spells and active cost

[CTaylor]

At present, magic skill roll modifier and mana (END) cost are based off of active cost (active cost/10). That's standard for Hero rules, but it brings up a few oddities. For example, a spell that is incredibly limited and has very few possible uses will still be hard to cast and cost a lot of mana if it has a large active cost. For example a 10D6 blast that only works on albino whales during midnight on a full moon. That's unbelievably specific and specialized, but still really tough to cast.

 

As I conceptualize magic, the more specific and limited a spell is, the less difficult it ought to be to cast. In addition, the more focus type components a spell's casting has, the easier it should be to cast. So if a spell has few limitations it should be harder to cast than one with gestures, incantation, some powder that burns up when its used, extra time, etc. In superheroic games it makes more sense to use active cost, because generally speaking you won't have a ton of limitations and the concept is different than magic.

 

So it seems to me that spells maybe ought to have their mana cost and skill roll modifier based on the REAL cost (after all limitations) rather than the active cost. The real cost is what you get after all those limitations. Sure, Albino Whale Bane it still is a 10D6 blast, and technically it is a 50 active cost spell but conceptually it shouldn't be hard to cast or expensive. If you used the real cost (as paid for by the mage, so /3 in most systems) as the magic skill roll modifier and mana cost, you'd make the magic somewhat easier to use, but it would reflect the above ideas.

 

The problems I could foresee would include:

 

-people purchasing 87 boutique spells (THIS one only works on elf mages, and THIS one only works on elf rangers and THIS one only works on...) but since you have to pay actual character points each spell, that seems like it would be a limited concern.

-the power level of mages would grow. You could have a 9D6 fireball because you could get the cost of something like that down to around 10 points, which translates to about 3 mana and -3 skill roll.

-the active cost really is the actual power level of the spell: a 3D6 Killing attack with armor piercing and autofire really is worth 90 points, even if it only works once a day and requires a host of limitations.

 

Just wondered what your thoughts were on the matter.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: spells and active cost

 

skill roll modifier based on the REAL cost (after all limitations) rather than the active cost.

 

This seems counterintuitive. It's a basically making the effect of more Limitations decrease the actual effect of a limitation (RSR) on a character.

 

When I run into the situations you described I just either take the lower form of RSR (-1 per 20 active) or don't take it at all. If the GM still insists on some 'chance of spell failure' as a campaign benchmark you can ask to take Activate Roll -15 (-1/4) instead.

[CTaylor]

Re: spells and active cost

 

It might be worth dropping the Requires Skill Roll limitation entirely (or give it zero limitation) and just consider it a campaign feature for magic.

[Curufea]

Re: spells and active cost

 

Aren't there versions of RSR that aren't modified by active cost? I'm sure I've seen them around.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: spells and active cost

 

Aren't there versions of RSR that aren't modified by active cost? I'm sure I've seen them around.

 

Yes but it's a -0 Limitation

[Killer Shrike]

Re: spells and active cost

 

Magecraft

 

And,

 

Spellweaving

 

 

Also,

 

Magic Systems, Magical Effect Limitations, Magic System Design

 

Etc

[ghost-angel]

Re: spells and active cost

 

Just switch easy to cast spells over to Activation Roll if you need to change it.

[Shadowsoul]

Re: spells and active cost

 

One possibility is to offer a Custom Advantage to Magic Users called 'Style Bonus'.

 

In terms of background one could say that e.g. a 20d6 Energy Blast 'Only To Destroy Spoons' would still require as much raw energy as a normal 20d6 Energy Blast and so would require just as much skill to control.

 

Disadvantages may make the spell cheaper but do not reduce the sheer amount of power that must be controlled to allow for casting.

 

If however if a mage learns to cast the spell in question through a particular style e.g. 'Cimmerian Witchery' then they can use the rituals/conditions involved to channel that power more easily or more efficiently. It's the magical equivalent of using a tool like a bottle opener to channel the energy of your muscles more efficiently into the task of taking a bottle cap off. To put it another way it's like learning the tricks of a particular martial art style.

 

In game terms the character can take the Advantage 'Style Bonus' +1/2 and so spend the extra points on learning the spell in a particular style, (the character has to have the relevant skill, knowledge skill or background of course), in order to gain the benefit of being able to base the Casting Difficulty on the Actual Points Cost rather than the Active Points Cost.

 

(You could of course forget all this flavour text and just allow Magic Users to take the Advantage 'Casting Difficulty based on Actual Point Cost' +1/2.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: spells and active cost

 

You could also use Penalty Skill Levels against the Active Point penalty for the RSR. This is the method used in Valdorian Age.

 

This way, you could have a 14- Roll plus say 4 PSLs, thus giving a 14- roll for any spell up to 40 Active points, 13- for 50 Active, 12- for 60 Active, etc. Which is a decent chance, but still allows for some chance of failure, even for low-power spells.

[Blue Jogger]

Re: spells and active cost

 

In mine, I add bonuses and penalities to the Skill Roll based on materials and situational circumstances.

 

Good idea: Doing necromantic spells in a graveyard at midnight, that's definately a bonus.

 

Bad idea: Doing necromantic spells at a children's birthday party at noon (living children, sunny day), that's definitely a penalty.

 

Although, this may mean that the players will have to work really hard to justify a slaying spell that only slays albino whales at midnight under the full moon. Unless they happen upon the teeth of vamperic lunar weresharks who natural prey is albino whales. Then the spell would "naturally summon" vamperic lunar weresharks to spring forth and bite into whales until they disappear a second later into the loam.

 

You could also modify the END cost with a similar system. Using the hair of a golden maiden (who was slained by an albino whale at midnight) might reduce the cost of the spell. (You're calling on the vengeful spirit to assist your noble goal.)

 

AND if your player flubs the rolls, well you got an extremely angry and vengeful spirit and hungry weresharks to explain the Side Effects... No more generic backlash for spells.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: spells and active cost

 

This seems counterintuitive. It's a basically making the effect of more Limitations decrease the actual effect of a limitation (RSR) on a character.

 

When I run into the situations you described I just either take the lower form of RSR (-1 per 20 active) or don't take it at all. If the GM still insists on some 'chance of spell failure' as a campaign benchmark you can ask to take Activate Roll -15 (-1/4) instead.

 

Hmmm...

 

12d6 EB, RSR (-1 per 5 points; -1) = 30 RP = -6 magic roll

 

9d6 EB, RSR (-1 per 10 points; -1/2) = 30 RP = -3 magic roll

 

7 1/2d6 EB, RSR (-1 per 20 points; -1/4) = 30 RP = -1 Magic Roll [EDIT to fix dice]

 

There's still a difference. Under the current rules, those penalties would be -12, -4 and -2, so it reduces the impact of RSR considerably. Maybe the RSR penalties, as a baseline, would need to be increased. Double them and RSR gets back to its old impact at the ends, but is more limiting at the standard -1 per 10 points level.

[Markdoc]

Re: spells and active cost

 

In mine' date=' I add bonuses and penalities to the Skill Roll based on materials and situational circumstances.[/quote']

 

This what I do. After all, an RSR is simply a skill roll and should be subject to all the various bonuses/penalties for skill rolls. In fact the magic system in my current game has a series of built-in modifiers to encourage players to use them.

 

If you do this, then RSR only really becomes an issue for powerful spells cast in emergency situations. If you can afford to assemble the required magical apparatus and take an extra minute or two, you can reduce the RSR penalty enormously.

 

cheers, Mark

[CTaylor]

Re: spells and active cost

 

Sure, situational and ritual-based roll modifiers are pretty common for hero (the right tools, etc) and that's good, but what about the mana cost? And what about the concept that the point of most limitations (gestures, incant, concentrate, etc) are to make the spell easier to cast rather than just cheaper?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: spells and active cost

 

Hmmm...

 

12d6 EB, RSR (-1 per 5 points; -1) = 30 RP = -6 magic roll

 

9d6 EB, RSR (-1 per 10 points; -1/2) = 30 RP = -3 magic roll

 

5 1/2d6 EB, RSR (-1 per 20 points; -1/4) = 30 RP = -1 Magic Roll

 

There's still a difference. Under the current rules, those penalties would be -12, -4 and -2, so it reduces the impact of RSR considerably. Maybe the RSR penalties, as a baseline, would need to be increased. Double them and RSR gets back to its old impact at the ends, but is more limiting at the standard -1 per 10 points level.

 

 

Don't you mean...

 

7 1/2d6EB (instead of 5 1/2)

 

-6, -4 and -2 vs. -3 across the board (CTaylor's original suggestion)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: spells and active cost

 

Don't you mean...

 

7 1/2d6EB (instead of 5 1/2)

 

-6, -4 and -2 vs. -3 across the board (CTaylor's original suggestion)

 

Fixed that math error - thanks

 

But why would it be -3 across the board? RSR -1/5 should still divide the real cost by 5, shouldn't it?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: spells and active cost

 

Fixed that math error - thanks

 

But why would it be -3 across the board? RSR -1/5 should still divide the real cost by 5, shouldn't it?

 

I was focusing on the arithmetic error too much.

 

Your numbers are otherwise correct. However, my original point in this exercise was to highlight what the effect of further Limitations (besides that of RSR) would have on the actual roll when using such a system.

 

Building upon your original example:

 

12d6 EB, RSR (-1 per 5 points; -1 & OAF; -1) = 20 RP = -4 magic roll

 

9d6 EB, RSR (-1 per 10 points; -1/2 & OAF; -1) = 18 RP = -2 magic roll

 

7 1/2d6 EB, RSR (-1 per 20 points; -1/4 & OAF; -1) = 17 RP = -1 Magic Roll

 

Why should the addition of the OAF Limitation make the RSR easier?

[sbarron]

Re: spells and active cost

 

Why should the addition of the OAF Limitation make the RSR easier?

Because the power of the Dark Crystal (OAF) focuses the magical energies, making them easier to control? I don't necessarily agree with his take on magic, but its easy enough to explain this stuff away.

 

As for the OP, maybe you can just create your own system for calculating Mana Use and RSR for your game. Something like...

 

Mana Use/RSR Modifier

 

For this magic system, calculate Mana Use/RSR normally. Then, take the result and apply it to the following chart...

 

Revised Mana Use/RSR Modifier

 

If Limitations = 0.00 - 1.0, then Normal Mana Use/RSR Modifier * 1.00

If Limitations = 1.25 - 2.0, then Normal Mana Use/RSR Modifier * 0.75

If Limitations = 2.25 - 3.0, then Normal Mana Use/RSR Modifier * 0.50

If Limitations = 3.25 - 4.0+, then Normal Mana Use/RSR Modifier * 0.25

 

So, a standard 50 point power, no limits, still costs 5 Mana and -5 to RSR.

 

50 pt power with -2.25 in lims, would be 5*0.5 = 2.5, Hero rounding making it 2 Mana and -2 RSR.

 

50 pt power with -5 in lims would be 5*0.25 = 1.25, or 1 Mana and -1 RSR.

 

Obviously, you can set the break points where you want. Its an extra step, but a pretty easy one that should approximate what you want, I think.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: spells and active cost

 

In mine' date=' I add bonuses and penalities to the Skill Roll based on materials and situational circumstances.[/quote']

Also a very good point that I think people often forget about. A Skill Roll can be modified. RSR without modifiers to the roll is a pretty sucky Limitation. It's only -1/2 (the same as 14- Activation), and yet drops the likelihood of success far more than 14- would. And on top of that, you have to spend more points on a skill, and you usually have to buy that skill up to have a decent chance of success.

 

For Constant powers, you only have to roll once, unlike with Activation, so that's one mitigating factor. But what about Instant powers?

 

Even for a fairly low-level game, an 8 DC attack is 40 Active. Assuming no other limitations (unlikely for most FH games), RSR saves you 13 points. At least 3 of those points have to be spent on a Skill. Thus, you have a base roll of 11-, with a -4 penalty. That's about a 16.2% chance (down from 100%) for a maximum savings of 10 points! Let's say you spend those 10 points on your Skill. Now you've got about a 26% chance of failure for *NO* net savings!

 

Granted, you can use the same Skill for more than one RSR spell, but it's still a pretty bad buy. And it's even worse when other limitations are added to the spell, because the savings from RSR are even less.

 

Say the 40 AP spell has -1 worth of other common limitations on it (such as Focus, Gestures, Incantations, Concentration, Extra Time). Then the RSR only saves you 4 points (20 down to 16). Even if you have three 40-AP spells which use the same Skill, you're still much better off simply buying off the RSR limitation on all of the spells!

 

Even an expenditure of 2 points can reduce the RSR from -1/10 points to -1/20 points, thus reducing the Active Point penalty from -4 to -2.

 

The point is: RSR is pretty harsh for very little point savings, so be generous with the circumstance modifiers. Bonuses should be much more common than penalties. As a general guideline, I'd say don't impose any penalties at all, unless the character is doing something obviously stupidly incompatible with the spell he's trying to cast, such as trying to summon demons in the temple of the goddess of purity.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: spells and active cost

 

Because the power of the Dark Crystal (OAF) focuses the magical energies' date=' making them easier to control? I don't necessarily agree with his take on magic, but its easy enough to explain this stuff away.[/quote']

 

I can already make the Dark Crystal focus the magic. It buys the RSR down to -1/20 AP or off. Now I can cast the spell with or without the Dark Crystal. If the spell has OAF, the focus must make it easier to cast since it won't work at all without the crystal.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: spells and active cost

 

I can already make the Dark Crystal focus the magic. It buys the RSR down to -1/20 AP or off. Now I can cast the spell with or without the Dark Crystal. If the spell has OAF' date=' the focus must make it easier to cast since it won't work at all without the crystal.[/quote']

 

Are you referring to a Variable Limitation?

[CTaylor]

Re: spells and active cost

 

OK so let me refocus on my original concept then, to try to get some ideas.

 

The spell system I have in mind is essentially wish-based. If you are sufficiently powerful with magic (and this would mean demon lords and the most vastly powerful creatures, not PCs) you merely exert your will and reality changes to match what you desire, to a limited degree.

 

Yet all mages work this way: you exert your will, fueled by mana, and start a fire, or protect your friend with armor made of bark, or heal a wound. Because this is very difficult, mages use tools to help focus their will and facilitate the power. In practice, that means spells have casting times, material components, gestures, incantations, concentration, and so on.

 

In other words: at least some basic limitations should do more than make a spell cheaper (and thus easier to learn) but actually easier to cast. That translates into reduced mana cost and magic skill roll in my mind.

 

So how to best represent that, how can I with a simple device make the magic system represent this concept?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: spells and active cost

 

OK so let me refocus on my original concept then, to try to get some ideas.

 

The spell system I have in mind is essentially wish-based. If you are sufficiently powerful with magic (and this would mean demon lords and the most vastly powerful creatures, not PCs) you merely exert your will and reality changes to match what you desire, to a limited degree.

 

Yet all mages work this way: you exert your will, fueled by mana, and start a fire, or protect your friend with armor made of bark, or heal a wound. Because this is very difficult, mages use tools to help focus their will and facilitate the power. In practice, that means spells have casting times, material components, gestures, incantations, concentration, and so on.

 

In other words: at least some basic limitations should do more than make a spell cheaper (and thus easier to learn) but actually easier to cast. That translates into reduced mana cost and magic skill roll in my mind.

 

So how to best represent that, how can I with a simple device make the magic system represent this concept?

Again:

Magecraft

 

And,

 

Spellweaving

 

 

Also,

 

Magic Systems, Magical Effect Limitations, Magic System Design

 

Etc

 

Are you not seeing that both Magecraft and Spellweaving work like that, in their own different ways?

 

Magecraft: Each distinct spell is built and bundled up into a skill which is paid for rather than the base effect. The RC/10 of an individual spell skill = a penalty to its roll. More limitations = easier to cast.

 

Spellweaving: rather than buy skills for individual spells, Spellweavers buy skills for individual BASE POWERS, which act like mini-VPP's for effects built with that base power. Every -1/4 limitation grants +1 to the roll. More limitations = easier to cast.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: spells and active cost

 

Are you referring to a Variable Limitation?

 

That would be another approach. I'm referring to buying down (or off) the RSR limitation with an OAF limitation on the buydown only.

 

A spell might be 6d6 Explosive EB 45 AP, RSR (-1/5 AP) Real Cost 22

 

Reduce skill penalty to -1/10 AP if you Gesture and Incant. 45 AP with a -1/2 limitation costs 30 points, an 8 point difference. Gesture and Incant is -1/2, so that costs 8/1.5 = 5

 

If you gesture, incant and hold the OAF Dark Crystal, the spell requires a skill roll at -1/20 AP. That would cost 36 points, 9 more than RSR -1 per 10 AP. Gesture, Incant and OAF is -1 1/2, and 9/2.5 = 4 more points.

 

Total cost 31 points. If I'm tied and gagged, I can cast the spell at a -9 skill penalty. If I can move around and incant, I can cast at -4. If I get my hands on the Crystal, my penalty drop to -2.

[CTaylor]

Re: spells and active cost

 

Shrike those are similar ideas, and thanks for the input, anyone else have any thoughts?

[Blue Jogger]

Re: spells and active cost

 

There really isn't a simple device (that I know of). I managed to hodgepodge a working magic system out of Hero, but it was very kludgy. On the other hand, it was fairly easy for the players to use and it represented the flavor of magic that I wanted fairly easily.