Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

[DRThrush]

On another thread I saw the suggestion to use the Turakian Age standard of dividing the real cost by 3 to determine the actual cost to the player. I've not tried anything like this and I wonder how it worked out in games where it has been used.

 

Please share your opinions and experiences.

 

Thanks,

-Dave

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

I use Multipower for Spells. Problem solved.

[Nolgroth]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

On another thread I saw the suggestion to use the Turakian Age standard of dividing the real cost by 3 to determine the actual cost to the player. I've not tried anything like this and I wonder how it worked out in games where it has been used.

 

Please share your opinions and experiences.

It works out fairly well. Like NuSoardGraphite's solution, except for the distinct lack of a "pool" to base max AP costs on.

 

For myself, I used the Turakian Age magic system in a side adventure. I didn't see any overt abuse or weakness in it. I may use it in an upcoming project I am planning. Not going to talk about that much, as I tend to have a lot more projects on the "Unfinished" stack than I do the "Completed" stack.

[Old Man]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

I was a fan of using ECs for spells, which I guess is not an option in 6th, but I seem to have been the only one anyway. I found that ECs gave about a 50% cost break while also encouraging players to buy spells of similar power levels. I am used to stacking all kinds of limitations on spells, so to me 1/3 is a really huge cost break, and I never liked that it was arbitrary and deviated from what I considered the rules of the game to be. It is simple, though, so it has that going for it.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

It works out fairly well. Like NuSoardGraphite's solution' date=' except for the distinct lack of a "pool" to base max AP costs on.[/quote']

 

 

I like the pool in the multipower as a gauge of how much "Magical Power" the PC can manipulate. The higher the MP pool, the more magically powerful the character is. It makes perfect sense to me. A Variable Power Pool system works similarlly.

 

The fact that the individual slots in the pool cost 1/5 or 1/10 of their max active points (then apply limitations) makes it so purchasing individual spells isnt too costly. Its perfect for those games where you don't mind wizards that have access to a ton of magical spells as in AD&D, Rolemaster and other typical fantasy RPG's. It also limits the amount of magic a character can have active all at once, which is a big plus in my book.

[Ternaugh]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

I used the /3 method in my FH campaign the last time that I ran it. I didn't really have any problems, though I'm thinking of modeling my next campaign's magic a little more like Tuala Morn.

 

JoeG

[Wolf]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

I used the spells as skills method, I gave my player (had one mage in that game) his choice of spell and version of the spell, I think they were priced (in points) with the active points/10, then +1/2 points (as normal skill levels). Then they paid the difference in the roll if they wanted to modify the effect of the spell (IE, they bought the basic version of the spell for AP/10, but would pay difference (in penalty to the casting roll) between the two, made weaker versions easier to cast, and harder versions more costly. Worked well. He was also the only one I used End rules with, so that limited him in that way. In my Heroic games I normally don't use End... But they can't buy them off.

 

I don't know if I made sense or not... but there it is.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

I use Multipower for Spells. Problem solved.

 

This.

 

Or a VPP.

 

The TA "divide by 3" thing always annoyed me to no end, as did the "INT / 5" active spells. HERO already has ways to limit active spells and handle real costs: in the MP and VPP frameworks.

[Old Man]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

Agreed, though if you want to avoid the swiss-army-knife-mage phenomenon, you need to enforce a couple of additional limitations on the MP or VPP.

[JmOz]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

I like the pool in the multipower as a gauge of how much "Magical Power" the PC can manipulate. The higher the MP pool, the more magically powerful the character is. It makes perfect sense to me. A Variable Power Pool system works similarlly.

 

The fact that the individual slots in the pool cost 1/5 or 1/10 of their max active points (then apply limitations) makes it so purchasing individual spells isnt too costly. Its perfect for those games where you don't mind wizards that have access to a ton of magical spells as in AD&D, Rolemaster and other typical fantasy RPG's. It also limits the amount of magic a character can have active all at once, which is a big plus in my book.

 

This is what I do in practice

[Bismark]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

Having tried both 'Divide by 3' (for 3 years) and Multipowers (for 1 year) in my High Fantasy games so far, I would tend towards the Multipower option, with common Limitations on the MultiPower to enforce the sort of mages you want.

 

In THIS thread :

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/77763-Rolemaster-Magic-Conversions?p=1965786#post1965786

 

I posted some of my characters from a game where I was working off Rolemaster-style mages and priests - feel free to make use of them as examples.

 

These were 5th edition characters rather than 6td edition characters, so the terminology is slightly different (fixed Multipower slots often used to be called 'ultra' slots, for instance) and were 200pts or thereabouts, so the actual power level may be a bit more than you want for starting PCs.

 

The 'Divide by 3' option is the easiest for beignning FH GMs, but it does suffer from some 'side-effects' - for example, if you want inherent powers for Paladins, etc, they has better be bought as Spells of some kind or they will be overpriced by comparison to 'actual' spells since they do not benefit from the divisor. [i bought a cleric's Turn Undead ablity as a spell for precisely that reason]

[Eldos]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

The big problem I have with spells in a fantasy campaign is that spells cost while swords don't. In a standard heroic game - which I'm guessing most fantasy campaigns would be - you don't pay for gear. So even by limiting a 2d6 ranged killing attack spell up that wazoo it will still cost, buying a crossbow costs NO points. So the fighter can spend those points on something else.

[Wolf]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

Ghost Angel had a thread around here that, I think, if I remember right, had spells as proficiencies, much like weapon proficiencies.

 

Here: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/77454-Spells-As-Skills

[Nolgroth]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

I like the pool in the multipower as a gauge of how much "Magical Power" the PC can manipulate. The higher the MP pool, the more magically powerful the character is. It makes perfect sense to me. A Variable Power Pool system works similarlly.

 

The fact that the individual slots in the pool cost 1/5 or 1/10 of their max active points (then apply limitations) makes it so purchasing individual spells isnt too costly. Its perfect for those games where you don't mind wizards that have access to a ton of magical spells as in AD&D, Rolemaster and other typical fantasy RPG's. It also limits the amount of magic a character can have active all at once, which is a big plus in my book.

I was just pointing out the difference between /3 and Multipower. Wasn't espousing any particular preference.

 

All things being equal and I wanted to use a Power Framework, I would probably use a 6E VPP for spells. Keep the Control cost about where I want it to limit AP and allow the Pool Cost to grow as necessary to accommodate the ability to cast more spells at once over the course of the game. A Multipower would be a perfectly acceptable alternative to this.

[Ragnarok]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

The big problem I have with spells in a fantasy campaign is that spells cost while swords don't. In a standard heroic game - which I'm guessing most fantasy campaigns would be - you don't pay for gear. So even by limiting a 2d6 ranged killing attack spell up that wazoo it will still cost' date=' buying a crossbow costs NO points. So the fighter can spend those points on something else.[/quote']

 

Yes, but you must consider that said crossbow can run out of ammo, be stolen, broken, or otherwise rendered useless. A magic system may rule that since magic is the means by which the 2d6 RKA is effected, it can not be "taken away" unless you specify a focus, which lowers the cost, or some bad guy runs up and plunges a crystal of antimagic into the bloke's chest. Hmm....I may have to use that....

 

Anyway, the point is that spellcasters can get "RKA insurance" whereas said fighter does not. The cost of spells depends on how much insurance that caster has.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

Yes' date=' but you must consider that said crossbow can run out of ammo[/quote']

 

Limitation: charges

 

' date=' be stolen, broken, or otherwise rendered useless.[/quote']

 

Limitation: Focus

 

A magic system may rule that since magic is the means by which the 2d6 RKA is effected, it can not be "taken away" unless you specify a focus, which lowers the cost, or some bad guy runs up and plunges a crystal of antimagic into the bloke's chest. Hmm....I may have to use that....

 

Anyway, the point is that spellcasters can get "RKA insurance" whereas said fighter does not. The cost of spells depends on how much insurance that caster has.

 

But the caster whose 2d6 RKA Spell has an OAF focus (like a Crossbow) and 12 charges (like a crossbow and 12 bolts) pays 13 points (4 if we divide by 3), where the crossbow weilder gets his crossbow for free.

 

It may get a bit more equitable if we let the spellcaster use a framework. Adding that spell to a Multipower costs 1 point (assuming a fixed slot) and WF: Crossbow costs 1 point. But I can use the crossbow at a penalty even without WF - I can't use the spell without paying for it.

[Markdoc]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

The big problem I have with spells in a fantasy campaign is that spells cost while swords don't. In a standard heroic game - which I'm guessing most fantasy campaigns would be - you don't pay for gear. So even by limiting a 2d6 ranged killing attack spell up that wazoo it will still cost' date=' buying a crossbow costs NO points. So the fighter can spend those points on something else.[/quote']

 

Right - but the fighter - with his free weapons - will still get his ass handed to him in a fight by a magic user simply because of the vast range of powers available to the mage - especially since the mage will likely be using free gear too. To make it even close to a fair fight, you need to limit the mages, not make them more powerful.

 

The people who worry about this are discussing a theoretical problem - to a man (or woman) they don't actually run FH games. In an actual game the ability to be invulnerable or invisible, or fly, or generate an RKA far more deadly than a crossbow, outweigh the fact that warriors get low defences and small KAs for free.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

Anyway' date=' the point is that spellcasters can get "RKA insurance" whereas said fighter does not. The cost of spells depends on how much insurance that caster has.[/quote']

 

More t the point - and far simpler - is that the mage can very easily render crossbow guy irrelevant. Who cares if your foe has a 2d6 RKA, if you are invisible? Or Desolid? Or can generate a 10 PD barrier? While you can have a 2d6RKA, no ramge modifier, so you can kill him long before he gets in range. Or a 1/2d6 RKA AVAD, Indirect, so you can kill him at your leisure from behind your magical shield. Or a simple TK spell so you can lift him 50 metres in the air and then drop him Or more mundanely, just use magic to make him ineffective and use your own crossbow.

 

Even if they are on the same team, if magic guy can do something as effective as yer standard fantasy fireball, crossbow guy is going to spending his time buffing his nails and pouting, unless magic guy is constrained in some way*: having extra points to spend on CSLs doesn't cut it when the other guy has explosion or area affect on his 2d6 RKA.

 

cheers, Mark

 

*In D&D, for example, they make him physically weaker, remove his ability to use armour and weapons and ensure he only has a limited number of charges per day .... and he's still generally more effective.

[Lezentauw]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

More t the point - and far simpler - is that the mage can very easily render crossbow guy irrelevant. Who cares if your foe has a 2d6 RKA' date=' if you are invisible? Or Desolid? Or can generate a 10 PD barrier? While you can have a 2d6RKA, no ramge modifier, so you can kill him long before he gets in range. Or a 1/2d6 RKA AVAD, Indirect, so you can kill him at your leisure from behind your magical shield. Or a simple TK spell so you can lift him 50 metres in the air and then drop him Or more mundanely, just use magic to make him ineffective and use your [b']own[/b] crossbow.

 

Even if they are on the same team, if magic guy can do something as effective as yer standard fantasy fireball, crossbow guy is going to spending his time buffing his nails and pouting, unless magic guy is constrained in some way*: having extra points to spend on CSLs doesn't cut it when the other guy has explosion or area affect on his 2d6 RKA.

 

cheers, Mark

 

*In D&D, for example, they make him physically weaker, remove his ability to use armour and weapons and ensure he only has a limited number of charges per day .... and he's still generally more effective.

 

In my skill based magic system, I don't want AoE spells like fireball being thrown around constantly. I prefer for combat to remain personal. If I was to allow such a spell, I would require the spell to cost LTE, and yes I require all spells to cost END.

 

If you want to limit your casters in a skill based system, to the number of spells they can cast, make them use an END reserve with a reduced recovery rate. That will at least make them consider what they cast. Another solution, if you don't want to deal with End Reserves, would be to make all spells cost LTE. Not many people are a fan of that solution though.

 

One thing that I have seen for a lower end system, is to impose penalties for the amount of magic being sustained. If your mage is invis/desolid/or behind a magic barrier, you could impose a -2 to the skill roll of the next spell for each active spell. Or you could make the END cost the penalty to the next spell cast. That would make it harder for a mage to use every spell in his arsenal at the same time.

 

Those are some quick ideas, not saying they are the right asnwer...

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

A Spellcaster is going to be spending points on spells that let him do far more than imitate a crossbow. When your crossbow bolts bounce off the dragon's scales, maybe the wizard casts a spell of dragonslaying on your bolts, or blasts the dragon with eldritch energy which its scales do not stop. You have to look beyond direct comparisons.

 

Also, in my campaigns, those points the spellcaster spent on spells, the fighter instead invests into martial maneuvers, combat skill levels, penalty skill levels, and higher BODY, END, or STUN. In addition, the fighter may be perfectly capable of fighting unarmed due to these skill investments, while the Wizard is a 98 pound weakling if deprived of his magic.

 

In Fantasy HERO, it seems magic = versatility, melee and ranged weapon skills = just a damage dealer. While in most games, magic = I KILL EVERYONE, and fighter types just kind of stand in front of him to make sure nobody kills the glass cannon.

 

And that is the fun of FH to me - every character ends up with more or less equivalent offensive and defensive abilities, and fighter-types shine in combat as far as damage dealt and withstood, while spellcasters excel mostly in versatility, not in number of dice rolled for damage.

[Markdoc]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

Another solution' date=' if you don't want to deal with End Reserves, would be to make all spells cost LTE. Not many people are a fan of that solution though.[/quote']

 

Actually in my current FH game, spell use does cost LTE! It hasn't stopped more and more of the PCs becoming mages, though.

 

One thing that I have seen for a lower end system, is to impose penalties for the amount of magic being sustained. If your mage is invis/desolid/or behind a magic barrier, you could impose a -2 to the skill roll of the next spell for each active spell. Or you could make the END cost the penalty to the next spell cast. That would make it harder for a mage to use every spell in his arsenal at the same time.

 

Those are some quick ideas, not saying they are the right asnwer...

 

There is no "right" answer ... it's a question of what works for you. There is a wrong answer, though which is that free gear puts mages at a disadvantage in a fantasy game. It ain't so. I've played in many FH games, with multiple GMs and every one ended one of two ways:

1. Almost all the PCs were or became magic users

2. The rules placed heavy restrictions on magic to stop it dominating combat.

 

Now it's possible an inspired GM could work around that, but "mages are disadvantaged by free gear" is clearly not the default.

 

cheers, Mark

[DRThrush]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

Wow! Thank you for all of these really well thought out replies, everyone. Now I just have to pick the one that feels right for my setting.

 

Thanks,

-Dave

[Kenneth New]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

In our modern fantasy game (based loosely on the two Harry's - Potter and Dresden), we use multipowers and require a mage's spells to thematically linked in each multipower. My character has a hex multipower (force spells) and a teleport multipower.

[Shinobi Killfis]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

More t the point - and far simpler - is that the mage can very easily render crossbow guy irrelevant. Who cares if your foe has a 2d6 RKA' date=' if you are invisible? Or Desolid? Or can generate a 10 PD barrier? While you can have a 2d6RKA, no ramge modifier, so you can kill him long before he gets in range. Or a 1/2d6 RKA AVAD, Indirect, so you can kill him at your leisure from behind your magical shield. Or a simple TK spell so you can lift him 50 metres in the air and then drop him Or more mundanely, just use magic to make him ineffective and use your [b']own[/b] crossbow.

 

Even if they are on the same team, if magic guy can do something as effective as yer standard fantasy fireball, crossbow guy is going to spending his time buffing his nails and pouting, unless magic guy is constrained in some way*: having extra points to spend on CSLs doesn't cut it when the other guy has explosion or area affect on his 2d6 RKA.

 

cheers, Mark

 

*In D&D, for example, they make him physically weaker, remove his ability to use armor and weapons and ensure he only has a limited number of charges per day .... and he's still generally more effective.

 

This.

 

IMO the hard part is getting the non mages feeling like they can contribute equally even with there free 2d6 crossbow bolt damage. I'm big in giving non-mages multi powers as well. While flight might not be appropriate, Dots, via poison or bleeding attacks, drains vs armor for an armor breaker attack, flashes, and a wide range of other things are possible. And if the player is willing to assume there fighting abilities transcend normal people I'm okay with much crazier things than that. I generally try to make it so both groups get close to the same amount of possible limitations on there multipowers so things work out fairly evenly.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them?

 

I have simple never had a problem in Fantasy Hero with non-spellcasters feeling useless or ineffectual. I try and be sure there are moments where each of the players has a chance to shine, and generally fighter-types dish out more damage than casters by a good bit, until they find the critter that is immune to swords