantrips? Mmmh... They are "cantrips"... I could see them as direct manipulation of magic (so the fact that they have to write them before using is a "meta-rule" to make the game faster)

 

--- bye

It will also go easier if you make a list of what generally cantrips can do.

Most AD&D cantrips do only a few things:

 

Create/Repair/Modify minor things (10pts of Transform)

Destroy minor things (1/2D6 RKA)

Summon minor things (Summon, something really small)

Move things (5 STR TK, Invisible to Normal Sight)

Create Images/Sounds or Light (10pts of Image)

Make people sneeze, pass gas, etc... (2 STR TK, Invisible, Indirect?)

[Snarf]

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

 

Bringing this back to VPPs. I'd really like to emphasize that a VPP doesn't necessarily indicate that the character can actually improvise spells. It is simply a rules construct to represent a particular ability to use magic. There is nothing wrong with a VPP of all pregenerated spells, created by either the GM or the player, or both. If the idea of creating spells during the game gives you pause (as it does me) you can disallow it without impacting, at all, on the utility or nature of the VPP (however, if someone does have a limited selection of pregenerated spells, this would be an ideal use of the 'limited selection of powers' limitation on the VPP).

That's the system I ended up using. I made a spell list which was related to foci the magic users had to obtain and gave a -1/2 limited selection of powers limitation for it. The cost and flexibility ended up being pretty much the same as an MP.

 

From the examples I've seen here, I think I might have overdone it on the limitations. There's at least -2 1/2 of limitations on all spells, and it's often closer to -3. Has anyone had problems with an overdose of limitations making spellcasters too weak? Specifically, all the spells in my game have at least OAF, Extra Time: Full Phase, Concentration: 0 DCV, and RSR. So far, it seems like someone trying to use magic is helpless on their own but playable when everyone is working together.

 

About small VPPs for minor effects, there was a part in Fantasy Hero that mentioned allowing appropriate Power skill rolls to accomplish minor effects like that. For instance, a fire mage could roll his pyromancy or his magic skill to heat up his coffee, resist cold weather, do a light show, or stuff like that. That could work for low point games where you wanted to give magic users minor flexibility but points are too tight for people to buy it.

[Galadorn]

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

 

That's the system I ended up using. I made a spell list which was related to foci the magic users had to obtain and gave a -1/2 limited selection of powers limitation for it. The cost and flexibility ended up being pretty much the same as an MP.

 

From the examples I've seen here, I think I might have overdone it on the limitations. There's at least -2 1/2 of limitations on all spells, and it's often closer to -3. Has anyone had problems with an overdose of limitations making spellcasters too weak? Specifically, all the spells in my game have at least OAF, Extra Time: Full Phase, Concentration: 0 DCV, and RSR. So far, it seems like someone trying to use magic is helpless on their own but playable when everyone is working together.

 

If i were you, I would pick an archetype, i.e. what do you want wizards to be able to do. How is magic going to look, function and act? I would decide this before I design a spell. Then with the give and take of spell design (too much cost, not limiting enough, etc,), work out the details within the Hero System.

 

About small VPPs for minor effects, there was a part in Fantasy Hero that mentioned allowing appropriate Power skill rolls to accomplish minor effects like that. For instance, a fire mage could roll his pyromancy or his magic skill to heat up his coffee, resist cold weather, do a light show, or stuff like that. That could work for low point games where you wanted to give magic users minor flexibility but points are too tight for people to buy it.

 

First, minor special effects for Gandalfs "firey cones of doom" are not that minor. Gandalf's firey cones spell would have killed the warg, if the goblins had not come along and put out the worg's coats.

 

Secondly, cantrips are much more useful in my campaign than just heating a pot of coffee. I have spells like:

• 
  1. Alter Self (Disguise +1)
  2. Charming (Persuasion +1)
  3. Light (5pt.s of Images)
  

 

These are far more useful than heating a coffee pot, and are capped at 5 active points per cantrip.

 

I also allow skills as cantrips to be far more useful, simply because they are magic. So a wizard with Alter Self could instantly alter his appearance to a high degree of detail. For instance, he could change his hair and beard color, put a fake wart on his nose and make tears, and holes in his robes and make his robes dirty as well.

 

With Alter Self I allow anything short of instant change, simply because it is justified by the spell's special effect rationale. So while the wizard could do the above alterations, he could not change the material his robe was made of (cotton to wool), the functionality of his robe (summer wear to winter wear), or the clothing items he was wearing (robe, to tunic and pants). But anything short of that is allowed.

 

So, as I'm sure you can see, cantrips in my game are far more useful than simply cooking bacon. I didn't remember that statement in FH, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[Snarf]

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

 

If i were you, I would pick an archetype, i.e. what do you want wizards to be able to do. How is magic going to look, function and act? I would decide this before I design a spell. Then with the give and take of spell design (too much cost, not limiting enough, etc,), work out the details within the Hero System.

Don't worry about that, I already did it almost exactly the way you recommend. I started out by copying a magic system I saw in a video game and added more detail about mana and magical forces. The basic ideas were that everyone could channel elemental forces through naturally occuring objects called magicites, multiple casters could combine their powers into more powerful spells, and each race has a natural magic ability which can be improved with practice. So, I checked out my copy of Fantasy Hero and decided to use a VPP, EGO-based power skill, and some other stuff that was discussed in there. Right now, I'm on that fine tuning step where I have to make investing points in magic about as useful as points spent in fighter stuff, but I don't know enough about GMing Hero, so I'm reading threads like this one carefully.

 

First, minor special effects for Gandalfs "firey cones of doom" are not that minor. Gandalf's firey cones spell would have killed the warg, if the goblins had not come along and put out the worg's coats.

Good point. Pine cones of fiery doom would be more than a wee bit too much for a power tricks freebie.

[AnotherSkip]

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

 

One could argue that it was gandalf using the ring he was guarding and concealing that effort with his own magics.

 

how's that for subtle?

 

 

Well on to the basics of the thread, try to think like this. how flexible do you want people to be?

 

the larger of a VPP you allow the more flexible you are.

 

at one point we were discussing a 75 point VPP FireMage who would build things like 2d6 Continuous AOE Megascaled Megaranged fire spell to take on armies with.... for a 75+75 game.

 

veddy veddy frightning.....

 

Though I guess I dont really have much to add to this thread.

 

Plan plan and more plan. that is the danger with giving VPP's to players there is NOTHING you cannot overcome in Hero with enough imagination and a good VPP.

[James Gillen]

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

 

One could argue that it was gandalf using the ring he was guarding and concealing that effort with his own magics.

 

how's that for subtle?

 

 

Well on to the basics of the thread, try to think like this. how flexible do you want people to be?

 

the larger of a VPP you allow the more flexible you are.

 

at one point we were discussing a 75 point VPP FireMage who would build things like 2d6 Continuous AOE Megascaled Megaranged fire spell to take on armies with.... for a 75+75 game.

 

veddy veddy frightning.....

 

Uh, yeah.

The main limitation imposed by the VPP Framework- and it should always be kept in mind- is that the Pool Points are an absolute limit on Active Points (although various Limitations applied to each spell mean the VPP can run more than 1 spell at once before re-allocation). If a spell has 2d6 RKA, that's 30 Active Points right there. Continuous is +1, Area Effect is another +1, that's 90 AP right there, not counting any MegaScale. So... if the mage player thinks he can create the effect described with a 75 pt. Pool, he's

 

WRONG!!!!!!

 

Now, you might allow such a spell outside the Power Pool, but then the PC would have to buy the monster with a LOT of Limitations to make it affordable. That's the idea. That means that the high-Active Point attack will be appropriately limited in game terms, and the PC has something to save his XP for after getting a reasonably sized VPP. I would allow VPPs mainly as a "utility grimoire" to account for all the common spells a character could have learned without needing to pay points for. Major spells, like the one described, would require a major effort to learn and perfect, thus they justify spending points on an individual basis (outside the Framework) like usual.

 

 

Though I guess I dont really have much to add to this thread.

 

Plan plan and more plan. that is the danger with giving VPP's to players there is NOTHING you cannot overcome in Hero with enough imagination and a good VPP.

 

That's definitely true.

 

JG

[Galadorn]

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

 

Well on to the basics of the thread, try to think like this. how flexible do you want people to be?

 

the larger of a VPP you allow the more flexible you are.

 

at one point we were discussing a 75 point VPP FireMage who would build things like 2d6 Continuous AOE Megascaled Megaranged fire spell to take on armies with.... for a 75+75 game.

 

veddy veddy frightning.....

 

And this is why we have power levels for our games, so an occurence like this can't happen. And why I structure my spell-casters magic as I stated above (Multi, VPP, Defenses, etc.) And give an active point limit to mage spells. BTW, 75+75 IS a power limit in itself.

 

Secondly, it's not total flexibility I want my spell-casters to have, just someflexibility (5pt. VPP in a 30 active point game).

 

I had a character with a 30pt. VPP, in one Champs game. And he could almost do anything. On the big approach to our fellow NPC protagonist's spaceship, where I was supposed to be inside our spaceship going "Ooooh, and Ahhh!" with my fellow PCs, I instead teleported outside (I had sufficient life support) and FTL'd to NPC's ship. Then I put on my full presence effect (120 PRE) and presenced this supposed "demi-god" out. Well my character was an angel! LOL.

 

30 points of this presence was from my VPP.

 

And yes, from the GM's point of view, it probably ruined the effect he wanted to give. But my character was an angel! Probably a demigod in his own right, so to speak. And I guess a more impressive demigod, at that!

 

Of course this was Champs and not FH, and these were the early (and lucious) days of VPPs.

 

Plan plan and more plan. that is the danger with giving VPP's to players there is NOTHING you cannot overcome in Hero with enough imagination and a good VPP.

 

That's true. But there is a limit to what powers you can come up in 30 seconds, which is the usual time period a player in my game has between actions. Come on, how hard can creating and obeying rules be?

[swobeas]

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

 

Hi!

 

In my upcoming campaign I am planning a mixture of VPP and skill system for spells.

 

A wizard must buy a cosmic VPP along with these limitations for the control cost: Incantations, gestures, Skill roll, Focus, extra time:1 Phase, concentration (1/2 DCV), FAM w/ spell (-11/2)

 

The skill comes in for the FAM w/ spell limitation. This means that a wizard must learn a spell by studying it + pay 1 Point for a Familarity with it.

Therefore every spell costs 1 Point to learn and has the same limitations ( I don't like the atmoshere of wizards at combat movement firing a spell in an blink of an eye).

 

As the VPP increases, so the power of the learned spells do...

 

What do you think? Will it be to limiting for spellcasters compared to fighters?

I think with the right power in combination with the right advatage a mage can easily outpower a fighter (what about a DRAIN Movement or STR to 0 for example?)

 

best regards

swobeas

[tesuji]

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

 

Hi!

 

What do you think? Will it be to limiting for spellcasters compared to fighters?

I think with the right power in combination with the right advatage a mage can easily outpower a fighter (what about a DRAIN Movement or STR to 0 for example?)

 

best regards

swobeas

 

I think once you take the VPP model and turn it into requiring a small price per pre-fabbed spell, 1 pt in this case, you have effectively reinvented the multipower. Pay a large amount up front (VPP pool and control cost), pay a small amount per spell, and require pre-figured spells...

 

its a multipower by another and more convoluted means.

 

I would just use a multipower and apply the limitations.. to the spells they apply to. Sure, at 1/10 the rp a slot may cost you 2 or even 3 pts, but it makes sense a 10d6 fireball spell would cost more than a 5d6 fireball spell.

[Galadorn]

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

 

Hi!

 

In my upcoming campaign I am planning a mixture of VPP and skill system for spells.

 

A wizard must buy a cosmic VPP along with these limitations for the control cost: Incantations, gestures, Skill roll, Focus, extra time:1 Phase, concentration (1/2 DCV), FAM w/ spell (-11/2)

 

The skill comes in for the FAM w/ spell limitation. This means that a wizard must learn a spell by studying it + pay 1 Point for a Familarity with it.

Therefore every spell costs 1 Point to learn and has the same limitations ( I don't like the atmoshere of wizards at combat movement firing a spell in an blink of an eye).

 

As the VPP increases, so the power of the learned spells do...

 

What do you think? Will it be to limiting for spellcasters compared to fighters?

I think with the right power in combination with the right advatage a mage can easily outpower a fighter (what about a DRAIN Movement or STR to 0 for example?)

 

best regards

swobeas

 

I think you will learn the frustration some GMs have with VPPs. Here is a list of the reasons for, and against VPPs, said by many or none at all:

• Reasons For:
  
• Paradigmic Transcience: VPPs allow flexibility. A GM is not trapped into a certain spell list, or a static Framework of powers.
  
• Gap Rule:VPPs allow powers or advantages to be created "on the fly." If a player could justifiably have a certain attack, defense or power, but the GM didn't consider that possibility, VPPs allow the GM to have instant flexibility in allowing the character to have a power that the GM didn't consider in the first place.
  
• Modularity: VPPs allow a character to have all the powers he thinks his character should have, without spending massive points to gain them all. For example, a character have a 30 point multipower, and 30 powers he wants his character to have. 30 pt.s + 3 pt.s per ultra-slot = 120 pt.s
   
  For 45 pt.s a character can buy a VPP that covers all possible variations, without the 75 extra points cost. Then the player can mix and match VPP powers to magnify or add modifiers to an existing multipower or elemental control, or for some extra wallop, to his attacks. Thus the character can mix and match until he comes up with an ideal, and appropriate, power.
   
  Reasons Against:
  
• Scenario Transience: VPPs allow for infinite variations of powers. Accounting for all these possible powers, can make scenerio design nearly impossible.
  
• "Hunt and Peck:" VPPs allow for varying special effect (depending on the VPPs rationale), thus opening up rotating special effects in an effort to find a enemy characters susceptabilities and vulnerabilities.
  

[Galadorn]

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

 

Hi!

The skill comes in for the FAM w/ spell limitation. This means that a wizard must learn a spell by studying it + pay 1 Point for a Familarity with it.

Therefore every spell costs 1 Point to learn and has the same limitations ( I don't like the atmoshere of wizards at combat movement firing a spell in an blink of an eye).

 

This could be done in a Multi-Power as well, for about the same cost.

[UltraRob]

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs?

 

This could be done in a Multi-Power as well' date=' for about the same cost.[/quote']

 

I see one difference in what he's doing, if you're making it a familarity-based VPP instead, then each familiarity is a skill that can be used to modulate the control over the amount of power in the pool which can be drawn upon.

 

For example, if you use the -1 pt 5 active points rule and apply it to the familiarity system then you get wizards who will have to work to be able to fully access their pool.

 

ie

 

30pt VPP

Fireball Skill: For a basic fireball will be 8/11/(STAT/5) -6 (30/5) if the player wants to cast a full 6D6 fireball. If the player wants to be better at casting "Fireballs" they will have to sink extra points into the skill to compensate.

 

And, of course, they will need a different skill for each type of fireball (area effect, explosive, armour piercing, etc).

 

This actually makes it more expensive than a Multipower to buy, but the characters end up being more Skill based and having to give more thought to what they will use.

 

Plus, as someone mentioned earlier, you can let them use similar skills to perform lower-powered cantrips and other tricks. (ie Fireball can be used at micro power to light a candle for a spell skill roll with a small modifier for control...)

 

Actually, I rather like this setup. It does have the disad that poor mages will have trouble having multiple spells going at the same time (unless they have huge VPPs), but on the plus side it makes the game all about the mage researching new magic and new ways to use their skills. The VPP just becomes a representation of the Mage's raw power potential.

 

Rob