Spells As Skills

[薔薇語]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

I have to say, the more I think about this, the more I am reminded of Martial Arts. Not powers, but still weapons. Maybe one should look to Martial arts and their general cost : effect ratio to determine how this magic system should work out. Something that could be taken from the MA rules and applied to this is a minimum expenditure requirement. If one says that "conjuration" or "Earthen" magic are part of their repertoire, then they must spend at least 10pts on skill-spells. The equivalent of a +1DC, can be a skill level with generally the same cost (+1 = 4pts). To get a skill level that applies to all schools requires a 8pt skill level. This allows a GM to use a skill system without making it overly cheep and thus making the player put forth some points. It keeps it costly enough, however, that low level non-casters probably don't want to dedicate 10%+ on something that has only marginal usage. Alternately, it could be a spell number requirement and not cost. One must buy at least 3+ skill-spells in order to use a given field of magic; i.e., how can you understand a language when you only know a single phrase?

 

Just some random thoughts.

 

La Rose.

 

PS: I, nor the player / GM, need to build "Martial Strike" in order to know how it works. Just reference the text line that says +x OCV, +y DCV, +zDC. We know it is Hand to Hand and has the general Special effect of being a Martial Art Maneuver (as opposed to a club or magic).

[dmjalund]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

Maybe spells could have EGO Mimimums (or PRE minimums, etc) like weapons can have STR minimums

[Ragnarok]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

Good idea, dmjalund.

 

So I'm guessing that it's just left up to the GM's discretion to apply any mechanical SFX when necessary? (Armor piercing, aoe, etc)

 

Sounds like an intriguing idea, and certainly one that would make my GM life a whole lot easier...

[Nolgroth]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

Maybe spells could have EGO Mimimums (or PRE minimums' date=' etc) like weapons can have STR minimums[/quote']That is one of the ideas I had for a system I am working on. Also, ironically enough, a spell skill system though one that still has the spell write-up on the back end.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

It seems that the main confusion here is that Ghost Angle isn't saying that any given spell doesn't or couldn't have a write up but that the write up that the player deals with (along with the GM) is no more detailed than the gun chart in any game system book (including HERO: page 208 of 6e.2). One could write up any given weapon on that page if they desired, but we never have to. Why? Because all relevant information is handled on either that page or in our shared knowledges (guns are OAF, require one to two hands, ammo, fire straight, etc). SO, the desire is to have spells that are written up in the same manner.

 

Name.....Damage...Range...Skill Min / Mod...notes

Fireball...6d6N.......50m......13- / -2............AoE (8meters).

 

That is all the PC and GM would need to know. The GM doesn't need to write up the fireball, but he would simply have to make a judgment call, "Is a -2 the right mod given all other game elements (plot, fellow PCs, NPC, fluff, etc)?"

 

Does that clear things up? No need to write up the exact spell, just need to make a judgment call as to the value (in the context of the game, not system) of the spell. This is akin to quick notes for Guns and Swords. "Hmm, it is a finely crafted short sword. Other short swords are 1d6+1killing. This should be a 1&1/2d6 then." No need to build, just reason.

 

La Rose.

 

That's exactly it, thank you.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

Good idea, dmjalund.

 

So I'm guessing that it's just left up to the GM's discretion to apply any mechanical SFX when necessary? (Armor piercing, aoe, etc)

 

Sounds like an intriguing idea, and certainly one that would make my GM life a whole lot easier...

 

Yes, like with the Fireball they would simply state the spell has an X Meter Radius as part of the spell.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

It seems that the main confusion here is that Ghost Angle isn't saying that any given spell doesn't or couldn't have a write up but that the write up that the player deals with (along with the GM) is no more detailed than the gun chart in any game system book (including HERO: page 208 of 6e.2). One could write up any given weapon on that page if they desired, but we never have to. Why? Because all relevant information is handled on either that page or in our shared knowledges (guns are OAF, require one to two hands, ammo, fire straight, etc). SO, the desire is to have spells that are written up in the same manner.

 

Name.....Damage...Range...Skill Min / Mod...notes

Fireball...6d6N.......50m......13- / -2............AoE (8meters).

 

That is all the PC and GM would need to know. The GM doesn't need to write up the fireball, but he would simply have to make a judgment call, "Is a -2 the right mod given all other game elements (plot, fellow PCs, NPC, fluff, etc)?"

 

Does that clear things up? No need to write up the exact spell, just need to make a judgment call as to the value (in the context of the game, not system) of the spell. This is akin to quick notes for Guns and Swords. "Hmm, it is a finely crafted short sword. Other short swords are 1d6+1killing. This should be a 1&1/2d6 then." No need to build, just reason.

 

La Rose.

 

Which is exactly how the Validus Familiaritas system I linked to and mentioned previously works. There is no skill roll, you buy a familiarity with a pre-defined static effect just like you buy a familiarity with a weapon that is pre-defined and static. Thus my confusion when g-a says

Not even the GM needs a writeup. No Active Points are involved. No Real Points are involved. No Write-Up is involved. You can literally take the Power section of the book and ignore it.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

Perhaps my confusion is why each of the three systems detailed under that have a section based around Active Point Limits.

 

Here I'm removing even that - if the GM wants what would be a 400 Active Point Power to be a simple spell with no penalty, he makes it so.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

Perhaps my confusion is why each of the three systems detailed under that have a section based around Active Point Limits.

You mean such as....

 

*********************

TOTEMS AND POWER FAMILIARITIES

There are a number of Totems provided in the Totemic Gifts document, and by default each Animal Totem contains four Gifts chosen from a set list of Totemic Gifts (listed below). Some Totemic Gifts are "Basic" and have no more than 15 Active Points, while others are "Advanced" versions of Basic Gifts with up to 30 Active Points.

 

POWER ACTIVE POINT RANGES AND FAMILIARITY COSTS

Powers Active Point Cap FAM Cost

Basic 15 1

Advanced 30 1

 

Instead of paying the Real Cost of Totemic Gifts, Totemic Shaman instead take 1 point Familiarities with the Gifts granted by various Totems. This Familiarity allows them to use the relevant Gift as if it were a Power on their Character Sheet.

 

Familiarity with a Basic Power costs 1 point, and a Familiarity with an Advanced Power costs an additional 1 point.

 

*********************

?

 

The underlying effects have some bounding limits on them, tracked against gear. Just like a Sword is built as some number of d6 of HKA w/ various modifiers applied so too is Advanced Tooth & Claw. The AP ranges I chose for the underlying effects are modeled to track closely against the level of effect of gear to maintain parity.

 

A Totemic Shaman just has (FAM: Basic Tooth & Claw: 1 point) and (FAM: Advanced Tooth & Claw: 1 point) on their sheet under Skills, not the write up of the effect under Powers. If it is desired to track the effect on the sheet for convenience, a copy could be listed under "Equipment" for 0 point cost, but it's just there for reference just as a Sword's actual write up might be on the gear list for convenience sake; the character doesn't pay for the ability directly.

 

Following the same principle, a given GM could choose to write up any level of effect they see fit and allow a player to pay for a familiarity rather than the underlying effect; I chose to limit the underlying effects based upon AP rather than personal whim, but there's no requirement to use the three specific variants I provided as examples; the general concept is presented in the abstract and the specific systems are provided as distinct examples. As the document says:

 

Validus Familiaritas represents a concept of "Familiarity Casting", where in there are various Systems that have a set list of Magic abilities centered around some central theme, and characters buy a Familiarity with each Magic ability they wish to be able to use.

 

This is a flexible and powerful system of Magic, but it does require care on the part of a GM designing such a system of Magic to avoid making it too inexpensive and powerful.

 

The following concrete examples of Validus Familiaritas Magic Systems are provided

 

 

Here I'm removing even that - if the GM wants what would be a 400 Active Point Power to be a simple spell with no penalty, he makes it so.

 

Well....ok. Doesn't seem prudent, but if such is your desire, good luck keeping that balanced.

[Rapier]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

Well....ok. Doesn't seem prudent' date=' but if such is your desire, good luck keeping that balanced.[/quote']

 

That is the crux of my problem. It is all well and good to say that the GM gets to determine (on a case-by-case basis) the AP in the spell, it is going to tend to be arbitrary. I will be the first to admit that my arbitrary decisions sometimes swing about freely. What I thought was well and good one night turns into a 'great googly-moogly what in Thor's name was I thinking' on another.

 

And I know that some spells relative usefulness is in no way related to it's AP cost (eg the dreaded FlashLight argument). The last time I played with magic systems I had broken out spells into 'Categories' that had AP limits tied to them.

 

Combat I Spells: AP < 15

Combat II Spells: 15 < AP < 30

 

Adjustment I Spells: AP < 30

Adjustment II Spells: 30 < AP < 60

 

I'm guess I'm just leery of allowing a '400 AP spell' to have the same utility as a '30 AP spell.' In my own house, I would probably continue to break spells down within a category (similar to above), and then allow a skill for Combat I Spells, which would give access to those spells.

[tesuji]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

My main question would be "ok so what about non-magic stuff?"

 

My street fighter type wants the following...

 

Eye gouge: Flash 6d6 to sight, no range, requires Streetfighting skill roll (about 30 ap amd 15 rp)

 

My sword master wants:

Counter strike: 1.5d6 hka damage shield (apply appropriate advantages and disads for whatever version of hero you are using) no end etcpossibly with lims such as "with preferred weapon only and requires swordmaster skill roll

 

have you now moved to a system where:

equipment based guys get a lot of effectiveness for free, in terms of cp off the books, like armor and swords.

Magic users get a lot of umph for free, by only paying skills for spells.

But more maneuver-based guys pay thru the nose for special abilities

?????

 

I have no objection to non-points based acquisition of effectiveness. Most games run that way. At heroic levels, hero runs that way for equipment.

 

The more you expand the "off the books umph" the less relevence you make the work done for the point buy for all the other stuff.

 

Why did i pay for strength at 1-1 when i can get a strength boost spell for free or for familiarity?

Why would i pay 5 pts for +1 ocv when i can have an accuracy spell for free?

 

Now of course the gm can refuse to allowe something as common in fantasy as a strength spell because it stomps all over the normal point buy... but then the new subsystem is driving the setting, and i prefer myself the setting to drive the mechanics.

 

Were i to take this approach, i would be very sorely inclined to scrap the point buy altogether. Simply hand the players a dozen or so sample characters to use as guidelines for 'the power levels i envision" and let them choose abilities and just write them down, regardless of points, and vette(sp) the characters for appropriateness.

 

In that case, whether the flash is defined as eye gouge or as ectoplasmic goo spell has no effect on whether the character can also have strength 15 or not.

 

Using the hero system as a game engine but scrapping its chargen is perfectly fine IMO and with the right group and a good gm can work wonders.

 

As a gm tho, its the muddled in between - we use points for this and that but dont use points for those and these" that breaks down if not in a balance sense then in a common sense. Why do all the math if a that much more more stuff is off the books?

 

To one previous poster - on arbitrary - a judgement by a gm is not by definition arbitrary. That decision can be as judged and reasoned and as consistent as any formulaic rendering can be. given the notion that we seem to agree that sometime ap and effectiveness dont jibe, following points and calculations could be seen as arbitrary. More over, the GM judgement can take into account a lot more information - the price of water breathing in a campaign with a strong atlantean presence vs one with mostly desert campaigning.

[薔薇語]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

Eye gouge: Flash 6d6 to sight, no range, requires Streetfighting skill roll (about 30 ap amd 15 rp)

 

My sword master wants:

Counter strike: 1.5d6 hka damage shield (apply appropriate advantages and disads for whatever version of hero you are using) no end etcpossibly with lims such as "with preferred weapon only and requires swordmaster skill roll

 

have you now moved to a system where:

equipment based guys get a lot of effectiveness for free, in terms of cp off the books, like armor and swords.

Magic users get a lot of umph for free, by only paying skills for spells.

But more maneuver-based guys pay thru the nose for special abilities

 

Wait, what? Equipment users get the equipment that is natural in that area (swords, ladders, ropes, etc). They have to buy the Relevant Familiarities and other skills to use them. Martial Artists have the buy Martial Artist skills. Wizards have to pay for tons of spells normally, this allows them to have their costs in line with the other two.

 

Why did i pay for strength at 1-1 when i can get a strength boost spell for free or for familiarity?

Why would i pay 5 pts for +1 ocv when i can have an accuracy spell for free?

 

I just don't understand this objection. Why ever pay for Strength when you can buy it through another source for cheaper? Simple: the other source has limitations on it that make it less useful. This magic system requires skill rolls (a chance for failure), and may, depending on the GM's judgment, require: concentration, foci, require hands, etc. You are decently disadvantaged for the cost decrease.

 

Were i to take this approach' date=' i would be very sorely inclined to scrap the point buy altogether. Simply hand the players a dozen or so sample characters to use as guidelines for 'the power levels i envision" and let them choose abilities and just write them down, regardless of points, and vette(sp) the characters for appropriateness.[/quote']

 

You mean like having a list of weapons prepared so that when the PC fighter goes to the weaponsmith, he knows what he is getting. Or the Martial artist that sees the write up for a specific maneuver? The equipment person isn't controlling the items, and isn't writing them up. The martial artist isn't writing up the move, just paying for the relevant skills involved. They are standards that the GM wants, much akin to the broad sword that the Fighter gets for no direct point cost. All he has to do is buy the relevant skills to use it adequately.

 

Honestly, I don't see the difference as being that much. At least not for a basic heroic game.

 

La Rose.

[Wolf]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

This is a great concept, honestly, I think I'm going to use it in my next Fantasy hero game.

 

I also like how it makes scroll aquisition and spell book finding a mechanically interesting Idea, not to say that it can't be done in the fantasy Hero book, but I like how these dynamics can be applied to "written magic" and even magic Items.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

My main question would be "ok so what about non-magic stuff?"

 

My street fighter type wants the following...

 

Eye gouge: Flash 6d6 to sight, no range, requires Streetfighting skill roll (about 30 ap amd 15 rp)

 

My sword master wants:

Counter strike: 1.5d6 hka damage shield (apply appropriate advantages and disads for whatever version of hero you are using) no end etcpossibly with lims such as "with preferred weapon only and requires swordmaster skill roll

 

have you now moved to a system where:

equipment based guys get a lot of effectiveness for free, in terms of cp off the books, like armor and swords.

Magic users get a lot of umph for free, by only paying skills for spells.

But more maneuver-based guys pay thru the nose for special abilities

?????

 

I have no objection to non-points based acquisition of effectiveness. Most games run that way. At heroic levels, hero runs that way for equipment.

 

The more you expand the "off the books umph" the less relevence you make the work done for the point buy for all the other stuff.

 

Why did i pay for strength at 1-1 when i can get a strength boost spell for free or for familiarity?

Why would i pay 5 pts for +1 ocv when i can have an accuracy spell for free?

 

Now of course the gm can refuse to allowe something as common in fantasy as a strength spell because it stomps all over the normal point buy... but then the new subsystem is driving the setting, and i prefer myself the setting to drive the mechanics.

 

Were i to take this approach, i would be very sorely inclined to scrap the point buy altogether. Simply hand the players a dozen or so sample characters to use as guidelines for 'the power levels i envision" and let them choose abilities and just write them down, regardless of points, and vette(sp) the characters for appropriateness.

 

In that case, whether the flash is defined as eye gouge or as ectoplasmic goo spell has no effect on whether the character can also have strength 15 or not.

 

Using the hero system as a game engine but scrapping its chargen is perfectly fine IMO and with the right group and a good gm can work wonders.

 

As a gm tho, its the muddled in between - we use points for this and that but dont use points for those and these" that breaks down if not in a balance sense then in a common sense. Why do all the math if a that much more more stuff is off the books?

 

To one previous poster - on arbitrary - a judgement by a gm is not by definition arbitrary. That decision can be as judged and reasoned and as consistent as any formulaic rendering can be. given the notion that we seem to agree that sometime ap and effectiveness dont jibe, following points and calculations could be seen as arbitrary. More over, the GM judgement can take into account a lot more information - the price of water breathing in a campaign with a strong atlantean presence vs one with mostly desert campaigning.

 

You could apply the concept to any series of ideas. Fantasy tends to have two kinds of things: Equipment & Spells.

 

If a fighter-type wants a specific ability no one else has, that is most likely some form of Heroic Talent (or whatever you wish to call it, Fighting Tricks ala Valdorian Age or Super Skills from Dark Champions, etc). There's no reason you couldn't have Magical Talents as well (ability to cast without Incantations in a Game where that's required; or something like that).

 

As for "why buy STR when you can have a STR spell" - that's a Game Level call. A STR Spell has to exist first for the question to be relevant. And as The Rose pointed out, there could be a whole slew of Spell reasons that it's not a good idea.

 

As for the "why do all the math if more stuff is off the books" ... well, I'm removing doing any Math. There is NO MATH involved in saying "A Lightining bolt does 2D6 Normal Damage to one target; costs you 5 Endurance/Mana; and is at a -2 to your Skill Roll"

 

None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. No Math. Just a table.

 

A lot, if not all, "fairness" questions get answered in game.

[Ragnarok]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

I think this approach requires a bit of basic gaming experience to pull off correctly, which honestly shouldn't be hard for a GM. You should decide how accessible and how expensive a spell is based upon perceived game balance and your campaign setting guidelines.

 

For example, if I were to run low-magic campaign (as I hope to do somewhere in the not too distant future), there would be a restricted number of spell "types" available. So probably not a ton of stat-boosters or quaint little cantrips for every occasion. They'd be at least mildly hazardous to your health (or perhaps your humanity,) would not be particularly reliable, and would carry a heavy social stigma (feared, persecuted, pursued by religious fanatics, what have you). That alone should discourage at least some munchkinry. Limited though spellcasters would be, the payoff would come in certain things that normal people just cannot do. Access to various secret factions, supernatural abilities, intimidation factor, etc.

 

There's no way I'm handing a mage a superpowered facemelting tactical nuke fireball on the cheap. Because I'm smarter than that, I would probably come up with a "spell level" chart. This calibre spell category costs X, this costs Y, etc. This could be as simple as comparing basic standard HERO spells and categorizing them based on regular cost. I would also do a pre-campaign test run with a spellcaster armed with a certain spell vs. a swordslinger of comparable point cost, and tweak cost from there depending on how the trials turn out.

 

I see spells sort of as guns. I have a gun chart, with approximately how much a gun should cost. I compare a Glock vs. a Barrett .50 Cal. A Glock doesn't do nearly as much damage as a Barrett, but it has a lot more utility, mobility, and concealability. Likewise, a quick icebolt with very few negatives would have more utility than a difficult facemelting fireball. Putting more restrictions on the fireball should even it out to the easy but low-damage icebolt. Voila. Now to test it.

 

What I think it boils down to is, this spell construction technique requires more pre-game thought and common sense to guage, but for me I think it would pay dividends in simplicity and effectiveness once the game started. I like the amount of control it gives me, and I like how it gives me the room to decide how spellcasters and swordslingers should size up.

[tesuji]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

 

Wait, what? Equipment users get the equipment that is natural in that area (swords, ladders, ropes, etc). They have to buy the Relevant Familiarities and other skills to use them.

Yup absolutely. and these familiarities with weapons and armor are pretty cheap compared to the cost of buying the HKAs and RKAs and HA would be. Free cp equipment adds a lot of effectiveness for little cost and specifically the cost is not related to effectiveness - fam with dagger and fam with two handed sword cost the same in spite of huge diff in dc gained.

Martial Artists have the buy Martial Artist skills.

well they have to buy maneuvers at least. They might have to buy familiarities with weapons if they want to gild the lily with weapons plus martial maneuvers. Most of the time, IMX, if required to pay for martial maneuvers, the MA will be investing more points, sometimes significantly more points, into maneuvers than the fighter does with his free equipment familiarities.

 

Take a fighter with fam in swords (what, say 1.5d6 hka?) he can easily get to a 2.5d6 hka with moderate str investment for a price of something like 7 pts or so, allowing for a 2 pt fam with swords.

 

A martial artist with similar str need pay a lot more in DC and maneuver cost to get the same level of damage.

 

Its all because he is having to pay for the DCs the sword gives the fighter for free... hge is paying for effect, not a token cost to use the effect.

 

And again, if my streetfighter has to pay for his "eye gouge" flash effect at 15 cp while my mage needs pay 1 cp for my "dazzle spell" that both accomplish the same result - temp blinded adversary, then i dont see the costs coming in line.

Wizards have to pay for tons of spells normally, this allows them to have their costs in line with the other two.

Where is it required that wizards pay for tons of spells? Why cant a spell chucker have a few, maybe a dozen? maybe 5 or 6?

Also, being able to buy a lot of discounted effects isn't an argument for the balance side of things.

I just don't understand this objection. Why ever pay for Strength when you can buy it through another source for cheaper? Simple: the other source has limitations on it that make it less useful. This magic system requires skill rolls (a chance for failure), and may, depending on the GM's judgment, require: concentration, foci, require hands, etc. You are decently disadvantaged for the cost decrease.

yes it is POSSIBLE that bthe gm can indeed limit the spells so much, so greatly reduce their utility that a 1 cp fam cost is appropriate for the effect gained, but that wasn't the example given. The fireball listed was worth a lot more than 1 cp or 3 cp in power.

 

I do not get the idea that GA plan is to so hobble spells that you would be as good buying the effects normally - after all if thats the plan then this is just a waste of time, right? "You can go the fam route and get crippled spells or you can go the pay for effect route and get expensive but workable spells but the net result is going to balance the same."

 

A strength spell that is so limited that its worth free is not what I gathered was the intent of the system.

You mean like having a list of weapons prepared so that when the PC fighter goes to the weaponsmith, he knows what he is getting. Or the Martial artist that sees the write up for a specific maneuver? The equipment person isn't controlling the items, and isn't writing them up. The martial artist isn't writing up the move, just paying for the relevant skills involved. They are standards that the GM wants, much akin to the broad sword that the Fighter gets for no direct point cost. All he has to do is buy the relevant skills to use it adequately.

 

Honestly, I don't see the difference as being that much. At least not for a basic heroic game.

 

In the Fh games i have run, about 5 if i recall, the difference in heroic games between "paying for effect" and paying for familiarities for free effects was very significant. The lower the points allowed the more significant the difference... as you give up a high proportion of your resources.

The one time i went with "pay for effect" spells proved to me it was th wrong approach.

 

After that i tended to use MP for "spellbooks" and the like. This accomplished several things.

1. The pool cost for the MP reserve served as a reasonable benchmark for "how powerful the mage is."

2. the cost for adding new spells was trivial, along the lines of familiarities.

3. The power of a spell was related to its cost and was restrictive as it factored against the pool. A really powerful spell might prevent you running your defenses.

 

But at the same time - I also allowed "martiql tricks multipowers so the eye gouge could get similar pricing for the streetfighter type.

 

i am NOT objecting to moving spells into the free equipment piles like swords and armor and horses, not one bit, (unless the gm makes an active effort to make sure they are only worth the free by hobbling the spells as may be what some are thinking.)

 

I am questioning why all the other kinds of things that dont fall into equipment or magic cubbyholes have to pay for effect and how imbalanced is that? having gmed for a variety of character types other than mages and swordslingers and seen people buy "tricks" at full effect cost and at multipower costs, My experience is the system works best, most balanced, when similar effects in result are purchased for similar costs or thru similar mechanics.

 

EYE Gouge: 6d6 flash no range requires streetfighting skill roll at -3 cost 15 cp

 

Dazzle spell 6d6 flash requires magic skill roll at -3 and lets say full action to cast cost fam 1 cp (given the write up sample for fireball this doesn't seem like an outlandish "free spell")

 

Those two do not seem to enhance balance at all.

 

charging 1 cp for an effective str spell and 10 cp for +10 str doesn't seem to be helping balance at all.

 

Again, not objecting to the idea or even the system, but it seems to be just moving the point of imbalance and not solving problems.

 

In core, free equip creates balance problems against spells and maneuvers and so forth.

 

Moving spells into the free merely give you more free stuff to be imbalanced against the pay for effect stuff.

 

I am suggesting that IF the Gm is comfortable with his ability to balance things with both magic and spells basically off the books, then he could be just as comfortable balancing things liike str and maneuvers as well by the same way. Dont make them do any math. have them define effects and rely on the gm and his veto to wind up with balanced characters just as he is relying on the Gm to balance equipment and to balance fireballs and flight spells and invisibility rings.

[tesuji]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

 

You could apply the concept to any series of ideas. Fantasy tends to have two kinds of things: Equipment & Spells.

absolutely. there is no reason eye gouge could not be a free talent" that requires a fam to use. My question is - why isn't it?

 

Now some fantasy, as you describe, might well tend to only focus on equip and spell types, in which case, having the system charge out the nose for other character types may be a design goal. You basically want all your pcs to be knights and mages, give only knights and mages free effects. you wont have to ban or veto scruffy tricky fighting types because an average player on a buidget will see "they cost too much to work"

 

if thats your intent in only allowing free effects to spellers and gear-hounds, then thats fine.

 

But for me, in most fantasy games i have run, the thievy types and the sneaky types and the in betweens were very interesting characters and not ones i would want to discourage. I tended to allow the same point shaving mechanisms i allowed to make spell casters viable to be applicable to other sfx types who were in the "pay for effect" boat.

 

Eye gouge would be bought using similar accounting mechanics as the dazzle spell.

 

So when i see "cost break for spells' but not for other "pay for effect" i wonder why the Gm is set against these other types of charcters? if he sees the imbalances when guys with pointy hats and cloaks have to pay full for effects, why doesn't he see the same problem when sneaky devious types have to do the same thing for their tricks?

If a fighter-type wants a specific ability no one else has, that is most likely some form of Heroic Talent (or whatever you wish to call it, Fighting Tricks ala Valdorian Age or Super Skills from Dark Champions, etc). There's no reason you couldn't have Magical Talents as well (ability to cast without Incantations in a Game where that's required; or something like that).

Absolutely, and I wonder why "heroic talents" or whatever are paid at effect-based pricing while spells and equipment are not.

As for "why buy STR when you can have a STR spell" - that's a Game Level call. A STR Spell has to exist first for the question to be relevant. And as The Rose pointed out, there could be a whole slew of Spell reasons that it's not a good idea.

So, let me ask, is it your intent to so restrict the strength spell that it is worth the points or lack of points paid for it and no more. Cause from the fireball example you gave earlier, that did not seem to be the case.

 

Would a strength spell be a special case where you do hobble it so much that buying strength is comparatively worth it, whereas the fireball spell would be a significant price break compared to buying the spell at effect-based pricing?

 

 

As for the "why do all the math if more stuff is off the books" ... well, I'm removing doing any Math. There is NO MATH involved in saying "A Lightining bolt does 2D6 Normal Damage to one target; costs you 5 Endurance/Mana; and is at a -2 to your Skill Roll"

 

None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. No Math. Just a table.

either you misread my post or i am really confused.

 

Arent you requiring math for buying characteristics, for buying cv, for buying end and stun and climbing skill and all the other stuff that doesn't fall into the two categories of "spells and equipment"?

 

So the whole nada zip etc isn't quite accurate, right?

 

Its only accurate for those two categories but the rest of the stuff requires the math.

 

hence my question - why require the math be done for all those other things if so much free stuff is off the books? What purpose does charging for str 20 vs str 10 and cv 5 vs cv 3 serve?

 

its not "balance" because with both spells and equipment off the books balance is moved wholly into GM oversight.

 

so if its not balance, why do it with math?

 

Why not have all those stats be as fairly handled by the gm as spells and equipment are?

 

That would make for quick chargen with almost no math involved.

A lot, if not all, "fairness" questions get answered in game.

no objections there, just wondering why this approach works for categories as broad as magic and equipment but is inappropriate for tricks and characteristics?

 

i would expect such a game to see a preponderance of wizards and knights, characters who focus mostly on equipment or spells, and in some cases on hybrids - swordmages - who guild the lily twice over getting good play out of free equip and from free spells. (a guy who is a fighter with a fewe spells which augment his fighting - such as strength spells and dcv boost spells and speed spells and maybe a healing spell or a movement boost. how about a boost sword spell, which adds 1d6rka to a sword - sfx flaming or maybe just sharpness )

 

I would exspect to see few if any tricky maneuver types. No eye gougers. no entangling rope masters, no any type who has to pay for their effectiveness on an effect-based pricing.

 

Understand again, i am not saying that it wont work or is a bad idea. i think its a fine approach but if applied to just certain types, then it definitely maintains or creates the same balance difficulties and accounts away certain character types.

 

I have the same problem with the 5th ed fh option of "just divide spells by 3 or 5 for cost" since that doesn't include letting the player divide "eye gouge" or "hogtie" by 3 or 5.

 

To me, if i make my players do the hero math, then it is my obligation to NOT WASTE THEIR TIME. that means the math has to mean something. The general hero justification is : effectiveness is related to cost"

 

Well as soon as the rules (in the book or in my game) allow eye gouge for 15 cp and dazzle spell for 1 cp with similar levels of difficulty/restrictions or i allow hogtie for 15 cp and silver webs spell at 1 cp (fam based) or 3 cp (divide by 5) just because one is a maneuver and the other a spell, i have lost that justification for "do this math guys"

 

GMs dont need the points to balance the game, even for potent effects like fireballs and invisibility spells and plate armor and great axes, so why need the math for strength and int and comliness (if using 5e)?

 

 

Basically, i like the idea but why stop halfway? What about INT or EGO or eye gouging is so much more difficult to manage as gm that you need them handled and restricted by points thn fireballs, flight spells, polymorph etc?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

This is an abstract concept; apply it to any number of ideas you want.

 

I'll note that Eye Gouge is also a Martial Maneuver with a Flash element in it - which never go over 5pts. And 1 more pt allows you to apply all your paid for Maneuvers to 'free equipment' as well.

 

I just built this around spells. I have no personal objections to someone taking the basic idea and applying it to any other idea they want. Fighting Tricks as Skills. Or whatever a GM would want. This is just a foundation, not a detail. I'm personally never going to use this system. I'm sharing an idea.

[tesuji]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

I'll note that Eye Gouge is also a Martial Maneuver with a Flash element in it - which never go over 5pts. And 1 more pt allows you to apply all your paid for Maneuvers to 'free equipment' as well.

 

having never played in a game or ran one in any genre that allowed the build you own maertial maneuvers (there seemed to be some balance issues there), i didn't know the specifics for flashy martial maneuvers and always used effect-based builds for them. Thanks for the tips, but I would have to look up the particluars before knowing whether this would suffice - limited dcs etc.

 

Now i wonder if there is a martial element with an entangle element in it for hogtie? :-)

 

But since this isn't a system you will be implementing or using or detailing, I will stop asking you questions about it. I misunderstood and thought it was something you were planning on developing.

 

thanks.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

Nope, I'm simply presenting a broad view of an idea to use in a campaign. Several people have expressed interesting in using it in their games - which makes me happy enough. The presented document is about as far as I plan on developing it personally. Though I see no reason why someone couldn't expand it to include any number of SFX.

 

As for a Maneuver with Flash in it: there is Martial Flash detailed in the Ultimate Martial Artists that does 4D6Flash. Though it cannot be added to with STR or Skill Levels.

 

There isn't any Martial Maneuver with Entangle in it; but I'm sure you could use appropriate Skills to hogtie someone; say KS: Knots And Binds.

Part of the idea here is that the entire system Can be broken down into Skills of some nature if one wishes to do that.

[tesuji]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

Part of the idea here is that the entire system Can be broken down into Skills of some nature if one wishes to do that.

 

and balance provided by the GM both in play and with chargen oversight.

 

yup.

 

A notion not lost on many other game systems in fact!

 

:-)

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

Now i wonder if there is a martial element with an entangle element in it for hogtie? :-)

Well, a rope would count as part of your free (cp free anyway) equipment. If you really need a martial element I'd say a Grab and Weapon's Element, Rope, should cover it.

[tesuji]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

Well' date=' a rope would count as part of your free (cp free anyway) equipment. If you really need a martial element I'd say a Grab and Weapon's Element, Rope, should cover it.[/quote']

 

perhaps with the right GM but IMX few Gms would allow " i gotta rope" to equate to any sort of combat-effective entangle ability without the purchase of some "trick" much akin to the way bricks in aupers games have to buy entangles for any sort of 'grab phone pole and wrap around combat effective adversaries".

 

the best i have typically seen is a lasso and wf allowing a grab at range kind of thing.

 

but of course, many gms means many approaches.

 

it could be we were all doing this all wrong and that in heroic hero games the norm was to allow all these tricks for free.

 

:-)

[ghost-angel]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

perhaps with the right GM but IMX few Gms would allow " i gotta rope" to equate to any sort of combat-effective entangle ability without the purchase of some "trick" much akin to the way bricks in aupers games have to buy entangles for any sort of 'grab phone pole and wrap around combat effective adversaries".

 

the best i have typically seen is a lasso and wf allowing a grab at range kind of thing.

 

but of course, many gms means many approaches.

 

it could be we were all doing this all wrong and that in heroic hero games the norm was to allow all these tricks for free.

 

:-)

 

Actually, yes that is the norm for Heroic games. You are bringing in, IMO, a very Superheroic "pay for everything" mentality here. That's not a bad thing, mind you, but an observation on game style. In Heroic games you don't actually pay for a lot of things you would be forced to pay for in Superheroic games. Rope to tie up someone being one of them. Or slapping a pair of handcuffs on someone mid-combat (also Entangle) is done with free equipment.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

perhaps with the right GM but IMX few Gms would allow " i gotta rope" to equate to any sort of combat-effective entangle ability without the purchase of some "trick" much akin to the way bricks in aupers games have to buy entangles for any sort of 'grab phone pole and wrap around combat effective adversaries".

 

the best i have typically seen is a lasso and wf allowing a grab at range kind of thing.

 

but of course, many gms means many approaches.

 

it could be we were all doing this all wrong and that in heroic hero games the norm was to allow all these tricks for free.

 

:-)

Hogtieing is a several step process. I didn't say use Grab with a rope and BAM, they're on the floor, face down, with their hands tied to their feet. You grab the person, you bind their hands, you take them to the ground, then tie their hands to feet, (or however it goes). It would probably take several phases to "hogtie" someone and may involve more than one STR vs STR contest. Now lassoing someone, on the other hand, would be a different matter...

Random side question. What are phone poles made out of where you are from? (I’m trying to picture someone “wrapped” in a wooden phone pole and just can’t see it. Maybe light post?)