Love for Non-Casters?

[Tywyll]

I was looking over my notes for my old 5th Ed Fantasy Hero campaign and I came across a list of magic spells I'd made. At the time, I was using the Taurakian age divide RC by 3 for spell casters rule. And I came across this potent, high level spell I'd made for my elementalist school that could, essentially, route an army thanks to its mobile AOE and duration. It was 200+ real points and then after all the limitations and the div 3, it cost 8 points.

 

Then something struck me. What the heck could a non-caster buy for 8 points that was even roughly comparable? An all combat level? 2 more DCs with their MA?

 

And then I started thinking about all the various spell systems I've seen that essentially create a way to allow casters to exist as we expect them to in the typical fantasy environment (with lots of spells). Free normal equipment (even magical equipment) is a boon to everyone, especially non-casters with their plethora of weapons and armor... but does any of that gear compare to the utility and breadth of their mystical counterparts?

 

Not really.

 

So, has this become a point of contention for high level play for people? What do the noncasters spend their points on? Even if the casters don't use div 3 system, if they get to benefit from frame works, they still get cost breaks the fighters and rogues lack.

 

Is this a problem for anyone? Am I over thinking things?

[John Desmarais]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

I was looking over my notes for my old 5th Ed Fantasy Hero campaign and I came across a list of magic spells I'd made. At the time, I was using the Taurakian age divide RC by 3 for spell casters rule. And I came across this potent, high level spell I'd made for my elementalist school that could, essentially, route an army thanks to its mobile AOE and duration. It was 200+ real points and then after all the limitations and the div 3, it cost 8 points.

 

Then something struck me. What the heck could a non-caster buy for 8 points that was even roughly comparable? An all combat level? 2 more DCs with their MA?

 

And then I started thinking about all the various spell systems I've seen that essentially create a way to allow casters to exist as we expect them to in the typical fantasy environment (with lots of spells). Free normal equipment (even magical equipment) is a boon to everyone, especially non-casters with their plethora of weapons and armor... but does any of that gear compare to the utility and breadth of their mystical counterparts?

 

Not really.

 

So, has this become a point of contention for high level play for people? What do the noncasters spend their points on? Even if the casters don't use div 3 system, if they get to benefit from frame works, they still get cost breaks the fighters and rogues lack.

 

Is this a problem for anyone? Am I over thinking things?

 

Just a clarifying question: Did your magic rules make the Requires Skill Roll mandatory for spells?

[JmOz]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Just a clarifying question: Did your magic rules make the Requires Skill Roll mandatory for spells?

 

Yah, a minus 20 with a side effect if you fail is pretty high end nasty...just saying...

[ghost-angel]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

No kidding, since Turakian Age uses Skills... I'd assume RSR. And with a -20..

 

while he only spent 8pts for the Spell, to kick it off with any reliability he's spending at least another 30 Points (+15 to a basic Skill Roll) to cast it. If his base skill (9+INT/5) is 11- I'd suggest a full +20 in that Skill, that's 40 Character points. Realistically, he's spent 48 Points to use that spell.

[JmOz]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

No kidding, since Turakian Age uses Skills... I'd assume RSR. And with a -20..

 

while he only spent 8pts for the Spell, to kick it off with any reliability he's spending at least another 30 Points (+15 to a basic Skill Roll) to cast it. If his base skill (9+INT/5) is 11- I'd suggest a full +20 in that Skill, that's 40 Character points. Realistically, he's spent 48 Points to use that spell.

 

yes but lesser spells become a nothing for him to cast, this has value beyond the spell itself...

 

not disagreeing with you persay, just saying that the +40 has additional value that should be considered in the final eval.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Also, you can usually take extra time to gain additional pluses...

[Tywyll]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Being Tauakian, it did have RSR. No Side Effects though. As was pointed out, I feel a high casting skill is its own reward.

 

Regardless, that doesn't address my core concern. Why does the concept of 'caster' almost always get a point savings, while non-caster concepts have to pay full value for any talent or ability they buy? And does it cause problems at high level play?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Ignoring the divide by three aspect for the moment, the spell described must have had -7 in limitations. If a non-caster takes a "special use of a weapon" ability with -7 in limitations, he can access over 60 AP of power. Assuming the limitations are equally limiting, he can access his "augment gear" ability as often as the caster can access his "route an army" spell.

 

And, unlike the caster, his limitations can be more customized. Everyone knows tricks to stop casters - magic suppressions, drains or dispels; prevent gesturing, speaking or accessing components; etc. Non-casters have more latitude in their choice of limitations.

 

Also, while I agree the high caster skill has other rewards, if I have one spell with 200 AP, and the next highest has 100 AP, I need +10 to the roll (20 points) just for this one spell.

 

Now, what if we remove the "divide by 3" aspect, which is unique to Turakian? That spell costs what, 25 points? Frameworks could modify it, but there's no reason non-casters can't use frameworks to the same extent casters do. And a framework big enough to hold 200 AP won't be cheap either.

 

What does a non-caster buy that's comparable to a 200 AP spell? Maybe the problem is that casters should not have access to 200 AP spells in isolation of any consideration of abilities non-casters could have of comparable power and utility. Unless, of course, the goal is to encourage spellcasters and discourage non-casters. I'm sure we could get people to post abilities for non-casters with a limit of 200 AP and 25 RP that would also be extremely powerful. They wouldn't be gritty and realistic, but the goal was high level play - that's seldom gritty and realistic anyway. 200 AP worth of penalty skill levels should allow an Archer to make a lot of Rapid Attack shots at once, all head shots, with no impediment to his likelihood of hitting. Or so many rapid shots that he can hit everyone in range of his bow, perhaps multiple times.

[jtelson]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Frameworks could modify it' date=' but there's no reason non-casters can't use frameworks to the same extent casters do. And a framework big enough to hold 200 AP won't be cheap either.[/quote']

 

I think you've hit upon the crux of the issue here - people often don't think of non-spell casters using frameworks for their abilities.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Well, our approach is perhaps a bit overkill but this works. I run a campaign where we play nothing but Dungeon Crawl Classics adventures set in the Wilderlands of High Fantasy setting.

 

Random encounters (of any power level), dungeon crawling, etc. It's a lot of fun.

 

Everyone pays points for magic items, and we pay full points for all powers. This makes it balanced with all character types (monks, wizards, fighters, etc.).

 

We came up with a system that allows players to define a profile that sets their active point caps, CV, skills, and DEF. It works very well and promotes the classic archetypes like heavy fighters and wizards, but keeps everyone in check (for the most part). The GM can still approve powers/abilities outside of this but these rules help guide the players and the GM.

 

I often have player who build something that isn't explicitly approved or denied and infer what my response is going to be.

 

I don't know as this approach would be appropriate for all types of games, but in a campaign where I am running modules that have been stocked/balanced without my input it works very well.

 

http://sites.google.com/a/tekhed.com/wilderlands/main/core-powers

 

There's more on the site about characters and the campaign, but the core powers page is the heart of character design.

 

I am continuing to build this out. I almost have a CR conversion guide for converting monsters and traps on the fly. We've been using my internal notes for the past year and it has been working really well.

[Panpiper]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

I don't see it as much of a problem. Any character that has access to such a 'battle field' weapon is likely to be a fairly advanced character anyway, and such a spell would largely be a roleplaying chrome, as how often do adventurers find themselves facing armies anyway? As a tank (I prefer playing melee characters) I would be happy knowing that the crunchy mage I am usually protecting has such utility spells as can reduce an army of kobolds. I am content that when that armored war troll is bearing down on our wizard, I am the only thing that stands in the way of his oblivion.

 

Besides, casters are not the only ones who can leverage their power to specific situations. At the same point level as that caster with battlefield magics, my tank too will be exceedingly scary. Throw in a few things like:

 

15 pts Heavy Lethality: Deadly Blow: +2d6 Killing, any circumstance, any 'heavy' weapon

6 pts Passive Blocking: +3 DCV; OIF: Weapon of Opportunity (-1/2), vs HtH Only (-1)

8 pts Second Skin: Combat Luck (6 PD/6 ED) (12 Active Points); Only While Wearing Heavy Armor (-1/2)

5 pts Battle Recovery: +15 REC (30 Active Points); Only When Taking A Non-Post Segment 12 Recovery In Combat (-2)

 

Add to the likes of that a big weapon that strikes for 3d6 killing, full plate, a martial maneuver for sweep, and I can wade through war trolls.

 

Ultimately the biggest balancing factor of course is the GM. Have character sheets written in pencil. They get handed to the GM before the game starts. The GM makes any necessary adjustments and hands them back. Game starts. All is good. And I'm a player, not usually a GM.

[phookz]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

I too never really liked the idea of the divide by 3 for points on spells - it always seemed unfairly skewed for casters. The argument that this is necessary in order to model other games just makes me think the source material is unbalanced, and maybe isn't worth modeling.

 

As has been pointed out, there is nothing preventing other character archetypes from buying additional powers. But I've never seen the suggestion that they should get a cost break for them just because. Personally, I'd rather do away with the RP/3 rule, but it does mean pointing out your own spells and using frameworks in order to be cost effective. I see nothing wrong with frameworks - casters and non-casters should be allowed to use them equally.

[JmOz]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

I too never really liked the idea of the divide by 3 for points on spells - it always seemed unfairly skewed for casters. The argument that this is necessary in order to model other games just makes me think the source material is unbalanced, and maybe isn't worth modeling.

 

As has been pointed out, there is nothing preventing other character archetypes from buying additional powers. But I've never seen the suggestion that they should get a cost break for them just because. Personally, I'd rather do away with the RP/3 rule, but it does mean pointing out your own spells and using frameworks in order to be cost effective. I see nothing wrong with frameworks - casters and non-casters should be allowed to use them equally.

 

I found that just let them put it in a MP worked fine for me, and look no rules problems...

[Curufea]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

There's a very easy answer to this.

 

Take your 200 AP spell and change the special effect to "martial prowess".

 

Bingo - it now represents a non-magical use of martial prowess.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Exactly. If all players have to build their maneuvers/attacks then it is fair. But making one character type pay for attacks and giving attacks to another type for free is not.

[Tywyll]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

There's a very easy answer to this.

 

Take your 200 AP spell and change the special effect to "martial prowess".

 

Bingo - it now represents a non-magical use of martial prowess.

 

Hahaha....no. Not all power constructs are fx independent.

 

Besides, that's not the point. I can invent a power of that level for a non-caster, but what is lacking is the multitude of point saving techniques to help non-casters, both canon and fan made, that exist for spell systems.

 

Further is the question, how does this effect high level play? Does anyone have any experience with 300+ point games (or something like that) where they saw how this played out in practice?

[Markdoc]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

I don't see it as much of a problem. Any character that has access to such a 'battle field' weapon is likely to be a fairly advanced character anyway' date=' and such a spell would largely be a roleplaying chrome, as how often do adventurers find themselves facing armies anyway? As a tank (I prefer playing melee characters) I would be happy knowing that the crunchy mage I am usually protecting has such utility spells as can reduce an army of kobolds. I am content that when that armored war troll is bearing down on our wizard, I am the only thing that stands in the way of his oblivion.[/quote']

 

I think the original poster's problem is that in systems where Mages get a good point break, that the mage elbows the fighter out of the way and says "Leave this to me: it's too dangerous for you." I've seen that happen in games where magic use is too easily obtained: pure fighters become redundant: if the Mage has a big army-killing spell - odds are he also has a similarly-powered troll-killing spell. All too often such a game becomes "The amazing mages and their non-magical sidekicks"

 

As you note, a fighter type (and I'm biased, too, as a player, I prefer sticking my foes with a pointy bit of metal, where possible) can buy powers that can allow him to tackle tough foes.

 

But if the fighter buys:

8 pts Second Skin: Combat Luck (6 PD/6 ED) (12 Active Points); Only While Wearing Heavy Armor (-1/2)

and the mage buys:

3 pts Stoneskin: 15PD/ED forcefield (30 active points); RSR, gestures, incantation, 1 charge lasts 5 min (-2) real cost 10, divided by 3.

really, who's better at stopping charging trolls? Especially since the mage can potentially wear armour as well.....

 

That's the problem. Even if you don't use "divide by three" the same problem - in a reduced form - can happen if the mage can stick his powers in a multipower, EC or VPP.

 

In answer to the OP, yes, reducing real cost by 3 gives mages an incredible advantage and I'd never use it as a GM - unless I specifically wanted a game where all the PCs were mages. The same applies to allowing only mages access to power frameworks. We have tried that in the past, and even if the game started with a mixture of magic users and non-magic users, it always ended with all magic-users.

 

I should point out that my perspective is colored by the fact that I usually run and play in longer-term campaigns (we're approaching the 5 year mark in my current FH game): this dynamic isn't necessarily true in shorter games, where the characters have less time to develop powers. I can also see the reason behind the "divide by three" concept, even as I acknowledge it was poorly implemented. If a mage has to buy spells at full cost, he's likely to end up with a relatively small selection, which doesn't really give the "traditional feel" of much high fantasy gaming.

 

However I think this could have been far better handled with power frameworks. You can think of the "divide by three" as a very rough attempt to provide a similar cost break to a multipower, but in a simplified form, which I assume was the rationale. But frameworks have built-in controls on how they work, which serve to reduce their impact somewhat. "Divide by three" lacks that.

 

Still, there is no reason if Mages have access to power frameworks, that other "classes" - if one must use the word - can't. So I allow melee specialists to use frameworks too. Two of the party in my current game have "hand to hand combat multipowers" and it looks like a third is going to follow suit soon. These can be simply "fighting tricks" which allow them to do more damage, or avoid damage in return, or (as is the case with the two current ones) full fledged martial arts (Fencing and Dirty Infighting, in this case). At the same time, the two magical types have a multipower and a VPP - which keeps them competitive in their chosen fields. And as a GM, I've set the baseline rules so that fightin' frameworks and magic frameworks work differently so the specialized combatant outshines the mage in combat, and the specialized Mage outshines the specialized combatant out of combat. And at the same time, it's possible to combine the two - one PC is a credible combatant and also a spellcaster. He' not the best in HTH, and he's not as powerful in the magic department, but he can combine the two aspects to good effect.

 

cheers, Mark

[Manic Typist]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Hahaha....no. Not all power constructs are fx independent.

 

...actually, yes they are. It's just that "we" (I include myself) tend to balk at certain SF/build associations because of OUR biases, even though there isn't really a reason for it besides "You're just not.... supposed to!"

 

Besides, that's not the point. I can invent a power of that level for a non-caster, but what is lacking is the multitude of point saving techniques to help non-casters, both canon and fan made, that exist for spell systems.

 

I don't see how this is except for the Divide by 3 technique, which I've learned is just something to be ignored anyway. Do you mean potential Limitations on Powers? There are more "available" for magic users?

[Markdoc]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

...actually' date=' yes they are. It's just that "we" (I include myself) tend to balk at certain SF/build associations because of OUR biases, even though there isn't really a reason for it besides "You're just not.... supposed to!"[/quote']

 

Sometimes, though, that's sufficient reason. I would balk at a PC in a gritty-pulp film noir environment who wanted to be able to shoot lasers out of his eyes. Likewise, in most fantasy games, I'd balk at a muscular barbarian character who wanted to buy flight "Because I'm the g-damn Batman" or something like that. And in reality, I did balk at a request by one of my players in the current FH game for her PC to learn how to make a hang-glider. Not because it's impossible - but simply because a) it'd be highly incongruous and this was a case of the player wanting something which the PC would have no clue about (the PC is a farmer turned adventurer: he has no concept of "aerodynamic".

 

(As an aside, it's even odder because the character is a mage with a VPP - I asked "Why not just learn a gliding spell?" - but no, it was a hang glider she wanted....)

 

I 'm pretty flexible about allowing players freedom to construct their characters even if I personally don't care too much for the outcome, but I do draw the line at things that completely break genre.

 

cheers, Mark

[Yansuf]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Any reason for the double post?

[Bismark]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

I think part of the problem with the 'Divide by 3' thing is that it simulates D&D-type High Fantasy (pre-4th edition D&D anyway) TOO well; Fighters (and also Monks, to some extent) always suck in those games.

 

I have used both Turakian Age style spellcasting and also Multipower-based (which was used for a Rolemaster-style game), and in both games pure fighters were decidedly second-best.

 

In the first case, magicians could happily cast spells while in armour - I researched historical armour types designed for archers that would not impede Gestures (even complex ones) - and you can wear some seriously heavy kit (see Sassanian Persian Clibanarii for an example).

 

In the second case, I was able to create (admittedly 200pt) characters who could throw seriously excessive spells around and, although they had strict armour restrictions - that's what equipment is for (Robe of Protection - Armour 6pts without the Real Armour Limitation anyone?).

 

In both cases my usual 200pt mage design (soon to change for 6e, because of the lack of Figureds) of STR 20, DEX 15 or 20, INT 23 and expertise with one class of weapon (usually his/her all-purpose magical Focus) was capable of giving serious grief to fighters. [For the record, my fighters usually have expertise in many more weapon types than the non-fighters - that is one of the things that distinguishes them from the non-fighters, Martial Arts being another.]

 

Some people would say that these were more like old-school RuneQuest-style fighter-mages - just higher-powered than the usual (frankly insipid) RQ-style characters, but that's the way it is. Most games that do not put artificial limitations on spell use will end up with Fighter/Mage or Fighter/Cleric combos being more dangerous than pure fighters in most situations because they can 'buff' themselves with spells (Hands of the Bloody God {+4 to OCV} anyone?)

 

Every iteration of Fantasy HERO I have played in or run that did not use "Low Fantasy" or low-powered "Swords & Sorcery" genre tropes had the same issue with casters (usually caster/fighter hybrids) being better than non-casters; unless you let the non-casters have Wuxia-standard "chi powers", "Warp Spasm" or similar (like allowing Deadly Blow and associated abilities, plus PSLs vs. Ht Location and the like), you can really expect nothing else.

 

Oddly enough, all the PCs in my current Forgotten Realms campaign are 'semi-spell users' apart from one who is a pure caster (with a nasty weapon Focus and magical robes that protect as reinforced mail on all locations); I found out in last Wednesday's game just how lethal this party is, even with some truly abysmal die-rolling when it came to their spell-casting.

 

If this is a bit garbled - I was up all night working , but the above is my experience in the last 23 years of Fantasy HERO through the various editions.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Hahaha....no. Not all power constructs are fx independent.

 

Besides, that's not the point. I can invent a power of that level for a non-caster, but what is lacking is the multitude of point saving techniques to help non-casters, both canon and fan made, that exist for spell systems.

 

Further is the question, how does this effect high level play? Does anyone have any experience with 300+ point games (or something like that) where they saw how this played out in practice?

 

Yep, every week. I solved it by paying points for everything.

[Tywyll]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

...actually, yes they are. It's just that "we" (I include myself) tend to balk at certain SF/build associations because of OUR biases, even though there isn't really a reason for it besides "You're just not.... supposed to!"

 

 

No, I still disagree. There are lots of powers (Telepathy, Faster than Light Travel, Dimensional Travel, et al) that stretch all manner of credulity and genre convention to apply 'martial prowess' onto. Wuxia, maybe. Exalted, possibly. But not every setting, and certainly not traditional high fantasy.

 

Mudpyr8

 

I've been looking at your sight and I've found some really interesting stuff on it. I've tried to wrap my head around your build set up, it seems pretty good for 'niche protection'. How do characters that are 'multi-class' fit into it?

 

As for power contructs, I'd love to see some of your Martial multipowers, if you don't mind sharing or can point me to a place on the web if they are already there?

 

Oh, as to paying for everything with points... first, I'm not entirely certain I agree that '15 points equals a level' (not all levels are equal, especially at higher level, I think) but regardless... how do you handle expensive items when the xp system of Hero is essentially linear? While at 'low level' you might find a magic item with a RC of 3-5 points, at high level it will be around 20+ points... meanwhile, you earn the same xp per session that you did when you started? A 15+ item is an entire 'level', not to mention I imagine most characters don't have that kind of change lying around. I'm very curious.

 

Markdoc

 

You hit my concern exactly!

 

I'd love to see your Martial Power and Magic Framework guidelines and maybe some examples if you don't mind sharing.

[Ice9]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

As far as point saving, the "divide by three" is really the big factor here, and I would probably ignore it unless casters had some significant general limitations.

 

Frameworks can easily be used by a non-caster - for instance, I would expect a cunning warrior-type to have, for combat alone:

* Climbing onto the backs of large creatures and up walls.

* Attacks which hamstring, blind, or otherwise hinder people beyond normal damage.

* Augmented presence attacks - when slaying someone, for instance.

* Setting traps, distraction maneuvers, trick shots.

Which could easily be in a Multipower or other framework.

 

As for limitations, there are plenty:

* OAF (obviously).

* RSR: Combat school skill, or KS:Anatomy

* Extra Time (probably only at Full-Phase/Extra Phase level, but still).

* Side Effects (leaves self open after maneuver)

* Increased END

* Only vs Creatures with appropriate anatomy.

[Alcamtar]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Tywyll: I have no experience with this at higher power levels. I almost always use VPPs and around 150-200 pts I think non-casters have been generally more effective than casters. But VPPs have a high up-front cost and built-in limitations, so balance may be very different at 300+ pts.

 

I have never allowed divide-by-3, as the very concept throws point balance out the window. If you need wizards to have three times as many spells (or three times as powerful!), then just give out the necessary CP, and that way the warriors can compensate.

 

Mudpyr8: Not to threadjack here, but your campaign sounds cool! I don't really understand your character build system, but HERO+Wilderlands is awesome and it sounds like it's working for you.

 

How are you awarding experience? More than 3-5 CP per session?

 

Also do you convert modules on the fly? That is my preferred style of GMing but I've never managed to do it in Hero, too many intricate details. The constant heavy prep workload is the main thing preventing me from running a serious FH campaign.

 

Mike