The magic system I am considering using for my FH Campaign. (Longish)

[Demonsong]

The magic system I am considering using for my FH Campaign.

 

I believe that FH Hero has one main flaw. (If one can even call it a flaw. Did I mention I love this book?) It is that it leans toward non-magic users. That is to say, it is easier to make a good well balance non-magic user that it is to make a good well balance magic user. Now I believe that Steve realized this was the case. And that is why they provide the Players and GM with so many different options for magic system. (Well done Steve!) All of which are great examples. These example have lead me too the current Magic system that I think I want to use in my FH campaign.

 

The basic premise it that with enough training, time and dedication just about any one can be come a mage. Is that going to make magic users too common? I don’t think that’s going to be a problem. As finding an instructor willing to train you will be no easy task and there are no magic schools.

 

With that knowledge, we understand that there will be several different Simi-Skilled Magic users. People with only a little training, say 2 to 5 spells. These will be built with an appropriate magic skill, Say wizardry (INT/5) at normal cost 3/2. And all spells will be built with: -1/2 Requires a Magic Skill Roll, and -1/2 END X2 (or greater, up to X5). There will be no END Reserves, so all spell throwers/users will get tired fast. Spells will then be created using standard Hero 5th edition rules, I.E all the normal limitations. This will make it fairly easy to make a warrior mage, bard, or ranger type character with a few minor abilities.

 

To balance the armor aspect there will be a magic demising effect when one layers oneself in too much clothing or armor. It will hamper the flow of mana. This will be equal to the total DEF of the armor -3. So some one wearing full plate mail, DEF 8 will have a (8 – 3 = 5) -5 spell casting penalty on there Magic Skill roll. There will of course be a skill that allows one to buy off this penalty. Armored Mage: 2 pts per level, each level cancels out one level of penalty.

 

And that all there is to it for normal Simi-Skilled magic users. Simple…no?

 

Dedicated spell casters will be built just like Simi-Skilled caster, with a Magic skill and the same mandatory limitation. However they will have an option available to then that arms users do not have. A 0 point Disadvantage called True Spell Caster.

 

-0 pts-True Spell Caster:

-Cannot and will not ware any armor heavier than soft leather (DEF 3)

-Cannot and will not learn any non-magic related combat skills, talents or perks

-Cannot and will not learn any weapons familiarities other than the approve true spell caster weapons: Stick (or Rod), Club, Knife (or Dagger), Quarter Staff. These WF can be learned normally at a cost of 1 pt each. ONE other weapon not no the True Spell Casters list may be learned at a cost of 5pts.

-Can and will purchase all spells (and only spells) and half real cost. Example:

 

Fire Ball: 2D6 RKA; +1 Area Effect: Radius 3â€; Active points 60; -1/2 Requires Magic Skill Roll; -1/2 END X2; -1/4 Gestures; -1/4 Incantations; Real Cost: (12 / 2 = 6) 6pts

 

Well that’s it, nothing too difficult. But it should allow any True Spell Caster to have a decent number of low to mid ranged power spell and not play second string to all the 7 foot tall, steel encased, sword wielding maniacs, out there. What do you think? Will I be giving True Spell Casters too many free spell points? Will it even out? Am I on Drugs? What color is the sky in my world?

 

Thanks for the input.

[Talon]

First: No one will buy Armored Mage, since it costs the same as just upping your Skill Roll

 

Second: Without good reasons behind the restrictions for the True Mage disad (what happens if they put armor or or start learning about swords? why does it happen?), it's basically just a Class. Classes are bad.

[Demonsong]

I thought it was obvious. The propose is to give full spell casters a bonus for being True Spell Caster. To even the playing field. Because the playing field is not even. And it’s not a class it’s a set of restrictions and a bonuses for following the restriction. The reasoning for it is simulating the lack of general combat training that a true mage would generally not have. And in fluff terms True Spell Caster has learned to perfect the flow of mana thought his body, armor restricts it.

 

As far as what happens if True Spell Casters then putting on armor and using weapons after the character was made. Well it would disrupt the flow of mana through there bodies. Having no training in Armored Mage at all, I would first assign a penalty of -3 in addition to any penalty they had for the armor they were wearing for casting spells. Weapons would just receive the standard not trained penalty for using the weapon. And finally all there spells would suddenly function at half power, but with full magic skill check penalties. If the spell no longer had the pts to function, oh well, it doesn’t function.

 

Finally, Yes character will buy the armored mage Skill because, as the GM I will not let them increase there magic skill to some insane level just to off set there armor penalty fully. And using armor with the skill will imposes an addition -3 unskilled penalty.

 

It seams to me that you’re worried more about twisting the rules that the concept be hind the system. Please remember that it’s all about character concept. Can you see Gandalf throwing down his staff and putting on Field Plate and wielding a Battle Axe and Large Shield. It just doesn’t seem right.

[Talon]

Originally posted by Demonsong

I thought it was obvious. The propose is to give full spell casters a bonus for being True Spell Caster. To even the playing field. Because the playing field is not even. And it’s not a class it’s a set of restrictions and a bonuses for following the restriction. The reasoning for it is simulating the lack of general combat training that a true mage would generally not have. And in fluff terms True Spell Caster has learned to perfect the flow of mana thought his body, armor restricts it.

 

I guess I'm looking for a justification within the game world, that a character would have for not being able/willing to receive martial training. I definitely understand that from a game-balance perspective the field is not even, but from a game-world perspective it seems less clear.

 

It seams to me that you’re worried more about twisting the rules that the concept be hind the system. Please remember that it’s all about character concept. Can you see Gandalf throwing down his staff and putting on Field Plate and wielding a Battle Axe and Large Shield. It just doesn’t seem right.

 

Gandalf didn't wear armor because he was not really mortal (reference the "none of you could hurt me" comment in Fangorn Forest). He did wield a sword more than once and clearly had some skill with it.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that the more justified the rules are within the game world, the easier it is for players to accept them, and to play off them during the game. I'm also concerned about twisting the rules, but really I'm more concerned about being able to stretch out and lay down a good character concept that feels like it has a strong story behind it. Maybe I want to play someone who was a soldier, became a True Mage, and once in a while picks up a sword knowing he's screwing himself, but he just needs the feel of cold steel in his hand!

[tiger]

The system I'm working on at the moment requires a Mage/Cleris to purchase a Talent (5-10pts) and then purchase Spell Skills.

 

The minus to the spell roll will be based on the final cost of the spell, no the active cost. Although so limitations will not be allowed to count for theroll modifier such as charges.

 

There will also be a spell requirement. That is your required to have x amount of points in spells before you allowed to take certain spells.

 

I am also allowing Mages/Clerics to take a skill based on a set type of spell if they wish. Healing, Wild Magic, Fire, Water etc.

 

IF they choose to take this roll they can gain pluses to their spell roll. Something along +1 if roll is made +1 for every addition 2 points the roll is made by. This can then be used to offset the minus to their spell roll

 

They will be allowed to start the game with up to 10 spells if they wish. Gaining new spells will take XP & they will have to locate either a scroll, book, or mage/cleric with the spell.

 

If debated on allowing a Mage/cleric to buy familiar with a spell. Then they can buy the full spell later.

 

Still working on everything though

[Killer Shrike]

As a general rule of thumb, my suggestion is to motivate players to make the "preferred" decisions, but dont FORCE them to.

 

In this case rather than just saying they CANT do something, instead just penalize them if they do the undesired thing.

 

Thousands of tests with monkeys has proven that most people will opt to avoid the penalized options, and those that do it anyway are paying for the privelege in the HERO System, so why not?

[Demonsong]

Geoff:

The point I'm trying to make is that the more justified the rules are within the game world, the easier it is for players to accept them, and to play off them during the game. I'm also concerned about twisting the rules, but really I'm more concerned about being able to stretch out and lay down a good character concept that feels like it has a strong story behind it. Maybe I want to play someone who was a soldier, became a True Mage, and once in a while picks up a sword knowing he's screwing himself, but he just needs the feel of cold steel in his hand!

 

I see where you are coming from.

 

The True Mage is the supreme spell caster. Requiring a minimum of 10 years, some twice as long, of intense training to the exclusion of all else. Practicing, understanding and living with the flow of mana through ones body. In the example you stated of the True Mage that use to be a solider, I would say after re-teaching his whole body how to work indeed even how to breath, his mind would kind of forget or at least fall out of practice of the art of war he studied earlier in his life. During character creation said character would then spent the 5 point to maintain his WF with his Broad Sword. But after so long he would no longer be as skilled as he once was. If this is not expectable to the character concept then The True Mage is not what the character is. The character is a normal Warrior-Mage.

 

Tiger:

How are you handling the underpowered spell caster in relation to the normal fighter type? It sounds as if in your world mages are spending a lot of points for the ability to cast spells, and still not have a very lager range of spell to pick form due to points limitations. Or do I understand you wrong?

 

KillerStrike:

As a general rule of thumb, my suggestion is to motivate players to make the "preferred" decisions, but dont FORCE them to.

I agree see my earlier post about True Mages wearing armor.

 

 

Thanks again for the input.

[tiger]

Originally posted by Demonsong

Tiger:

How are you handling the underpowered spell caster in relation to the normal fighter type? It sounds as if in your world mages are spending a lot of points for the ability to cast spells, and still not have a very lager range of spell to pick form due to points limitations. Or do I understand you wrong?

 

It's really no different than a fighter or thief buying numerous skills. If really seems to balance out. It's still in the starting process so it could change as well.

[Citizen Keen]

Demonsong-

 

I just want to point out, from personal experience, that the Quarterstaff is a lot harder to learn than some simpler weapons such as the Mace.

 

In order to use a Quarterstaff effectively, a True Wizard would have to dedicate more time away from magic learning than if he learned a weapon like the Mace with a Tower Shield.

[Demonsong]

You are totally correct. But this is one of thought concept things. Lots of Wizards carry staffs, and they know how to use them. So it stays.

 

I just want to point out, from personal experience, that the Quarterstaff is a lot harder to learn than some simpler weapons such as the Mace.

[Citizen Keen]

See, I think this came about because all classical wizards are old and need walking staffs. So those staffs then became powerful - enchanted staves that aided them in their power. And eventually, well, wizards aren't cool enough, so they have to have melee combat now too.

[Killer Shrike]

Having run Fantasy with the HERO System for 4 exclusive years real time of play, I can honestly say that it was never our experience that Wizards were at a disadvantage to fighters beyond the initial start up. Once the characters had gained about 30 to 40 experience points (10 to 12 sessions of play), the other "Classes", or archetypes if you prefer, were already capping out in their growth -- they could get better at what they already knew how to do or save a bunch of points and buy a flat ability, then save up for the next one; or branch out and start learning the cheaper abilities of the other archetype.

 

Meanwhile the Wizard was just taking off. With each passing session the Wizards got a little more powerful, a little more capable. Why? Because they were assimilators. I was using VPP's for magic (the method I prefer) so they were intimidatingly expensive (thus discouraging dabblers as a side benefit), but open ended. Thus while the non-wizards were pretty static in their capabilities, the Wizard archetype was dynamic and expansionary.

 

There are more ways to calculate "power" than dice of effect. Not that the Wizards were lacking there either; it was only at the higher point levels that they could do so, but eventually they surpassed the damage capacity of all the other archetypes (once their VPP was large enough to hold really big spells.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Citizen Keen

See, I think this came about because all classical wizards are old and need walking staffs. So those staffs then became powerful - enchanted staves that aided them in their power. And eventually, well, wizards aren't cool enough, so they have to have melee combat now too.

Yep. The RPG Wizard is a walking breathing gamism.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Demonsong

You are totally correct. But this is one of thought concept things. Lots of Wizards carry staffs, and they know how to use them. So it stays.

Just because you carry a staff and can hit things with it doesnt mean you know how to use a quarterstaff. A wizards staff is more like an overgrown club. A quarterstaff is an actual weapon. They are not the same thing. Since everyone gets WF: Club for free, just leave it at that. If you really want non-martial wizards then it makes sense that the weapon they are most adept at is a weapon that anyone can use, including monkeys. If you want them to be good at it then give them +1 OCV w/ Staff for 2 points each.

 

Or if you really want them to be good at using a staff -- because even Yoda is a ninja these days -- then give them a weapon based martial art (Staff) with Leg Sweep, Martial Block, Martial Disarm, and Defensive Strike for IIRC 16 pts. Bam. Suddenly they really are good with a Staff -- and its still not a quarterstaff.

[Damon_Dusk]

With my fantasy magic system, I didn't really need to worry about wizards wearing armor unless it was some sort of character concept. Since wizards had access to Force Fields and other defensive powers, why would a wizard want to burden himself with becoming strong and lugging around 40 kg of armor all the time. He can just spend END and turn on his Force Field.

 

Granted, if you restrict force fields in your magic system, then this isn't an option, but I really just set some rules to make the (relatively) cheap power of Force Field balanced. Set maximum limits (for my game it was +10 rPD/+10 rED), require Extra END limitations, and/or put Activation on them. I did all 3, and it worked out just fine. It's still a far more appealing alternative to a "true wizard" than wearing heavy armor.

 

It sounds like you want to "even the playing field" between wizards and non-wizards, so to me Force Field is just the way to do it. If I were playing a wizard in a FH game and Force Field was an available spell, there would be zero chance of me wearing armor.

 

As far as the weaponry training goes, to me it's still the same deal. Why would the wizard carry around a sword doing 1 1/2d6 Killing when he could sling a RKA doing 2d6 Killing or more?

 

If you want the staff to be an integral part of the wizard, you could certainly make that a required focus for all wizard spells. Just a suggestion...

 

I think you might be putting unnecessary restrictions on your wizards when the natural course of Hero will gravitate a wizard toward exactly what you are looking for. In my system, the initial layout of points (for a VPP system) was daunting, and it prevented there from being a complete group of wizards (in fact, I think we've had about 3 total in 3 years), but those that followed through with it became the most interesting, the most versatile, and some of the most powerful characters.

 

Or I could be missing entirely what you are looking for...