What does 'Magic' mean to you?

[Heckus]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

I am hearing a couple of different answers so far.

 

Fire created by magical means is still just 'normal' fire.

vs.

Fire created by magical means is 'magical' fire (with no points difference).

 

The second option appears to devalue the points spent by a character to actually create 'magical' fire (example: the flames can't be dispelled by water; only dispel vs. magic will work).

 

Should a dispel vs. magic work against a 'normal' fire created by magical means?

 

There's really no wrong or right, It's up to GM preference. My stance has varied a bit with different campaigns.

 

In my current campaign, magic has been defined as : the ability to access energy from an alternate dimension that possesses physical laws that are completely contradictory to our own (gravity is counter-intuitive, matter can come from nothing, etc...). Due to a failed (or very successful) experiment performed by the citizens of Atlantis, there is a permanent doorway between that dimension and ours. The energy flows back through the doorway and around the world in the form of Ley Lines. "Magicians" tap into these lines of power via complicated rituals. By this definition, Fire is Fire and "magic" is basically an alternative science.

 

In other campaigns Magic was "the stuff from which the universe was made" and defied quantification, so magic was "magical" and magically-created-fire was Magic and was only subject to things that specifically effected (dispels/drains) or were specifically vulnerable to magic. Magical fire mimicked the appearance and properties of fire but was not fire (even after the fact).

 

Now, that said, there's nothing saying a GM can't rule that the "Hellfire" ignores regular fire resistance and/or is subject to both/either vulnerabilities. Go with whatever fits best in your setting or (more importantly) what makes the adventure more fun.

 

It all comes down to Gm and Setting (just like in the Comics, different writers sometimes give conflicting explanations).

[Nagisawa Takumi]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

It depends on the setting, really. In a Fantasy setting (High, Low, Superhero, whatever) it's a power source and it's own 'thing'.

 

In a Superhero game it's a power source and special effect, nothing more.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

I am hearing a couple of different answers so far.

 

Fire created by magical means is still just 'normal' fire.

vs.

Fire created by magical means is 'magical' fire (with no points difference).

 

The second option appears to devalue the points spent by a character to actually create 'magical' fire (example: the flames can't be dispelled by water; only dispel vs. magic will work).

 

I'm not sure I get this. A 12d6 'magical fire' blast costs the same as a 12d6 'regular' fire blast.

 

Should a dispel vs. magic work against a 'normal' fire created by magical means?

 

In my game, no. If you cast Mordenkainen's Magnificent Incendiary Flatulence, the end (teehee) result is still fire. Fire is fire, whether you got it from being a mutant pyrokinetic, a pyromancer, or flint and tinder.

 

IMHO, of course.

[Houston GM]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

In my game' date=' no. Fire is fire and magic is magic. If you use magic to make fire, it's the same as using a flamethrower to make fire. The end result is fire.[/quote']

I also see a similarity between using a flamethrower or a magic wand to make fire ... but I've come to a different conclusion.

 

If the hero has a vulnerability to technology attacks, then the flamethrower will do extra damage to him ... even though it's also fire.

 

If The Dude's hypothetical hero wants to be vulnerable to magical attacks, but not to your standard Fireball, Shocking Grasp, Cone of Cold, etc., then he's not going to get many points for that disadvantage. It will be in the lowest category of frequency, if it's worth any points at all (depending on the existence of "pure" magic attacks in that universe).

 

In my next campaign, magic will be a Sfx with its own set of rules and limitations. The same will be true of technology, mental powers, mutations, etc.

[The Dude]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

I'm not sure I get this. A 12d6 'magical fire' blast costs the same as a 12d6 'regular' fire blast.

 

 

Take the following 3 Fire SFX examples:

A. normally created normal fire

B. magically created normal fire

C. magically created magical fire

 

I agree that A and B should cost the same. But I think C should be more expensive or at least be built with different mechanics than normal fire to represent its magical nature.

[The Dude]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

Yes. That is a standard example of a "multiple SFX" attack, and one of the SFX advantages that magic usually has.

 

 

But what's the SFX disadvantage of using magic then?

[Clonus]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

But what's the SFX disadvantage of using magic then?

 

Well obviously Magic Fire guy is going to be vulnerable to both Magic Neutralising Dagger Girl and Fire Extinguisher Man.

[Heckus]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

Take the following 3 Fire SFX examples:

A. normally created normal fire

B. magically created normal fire

C. magically created magical fire

 

I agree that A and B should cost the same. But I think C should be more expensive or at least be built with different mechanics than normal fire to represent its magical nature.

 

How often does it come up in your game? Does it need to cost differently? Are your players so regularly afflicted by magical fire that an "off the cuff" ruling can't cover it?

 

There's a guy in my campaign who is vulnerable to electricity but to date I haven't gotten around to throwing a lightning guy at them. That doesn't mean the disadvantage is worth less. It just hasn't come up, but it's still valid. Conversely, if I had written in a re-occuring villain that hurled magic lightning (anyone remember Sergeant Supreme from the Corrupters of All?) it'd still be worth the same amount of points (and you can bet i'd have it set off his vulnerability).

 

The same goes for SFX on attacks. If a player 1 defines his 12d6 energy blast as fire and player 2 says he shoots a 12d6 beam of fudge ripple ice cream, they are still both worth a flat 60 active points even though player 1 is far more likely to find people vulnerable to him.

 

SFX are there for flavor, don't sweat them to much. Champions has enough rules as it is without trying to figure out an adder for each special effect.

[Clonus]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

You know, I think it's fallacy to think of a special effect as being "just" a special effect. Special effects matter. If you don't put thought into what creates a special effect and what it can and can't do, you end up with nonsense like Shrinker's bacteria blast, a 10d6 normal EB consisting of a disease whose only symptom is concussive trauma. Sure there's nothing wrong with the mechanics of it considered in isolation. But it's massively, phenomenally stupid, the kind of stupidity that arises out of thinking of special effects as things that don't matter.

[Vulcan]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

What if we have a character whose power is control of and immunity to fire (like Human Torch). We have another character who generates magical fire (like Ghost Rider). Can Ghost Rider's magical flames burn Human Torch?

 

If so, why?

 

I would look at the character in question closely, and we probably can come up with an answer based on the power builds.

 

For example, say a character has 'Vulnerable to magic.' If he has them listed as very common, then yeah, a magical fireball would count. If he has it listed as uncommon, then an FX of magic fire might be counted as fire, not magic. In the case of the guy with the common vulnerability, he's more 'allergic' to it, so even trace amounts would affect him, where 'uncommon' means that it pretty much has to be direct application of magical energy, not using magic to conjure other effects.

[Clonus]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

What if we have a character whose power is control of and immunity to fire (like Human Torch). We have another character who generates magical fire (like Ghost Rider). Can Ghost Rider's magical flames burn Human Torch?

 

If so, why?

 

Note that Ghost Rider had two attacks. One did damage to the physical body and The Torch's energy defense (fire only) would work just fine against it. GR also had an NND with the defense being "being guiltless".

[Heckus]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

You know' date=' I think it's fallacy to think of a special effect as being "just" a special effect. Special effects matter. If you don't put thought into what creates a special effect and what it can and can't do, you end up with nonsense like Shrinker's bacteria blast, a 10d6 normal EB consisting of a disease whose only symptom is concussive trauma. Sure there's nothing wrong with the mechanics of it considered in isolation. But it's massively, phenomenally stupid, the kind of stupidity that arises out of thinking of special effects as things that don't matter.[/quote']

 

What about "Cosmic energy" Blasts? No one ever says "I'm gonna take a vulnerability to Cosmic Rays" or "I'm gonna buy extra Ed that only works vs. Cosmic Rays" yet you see it on prominent dudes (Silver Surfer, Captain Mar-Vel, Starseer of Bullet's Raiders, etc..). Does that make it any less valid? no. You take it because it fits your character concept, not because you think you can squeeze a few extra "stun and body" out of it down the road.

 

If you want to micro-manage the point cost of every special effect based on how effective it might be in your particular campaign then by all means, enjoy the math. Again, the mechanics don't factor for SFX because the mechanics can't anticipate how often a GM will decide to use a particular effect.

 

..and Shrinker's bacteria blast would have added effect against villains vulnerable to diseases, like Aliens (ever see the end of War of the worlds; the original, not the Tom Cruise one) or villains who are germaphobes. If a player took that SFX then a good GM would try to work into the game every now and again.

 

Now, if a player says he shoots Fudge Ripple Blasts.....well, then he's out of luck because i don't run slap-stick myself.

 

...And "Wow". You jumped straight to the "everyone who disagrees with me is stupid" card? Seriously? Do you need a hug?

[assault]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

Take the following 3 Fire SFX examples:

A. normally created normal fire

B. magically created normal fire

C. magically created magical fire

 

I agree that A and B should cost the same. But I think C should be more expensive or at least be built with different mechanics than normal fire to represent its magical nature.

 

What does C do that the others don't?

 

OK, it could trigger two different kinds of Vulnerability, rather than one. That could be important if the PCs have those kind of Vulnerabilities. It could even be important if significant NPCs have them too. But in general, it's not likely to come up that often. It's probably not that important.

 

Another possibility is that it could bypass "Only versus Fire" defences. Personally, I wouldn't allow that. It would count as "Fire" in that context in my campaign. That would be the downside of it counting as "Fire" when triggering Vulnerabilities. Again, though, how many characters have such defences anyway?

 

Basically, this is an exercise in overthinking.

[Clonus]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

What about "Cosmic energy" Blasts? No one ever says "I'm gonna take a vulnerability to Cosmic Rays" or "I'm gonna buy extra Ed that only works vs. Cosmic Rays" yet you see it on prominent dudes (Silver Surfer' date=' Captain Mar-Vel, Starseer of Bullet's Raiders, etc..). Does that make it any less valid? no. [b']You take it because it fits your character concept[/b], not because you think you can squeeze a few extra "stun and body" out of it down the road.

 

If you want to micro-manage the point cost of every special effect based on how effective it might be in your particular campaign then by all means, enjoy the math. Again, the mechanics don't factor for SFX because the mechanics can't anticipate how often a GM will decide to use a particular effect.

 

..and Shrinker's bacteria blast would have added effect against villains vulnerable to diseases, like Aliens (ever see the end of War of the worlds; the original, not the Tom Cruise one) or villains who are germaphobes. If a player took that SFX then a good GM would try to work into the game every now and again.

 

My point has nothing to do with effectiveness. A bacteria blast that inflicts bruises is no less effective than any other 10d6 physical EB. My objection to it is that it's ludicrous not that it's ineffective. People should take their special effects seriously and think about them instead of just saying "I have a 10d6 energy blast and the special effects don't matter."

[Clonus]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

 

Another possibility is that it could bypass "Only versus Fire" defences. Personally, I wouldn't allow that. It would count as "Fire" in that context in my campaign. That would be the downside of it counting as "Fire" when triggering Vulnerabilities. Again, though, how many characters have such defences anyway?

.

 

Pretty much any fire using character has better defenses against it than against energy attacks in general.

[Heckus]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

If you really want to overthink it, do it as:

 

6d6 EB vs. Ed (fire) plus 6d6 EB vs. Ed (magic), advantage/limitation: applied to defenses as one attack unless target possesses defenses that are specifically vs. "magic" or "fire" in which case the energy type in question is applied to defenses seperately; or if used against a target with a vulnerability to either then only half of the resulting damage is doubled (+0).

 

It's actually kind of a "highly-conditional reduced penetration....with a twist".

 

Scenario:

 

if Magicflameguy shoots his EB at ogre, the dice are rolled as one attack, applied to defenses as normal. If he then shoots Ice-asaurus (2x stun-vulnerable to fire, but not magic) then figure up damage as normal and only multiply the damage by 1.5

 

Personally, I think it's more work than is fun and would just find a middle ground that is fun for the players too. Is it inconvenient to the plot for it to count as both magic AND fire? Is it a game breaker? Does it make the game less fun or do you feel like the player is "getting away with something"?

[assault]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

Pretty much any fire using character has better defenses against it than against energy attacks in general.

 

Yep. And how common are fire using characters?

[Legatus]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

SFX are there for flavor, don't sweat them to much. Champions has enough rules as it is without trying to figure out an adder for each special effect.

:thumbup:

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

Take the following 3 Fire SFX examples:

A. normally created normal fire

B. magically created normal fire

C. magically created magical fire

 

I agree that A and B should cost the same. But I think C should be more expensive or at least be built with different mechanics than normal fire to represent its magical nature.

 

Well, in my game, there is no difference between normal fire and magical fire. It's just fire.

[Heckus]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

....another option is to go the video game route and make a list of pre-defined special effects (Magic, fire, acid, cold, etc...) and tell your players they may pick only one or have to pay a +1/4 advantage for "dual SFX" (which allows the best of 2 categories, all of the vulnerabilty without any of the specialized defense). This may already exist, it's been a while...

 

I say only +1/4 because i can't see it really being that big of an advantage over the course of a heroes career. Even the +1/4 seems a bit much just to define magical fire.

 

I ONLY recommend this if "special effect" has become a major and consistant arguing point with your players.

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

I tend to think that magic fire that somehow does its damage in ways different from normal garden variety Smokey-the-Bear fire should probably involve a different build. Say, a Drain vs. BODY or AVLD vs. Power Defense with the SFX of "flames."

[GoldenAge]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

In Epic City magic is a complex set of rules and realities that rank right alongside super-quantum physics and other rubber science phenomenon.

 

However, unlike the other rubber sciences it's special properties are unique to the specific way in which it is manipulated and as diverse as its practitioners. Certain "schools" of magic exhibit repeatable (and traceable) phenomenon while others don't. It is a paradox that can be learned, inherited, or even replicated.

 

In my campaign it is powerful enough that I've adopted the paradigm that the need for warriors (including the Sorcerer Supreme - though not labeled as such) to defend against the inter and intraplanar incursion of powerful magic is constant.

 

However, that doesn't place it above the dangers presented by scientific threats. There's always new and strange things in other dimensions, the microverse (arguably just another dimension), and of the cosmic variety to worry about.

 

Honestly, They're all just various explanations for MORE FUN!!!

[GoldenAge]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

As far as the "fire" thing goes...

 

What is the magic actually doing? Is it...

 

Creating Heat

Transporting Heat

Replicating Heat

Looking like Heat

Other

 

It all really depends on the character's description of what the magic is actually doing.

 

If the magic-using character is summoning heat form the "Lava" dimension and spewing it forth, then the fire would reflect the properties of that dimension and the fire it was accessing. If the magic was creating pure heat hot enough to alter the very air to a plasma state then the attack might register as regular plasma. If the mage was casting a magical illusion of heat that, in all ways, was fire then it might not register as anything at all. If, finally, the mage was creating fire from pure magic it might have unknown properties that allowed it to bypass defenses or do other strange things.

 

The best thing about magic is that it allows the user access to pure imagination without restrictions. The bad thing about magic is that it allows the user access to pure imagination without restrictions.

[BNakagawa]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

my metaphysical take on magic is:

 

It should not be reliable. If it's reliable, then it's just technology with a different wrapping.

 

It should not be fully fathomable. If it's fully definable, then it's just science with a different vocabulary.

 

It should not be free. Just because you taught your parrot to say the same set of phonemes, you should not expect that your parrot can cast a spell. Just because you teach a robot to copy some physical gyrations and hand positions does not mean your robot should be able to cast a spell. Knowing a magic word or a hand gesture (alone) should not entitle you to cause the laws of physics to let you slide.

 

There should be some sort of cost to entitle a magician to wield magic. Whether it comes in the form of a tangible curse (arcane magic makes your skin thinner and your bones brittle, if you doubt me, just throw a magic user and a fighter off of a building and see which one gets hurt more. tie them both up and put a bag over their head to make sure the test is fair) or whether the cost is paid by some sort of unspeakable sacrifice (Dr Faust, paging Dr. Faust) or a bloodline, blessed or cursed with the ability to see things other people can't see, do things other people can't do. (Too many examples to list, we'll just say Harry Potter and be done with it)

 

I've also been fond of a model that allows for some regions to be higher or lower in magic potential. (And in different flavors of magic) So some regions would feature more potent summoning magic and others would feature more runic magic or alchemy or whatever. It helps to explain why different cultures featured different styles or traditions of magic and why no one style of magic ended up dominating the globe the way western technology did.

 

This model also offers the potential for magic dead zones, which allows you to have settings where magicians stay away and you can still have plotlines that can't be trivially undermined by seers, scryers or other magic lie detectors.

[Greywind]

Re: What does 'Magic' mean to you?

 

Note that Ghost Rider had two attacks. One did damage to the physical body and The Torch's energy defense (fire only) would work just fine against it. GR also had an NND with the defense being "being guiltless".

The Penance Stare would also have range and targeting issues...

 

Ghost Rider also had his chain.