Spell Multipliers in 6e?

[Michael Hopcroft]

I'm curious about a question for which there probably won't be an answer for several months: will mages get access to the Spell Multipliers they could use in 5e Fantasy Hero in the 6e version later this year?

 

I understand and even agree with some of the arguments against it. It's not generally a good idea to openly discourage players from taking non-spellcasters by relatively under-powering fighters and skill-users. On the other hand, it seems hare to get a decent variety of spells on a budget of 125+75 points.

 

Thoughts, anyone? And please don't think of this as an attempt to read Steve's mind. His psionic resistance is too strong for that!

[Jkeown]

Re: Spell Multipliers in 6e?

 

In the Advanced Players Guide (I think) he suggests using a 0.2 multiplier to level the field against folks who don't pay points for equipment. Spells in this instance cost more like skills. We're using it in my Urban Fantasy HERO game and it seems to work.

 

Though that rule may be in 6E2, in the equipment section... do not have the books in front of me.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Spell Multipliers in 6e?

 

Since I don't think Turakian Age is going to get any kind of 6E conversion one would assume that the 1/3 Cost for Spells in that setting would stay in place when/if one were to update it to 6E for home use.

 

On that note - I don't see why the concept of a Spell Multiplier wouldn't be present in 6E FH as one presentation on how to create spells mechanically. It's just another method among dozens.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: Spell Multipliers in 6e?

 

In the Advanced Players Guide (I think) he suggests using a 0.2 multiplier to level the field against folks who don't pay points for equipment. Spells in this instance cost more like skills. We're using it in my Urban Fantasy HERO game and it seems to work.

 

I saw the opposite problem in leveling the playing field -- making spellcasters so powerful that nobody will want to play anything else. So there's a balance there that needs to be taken into account.

 

Though that rule may be in 6E2, in the equipment section... do not have the books in front of me.

 

I'll have to look that up. I DO have the books handy, both on my PC and on my top shelf.

[Old Man]

Re: Spell Multipliers in 6e?

 

"Balance" winds up being too vague a word, really. Spellcasters can do things that mundanes can't; that's the point, obviously. FH spellcasters tend to have two problems--first, they can often wind up doing the mundanes' jobs in the group better than they can; and second, they can often become Swiss army knives that can do anything and everything (especially if MPs and VPPs are available).

[Curufea]

Re: Spell Multipliers in 6e?

 

Plus they can often also use the point-free equipment everyone else uses.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: Spell Multipliers in 6e?

 

The sorcerer-swordsman archetype seems to be alive and well in Hero, especially at higher point levels. I'm doing some character modeling in 6e in a context where the points don't matter. A really good swordsman (or swordswoman) might have spell-like qualities and even powers such as the super-techniques in Martial Arts. In fact, I used some Martial Arts super-abilities as models for the more devastating combat spells (the Ch'i fireballs in particular).

 

Of course, the 6e Grimoire will probably have even more spellcasty goodness. Even on the high end of the scale. Where Champions Powers might also help as well on the high end for "super-fantasy".

 

Of course, in a super-fantasy game you pay points for your weapons so you don;t have quite the same balance problems as you do in Heroic campaigns.

[Old Man]

Re: Spell Multipliers in 6e?

 

Exactly. In high fantasy campaigns everyone has access to the powers list; in medium to low only the spellcasters do.

 

The 1/3 spell multiplier from Turakian Age works all right, but it's kind of a blunt instrument. It does sort of achieve balance between spellcasters and mundanes. It still has two major problems, though. The first is that it's too granular. By the time I throw all the limitations onto a spell that I'm going to throw, the real cost would typically be anywhere from 5 to 8; if I am then going to divide by 3 and round, you can be damn sure I'm taking some of those lims off and making the real cost come out to 4, 7, or 10.

 

The second problem is that it still doesn't prevent the combat mage from outperforming most other types of character. I'm not against the concept in general, but if mages can already do all kinds of things that fighters and rogues can't do, it's sort of unfair if they can also fight and sneak better as well. From a face-time-balance standpoint, spellcasters in low-medium fantasy should tend to be more suited to a support role, and combat mages should have to really specialize in combat magery in order to contend with martial artists and tanks.

 

The third problem is that it does nothing to stop the One Big Spell artillery piece archetype. You know, the one who has a decent forcefield, a 4d6k 0 end autofire zorch ray, and maybe flight or something to "round out" the spell list.

 

The fourth problem is that Hero powers are costed badly for fantasy, but that's a separate discussion.

 

I guess that's more than two problems.

[ajackson]

Re: Spell Multipliers in 6e?

 

One way to get the 'spell multipliers' effect in 6e is to just assume that all characters have a moderate size (45 active points is probably sufficient in fantasy) multipower. A warrior fills that multipower with weapons (and maybe a shield), a mage fills it with spells. You can pretty much ignore point costs for weapons and rule that weapon proficiencies cover them, most weapons will be 1 point slots anyway, and you're getting 1/10 cost for spells up to the desired size.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: Spell Multipliers in 6e?

 

That is an interesting approach. I don't know if I agree with it, but Rep to you for the suggestion.

[Old Man]

Re: Spell Multipliers in 6e?

 

It reads a bit like a penalty for the mundanes to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

[Escafarc]

Re: Spell Multipliers in 6e?

 

I use Resource Points for all my "Heroic" level games. Spell casters buy their spells with those points with no dividing the Real Cost. All PCs can increase their Pool by 5/1CP spent. This might not work in "D&D/Dungencrawl" type games where the one who dies with the most toys wins though.

[Lezentauw]

Re: Spell Multipliers in 6e?

 

I prefer Spell Familiarities. I believe that the cost for learning to cast the spell should be the same as learning how to wield a weapon. Once you set the costs for spells as a Spell Familiarity, you need to look at other costs, to help balance everything out.

 

I require a caster to purchase a talent at creation to be able to cast spells. This has to be done at creation, as it defines whether or not a character is born with the ability to cast spells.

 

I use different skill rolls for the different sources of magic. I do this to represent that not all mages can cast from all sources of magic, and even if they could, they are not equally as good with each source of magic. A caster then has to pay points for the different schools to cast the spells and then they still have to pay points for OCV to hit with those spells.

 

I require all spells to be built the same. I use the alternate rule in the APG for skill rolls, to show that a better skilled mage can increase the potential of the spell.

 

Since a person only pays 1 pt to learn a spell, disadvantages could become ignored if you allowed them to in this system. What I do to handle that, if a disadvantage is required for the special affect, it still has to be built into it. The other disadvantages, like gestures, incantations and extra time can be used to increase the caster ability to cast the spell. Right now I have the talents set up so a caster is required to have certain crutches, if he is not that strong of a mage. The more powerful the caster, the less number of crutches is needed. If a caster tries to cast a spell without a crutch, he gets a penalty. This is a bit thinking out of the box, but it does seem to work for me...

 

 

So while the spells are cheap, in this system, there are other factors that increase the costs. I have not tried this with High Fantasy, nor with the amount of points for High Fantasy. So I could not say how it would work.