Eldritch Wizardry VPP

[Matt the Bruins]

Hey gang, just asking for feedback on a couple of alternate builds for a character's Magic Pool. The basic premise is that the character is a pretty powerful and accomplished sorcerer, whose strongest spells involve nature magic and manipulating the classical elements of antiquity.

 

The first build is the simpler one, and more or less how I set up the previous iteration under 5th Edition rules:

135

Eldritch Wizardry:

Variable Power Pool, 105 Pool +105 Control Cost; Only Magic (-1/4), Only Nature or Elemental Powers Can Exceed 75 Active Points (-1/4), Variable Limitations (requires -1/2 worth of Limitations chosen from Concentration, Extra Time, Focus, Gestures, Incantations, and Requires A Roll; -1/4)

 

The second build takes into account that in 6th Edition Control Cost has been uncoupled from the Pool itself, and can be bought with different values:

139

Eldritch Wizardry:

Variable Power Pool, 105 Pool +75 Control Cost; Only Magic (-1/4), Variable Limitations (requires -1/2 worth of Limitations chosen from Concentration, Extra Time, Focus, Gestures, Incantations, and Requires A Roll; -1/4);

plus

+30 Control Cost; Only Elemental Or Nature Magic (-1/2), Variable Limitations (requires -1/2 worth of Limitations chosen from Concentration, Extra Time, Focus, Gestures, Incantations, and Requires A Roll; -1/4)

The second approach seems clunkier, but may be more technically correct under the new rules. What do you think?

[Lucius]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

Hey gang, just asking for feedback on a couple of alternate builds for a character's Magic Pool. The basic premise is that the character is a pretty powerful and accomplished sorcerer, whose strongest spells involve nature magic and manipulating the classical elements of antiquity.

 

The first build is the simpler one, and more or less how I set up the previous iteration under 5th Edition rules:

135

Eldritch Wizardry:

Variable Power Pool, 105 Pool +105 Control Cost; Only Magic (-1/4), Only Nature or Elemental Powers Can Exceed 75 Active Points (-1/4), Variable Limitations (requires -1/2 worth of Limitations chosen from Concentration, Extra Time, Focus, Gestures, Incantations, and Requires A Roll; -1/4)

 

The second build takes into account that in 6th Edition Control Cost has been uncoupled from the Pool itself, and can be bought with different values:

139

Eldritch Wizardry:

Variable Power Pool, 105 Pool +75 Control Cost; Only Magic (-1/4), Variable Limitations (requires -1/2 worth of Limitations chosen from Concentration, Extra Time, Focus, Gestures, Incantations, and Requires A Roll; -1/4);

plus

+30 Control Cost; Only Elemental Or Nature Magic (-1/2), Variable Limitations (requires -1/2 worth of Limitations chosen from Concentration, Extra Time, Focus, Gestures, Incantations, and Requires A Roll; -1/4)

The second approach seems clunkier, but may be more technically correct under the new rules. What do you think?

 

I think the second approach is LESS "clunky."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Palindromedary Enterprises

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

I think the second approach is preferable. Under the first approach, I would only allow the "only nature/elemental" limitation against the portion of the control cost it applied to anyway.

 

I would, however, consider the possibility that the limitation for "only nature or elemental magic" should be higher than -1/2, especially when "magic only" is already accepted as -1/4. How many other options are given up by restricting to only elemental/nature?

 

I also note the result is a wizard who must take a full phase to try to reallocate his pool and, if he fails, will still have the spells he was trying to shift away from available for his use. Is that the intended result?

[Nevenall]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

I third the second approch. Totally the way I would do it.

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

I also note the result is a wizard who must take a full phase to try to reallocate his pool and' date=' if he fails, will still have the spells he was trying to shift away from available for his use. Is that the intended result?[/quote']

 

Yeah, it's supposed to be more primitive and time-consuming than super-mage thaumaturgy; I'm thinking invocations to various gods and spirits and the like (even if only mentally for powers that aren't assigned the Incantations Limitation).

 

The Limitations chart for VPPs has Elemental Magic under the -1/2 Limited Class option, so that seemed the appropriate one to pick for the upper range of the Control Cost.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

The Limitations chart for VPPs has Elemental Magic under the -1/2 Limited Class option' date=' so that seemed the appropriate one to pick for the upper range of the Control Cost.[/quote']

 

I find it preferable to assess what the character cannot do with the VPP (which he could do without the limitation) in assessing the limited class limitation. In your example, the character saves 2 points by limiting the last 30 AP of control cost to elemental magic instead of magic only, paying 10 points instead of 12 points. What has he given up? If he's given up half the things he could have done with the VPP in order to save 1/6 of the cvost, I'd suggest the limitation is underpriced. If, however, the lost versatility is fairly limited, then the extra -1/4 seems reasonable.

 

Part of the problem is that "magic only" limitation - what, exactly, does "magic only" prevent the VPP from simulating? Every power needs SFX, so wouldn't a "Magic VPP" start at a -0, just like a "Power Cosmic" VPP?

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

Magic in general is a broad enough special effect that there really aren't many powers that are inappropriate to use... maybe Cyberkinesis, Extra-Dimensional Movement to parallel timelines, Projection into VR environments and the like. Back in 5th Ed I never assigned that limitation to really versatile magic pools, but now that it's been codified into the basic VPP rules themselves I tend to view it as less restricting which powers can be used and more indicating relative vulnerability to things like Magic Damage Resistance and other powers bought with Only Works Against Magic Limitations.

 

It's that or find myself scowling uncontrollably every time I see characters like Takofanes who've taken the limitation.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

Magic in general is a broad enough special effect that there really aren't many powers that are inappropriate to use... maybe Cyberkinesis' date=' Extra-Dimensional Movement to parallel timelines, Projection into VR environments and the like. Back in 5th Ed I never assigned that limitation to really versatile magic pools, but now that it's been codified into the basic VPP rules themselves I tend to view it as less restricting which powers can be used and more indicating relative vulnerability to things like Magic Damage Resistance and other powers bought with [i']Only Works Against Magic[/i] Limitations.

 

It's that or find myself scowling uncontrollably every time I see characters like Takofanes who've taken the limitation.

 

To me, it's about making it a limitation. How you do that will vary. In some games, Magic is a common enough SFX that a disproportionate number of abilities, adjustment powers especially, target it, which justifies the SFX in part.

 

I also rule that "Magic Only" means that the SFX are magic, and magic alone. You cannot use Variable SFX. Your FireBolt does not trigger fire-based vulnerabilities because it is Magic Fire (and thus somehow different from Normal Fire). And, as you note, there are some things that Magic simply cannot do. What those are could vary by game, or by mage. However, if the difference between "magic only" and "no limit" is 1/4, and the difference between "magic only" and "elemental and nature magic only" is a further -1/4, then each step should impose a roughly equal incremental restriction on the VPP.

 

Between myself and the player, we would define what "only magic" means. If it means "I can do anything as long as I call it Magic", then that is not a limitation.

[SirViss]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

In my last campaign, the way I made the "Magic Only" limitation on a VPP function was that a power could have 2 SFX. (In my case it was weather effect and Magic). For a fire spell, it would trigger Vulnerability to fire and Magic, but would also be susceptible to Drains and Dipels for Magic and fire. I find that this is more of a disadvantage than an advantage, though not a by that much.

 

With this philosophy in mind, I decided that the limitation would have the suggested value, but if I joined a campaign as a player and I had chosen that limitation, but the GM said that it was a "-0" limitation I would not argue (much).

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

To me, it's about making it a limitation. How you do that will vary. In some games, Magic is a common enough SFX that a disproportionate number of abilities, adjustment powers especially, target it, which justifies the SFX in part.

 

I also rule that "Magic Only" means that the SFX are magic, and magic alone. You cannot use Variable SFX. Your FireBolt does not trigger fire-based vulnerabilities because it is Magic Fire (and thus somehow different from Normal Fire). And, as you note, there are some things that Magic simply cannot do. What those are could vary by game, or by mage. However, if the difference between "magic only" and "no limit" is 1/4, and the difference between "magic only" and "elemental and nature magic only" is a further -1/4, then each step should impose a roughly equal incremental restriction on the VPP.

 

Between myself and the player, we would define what "only magic" means. If it means "I can do anything as long as I call it Magic", then that is not a limitation.

I think there's a problem with your example of "magic fire" not setting off a vulnerability because it comes from a "magic only VPP". The problem being that that reasoning doesn't hold true if you change the SFX. If a gadgetteer has a VPP with a "Technology Only" Limitation, does his flame thrower not set off fire vulnerabilities because the SFX is really "Technology"?

[Ice9]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

139 Eldritch Wizardry: Variable Power Pool, 105 Pool +75 Control Cost; Only Magic (-1/4), Variable Limitations (requires -1/2 worth of Limitations chosen from Concentration, Extra Time, Focus, Gestures, Incantations, and Requires A Roll; -1/4); plus +30 Control Cost; Only Elemental Or Nature Magic (-1/2), Variable Limitations (requires -1/2 worth of Limitations chosen from Concentration, Extra Time, Focus, Gestures, Incantations, and Requires A Roll; -1/4)

If all your slots will have a -1/2 in limitations, and you don't plan to have more than 105 AP worth of powers running at once, then your pool only needs to be 70 points (the real cost of a 105 AP power with -1/2 in limitations). Even if those limitations are in the form of Variable Limitations (fairly pointless for a VPP, but I guess it could be slightly useful if you set it to an instant power and then used that repeatedly), you still only need an 84 point pool.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

I think there's a problem with your example of "magic fire" not setting off a vulnerability because it comes from a "magic only VPP". The problem being that that reasoning doesn't hold true if you change the SFX. If a gadgetteer has a VPP with a "Technology Only" Limitation' date=' does his flame thrower not set off fire vulnerabilities because the SFX is really "Technology"?[/quote']

 

That depends. Is the "technloogy only" VPP limited in other ways, such that I don't need to impose a "1 SFX and 1 SFX only" restriction to justify the point savings for the restriction?

 

What can't your Technology only VPP do? What can't your Magic Only VPP do? The "single SFX" is one approach to limiting what the Magic Only VPP can do. If it can do everything a VPP with no such limitation could do, then that limitation should not reduce the cost - it is not, in fact, limiting the power.

[Ice9]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

IMO, the "Magic Only" limitation only makes sense in a setting where "magic" has some defined limits. Having a particular SFX could be a limitation, but only if the campaign has a lot more things that stop that SFX than are vulnerable to it. For instance, in D&D, there's Detect Magic, Dispel Magic, Anti-Magic Fields, Spell Resistance, and Magic Immunity - but very few things that are vulnerable to magic.

[Chimera 12]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

I agree, Only Magic as a Limitation greater than -0 on the pool only makes sense if that does limit you somehow -- say, in a fantasy or "mystic masters" campaign where defenses, Dispels, and so on vs. magic are fairly common. In a regular superhero game where a Magic VPP is basically "I can do anything as long as I call it a spell", Only Magic isn't really limiting (and if your sorcerer-type character needs to gesture, incant, or concentrate to use his or her pool powers, well, those are Limitations in their own right).

 

For comparison purposes, consider that the other example -1/4 Limitation listed is "Only Attacks"...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

For comparison purposes' date=' consider that the other example -1/4 Limitation listed is "Only Attacks"...[/quote']

 

I'd say that's far too low, as a lot of flexibility is given up. It is certainly not a marginal decrease in utility.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

IMO most (or maybe even all, though I understand 6E has relaxed the wording a little bit) VPPs should be somewhat SFX-limited by default, so "Magic Only" is a part of the VPP definition, not a Limitation at all.

[Chimera 12]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

I'd say that's far too low' date=' as a lot of flexibility is given up. It is certainly not a marginal decrease in utility.[/quote']

 

While it's true that giving up all those defensive and utility options kind of hurts, an "Attacks Only" pool still isn't the kind of thing you want to make too cheap for obvious reasons. Among them the facts that it lets you customize your attacks to whatever enemy you're facing on reasonably short notice and that the formal list of Attack Powers on 6E1 144 is actually still fairly diverse and impressive.

 

I don't know that I, personally, would feel comfortable setting that Limitation even as high as -1/2. There's still lots of potential for a suitably sneaky player not afraid to push it to its legitimate limits here. Thus -1/4 on the Control Cost actually does feel about right, to me.

[Ice9]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

I still think it's a lot more than -1/4. By limiting it to "Only Attacks", even with a wide concept of "attacks", you're still giving up:

* Travel/Mobility options.

* Defense.

* Healing/Boosting.

* Information gathering.

* Stealth/Illusions.

* And lots of niche utility powers.

 

If the VPP was already limited, "Only Energy Control", for instance, then also limiting to "Only Attacks" would probably only be worth a further -1/4. But when it's "Only Attacks" and otherwise unlimited, you're comparing it to a "Cosmic Power" VPP that can do anything from raise the dead to make you a sandwich. Which is not something most characters should have, but that doesn't mean we should undervalue limitations on it.

[Chimera 12]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

Okay, the nominal list of "Attack Powers" as per 6E1 144 is as follows:

 

Blast

Change Environment

Characteristics (STR only)

Darkness

Dispel

Drain

Entangle

Flash

Hand-To-Hand Attack

Images

Killing Attack

Mental Blast

Mental Illusions

Mind Control

Reflection

Telekinesis

Transform

Powers with the Usable As Attack Advantage

 

Limited selection, relative to "all powers"? Sure. There'll be things you won't easily be able to do with this kind of pool. Limited enough to warrant more than -1/4, in and of itself? You be the judge -- I for one still see plenty of utility value in here, especially with the character free to customize his or her 'attacks'.

[Ice9]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

Sure, there's plenty of utility value there. But it's definitely a subset of the utility you can get otherwise. Would you say that "Not Attacks" was anywhere close to a -4 limitation? Or even -2?

 

I just don't think defense, healing, illusions, survival in strange conditions, transportation, scrying, and aiding people are collectively "less than a quarter" of what you would do with an unlimited VPP.

The question is not "can you still do plenty with only attacks"? It's "can you do almost as much with only attacks as you can with no limits?".

[Chimera 12]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

Sure' date=' there's plenty of utility value there. But it's definitely a subset of the utility you can get otherwise. Would you say that "Not Attacks" was anywhere [i']close[/i] to a -4 limitation? Or even -2?

 

I just don't think defense, healing, illusions, survival in strange conditions, transportation, scrying, and aiding people are collectively "less than a quarter" of what you would do with an unlimited VPP.

The question is not "can you still do plenty with only attacks"? It's "can you do almost as much with only attacks as you can with no limits?".

I can't think of anything right now that I'd call a -4 Limitation (well, maybe something along the lines of "Character dies, no save, standard means of resurrection will not work"...), and I'd be generally wary of giving out as much as -2 for any one Limitation just on principle. That's because, while it's easy to look at powers in a hypothetical vacuum and say "well, obviously a Blast that only affects Demons is horrendously more limited than one that can damage anything", in practice players (a) can be expected to get creative in working around their characters' limitations -- which is actually a good thing, but means those limitations can easily end up not being quite as limiting as they look -- and ( will naturally expect to see a return on their invested points. That "Blast only vs. Demons" could all too easily belong to a character who's a dedicated hunter of said beings (which will of course exist in this campaign and play at least an occasional role, otherwise the player shouldn't have to pay points for it at all) and for whom it'll be convenient to be able to hit them while not risking harm to innocents or collateral damage in general...

 

With regards to the "Attack Pool" we're discussing here, remember that last point: "Powers with the Usable As Attack Advantage". This character wants to fly? He can! He just has to define his Flight as an attack and hit himself with it rather than anybody else -- it won't be as point-effective as buying the power straight, but I'd certainly consider it a valid use of the pool.

[Ice9]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

I can't think of anything right now that I'd call a -4 Limitation

RAR 7-? While limitations above -2 look "big", they actually have diminishing effects - by the time you pass -3, even another -1 or -2 isn't saving you many points.

 

I'd agree that "Not Attacks" is not even close to a -4 limitation though, and while there are some cases where the parts cost more than the whole, it seems pretty iffy to say that non-attacks are simultaneously a major useful thing (No Attacks at -1 or lower), and also a minor perk that's less than a quarter of the total effectiveness (Only Attacks at -1/4).

 

 

But I'd say the main point is this:

Disregarding any concept reasons, would you give up using non-attack powers for a 20% break in cost (on just the control cost, so probably more like 7-10%), amounting to probably 10-15 points on a 75-90p pool?

If not, then the limitation is undervalued, because limiting things to fit a concept should not penalize you mechanically.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

Ice9 nails it for me. If "Only attacks" is -1/4, "not attacks" must be an extremely high limitation. And no, he cannot take "flight, usable as an attack" and use it for beenficial purposes. His VPP is only for attacks, not only for mechanics that are called Attacks.

[dmjalund]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

I think the idea that "Only A" + "Not A" = 1 is not completely appropriate.

as characters are adaptable and can perform actions that minimize the limitations, so I generally think that "Only A" + "Not A" should be > 1

by how much is dependent on how much characters can adapt to the limitations.

[Chimera 12]

Re: Eldritch Wizardry VPP

 

Ice9 nails it for me. If "Only attacks" is -1/4' date=' "not attacks" must be an extremely high limitation. And no, he cannot take "flight, usable as an attack" and use it for beenficial purposes. His VPP is only for attacks, not only for mechanics that are called Attacks.[/quote']

 

Well, I was working from the more or less canonical list of Attack Powers in part because it was the first thing that came to mind as a possible definition of "okay, exactly what can I have in here?". If you're going to randomly snip off parts of that or otherwise define "attacks" more narrowly, then it may indeed be a larger Limitation -- conversely, if "attacks" were "anything that requires an Attack roll", you'd be even less limited as there are 'non-Attack Powers' that do.

 

Regarding Flight with UAA -- if the character can get that out of this Pool to use on enemies, then he can use it on himself or on allies. Just like he could use a regular 10d6 Blast to hit himself or them with if he really wanted.