Fantasy Hero Spells

[redcap]

Why do spells cost 1/3 of what the Grimoire says they do in the Turakian Age? Page 4 notes (quite unhelpfully):

 

"For more information about the Turakian magic system, please refer to the Turakian Age setting book."

 

Quite unhelpful at this point because the Turakian Age setting book is not yet printed.

Any guidelines for why the Real Cost for spells is so reduced in the Turakian Age? I don't expect a full version or the book to be available for free, but otherwise the reasoning could just be termed "because the GM said so" and then all the careful calculations in this Grimoire seem kind of moot since the cost reduction become so great that most spells differ in Real Cost by only a few points in the Turakian Age. I don't mean to denigrate the book but to clarify things.

[redcap]

Spells Limitation

 

On a somewhat related note, what is the effect of the Limitation "Spell, (1/2)" that is listed for many of the spells in the Grimoire? Aren't most of these spells already? Yet the spell "Banishment" on page 27 of the Grimoire not only has the Limitation "Requires a Conjuration Roll (-1/2)" but also has a Limitation of "Spell (1/2)". The Conjuration Roll Limitation is easily explained as limiting the power by requiring the caster to make a Conjuration roll, but what does the Limitation "Spell" entail?

[Monolith]

Re: Fantasy Hero Spells

 

Originally posted by redcap

Why do spells cost 1/3 of what the Grimoire says they do in the Turakian Age?

This information is covered in Fantasy Hero, but unless you are actually playing in a TA campaign it really has no significance in your game. I suggest if you are interested in seeing information on that style of magic, as well as many other other example styles, you should pick up Fantasy Hero.

[Rick]

Well in Fantasy hero they give guidlines to give spellcasters a point break on there spells. One method was by dividing the real cost by a factor in relation to the feel you want magic to have in your game. In TA Steve Long chose to divide the cost by 3. There are other methods too, in the magic section of Fantasy hero.

[redcap]

Because the GM said so, that's why!

 

Okay, so the basic idea is that the GM just decided to make it so in his/her game. Fair enough, I suppose you might as well just have a game where spells don't really cost points at all. There are already a lot of those...

I have Fantasy Hero 5th, I just wondered if there were any more reason than GM fiat.

[redcap]

Spells Limitation, p. 246

 

Ah, found the Limitation (you'd be not at all surprised how many references there are to Spells in the FH book). The limitation is that there are certain "ground rules" that are common to most FH game worlds and their spells (No multiple-Power attack spells, No Bouncing An Attack, No Spreading, etc.). Many of the spells in the Turakian Age don't use the same "ground rules" so spells in the Grimoire that do have those Limitations get the Limitation "Spell (1/2)". So the GM has to examine all of the Grimoire for spells that take the "Spell (1/2)" Limitation and refigure the cost of the spell if he/she does not want the spell to break the "ground rules". Is there a list anywhere of what spells in the Grimoire take the "Spell (1/2)" Limitation?

[Steve Long]

So the GM has to examine all of the Grimoire for spells that take the "Spell (1/2)" Limitation and refigure the cost of the spell if he/she does not want the spell to break the "ground rules".

 

No, he doesn't.

 

As you can see if you've got the FHG, there are lots of options for almost all of the spells. Just pick an option that involves removing a -1/2 Limitation -- such as "Master's Version" -- and that tells you the cost of a spell when you remove any one -1/2 Limitation.

[Steve Long]

I just wondered if there were any more reason than GM fiat.

 

The reason is, it's designed to encourage and allow for a particular type of campaign -- a High Fantasy sort of game where magic tends to be common and powerful. That particular method allows spellcasters to buy more spells, and/or more powerful spells, thus getting the kind of feel you want for the game.

 

If you don't want that feel, don't use that sort of method. Pick something more like what we'll use for the Valdorian Age or Tuala Morn, where all spells are full cost and there are other significant restrictions on 'em. That's the cool thing about FH; you can tailor the magic system to be what you want it to be.

[redcap]

Spell Limitation (1/2)

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the GM has to examine all of the Grimoire for spells that take the "Spell (1/2)" Limitation and refigure the cost of the spell if he/she does not want the spell to break the "ground rules".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

No, he doesn't.

As you can see if you've got the FHG, there are lots of options for almost all of the spells. Just pick an option that involves removing a -1/2 Limitation -- such as "Master's Version" -- and that tells you the cost of a spell when you remove any one -1/2 Limitation.

_________________

Steve Long

HERO System Line Developer

 

Or just plug in a different 1/2 Limitation rather than "Spell (1/2)". I just saw that some of the spells in the Grimoire took the Limitation "Spell (1/2)" and some didn't and wondered if there was a list to look through and see which spells needed the change and which ones did not. Thanks for the reply, Steve. I really like Fantasy Hero and have played the 4th edition for a long time, I just did a double take when I saw some spells getting a Limitation "Spell (1/2)" and some not.

[Steve Long]

Some don't get it because they're not attack spells (the restrictions in question really only apply to offensive spells), and some spells built with attack-type powers might not get it because they're not really intended for combat use. It all depends on what seems best to me at the time I write it up.

 

Substituting another -1/2 Limitation for Spell is definitely a possibility. That would be a good approach for a system that wanted Extra Time or Concentration on spells that didn't already have it, for example.

 

Unfortunately, there's not list of which spells have which Power Modifiers. The index in the back provides a summary of basic facts about each spell (aracana, duration, Magic roll penalty, and so on) in addition to a page reference, but there wasn't room to provide more information than that.

[Alcamtar]

Originally posted by Rick

Well in Fantasy hero they give guidlines to give spellcasters a point break on there spells. One method was by dividing the real cost by a factor in relation to the feel you want magic to have in your game. In TA Steve Long chose to divide the cost by 3. There are other methods too, in the magic section of Fantasy hero.

 

I don't like the divide-by-three approach because it reduces the value of limitations. In supers, powers generally have more active points but fewer limitations, while in fantasy hero you have fewer active points and more limitations. IMO limitations are by far the most important aspect to making magic "feel like magic" -- so the real cost should be very important, to encourage players to cram in lots of limitations.

 

For example, 6d6 EB fireball, RSR (-1/2), OAF (-1), gestures (-1/4), cost 12. Add on a -1/4 gestures and the cost goes down to 11.

 

But if you're dividing by 3, the cost is 4 points whether you add the gestures or not.

 

(Not to rain of Steve's parade of course, I like the variety of options suggested and it never occured to me to change the cost of things [like divide-by-three, or changing VPP cost, or whatever], so it got me thinking in new directions. And for some systems of magic it would work well.)

 

That's one reason I dislike MPs. VPPs are good in that there is a limited pool of real points available, but bad because the active point ceiling is so low that you really don't need to limit a spell much to fit it into the pool.

 

One idea I'm toying with is buying each spell as a background skill (KS), with RSR (-1/4), but the REAL COST of the spell is the penalty to the skill roll. For example,, you could buy the abovementioned fireball as a KS (8-) for 1 point, but your skill penalty is going to be -12 since it costs 12 points. You have three options to increase the likelihood of casting it successfully:

(1) spend extra time for a bonus on the skill roll

(2) buy up that specific skill roll to an acceptable level

(3) stack more limitations on the spell to reduce the penalty

 

Mike

[Rick]

Here's the deal W/dividing by 3. It comes into play after you, the GM, defines magic in his game. SO most of the Lim's will be self-evident. It isn't just a Divide by three and chinse the points on your spells. It's an after the fact point break to allow spell caster to stay around 150 pts (or whatever point limit you set) at creation. IT also makes spells accessible with only a few eps.

 

So first you create the spell all appropriate advantages and limitations. This is where the GM does it himself or works W/the player, then after all of that is done you divide the real cost by, whatever.

 

So now 10 games down the road, wihile the fighters are buying levels for theirprimary weapons and thieves are buying DEX levels, the wizards are buying new, better and more powerful spells. So they get the same ramping up as the other characters. So don't take it as a minimaxer's wet dream, but as a liberty offered to GM's to really reflect how they want magic, in magic rich worlds, to work.

 

Then again if you still don't like it, don't use it.

[Alcamtar]

Actually I realized: An easy way to do divide-by-three without losing any limitations is to total all points spent on spells, and then afterwards divide by three.

 

Example:

 

Sucking Doom, 14 pts

Fireball, 11 pts

Gliding, 7 pts

Light, 2 pts

Detect Magic, 1 pt

The total of all these is 35.

 

Using the standard divide by three, the costs are 5+4+2+1+1, or a total of 13 character points. If you saved two real points on Gliding, it's still the same cost.

 

But if you total them before dividing, the cost is 35/3 = 12 character points. And if you saved two real points on Gliding, the total cost is only 11. The difference is that the "fractional points" that are normally lost in the division are gained back. That means an extra -1/4 here and -1/2 there may allow you to afford an extra spell or two in the long run.

 

Overall it's probably a wash -- you'll gain as many fractional points as you lose, averaged over all the spells. But this eliminates "break points" for individual spells, making every limitation on every spell potentially significant, which to me is a good thing.

 

Mike

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Alcamtar

Actually I realized: An easy way to do divide-by-three without losing any limitations is to total all points spent on spells, and then afterwards divide by three.

 

Example:

 

Sucking Doom, 14 pts

Fireball, 11 pts

Gliding, 7 pts

Light, 2 pts

Detect Magic, 1 pt

The total of all these is 35.

 

Using the standard divide by three, the costs are 5+4+2+1+1, or a total of 13 character points. If you saved two real points on Gliding, it's still the same cost.

 

But if you total them before dividing, the cost is 35/3 = 12 character points. And if you saved two real points on Gliding, the total cost is only 11. The difference is that the "fractional points" that are normally lost in the division are gained back. That means an extra -1/4 here and -1/2 there may allow you to afford an extra spell or two in the long run.

 

Overall it's probably a wash -- you'll gain as many fractional points as you lose, averaged over all the spells. But this eliminates "break points" for individual spells, making every limitation on every spell potentially significant, which to me is a good thing.

 

Mike

 

Pretty good idea. I understand the earlier poster's issue about granularity, but you can come across that issue with spells in multipowers (individual limitations are often valueless) or even in spells under a regular point-buy method. This idea brings things more in line with regular point-buy methods than multipowers though, reducing granularity issues.