Spells As Skills

[薔薇語]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

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.

 

Can you think of instances where having a dagger and having a sword is important? There are reasons why one would want to be able to use a Dagger and not a sword despite the damage difference.

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Martial Art maneuvers are skills (or at least they were in 5th). Have you asked yourself why equipment people are only buying Familiarities and Martial Artists buy maneuvers? More importantly, why there is a point difference? Simple: equipment can be taken away, skills can't. That is why there is a point discrepancy between the two.

 

And again' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

This seems like the way the system keeps distinction between the basic classes (Weapon master, MA, Mage). The Weapon Master, unless he cross trains (and thus pays points) doesn't get access to some combat abilities that the other two can. The MA has to buy the Flash Maneuver (4pts), or the Wizard has to invest in a Skill spell that would probably be at a -1 or -2 (if it were me GMing). The Former doesn't get the ability, the second gets it automatic, and the latter get it but with a significant chance of failure.

 

Where is it required that wizards pay for tons of spells? Why cant a spell chucker have a few' date=' maybe a dozen? maybe 5 or 6?[/quote']

 

In a normal game, in order to have a Mage of comparable effectiveness, one must invest a a significant number of points into powers to reflect spells. This investment normally means that Mages have to be built on a higher total of points because Weapon Masters and Martial Artists have a fairly moderate cost. This system allows the Mage to have costs brought down in order to help keep them in line with the other two basic groups.

 

Also' date=' being able to buy a lot of discounted effects isn't an argument for the balance side of things.[/quote']

 

What? I'm confused here. The balance is the result of the Mage being able to have the same game effect as a WM and a MA for the same general costs. WM pay for Familiarities and Skill levels; MA pay for Maneuvers and a few skill levels; Mages pay for a collection of the equivalent of the Power Skill that is being called "Skill Spell." The Spells give him the same general effectiveness as the WM and MA for a similar cost.

 

yes it is POSSIBLE that bthe gm can indeed limit the spells so much' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

A) What example was given?

You're wrapped up on the Familiarity idea, which GA's PDF made clear would cheapen things much more (and is best if Magic is a standard that everyone can do). I'm talking about the Power Skill one, which helps maintain the distinction between the basic classes.

 

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' date=' 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."[/quote']

 

What? Why does the Heroic warrior buy (pay CP for) a sword when he can just buy (pay money in game) a sword? Simple: The Former allows him a level of customization that he would otherwise not get. Likewise, his sword is likely to be given special consideration by the GM (be a story element, for example).Why does the Mage buy the power version of a spell when he can buy the skill version? The Power version isn't likely to be limited in al the same ways (foci, gestures, time, etc) and is likely to have special GM consideration.

 

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

 

I'm still confused. Please quote what you are talking about.

 

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.

 

Not a fan of the system? That is fine. You like the MP method, fine. This was just being posed as an alternative. And Most specifically, an alternative that aims at simplicity and ease so that people don't have to go through the whole process of building everything int he system. THAT is a significant advantage of this system.

 

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' date=' My experience is the system works best, most balanced, when similar effects in result are purchased for similar costs or thru similar mechanics.[/quote']

 

What are you talking about? What other class is being significantly disadvantaged?

 

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.

 

First and foremost, why do you think "Dazzle" would cost only 1pt? You seem to have misunderstood GA's pdf. If one is going to go about having magic as a Familiarity, then one is already accepting that magic is a major force that everyone has access to. This is the same way that traditionally a Mage could always buy a WF and have the ability to fight hand to hand. If, however, you take a look at the more prevalent example, the one that makes use of skills that actually require skill rolls, then we aren't talking about the spelling being only one point. Furthermore, if you do go the route of the familiarity, then the Fighter would, unless the GM deems otherwise, be a able to buy the same spell as the Mage.

 

Martial Artists: -1 OCV / DCV, 4d6 effect, Flash. 4pts.

If I were to build that for a mage, I'd probably call it a -1 spell and apply any other Magic specific limitations I thought appropriate (gestures, incants, ect).

If the Weapon Specialist wants to have an a similar ability, then I'd either tell him to cross train so that he could gain it through the other two paradigms or buy it as a limited power. This maintains the distinction between the three general groups and thus helps keep people from 'treading on each other's shticks."

 

I am suggesting that IF the Gm is comfortable with his ability to balance things with both magic and spells basically off the books' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

What? Only equipment is free. The Skill levels and Weapon Familiarities aren't. Martial Artists only have to reference a chat to know what they are getting. And, under this system, the mage just buys the spell via a skill roll. He does't have to concern himself with the exact build of the spell anymore than the Weapon Master does with the build of the sword, or the Martial Artist with the build of the specific maneuver. I honestly have no clue what you are even talking about now. The GM balances all these things against each other buy having them pay relatively the same cost for effect. He balance the specific strength (and thus cost) of each maneuvers by comparing it to what is already available (standard weapons, martial arts, ect).

 

Simple put tesuji, you have confused with almost every point. I'm not quite sure where you are coming from.

 

La Rose.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

I should also note, that one of the things I don't take much stock in it "Class" or "Archetype" model method of "Fairness" --- it's not Fighter vs Martial Artist vs Magician. It's Character Point Buy.

 

I see absolutely no reason in my mind why a Character can't buy up his Strength, get Weapon Familiarities, get some Spells, buy some Martial Maneuvers, and accumulate Skill Levels in all of them. Beyond a simple Point Ceiling.

 

From a strict Mechanical point of view.

 

How one defines roles in a game isn't really the issue here. So accusations that I'm somehow disadvantaging some Character Type or another is something I don't buy into.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

Skill Levels.

 

Giving a little bit of thought on Skill Levels, especially Combat Skill Levels, and how to apply them. There are usually plenty of spells where CSLs have no application. On the other hand there is also usually an entire Arsenal Of Spells that they could apply to. CSLs add at a rate of 2/+1DC; until you get to Advantaged abilities. Figuring out Active Points requires at least part of a Power Build. Two thoughts come to mind:

1) Usually there's no more than 1-2 Advantages on any given Spell to begin with. There are much fewer Advantages in the system than Limitations to choose from in the first place. One could go "halfway" with the spell builds just to get Active Points. One could simply determine the value of the Advantages and use the table in 6E2 without actually needing the AP number itself. Something Else.

 

2) Something Else: Level based damage adding. To add +1 Damage Class you need +1 CSL per level/2 beyond the first level. Level 0-2 Spells need the normal 2 CSL/+1DC; Level 3-4 need 3CSLs to add +1DC. Rounding down as you go up the chain. If you're only going to Level 10 you need 7 Combat Skill Levels just to add 1 Damage Class. The upside: easy. The downside: Hefty buy in, and may not reflect the actual nature of the spell. After all an Unadvantaged Level 10 Spell that's just A Lot Of Damage should still theoretically add as 2/+1 and a heavily Advantaged Level 1 Spell should require more CSLs. So this may not be the best idea.

 

3) You can't increase a Spells Damage Classes at all. Perhaps this is the nature of magic, or a balance against warriors who can usually only get a weapon that tops out at 5-6 Damage Classes where spells can go well above that. This also works well in a campaign that uses Damage Class Caps to help prevent "arms race" scenarios, or just keep things from going too far over the top.

 

Were I to choose a method, it would be 3. Spells are Spells and skill can't increase their damage capability. Want more damage? do the research, and create a higher level spell that does more damage. Assuming the GM even wants more damage in the campaign at all.

 

regular Skill Levels, you would need to break things down a bit into Small Group/Large Group. If you are using Single Skill Per Spell methods, then a Small Group is a group of related (3 or so per the book) Skills. A Large Group is more, and then All. IF you're using Categories for the Skill Rolls then this becomes trickier. A Small Group could be a very tight focus "Earth & Fire" or "Life & Death" and a Large Group a little more open "Elemental" or "Divine" and so on.

 

Penalty Skill Levels - ranged, hit location, time modifiers, all pretty much work normally.

[tesuji]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

 

 

Can you think of instances where having a dagger and having a sword is important? There are reasons why one would want to be able to use a Dagger and not a sword despite the damage difference.

 

smoke and mirrors. I can think of a case where a 3 pt computer skill is worth more in nplay than 30/30 force field, flight 30" and 12d6 fireball... all combined. thats not an argument that they should cost the same or even similar or that same costing would promote as opposed to derail balance.

 

HERO seems to think a greatsword is more valuable than a dagger. I see no reason to disagree with that even though i can concoct circunstances where the reverse is true.

Martial Art maneuvers are skills (or at least they were in 5th). Have you asked yourself why equipment people are only buying Familiarities and Martial Artists buy maneuvers? More importantly, why there is a point difference? Simple: equipment can be taken away, skills can't. That is why there is a point discrepancy between the two.

Actually IMX the discrepancy between weapons bought with focus lims and such tend to balance out with martial maneuvers. When you further reduce the weapons, armor, shields costs to familiarity level with no increased limitations, thats where the balancing issues creep in.

 

I mean you wouldn't let someone in a superhero game get his weapons and armor for free, right? You would charge him for focus reduced powers etc... and the MA pays the same prices in either heroic or superheroic.

 

In supers game - fighter pays 15 cp for 2d6 HKA sword (or less if he applies various lims) and the martial artist pays x for martial arts maneuvers.

 

In heroic game - the fighter pays a couple points of familiarity for the same sword and the martial artist pays the same X he paid above for the same maneuvers.

 

You do see a discrepancy there, right? Thats where I am coming from.

 

Its very similar, same root cause in fact, as the whole "pay for spells" issue, just at a lesser scale.

 

 

 

This seems like the way the system keeps distinction between the basic classes (Weapon master, MA, Mage). The Weapon Master, unless he cross trains (and thus pays points) doesn't get access to some combat abilities that the other two can. The MA has to buy the Flash Maneuver (4pts), or the Wizard has to invest in a Skill spell that would probably be at a -1 or -2 (if it were me GMing). The Former doesn't get the ability, the second gets it automatic, and the latter get it but with a significant chance of failure.

Not sure where you get this notion.

 

the flash eye gouge i mentioned was 6d6 and had both the requirement of being no range, requires a skill roll and then a to-hit roll.

the mage's ability would presumably have a skill rool requirement, no real need for no range, and likely some spelly requirements like gestures and inc and of course require a to hit roll but this hardly seems like such a significant chance of failure to warrant being priced along familiarity lines while the other costs 15 cp.

 

As for the class distinction thing - the eye gouge thingy seems apropos for a streetfighter and the dazzle seems apropos for a mage so i dont see why one should be priced so high and the other not.

 

In a normal game, in order to have a Mage of comparable effectiveness, one must invest a a significant number of points into powers to reflect spells. This investment normally means that Mages have to be built on a higher total of points because Weapon Masters and Martial Artists have a fairly moderate cost. This system allows the Mage to have costs brought down in order to help keep them in line with the other two basic groups.

Again, how many times do i have to defend this - i DONT object to the system and it bringing the magery costs in line with the fighter costs. What I object to is leaving all other effects that don't get the words EQUIP or SPELLplaced in their SFX priced at a "pay for effect" basis.

 

For the exact same reasons people thing paying full price for spells in a heroic equip game is wrong, i think paying full price for "talents or maneuvers or special tricks is equally wrong.

 

What I would want in a "price break mechanic" for these is to be able to use it for all such "pay for effect" items, regardless of what "descriptor" gets placed in their sfx fluff.

 

What? I'm confused here. The balance is the result of the Mage being able to have the same game effect as a WM and a MA for the same general costs. WM pay for Familiarities and Skill levels; MA pay for Maneuvers and a few skill levels; Mages pay for a collection of the equivalent of the Power Skill that is being called "Skill Spell." The Spells give him the same general effectiveness as the WM and MA for a similar cost.

Again, i am not talking as much about MARTIAL ARTS maneuver though IMX they seem a little pricey compared to free equip and familiarities - compare the copsts between MA and weapons in superheroic and heroic and i think you will see a stark difference.

 

But rather about what in a superheroic game would be represented by "tricks" or "dirty fighting" etc.

 

 

A) What example was given?

You're wrapped up on the Familiarity idea, which GA's PDF made clear would cheapen things much more (and is best if Magic is a standard that everyone can do). I'm talking about the Power Skill one, which helps maintain the distinction between the basic classes.

in his first post the example was fireball 6d6 aoe.

 

in his first post he mentioned familiarities or skills as pricing.

 

I am assuming the "cost" of a spell drops dopwn to between 1-3 pts at most.

 

What? Why does the Heroic warrior buy (pay CP for) a sword when he can just buy (pay money in game) a sword?

IMX 99% of the time, he doesn't. its just not worth it.

 

Simple: The Former allows him a level of customization that he would otherwise not get. Likewise, his sword is likely to be given special consideration by the GM (be a story element, for example).

i have never charged a player cp from his character to make him or his gear a story element.

 

have you?

 

how does that work?

 

"If you build your character on half the points everybody else does i will write into the campaign a story role for your PC?"

 

Why does the Mage buy the power version of a spell when he can buy the skill version? The Power version isn't likely to be limited in al the same ways (foci, gestures, time, etc) and is likely to have special GM consideration.

IMX given the choice between paying familiarity costs or even skill costs for spells and paying effect based price, they wouldn't.

 

In my games, my players sort of expect me to make their characters and their traits relevent parts of the story for free.

 

i never thought of charging them for it.

 

"If you use all your points, you wont be as important as the others?" nah not for me.

 

I'm still confused. Please quote what you are talking about.

you keep talking about how restricted the cheaper spell wil be as if that balances out the cost difference.

 

Not a fan of the system? That is fine. You like the MP method, fine. This was just being posed as an alternative. And Most specifically, an alternative that aims at simplicity and ease so that people don't have to go through the whole process of building everything int he system. THAT is a significant advantage of this system.

ok lets try this again...

 

I AM a fan of the system.

I think its a great approach to take "things paid for at effect based cost" and apply similar cost structure savings to them as get applied in heroic equipment games.

I like it a lot.

 

Since no one seems to undertsnad that lets use a chart...

 

In SUPERHEROIC GAME

GEAR is paid for at effect based cost

SPELLS are paid for at EFFECT BASED COSt

TRICKS are paid for at EFFECT BASED COST

EVERYTHING else is paid for at EFFECT BASED cost

systematically some sense of fairness in pricing is attained by having everything paid for by the same mechanism.

 

In a STANDARD heroic game

GEAR is paid for at FREE must buy familiarities cost - greatly reduced by comparison

SPELLS are paid for at EFFECT BASED COSt

TRICKS are paid for at EFFECT BASED COST

EVERYTHING else is paid for at EFFECT BASED cost

systematically a problematic imbalance is created.

 

In SOME heroic games

GEAR is paid for at FREE must buy familiarities cost - greatly reduced by comparison

SPELLS are paid for at EFFECT BASED COSt with a /3 or /5 adjustment in cost

TRICKS are paid for at EFFECT BASED COST

EVERYTHING else is paid for at EFFECT BASED cost

systematically a problematic imbalance is created

While spells are adjusted to be more in line with gear the rest of the realm of stuff paid for is still left out in the cold.

 

In this style of game

GEAR is paid for at FREE must buy familiarities cost - greatly reduced by comparison

SPELLS are FREE with buy familiarities/skills

TRICKS are paid for at EFFECT BASED COST

EVERYTHING else is paid for at EFFECT BASED cost

systematically a problematic imbalance is created

Same basic effect as the /3 and /5, bring spells in line with gear but the rest left out.

 

I dont see being able to write GEAR or SPELL bnext to something as justification balance wise for it being given a gross discount.

 

What I am asking about would be a system where

EVERYTHING else is paid for using the same FREE but buy skills and familiarities cost.

That way, regardless of the sfx of your character and his abilities, the costing structure is the same.

 

The reason I mentioned the MP option is that it did apply not just to spells but to "heroic talents" or "tricks" and the lot, whereas this one does not BUT IT COULD BE!

What are you talking about? What other class is being significantly disadvantaged?

class implies a stronger limi on available types than i normally use in hero.

 

in general, the free/familiarity style costing for only some archtypes or components tends to disfacor those characters who rely on things costed more normally by effect based pricing.

 

Examples include the tricks already mentioned the 6d6 flash eye gouge bs the 6d6 flash spell, liozardman/goblinoid/snakeman character whose net 2.5d6 HKA is derived from routine strength and natural but vicious claws (paid for at effect based price) and his armor paid for as "scaly hide" paid for at effect price and whose flash attack "blinding spittle" is paid for at effect price as opposed to the guy with sword and armor both of whom get significant price breaks from even their focus (accounts for can be removed) prices or the mage whose dazzle spell costs like a skill!

 

In many fantasy genre, having the reptile man as a protagonist is fine, but if he is charged at effect based price whereas mages and warriors get spells and gear at skill/fam pricing, it would be rare imx for players to choose such a character concept because it isn't nearly cost effective.

 

 

 

First and foremost, why do you think "Dazzle" would cost only 1pt? You seem to have misunderstood GA's pdf. If one is going to go about having magic as a Familiarity, then one is already accepting that magic is a major force that everyone has access to. This is the same way that traditionally a Mage could always buy a WF and have the ability to fight hand to hand. If, however, you take a look at the more prevalent example, the one that makes use of skills that actually require skill rolls, then we aren't talking about the spelling being only one point. Furthermore, if you do go the route of the familiarity, then the Fighter would, unless the GM deems otherwise, be a able to buy the same spell as the Mage.

 

1 or 3 is no matter. Ga is NOT talking about charging anything near EFFECT BASED cost. Did you get the idea that his fireball 6d6 aoe would be costing 20 cp? 10 cp?

 

I mean look, either the system is giving the spells a serious discount off the "pay for effect based pricing" (in which case it addresses the imbalance you mention above and brings this in line with heroic equipment weapons and armor - that was part of the intent right) - or it doesn't and we have the same balance issues we have with mages paying for effect based priced spells now.

 

you seem to be at one point arguing that that full price for spells caused a problem this addresses but then when i point out the issues of reducing the cost you suddenly seem to be saying it isn't cheap enough to be a problem, or somesuch.

 

 

Martial Artists: -1 OCV / DCV, 4d6 effect, Flash. 4pts.

If I were to build that for a mage, I'd probably call it a -1 spell and apply any other Magic specific limitations I thought appropriate (gestures, incants, ect).

If the Weapon Specialist wants to have an a similar ability, then I'd either tell him to cross train so that he could gain it through the other two paradigms or buy it as a limited power. This maintains the distinction between the three general groups and thus helps keep people from 'treading on each other's shticks."

i prefer to have effects priced using the same system as the same effect purchased with a different descriptor. never a fan of "because you chose the better sfx, you get a price break" or its reverse.

 

What? Only equipment is free. The Skill levels and Weapon Familiarities aren't. Martial Artists only have to reference a chat to know what they are getting. And, under this system, the mage just buys the spell via a skill roll. He does't have to concern himself with the exact build of the spell anymore than the Weapon Master does with the build of the sword, or the Martial Artist with the build of the specific maneuver. I honestly have no clue what you are even talking about now. The GM balances all these things against each other buy having them pay relatively the same cost for effect. He balance the specific strength (and thus cost) of each maneuvers by comparing it to what is already available (standard weapons, martial arts, ect).

 

in the system described - as i understand it, spells and equip are free but you have to pay for skills to use them or familiarities. You dont have to worry about building the fireball or the sword. presumably these costs for skills and fam are comparable. these prices are significantly less than their (after limitations for foci and spell casting) their superheroic prices.

 

MARTIAL ARTS however are still priced at the EFFECT BASED pricing they use in superheroic games, where they play balanced against EFFECT BASED priced spells and bought weapons, so they seem left out in the cold.

 

A lizardman whose HKA damage is derived from a claws HKA and whose higher PD/ED and armor based on his tough hide and who has a venom spray flash effect is all charged full effect pricing just like in a superheroic game.

 

Why is it GOOD for lizardman to pay full price for his useful traits and BAD for wizard to pay full prices for his useful traits if the gear guy is getting the heroic price break?

 

The only disagreement i have for this aproach is it still leaves significant portions of reasonable character types in the lurch the mage used to be in, and hey, if the goal is to promote a warrior and mage centric game then thats going to achieve it with aplomb.

 

But dont expect many lizrdmen among characters who are on a budget. NPCs are off budget so lizardmen might be common, just not as the protagonists.

 

More limiting than i prefer, though very appropriate for some fantasy genre.

 

Why isn't it better for everyone to have the same sort of pricing scheme and for there not to be a gross difference between a dazzle spell and a blinding spittle natural ability?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

Martial Maneuvers can have their effects applied to weapons. So in a Heroic Game they're paying extra points to quite possibly apply their extra damage to the same weapon that the sword-master has access to.

 

Also - I personally don't give a crap about Superheroic games or their cost structure. And have less than zero interest in comparing any Heroic Game to them. In fact, I have so little interesting in making the comparison I think I'm owed something interesting to look at just for typing that sentence.

[Hierax]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

CSL and +DC: Maybe it's just my own pet peeve but Adding Damage is much easier if you use Base Points instead of Active Points (like Range does in H6e now). IMO it's ridiculous and needlessly complicated to have Active Points figure into Adding Damage like they do -- it adds nothing to the game but hassle and takes away logic and simplicity, sad that H6e didn't take the opportunity to expunge this blight from the game system.

 

Particularly here in a Spell Skill system like this that de-emphasizes Active and Real Points, I think it would be far better off with +2 CSL = +1 DC plain and simple.

 

YMMV.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

It's hard to use just Base Points when some Advantages directly affect just how Damage is applied. Which is why 6E Does say "only these Advantages count towards Damage Adding"

[tesuji]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

 

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.

Exactly!!! Thats the p[oint of tricks. Without a "trick" paid for, you go through more mundane normal ways to do things. usually this involves a series of actions. Any brick can use an action to pick up a metal girder, then spend more actions to bend it and wrap it probably around a relatively unresisting foe.

 

A brick who bought a strength trick for entangle usually with oif "opportunity terrain" or somesuch does it as more or less a single action, maybe with something like full phase

you use tricks to represent tricks and talents which are better than the norm, more than what anybody with a rope could do.

 

This is in response to GA as well.

 

ANYBODY with a rope more or less can tie someone up. Not everyone with a rope can tie up someone in the middle of a fight quickly.

 

IMX it is not bringing in superheroic "pay for anything" to have someone in a heroic game have to pay for "being a sushimi rope master i can use this rope to quickly bind someone even in combat".

 

Now maybe in your games anyone can do this, but in my games if Joe the librarian had a rope and had a thug with a club trying to whack him, i would not let joe spend one action and wind up with an "entangled thug. on the other hand, in certain styles of heroic games, I would have no problem allowing a "rope master" to do that at all - provided he bought the trick as an entangle.

 

In this case, the rope can indeed allow someone to tie someone up but it is the character (rope master) who brings the ability to do so quickly and in combat against a resisting foe.

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?)[/font]

[/font][/font]

 

should have said something likwe girder or light pole.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

Dude, I've already gone over the solution. And yes - your argument is based completely on Superheroic standards. You constantly restating your argument here is pointless. This is the Fantasy Hero forum. Most Heroic Talents/Super Skills/Fighting Stunts come under 10 points to begin with because they are also heavily Limited. Which puts them in the same arena as buying Skills, Skill Levels, Maneuvers and combinations thereof.

 

It's tiresome and circular.

 

If your argument is to hold any water at all - or have ANY relevance you would also argue that no Equipment at all should be free. Ever. After all the sword swinger gets a 30 Active Point sword for free. Or a cop gets those Handcuffs and gun for free (Entangle and RKA). Take that play style to the Champions forum please.

[Lezentauw]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

Dude, I've already gone over the solution. And yes - your argument is based completely on Superheroic standards. You constantly restating your argument here is pointless. This is the Fantasy Hero forum. Most Heroic Talents/Super Skills/Fighting Stunts come under 10 points to begin with because they are also heavily Limited. Which puts them in the same arena as buying Skills, Skill Levels, Maneuvers and combinations thereof.

 

It's tiresome and circular.

 

If your argument is to hold any water at all - or have ANY relevance you would also argue that no Equipment at all should be free. Ever. After all the sword swinger gets a 30 Active Point sword for free. Or a cop gets those Handcuffs and gun for free (Entangle and RKA). Take that play style to the Champions forum please.

 

GA that is one of the reasons why I went the route of skill familiarities for spells as well. In my campaign, casters have to pay points for a perk just to cast spells. Then, they have to pay points for the skill to actually cast the spell, along with another skill to represent their knowledge and understanding. All skills are at the "school", or as I call it "source", level. I did not want to punish them even further by making spells expensive to purchase as well, even at the divide by 3 rate... All of this, more than makes up the favorable cost advantages for the ability to cast spells.

 

All of the above, I do not see a sword wielder having to purchase. All they have to pay, is a WF for the weapon or weapons they chose to use...

 

Since disads do not matter in the cost, I use them in a different manner. The level of casting perk determines how many disadvantages are required for you to cast spells. If you chose to do more, then you get bonuses to cast the spell. You could take extra time, put more END into the spell, and other standard troupes of casting... The only disads that I require are the ones that makes sense to the description of the spell, at no bonus. As an example, if you had 'meld with shadow', you need to have shadows around you to meld with with...

 

In my campaign, I do not allow spells to cause more damage than weapons. Casters must pay END to cast every spell.. I do not allow AoE, without also having the caster pay LTE for it. I do allow for ritual magic, where multiple casters can group together to accomplish what one could not do themselves. I did a lot of this for flavor for the campaign. By doing this, I reinforce the necessity for armies and siege equipment...

 

What does the caster gain? He gains versatility.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

CSL and +DC: Maybe it's just my own pet peeve but Adding Damage is much easier if you use Base Points instead of Active Points (like Range does in H6e now). IMO it's ridiculous and needlessly complicated to have Active Points figure into Adding Damage like they do -- it adds nothing to the game but hassle and takes away logic and simplicity, sad that H6e didn't take the opportunity to expunge this blight from the game system.

 

Particularly here in a Spell Skill system like this that de-emphasizes Active and Real Points, I think it would be far better off with +2 CSL = +1 DC plain and simple.

 

YMMV.

 

I've been thinking about this, and I think for a Heroic campaign if you implemented the Optional "cannot be more than doubled" rule for all attacks that this would work splendidly. It's far too uncomplicated to fail miserably. If I can't run a game soon I may try and convince a GM to try it out and see how it works.

[薔薇語]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

Something that struck me just now about this was "dispels." How would the various schools of magic deal with Dispels? Maybe certain schools get a natural advantage or limitation against other schools? I.e., the classic Chinese paradigm where one element is strong vs one and weak vs another. Also, skill Spells offer a interesting mechanism: Skill vs Skill checks. Why would a wizard want to increase their roll on any given spell past the "almost assured success?" Because a powerful wizard with a low "craft light" spell can lose it to a weak wizard with a mighty dispel. .

 

Anyway, just more food for thought.

 

La Rose.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

Depends on the GM and how they see SFX Interaction really.

 

In one game I ran there was no "Dispel Magic" - but all Magic came from one Element or another (the four classic, plus others such as Light/Dark and so on). Certain schools had counter magics to certain other shools, there was no ubiquitous "Counter that school" type spell though. The Water School could put out flame cast by the Fire School, but had no way to "interrupt/dispel" something like a Firebolt.

 

I find that without reliable anti-magic or all-compassing anti-magic that magic retains the Powerful & Mysterious feel I like it having.

[Vondy]

Re: Spells As Skills

 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. To the best of my knowledge' date=' Vondy's system you refer to is a modified version of Magecraft, if its what I think it is.[/quote']

 

The first skill based magic system I did was a modified version of your magecraft system. Basically, the skill name provided the sfx while the skill roll modified by a multiplier provided the AP that could be used with the spell. For instance, if the modifier was X3 then Fireball 11- would provide a 33 AP fireball. That could be a straight 6.5 d6 EB or a 4d6+1 EB EX depending on what the player wanted to whip out. It was intended to be used loosely without calculators coming out so a point or two here or there while doing the math on the fly wasn't fretted about. In the spirit of a fast and dirty system I applied two principles: 1) you only make skill rolls in unusual circumstances, and 2) you only apply AP pens if you want to use more active points than your skill roll X multiplier would ordinarily allow with the difference providing the negative penalty. I allotted -1 per 5 AP. So, if Fireball 11- boy wanted a 10d6 EB (50 AP) he'd have to roll 33-50 = -17. Rouding in his favor he'd take a -3 roll, which would give him an 8- chance. If you have a few spells it made sense to buy the rolls up. If you had a lot of them it made sense to buy skill levels with magic, or PSLs vs. active point pens (I generally use a skill maxima of 14-).