Same magic system, different problem

[hammersickle59]

Ok. A certain sphere of magic, say necromancy, is created using a VPP (limited class, necromancy). Can change slots as a zero phase action. Also has a -1/2 conditional limitation, can only use spells that character has found in character.

 

The problem is this. When creating spells for this VPP, it is pointless to take Limitations. Since the character is only ever casting one spell at a time, the spell never has to share the pool with other spells. The cap for the spell is the active point cost, real cost doesn't even matter (cause it cant go above AP cost). No matter how many limitations you add to the spell, it wont help the AP cost go down. I don't like that feel. I want to be able to make the spell more powerful by giving it limitations.

 

This will remain a problem at the higher end also. With a 200 point pool, you cap a spell at 200 AP. It doesn't matter that the real cost is 30 points, so why even bother with limitations.

 

Any solutions?

 

Dean

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Same magic system, different problem

 

I would recommend bookmarking the following site:

killershrike.com

and take a look at the following regarding spell casting and VPP's:

http://killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHero/MagicSystems/Vancian.aspx

[tesuji]

Re: Same magic system, different problem

 

well first if changing a vpp in combat you must make a skill roll at -1/10 ap, so unless he has bought tons of skill roll, not having spell be 200 pts is a good idea.

 

second, in many situations you want several things going at once - a flight a offense a defense, so if all your spells were 200 ap, its unlikely you can get three different effects up at once without serious lims.

 

however, there is one problem to consider - for vpps if a lim isn't limiting you cannot apply it, so trying to take "only in graveyard" on a spell to be cast while STANDING IN A GRAVEYARD WONT EARN YOU MUCH.

 

but as a general rule, i find few lims on vpp powers other than those applied to the control costs, for the reason you describe.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Same magic system, different problem

 

well first if changing a vpp in combat you must make a skill roll at -1/10 ap' date=' so unless he has bought tons of skill roll, not having spell be 200 pts is a good idea.[/quote']

Not if the skill roll has been bought off, which I suspect is likely of this magic system.

 

second' date=' in many situations you want several things going at once - a flight a offense a defense, so if all your spells were 200 ap, its unlikely you can get three different effects up at once without serious lims.[/quote']

True, unless those spells were bought as Uncontrolled or with Continuing Charges or something.

 

however' date=' there is one problem to consider - for vpps if a lim isn't limiting you cannot apply it, so trying to take "only in graveyard" on a spell to be cast while STANDING IN A GRAVEYARD WONT EARN YOU MUCH.[/quote']

I don't know. Note that the caster can only switch to spells (s)he has learned in the setting, right? So if you learn one that can only apply in a graveyard, you can't just change it each time you reallocate your VPP. Maybe if you found variations of the same spell that could be cast "in a graveyard" or "in a church" or "in a public fountain" then it might be worth combining them in system terms into a more comprehensive spell with less Limitation value though. I agree that it is rather an odd notion still. I think it would be worth keeping for consistency and feel if nothing else.

 

Since as the GM you have decided to control the learning and creation of spells, that is where your ability to enforce proper Limitations comes in. So only build spells that fit with your notion of this magic system. And if you are going to allow PCs to "research" new spells or something, place some restrictions on how they can be created (for example, "you must have Concentration and at least one of Gestures, Incantations or Focus") and perhaps also have players run all new spells past you for approval. If absolutely ALL spells in the magic system must impose some Limitation(s) (e.g. Concentration in the example above, and maybe another variable -1/4 or -1/2) you can apply that to the VPP to help reduce the final Control Cost as well.

[tesuji]

Re: Same magic system, different problem

 

I don't know. Note that the caster can only switch to spells (s)he has learned in the setting, right? So if you learn one that can only apply in a graveyard, you can't just change it each time you reallocate your VPP. Maybe if you found variations of the same spell that could be cast "in a graveyard" or "in a church" or "in a public fountain" then it might be worth combining them in system terms into a more comprehensive spell with less Limitation value though. I agree that it is rather an odd notion still. I think it would be worth keeping for consistency and feel if nothing else.

 

As a GM i would be very hesitant about that approach because it means that I have to be very careful along the way about making sure any new spell doesn't invalidate an old lim.

 

For example - week one i put in spells with an olnly in graveyard requ based on the logic of "they cannot dial away the graveyard lim for "only in river" at a whim, but that means (since knowing more spells isn't a cost issue) i cannot a year later add in an equivalent spell which allows "only in river" or another which says "when not in graveyard") as in the apocraphal "only in darkness and only in day pairing.

 

See it boils down to if i have a powe that cannot be used in X circumstanc but have for no extra cost equivalent powers (perhaps equivalent in effectiveness if not effect) that can be substituted instead, and easy change between, then the limitation is no longer limiting (or at least significantly less limiting.)

 

since vpps allow change on circumstances and have not inherent cost for "how many effects you can choose between, thats the very reason why vpps have that extra issues with conditional lims.

 

now this would change a lot IF the vpp were restricted in change such as "only change in lab" or takes a long time to change but even then things like "only works on tuesdays" can be problematic.

 

agai8n tho, this is why i normally dont use vpps for fantasy spells. vpps have no built in automatic cost for "knows 10 spells" vs "knows 100 spells" and IMX in fantasy games "how many spell you know" is very important as a metric for effectiveness. of course, others prefer using vpps and inventing a new system to charge for "spells known".

[hammersickle59]

Re: Same magic system, different problem

 

I would recommend bookmarking the following site:

killershrike.com

and take a look at the following regarding spell casting and VPP's:

http://killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHero/MagicSystems/Vancian.aspx

 

 

Yes, I spent a few hours last night pouring over those systems. I coudln't find the answer I was looking for. In one system he had this rule (Wizardry I think) in which the mages could go 3x above the normal pool limit in terms of real cost but not AP cost. I sort of need that except for AP not real cost. But that would be a big arbitrary move, so I'm looking for other solutions.

 

Dean

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Same magic system, different problem

 

There's a house rule that's made the rounds, that's usually well received (and I hope makes it into 6e). In this house rule, the Pool Cost is 1 per 1 Real Point in the pool, and the Control Cost is 1 per 2 Active Points in the pool. This lets you have different Active Point and Real Point values.

[hammersickle59]

Re: Same magic system, different problem

 

well first if changing a vpp in combat you must make a skill roll at -1/10 ap, so unless he has bought tons of skill roll, not having spell be 200 pts is a good idea.

 

second, in many situations you want several things going at once - a flight a offense a defense, so if all your spells were 200 ap, its unlikely you can get three different effects up at once without serious lims.

 

however, there is one problem to consider - for vpps if a lim isn't limiting you cannot apply it, so trying to take "only in graveyard" on a spell to be cast while STANDING IN A GRAVEYARD WONT EARN YOU MUCH.

 

but as a general rule, i find few lims on vpp powers other than those applied to the control costs, for the reason you describe.

 

In regards to the skill roll to switch powers at negs. I like the fact that the more powerful the spell, the harder it is to cast. In this case I would make them roll for casting a spell, not switching. I've mulling over wether or not to buy that off, and then have them buy "needs activation roll" for the spell, or just keep it as it is, since it almost perfectly fits.

 

In regards to having an offense/defense/utitility up at the same time. Its a non issue. Duration spells will be using continous charges for their duration.

 

Also, the certain lims not apply to vpps almost never applies in this case. Because they wont be creating the spells and they will spend lots of in character time to try and get a variety of spells. If they know some that are better in certain situations, then they earned it.

[hammersickle59]

Re: Same magic system, different problem

 

There's a house rule that's made the rounds' date=' that's usually well received (and I hope makes it into 6e). In this house rule, the Pool Cost is 1 per 1 Real Point in the pool, and the Control Cost is 1 per 2 Active Points in the pool. This lets you have different Active Point and Real Point values.[/quote']

 

Why is my mind having trouble bending around this formula?

 

The book puts the control cost at half the pool cost. In the above formula, the control cost and the pool cost dont seem directly related? Am I missing something? Is it a terminology issue? Can you give an example?

 

If I want to have a real point cap (to create my powers with) of 50pts, but an active point cap of 75, how would that work with this formula?

Ah. got it I think. I would pay 50 pts for the pool and 150 for the control cost. A total of 200pts! Ouch. Did I do something wrong? That seems very expensive for creating 75 point powers.

 

Just to clarify: I'm trying to create a VPP that has a higher AP limit than the real point limit. This is my goal. It doesnt look like this formula helps. Or it helps at very high cost.

 

Dean

[tesuji]

Re: Same magic system, different problem

 

 

In regards to the skill roll to switch powers at negs. I like the fact that the more powerful the spell, the harder it is to cast. In this case I would make them roll for casting a spell, not switching. I've mulling over wether or not to buy that off, and then have them buy "needs activation roll" for the spell, or just keep it as it is, since it almost perfectly fits.

i dont disagree and think it sounds like a good fit too. I was just throwing it in as an answer to why have lower pt spells, an easier skill roll to succeed.

In regards to having an offense/defense/utitility up at the same time. Its a non issue. Duration spells will be using continous charges for their duration.

Which, to my way of thinking, makes "spells known" an even more important issue... one worthy of being "on the books" as opposed to being a role-playing handled function. the "cost" for a mage with "a selection of sp0ell including an offense or two, a defense and several movement power" which he can run all at once using "contining charges" ought to be much more than a similar mage who just has "an offense and a couple movement spells". The lack of defense will severly hinder the latter guy but he has no compensatingly lower cost.

 

EXAMPLE: Two mage start out relatively equal. over 6 months of play, they gain 50 xp. mage 1 uses a lot of his time doing the rping stuff to gain new spells, at no xp cost, and during this time spends his xp on a variety of things like higher int and higher occult lore and maybe a magical item or two. mage 2 doesn't go in for much spell stuff but does spend his time doing socializing and making friends and such, improves his social skills with xp, buys new contacts, acquires wealth all of which cost xp.

 

so now mage 1 has +50 xp of goodies AND new spells which were free, while mage 2 has +50 xp of goodies and, well, nothing else.

 

playing in the same game, with similar performance, they now arrive at differeing levels of effectiveness in a complex point buy cost = effectiveness system.

 

thats seems very counter productive. Which is why i dislike removing the cost for known spells.

 

Also, the certain lims not apply to vpps almost never applies in this case. Because they wont be creating the spells and they will spend lots of in character time to try and get a variety of spells. If they know some that are better in certain situations, then they earned it.

 

Ok so will rp focus in other areas also "earn you" bonuses in effectiveness that are accounted for "off the books".

 

Take a mage a thief and a fighter who adventure together for six month. All gain some amount of xp and the mage spends his on stuff (new spells are free so stuff other than that.) The fighterspends his 50 xp on stuff. the thief spends his 50 xp on stuff. They all acquired some goodies in terms of items and friends etc...

 

and on top of that the mage has, let speculate, taken his known spells from 10 to 30. What did the fighter do "off the books" that adds as much to him for free as this does to the mage? maybe its not 30 spells but maybe he went from a few fire spells to a force field and a flight spell and so now often, even usually, he enters combat with aerial capability and plate mail level defenses.

 

What could ()and will) the fighter be doing while the mage "earns his new spells" so that his character remains comparable in effectiveness? Do you run adventures for the fighter and thief leaving the mage out "while he learns new spells" or are you giving the mage "downtime benefits" that accrue while the rest remain static?

 

now one possibilty might well be to invent "downtime xp" where the fighter can "while the mage learns spells" rent himself out as a bodyguard and gets paid or the thief breaks into shops and steals stuff so that when the mage benefits from his "off the books" power up the others dont just have to be in stasis.

 

the mage "earning" his off the books gains is fine as long as everyone else has a similar amount of "off the books learning opportunity but if it is one sided, it really kicks the balls out from under the whole cost = effectiveness reason behind doing the math entirely.

[tesuji]

Re: Same magic system, different problem

 

Just to clarify: I'm trying to create a VPP that has a higher AP limit than the real point limit. This is my goal. It doesnt look like this formula helps. Or it helps at very high cost.

 

Dean

 

RAW 60 ap and 60 rp vpp costs 60 (1x ap) + 30 (1/2x ap) both based on AP.

 

the other rule runs the exact same cost but the formula becomes

1x RP for pool cost and 1/2x AP for control

 

so a 75ap and 50 rp pool would have pool cost of 50 + 37 control (plus associated modifiers for instant change and such.)

 

however, i think the rule was developed to do the reverse - allow larger real pt pools, like a 60 pt rp pool but limit the size of any given piece to only 15 ap.

[hammersickle59]

Re: Same magic system, different problem

 

i dont disagree and think it sounds like a good fit too. I was just throwing it in as an answer to why have lower pt spells, an easier skill roll to succeed.

 

Which, to my way of thinking, makes "spells known" an even more important issue... one worthy of being "on the books" as opposed to being a role-playing handled function. the "cost" for a mage with "a selection of sp0ell including an offense or two, a defense and several movement power" which he can run all at once using "contining charges" ought to be much more than a similar mage who just has "an offense and a couple movement spells". The lack of defense will severly hinder the latter guy but he has no compensatingly lower cost.

 

EXAMPLE: Two mage start out relatively equal. over 6 months of play, they gain 50 xp. mage 1 uses a lot of his time doing the rping stuff to gain new spells, at no xp cost, and during this time spends his xp on a variety of things like higher int and higher occult lore and maybe a magical item or two. mage 2 doesn't go in for much spell stuff but does spend his time doing socializing and making friends and such, improves his social skills with xp, buys new contacts, acquires wealth all of which cost xp.

 

so now mage 1 has +50 xp of goodies AND new spells which were free, while mage 2 has +50 xp of goodies and, well, nothing else.

 

playing in the same game, with similar performance, they now arrive at differeing levels of effectiveness in a complex point buy cost = effectiveness system.

 

thats seems very counter productive. Which is why i dislike removing the cost for known spells.

 

 

 

Ok so will rp focus in other areas also "earn you" bonuses in effectiveness that are accounted for "off the books".

 

Take a mage a thief and a fighter who adventure together for six month. All gain some amount of xp and the mage spends his on stuff (new spells are free so stuff other than that.) The fighterspends his 50 xp on stuff. the thief spends his 50 xp on stuff. They all acquired some goodies in terms of items and friends etc...

 

and on top of that the mage has, let speculate, taken his known spells from 10 to 30. What did the fighter do "off the books" that adds as much to him for free as this does to the mage? maybe its not 30 spells but maybe he went from a few fire spells to a force field and a flight spell and so now often, even usually, he enters combat with aerial capability and plate mail level defenses.

 

What could ()and will) the fighter be doing while the mage "earns his new spells" so that his character remains comparable in effectiveness? Do you run adventures for the fighter and thief leaving the mage out "while he learns new spells" or are you giving the mage "downtime benefits" that accrue while the rest remain static?

 

now one possibilty might well be to invent "downtime xp" where the fighter can "while the mage learns spells" rent himself out as a bodyguard and gets paid or the thief breaks into shops and steals stuff so that when the mage benefits from his "off the books" power up the others dont just have to be in stasis.

 

the mage "earning" his off the books gains is fine as long as everyone else has a similar amount of "off the books learning opportunity but if it is one sided, it really kicks the balls out from under the whole cost = effectiveness reason behind doing the math entirely.

 

Dang, didn't get the quote to work right. Below is my response.

 

There is no "off the books" points really. A mage with 100 points in a VPP can learn any spell that is 100pts or less. He paid for that ahead of time. Comparing this version of a mage (the continous charges for durations) to another isn't valid in this setting, cause the other guy doesnt exist. Every person, NPC and PC, in this world would be using the same fundamental magic system rules. The only question of Imbalance would be for those NPC's that dont use magic, and as part of the setting, they're supposed to be weaker.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Same magic system, different problem

 

Why is my mind having trouble bending around this formula?

 

The book puts the control cost at half the pool cost. In the above formula, the control cost and the pool cost dont seem directly related? Am I missing something? Is it a terminology issue? Can you give an example?

 

If I want to have a real point cap (to create my powers with) of 50pts, but an active point cap of 75, how would that work with this formula?

Ah. got it I think. I would pay 50 pts for the pool and 150 for the control cost. A total of 200pts! Ouch. Did I do something wrong? That seems very expensive for creating 75 point powers.

 

Other way round on the Control Cost. That pool would cost you 50 for the pool and 37.5 for the control cost.

 

If your maximum Real Points in the pool and maximum Active Points were the same, it would work out the same as under RAW.

[tesuji]

Re: Same magic system, different problem

 

There is no "off the books" points really. A mage with 100 points in a VPP can learn any spell that is 100pts or less. He paid for that ahead of time. Comparing this version of a mage (the continous charges for durations) to another isn't valid in this setting' date=' cause the other guy doesnt exist. Every person, NPC and PC, in this world would be using the same fundamental magic system rules. The only question of Imbalance would be for those NPC's that dont use magic, and as part of the setting, they're supposed to be weaker.[/quote']

 

Ok maybe i wasn't clear - assuming all the following characters in this world are using the one and only magic system.

 

also assuming there is more than one character.

 

for the sake of argument we start with four PCs - two mages a thief and a fighter.

 

they start oput according to why we go thru this point buy thing, relatively even at ### points. We will assume the mages started at some similar number of spells known - say 10.

 

over YY months they gain ZZ Xp and all spend it on various stuff.

 

mage 1 ALSO spent time gaining "earning" new spells. these new spells raise his number known from 10 to 20 lets say.

 

mage 2 did not work at learning new spells but instead spent his time on horses and riding. he however, did not get riding for free or skill levels with riding for free, he had to pay from his xp for that.

 

fighter and thief - well we did not run any sort of adventure for them away from the first mage so, they did not gain any downtime freebies.

 

So we wind up with everyone at the same total cp but one character who has improved himself and did not have to pay xp for it. he "earned it" in some other way.

 

Well thats Ok and dandy but what opportunities exist for the others guys to also "improve themselves" off the books? "Earn" implies paying some expense but unless you cut him out of playtime he doesn't really "earn" the new spells if they are free, right? What does he give up to get new spells?

 

I mean the typical response is he has to do favors for an npc or spend time hunting them and so forth, which almost always boil down to "the scenarios become about his search" or "the scenarios are about him repaying the favor" and so the net result is he is "earning" the bonus by getting even more screentime or importance - which doesn't seem much like "earning" as opposed to benefitting twice - a more pivotal role and bonus power off the books.

 

now, again, if known spells aren't important enough to matter at all in cost, if having one spell vs 10 spells vs 1000 spells isn't worth eve as much as a passing familiarity with a second language in your campaign, then I see the logic between making "known spells" off the book... but thats different from nearly every fantasy magic source i have seen... especially if its supposedly difficult to find them. i mean why go to a lot ofeffort if know spells doesn't matter - and if they do matter why keep them off the books?

 

Are three mages, otherwise identical, but one having only one known spell, one having ten and one having 100, going to all perform equally well in your campaign or will one be mostly better than the others? if its the former, known spells being off the books makes sense, if its the latter it seems a notewarthy balance issue.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Same magic system, different problem

 

mage 1 ALSO spent time gaining "earning" new spells. these new spells raise his number known from 10 to 20 lets say.

 

mage 2 did not work at learning new spells but instead spent his time on horses and riding. he however, did not get riding for free or skill levels with riding for free, he had to pay from his xp for that.

 

Sure, but mage 2 also has the opportunity to learn new spells for no expenditure of XP.

 

Plus it may or may not be that those spells are readily available... it might take at the very least some wheeling and dealing, if not an outright quest to find the spells to learn.

 

And finally, that's usually a Limitation applied to the VPP's Control Cost.

 

I'm not too worried about potential inequality in the situation; in this case it's pretty much GM driven. The GM can easily regulate the speed at which new spells are acquired and learned.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Same magic system, different problem

 

Yeah, that's a common issue w/ both MP's and some VPP builds.

 

You can take a look at a couple of other VPP based systems that work differently for ideas:

 

Loremastery is a very limited VPP arrangement, designed to model the magic system of Warhammer FRPG 2nd Edition. It has a target number mechanic, and also a bad things can happen mechanic. The model is very flexible and usable for whatever. It also has a neat mechanic around components, etc, granting an extra die to help determine if the target number is hit; this idea is extensible to whatever things you want to make optional yet grant a benefit if used.

 

 

Adeptology is a full-out "Cosmic" VPP system. There are several variants which basically serve to lock down the model a bit along different lines. Thanomancy in particular might be useful for your purposes.

 

 

On the other hand, if you are finding that a VPP build doesnt quite feel right, then you might want to step back and consider that maybe a VPP is not the right solution for your Necromancy Magic System problem. You might want to write out a list of what the ideal system would do and feel like in non-mechanical terms, and then start modeling a system that conforms to that ideal.

[hammersickle59]

Re: Same magic system, different problem

 

To tisuji:

 

What we're discussing is sort of off topic. This thread wasn't addressing any balance issue. It was "how can I change this magic system so that taking limitations would help you make the spell more powerful in other ways" Right now, it cant do that. You can take 100 different limitations and still have no additional advantages over a power that took no limitations, because you both hit the AP ceiling and the real cost ceiling doesnt matter.

 

In regards to the "balance" issue, I still think you misunderstand me. You said "lets say 4 pcs start off, 2 mages a fighter and a thief". I stated already, PC's cant be fighters or thiefs, only mages. This is the way they want it. The campaign setting is designed so that the people who have magic are ruling the nations and everyone else is beneath them.

 

Your correct, a mage with 100 spells will be far more effective than a mage with 10. If both mages have been playing the same amount of time I would find it hard to believe that that could occur unless the GM allows it. Whenever there is a time jump to study magic, everyone would be taking that time jump and gaining a new spell.

 

Unfortunately, It looks like I will be not using a VPP to represent a sphere of magic. Not because of a balance issue, but because I haven't found a good solution to the problem stated.

 

Dean

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Same magic system, different problem

 

What do you want Necromancy to be able to do -- what's it's focus? Is it on making hordes of corporeal servants (zombies, skeletons, etc)? Summoning spirits? Manipulating life forces or negative energies? Having power over life and death? All the above? Some combination?

 

Are there limitations around the undead / necromantic things, such as diminished / canceled power during daylight, vulnerability to "holy" places and things, etc, or do they suffer from no such checks?

 

Is necromancy a long ritual / preparation process, or fast cast? I.e. does a necromancer spend a lot of time outside of combat building up their resources and then marshal them when need be in combat time or do they travel light and start summoning up stuff and casting targeted combat spells, or some combination, or something in between?

 

How should necromancy feel in context? Should it be icky and gross, should it be dark and menacing, should it be terrifying and evil, should it be empowering but costly, should it come with hidden downsides or is it win-win for a necromancer? Do people go "OH CRAP, A NECROMANCER!", mess their drawers, and flee the region or do they go "PFF...another one of these clowns...get some blessed water and lets take em down during the day"?

 

Etc. Nail down the high concept, and then use that as the Occams Razor for what mechanics to use.

[aamybush]

Re: Same magic system, different problem

 

I would recommend bookmarking the following site:

killershrike.com

and take a look at the following regarding spell casting and VPP's:

http://killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHero/MagicSystems/Vancian.aspx

 

I did it. this is great source and worth to read and share

[tesuji]

Re: Same magic system, different problem

 

To tisuji:

 

What we're discussing is sort of off topic. This thread wasn't addressing any balance issue.

topic.

 

sorry, i saw you asking about costs and since cp and costs only really serve to compare between powers, i thought cost and such was part of the

 

Whenever there is a time jump to study magic, everyone would be taking that time jump and gaining a new spell.

 

and again you are right, i misunderstood. i did not automatically assume every pc had the choice over what he did and how much, in downtime, made for them. i assumed their "what we work on during my summer vacation" would not be limited to "everyone works on spells." So i wondered about how you would account for the differing choices. but with no such differing choices, no problem. everyone will have more or less the same number of spells regardless and it all balances out.

 

pk, have fun.