Requires another power limitation?

[Southern Cross]

Re: Requires another power limitation?

 

Can I suggest the mage either takes Elemental Control:Fire Spells or (if playing 6th Edition) the Unified Power limitation?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Requires another power limitation?

 

Even though basing spell-casting ability progression on Active Points when it comes to combat-effective magic, some weird results come up, especially with utility abilities such as Life Support.

 

Immortality (3 Active Pts of LS) should maybe not be one of the first spells learned.*

 

 

Well...in the vancian system quoted, the document goes on to list some further meta rules for that system, including...

 

 

Vancian Magic Spell Design Restrictions

 

* No Spell may have an Endurance Cost

* No Spell may have an Activation

* All Spells must be Charge based

o Continuous Spells must terminate via Anti-Magic

* No Spell can Require a Skill Roll to be cast

o A Spell may Require a Skill Roll to take effect

+ such as a Spell requiring a Persuasion skill roll

+ such as Spell Resistance

 

 

which would make an immortality spell somewhat more complicated to build. A first level immortality spell would also be subject to Dispel very easily. A proper immortality spell with Difficult to Dispel and a very long Continuing Charge, and perhaps some other compound benefits would tally up Active Points, but still, it is a cheap base effect so its would still be pretty inexpensive. The ultimate trump of Anti-Magic would still make such a spell unreliable at the highest levels of play. It would likely be more effective to just buy immortality as a personal innate ability outside of the Magic System.

 

There's also the point to be made that the HERO system costs abilities by how useful they are in play, particularly combat. Immortality by itself is of no use in a typical campaign as it requires a campaign to last a very long time indeed for it to be meaningful, and that's why it is so cheap. Its basically a flavor ability in almost all cases. The rare NND ability might define longevity as a defense, but that's an edge case.

 

So, basically, a poor choice for a benchmarking ability.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Requires another power limitation?

 

Is there a way for a power to require another power? I'm thinking magic' date=' how many spells and abilities are learned in a specific order (i.e. must learn the Fire Control spell before learning the Fire Bolt spell, before learning the Fire Ball spell). Is there a way to enforce this in the game with a Limitation or something? [/quote']

 

Such a restriction is not properly a Limitation on an ability. Limitations affect the usability / usefulness of an ability a character actually has. They don't act as an entry bar on an ability a character wants to have. Or to put it a different way, once you buy the ability, a "must already have X" stipulation is no longer limiting. A player would not purchase an ability for their character that they could not actually use yet; they would purchase an ability after they could use it.

 

I know I could just enforce it as a GM in my world, but that doesn't feel like the proper HERO way of doing things.

 

-shnar

 

The GM can enforce any ground rules they wish and allow or disallow any abiliites they wish to model the campaign / setting they want. That is the very essense of HERO.

 

If you as the GM want to model a system of magic wherein abilities are unlocked by lesser abilities, you simply define the structure you want and say that's how that system works. Players that think its cool will consider making characters that utilize that system, and players that don't think its cool will make characters that focus on other abilities.

[torchwolf]

Re: Requires another power limitation?

 

So' date=' basically, a poor choice for a benchmarking ability.[/quote']

 

Agreed, on all counts you bring up.

 

Active Points is indicative of combat efficiency, not necessarily of magical ability or mastery.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Requires another power limitation?

 

If you as the GM want to model a system of magic wherein abilities are unlocked by lesser abilities' date=' you simply define the structure you want and say that's how that system works.[/quote']

 

A generous GM might allow a Physical Complication if the structures are restrictive.

[Palmate]

Re: Requires another power limitation?

 

Such a restriction is not properly a Limitation on an ability. Limitations affect the usability / usefulness of an ability a character actually has. They don't act as an entry bar on an ability a character wants to have. Or to put it a different way' date=' once you buy the ability, a "must already have X" stipulation is no longer limiting. [/quote']

 

I still disagree, if a GM feels it is necessary for a Character to have a power/spell/whatever it can and should be listed as a Limit. There are a number of circumstances where by the required spell or power may be removed, drained or otherwise be unavailable - the limit then would prevent the use of the spell or power that requires it. Whew... that's only a little confusing.

Palmate

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Requires another power limitation?

 

I still disagree' date=' if a GM feels it is necessary for a Character to have a power/spell/whatever it can and should be listed as a Limit. There are a number of circumstances where by the required spell or power may be removed, drained or otherwise be unavailable - the limit then would prevent the use of the spell or power that requires it. Whew... that's only a little confusing. [/font']

 

That would fall under the Unified Power Limitation.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Requires another power limitation?

 

I still disagree' date=' if a GM feels it is necessary for a Character to have a power/spell/whatever it can and should be listed as a Limit. There are a number of circumstances where by the required spell or power may be removed, drained or otherwise be unavailable - the limit then would prevent the use of the spell or power that requires it. Whew... that's only a little confusing. [/font']

Palmate

 

 

That doesn't seem to be what the OP is asking for, or at least not what I understand them to be asking. I interpret the question as "How to model to take this ability, the character must already have this other ability" scenarios. I.e., a prerequisite.

[shnar]

Re: Requires another power limitation?

 

That's pretty much what I'm asking. I'm trying to model a couple things:

- Character must pay points in lesser used, "mundane" abilities to even be able to buy the more "useful" abilities.

- The more abilities the character knows overall, the easier it is to perform abilities.

 

I thought there might be a way to do this in the "normal" rules, rather than making them campaign rules, but it looks like I was wrong.

 

-shnar

[Lucius]

Re: Requires another power limitation?

 

Another example of something like this in RAW is Defense Manuever.

You have to take each "step" in turn.

But the higher "steps" are not Limited.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary has Defense Manuever. You can't get behind a palindromedary; it has no behind to get.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Requires another power limitation?

 

That's pretty much what I'm asking. I'm trying to model a couple things:

- Character must pay points in lesser used, "mundane" abilities to even be able to buy the more "useful" abilities.

- The more abilities the character knows overall, the easier it is to perform abilities.

 

I thought there might be a way to do this in the "normal" rules, rather than making them campaign rules, but it looks like I was wrong.

 

-shnar

 

There are a handful of stepped abilities, but they are arbitrary. You too can define your own arbitrary requirements / structures. A magic system is, for all intents and purposes, an arbitrary sub-system that the designer defines. Even if a particular such systems happens to be composed entirely of pre-existing core game mechanics, your particular inclusion of those mechanics and exclusion of all other mechanics is still entirely arbitrary.

 

Put more simply, it's best not to over-think these things. Just write down the way you think something ought to work in your subjective opinion, and then try to find the closest matches in the free built in mechanics that can be used or bent to fulfill what you want. If there any gaps between what you want and what the rules natively support, fill them in with custom elements. The measurement of success is twofold: 1) how closely does your solution match your vision of how it should work and 2) do your players like it and use it in pursuit of a fun-filled campaign.

 

Now, of course, other people might not agree with your approach, and other people may not like what you've done. But as long as you like it and it serves the greater good of running a fun campaign for your group, it doesn't really matter.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Requires another power limitation?

 

That's pretty much what I'm asking. I'm trying to model a couple things:

- Character must pay points in lesser used, "mundane" abilities to even be able to buy the more "useful" abilities.

 

What, exactly, does that mean? The concern I see is "I want to force the player to waste points on abilities that are not of any real in game utility and, in exchange, I will let him buy higher power abilities at a discount".

 

Typically, this seems to mean either:

 

"I want the player to pay for redundant spells" so he must buy the 6d6 Blast Fire Bolt spell before he can buy the 9d6 Blast Flame Strike spell. He gets no advantage from Fire Bolt once he has Flame Strike, so why not let him buy Flame Strike and rule that, at 6d6 of effect, he's casting Fire Bolt instead.

 

"I want the player to pay for useless spells" so he must buy a fire spell that has no real in-game utility for, say, 5 points before he can buy the more powerful fire spells. Maybe that "5 points of useless" fire spell should simply be a flavour SFX ability that's available to anyone with higher power fire spells. Maybe that 5 point useless ability is something that anyone with Magic Skill: Fire Magic can accomplish with an appropriate roll, so users of powerful fire spells can always do this, because they won't fail that easy a roll.

 

Or maybe you must purchase a 5 point Talent to be able to buy Fire spells at all, and this special ability comes with the Talent - if you want to soak 5 points from every Fire Mage (perhaps because you want it to be less efficient to master multiple magic types, so a 5 point surcharge for each school of magic is imposed). Maybe it's a perk rather than a talent - it costs 5 points to be a member of the magic college - they teach you this spell, and now you are allowed to buy other spells of the college, since you have access to resources to learn them.

 

 

I guess I'm still unclear precisely WHY you want this particular structure. Without knowing the objective, it's hard to suggest ways to achieve it.

 

There are a handful of stepped abilities' date=' but they are arbitrary. [/quote']

 

A good point. As a reminder, in earlier editions, Life Support was a stepped ability. You could not be immune to high pressure, for example, if you needed to breathe. This meant that many logical character abilities could not be purchased. Breaking LS to its components and removing the "step" requirement was a huge improvement.

[shnar]

Re: Requires another power limitation?

 

I'm envisioning a training necessary to learn the higher abilities. There will be a pool of "Rank 1" spells that the caster has to learn first, representing his familiarity with the raw element. These would be spells like "sense" spells (i.e. can feel the source of a fire 50 feet away), simple manipulation spells, maybe some defense spells. Then "Rank 2" spells have a bunch of heavy defense type spells and some basic attack spells. "Rank 3" has all the heavy attack spells.

 

Most of the spells would not be replaced by the "heavier" spells. For example, a Rank 1 Defense Spell might be something like a fire shield (limited cover), a Rank 2 would be a full fire shield, and Rank 3 a fire wall. However, I could see that a player would not care about a fire shield spell and so never buy it, but the magic system requires the user to learn these smaller spells so they can wield these more powerful spells easier. If an accolyte were to try to jump straight to the higher magics, he would most likely lose control and be burned by the magic.

 

I figured the best way to represent that was to force learning the spells in an order like this. If anyone has other suggestions, I'd love to hear them

 

-shnar

 

-shnar

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Requires another power limitation?

 

I'm envisioning a training necessary to learn the higher abilities. There will be a pool of "Rank 1" spells that the caster has to learn first' date=' representing his familiarity with the raw element. These would be spells like "sense" spells (i.e. can feel the source of a fire 50 feet away), simple manipulation spells, maybe some defense spells. Then "Rank 2" spells have a bunch of heavy defense type spells and some basic attack spells. "Rank 3" has all the heavy attack spells.[/quote']

 

There's two issues here. Logic of ordering abilities makes sense (but does it mean all starting wizards look more or less the same?). Mechanics of building the wizard and costing the spells is the hard part.

 

So, let's say five players build characters as follows:

 

The first will not be a spellcaster at all. He spends all his points being a cool warrior.

 

The second spends a lot of points on "warrior" abilities, and buys all the Rank 1 spells for his chosen wizardry school. He's a wizard apprentice.

 

The third spends enough points to have the Rank 1 and 2 spells for the same school, and the rest on warrior abilities. He's a wizard journeyman.

 

The fourth buys all the Rank 1 and 2 spells, and an assortment of Rank 3 spells. He has no points for warrior abilities (maybe build him first to set the points for the rest). He's a Master Wizard.

 

The fifth buys no warrior abilityies, but buys Rank 1 spells in as many schools as he can afford - he's a versatile wizard, jack of all trades, master of none.

 

Will all the players be satsified that their characters are more or less equally useful in the game? If so, it seems balanced and reasonable.

 

If not, are the disadvantaged characters a type you want to be actively discouraged in this game? if so, the system accomplishes its desired goal.

 

But if the answer to both is "no", then I think you havce a problem.

 

If the characters aren't buying certain abilities, commonly that means they don't see those abilities as generating the "fun factor" their points should gain. If I have to spend 5 points to Sense fires, will I get 5 points of utility from that ability, or will the player see this as a "magic tax"?

 

The magic system can't just be cool and well thought out. You can have a very cool, logically designed magic system, but if no one plays a wizard because wizards aren't effective for their points, compared to the non-spellcaster alternatives, the system is useless. Regardless of how it is priced.

 

I would evaluate the spells at the various ranks. The Rank 2 spells sound like they will be useful, so a player being told "Fire Wizards all learn Fire Shield" probably isn't that big a deal as a game restrictor. But if my wizard needs to spend significant points on spells that will have little or no in game utility to qualify to buy useful spells, odds are I'll just play a fighter instead. Minor ancillary abilities might be best considered SFX of being a Fire Wizard, or come bundled together as a "perk of accessing fire magic" point cost.

 

If no one wants to buy the Fire Shield spell, maybe there is a reason for that - it's not effective for its points; it's superseded by the Fire Wall spell.

 

If the Rank 1 "Weak Fire Shield" spell is inferior in all repsects to the Rank 2 "Fire Shield Mastered" spell, maybe the Rank 2 spell replaces the Rank 1 spell, rather than being purchased separately. Under what circumstances would someone knowing both spells gain an advantage by using the Rank 1 spell? If the answer is "none, the rank 2 spell is equal or superior in all respects", then the wizard buying the Rank 2 spell is wasting the Rank 1 points.

[AlHazred]

Re: Requires another power limitation?

 

In my games, I try to provide and encourage Package Deals (5E) or Templates (6E). In the available ones, I'll list "10 points' worth of Magic spells" or "40 points' worth of Invocations" to give an idea of how much magic the player should purchase. Will I reject the character if there's only 19 (or 39) points' worth of magic? Probably not. But this way my Apprentice Wizard (package cost 25 points) and Master Wizard (package cost 75 points) look like they should -- like people who've invested whatever amount of effort needed to qualify.

 

Typically in most campaigns, I'll even go so far as to say, "You can't learn magic without taking one of these packages" or "You can't have Fringe Benefit: Knight or better without taking the Noble package (cost 22 points). That's to try to restrict unworkable builds more than anything else; someone with a knighthood who doesn't have any of the skills of a knight would be difficult to work into the plot.