General guidance on fantasy campaign balance - request

[NuSoardGraphite]

I understand where you are coming from, but we've had countless threads on these boards, with GMs complaining that their shiny new fantasy game is being trashed by their wizards. The "only spells that you have learned" is fine ... right up until the point where the wizard gets his hands on some decent spells. And that will happen (it's the nature of the game, really) unless you as GM are completely hardass about what spells they can access. After all, what happen if two starting PC mages agree to exchange spells? Now they each have 6 to choose from, and that was just the first adventure ....

 

So I am not saying don't use VPPs - I did so in my last campaign, without any problems. I am just warning you to lock down access to spells as tight as you can, rather than just letting them choose "magic". In my last game, I did so by requiring players to choose a specific (and quite limited) school of magic and also restricting them to spells that they could find and/or trade for. That allowed each magic user to do some unique and cool things, but not to dominate the game, since they could not do everything. In addition, they had to use Mana (Long Term Endurance), which recharged very slowly, so that a mage who really went to town with spell use, could find himself taking a couple of days to recover and being so exhausted he could barely move, for a few hours.

 

Getting magic right is the single most important thing you can do for your fantasy game.

 

cheers, Mark

 

I think his ideas are solid.  The problem here is going to be the GMs lack of experience with balancing encounters.  40 active isn't going to be game breaking.  And being able to turn invisible, shoot 8D6 blasts and fly at 20" isn't too problematic and is just enough to make the wizard a foe to be reckoned with without being able to one-shot a dragon.

 

And the fact that the Wizard can't change his VPP until he gets a chance to rest and study is pretty limiting.  He won't be able to reconfigure his VPP to dynamically deal with a sticky situation if they run into a trap or a foe to which none of the wizards spells apply.  That versatility is generally the problem that people have with VPP.  Remove that and they become far more viable, especially with an Active Point cap on the lower end.

re Speed. If you are using NCM, then Speed has a max of 4 until it costs double. In my experience, this dissuades nearly everyone from buying more than a speed of 4. We only see speed inflation in Supers games, never really in Heroic games.

I think he wants characters to start the game like 1st through 3rd level characters....only capable of a few attacks per round, then as they gain experience, they learn to attack more often.  I don't see a problem with this in a low-powered setting.  This makes goblins and orcs a challenge at the beginning of the game, but after acquiring enough XP to raise their speed scores to 4 near the end of the campaign, they will then be running through said orcs and goblins like a hot knife through butter....basically the D&D effect.

[TheDarkness]

Responding to the issue of magic costing points, while weapons and armor only cost money.

 

This will only pose a problem if money is plentiful for the characters and easily spent. Keep in mind, historically, a sword and armor was beyond the means of most warriors. Very expensive. Often, soldiers had them, but were given them for battle, and did not have access to them outside of it. Spears were advantageous because, except for those with a well forged head, they were cheap and highly applicable.

 

Additionally, valuables, then and now, were only easily spent where they could easily get their monetary value or where people could trade at an equal value. Getting the actual value for a gem might require a long journey on its own, or might become a case of taking what the local market can bear, which could mean often taking a loss because the nearby villages simply cannot afford to trade much for your treasure.

[Steve]

Healing is another topic to be considered. Do magic healers exist? How quickly can they heal an injured person?

[Ninja-Bear]

Responding to the issue of magic costing points, while weapons and armor only cost money.

 

This will only pose a problem if money is plentiful for the characters and easily spent. Keep in mind, historically, a sword and armor was beyond the means of most warriors. Very expensive. Often, soldiers had them, but were given them for battle, and did not have access to them outside of it. Spears were advantageous because, except for those with a well forged head, they were cheap and highly applicable.

 

Additionally, valuables, then and now, were only easily spent where they could easily get their monetary value or where people could trade at an equal value. Getting the actual value for a gem might require a long journey on its own, or might become a case of taking what the local market can bear, which could mean often taking a loss because the nearby villages simply cannot afford to trade much for your treasure.

While true and insightful, I know most fantasy games-Hero and otherwise-don't follow this pattern. Not that you couldn't, but I think that it doesn't meet people expectation in a game.

[Christopher R Taylor]

You can't realistically make everyone a worthless peasant who cannot afford a sword then have them go on adventures.  They have to be able to get at least basic equipment to do the job, and costing it out of their range is pointless no matter how "realistic" it might feel based on an early medieval economy.  As for sales and repairs, etc, well that's just basic common sense; you can't sell that golden statue of ra to the village of 29 people, you gotta take it to a city and hope you don't get robbed.

[TheDarkness]

I find fun game play trumps expectations more often than not. If the magic users have to slowly build up, I don't see why warriors are any different, and that building up is a lot of fun for most players. If the warriors shouldn't be expected to because of fantasy sensibilities, why should we expect the spell users will put up with it?

 

They are both buying powers. One with ep, the other with ep AND money. Yes, the spell users will probably have a broader swath of powers to choose from. At a slower rate. If one character is 500 points, with a narrow range of powers, and the other is 400 with a broader range, the 500 point character is very likely going to have more impact, earn more experience, and continue to dominate and extend that gap.

 

To be clear, I was not citing 'worthless peasants', or realism, but warriors and game balance. Most warriors did not have immediate access to the weapons they most wanted. Most characters in fantasy games are not in love with their starting gear, either.

 

One way of dealing with the problem:

 

Maybe a sword at the start for some warriors, probably not a high grade one, but decent. Bows are more accessible, so not a huge issue for equipping. Cheaper forms of armor, staves, spears, axes, daggers, these are all more accessible weapons. The sword is likely higher cost, so starting with that means less of other equipment. If they're starting the game with it, the spell users should be starting with the equivalent points(or equipment advantageous to them) for balance. From there, place a hard limit on access to highly valuable gear, so that game balance is not hurt. Make highly valuable gear for both groups roughly equal in availability.

 

Another way, the more common way:

To prevent money becoming an end run around game balance and role play(because it directly increases the points that a character actually represents), Let spell users have similar access to purchases that impact their effectiveness, place a reasonable limit on treasure in order to allow character development to be well paced, rewarding role play over murder hoboing. That's assuming there are items for spell users to buy at the same frequency and cost as what warriors are buying that equate to the same ability to impact scenarios and earn the same experience for the same level of game play and role playing.

[Steve]

In a more "realistic" setting, you also have to take into account equipment breaking. That can drain funds if no indestructible magic weapons and armor are around. Repairing armor can be a big drain on funds.

 

I've never played in a campaign where such was an issue, but it gives a certain grit to have to worry a bit about your equipment breaking at a critical moment.

[TheDarkness]

Another way to mitigate the difference in points created by cash purchases, assuming warriors have more access to weapons, armor, steeds, etc,, than spell users have access to gear that enhances their role in combat.

 

Now, mind you, this is also off of a historical base, but again, the reason I bring it up is not for the realism factor, but to balance the points in some way.

 

And this solution would not solve the problems, but it would mitigate them a little.

 

In both the East and West, if you were trained, you generally had familiarity with staff, polearm, sword, possibly buckler, shield, various knives and long knives. This was not solely to be familiar with a variety of weapons, again, in both East and West, the staff was viewed as a weapon that trained important skills that carried over to the sword.

 

If warriors had to purchase a package of skills, and could augment certain ones, this would mitigate a few points, especially in a low point game.

 

I've played with the idea in the past of establishing KS:weapon vs. weapon, for example, KS: quarterstaff vs. sword, and imposing a penalty in situations where the character that skill. Yes, the dread realism, but a very small point expenditure overall that will quickly turn to an advantage when the warriors realize half the mooks they face are not well trained warriors.

 

Plus, it would give them skills in which they don't have to rely as heavily on their killing weapons, for situations in which they may not be able to hack their way out(going to sell their valuable statue in a city where they must leave their war items at the gate, but they don't know the person they're selling to, or going in disguise as monks somewhere, don't worry, we've just got staves).

[Beowulf]

Healing is another topic to be considered. Do magic healers exist? How quickly can they heal an injured person?

Now THIS I am wrestling with.

 

I am thinking of reducing recovery rate of the mana batter, or requiring healing spells to have charges represented by some magical reagent to focus the healing power... not sure. The ability to auto heal everyone within 10min of an encounter being over is a real concern.

[TheDarkness]

Now THIS I am wrestling with.

 

I am thinking of reducing recovery rate of the mana batter, or requiring healing spells to have charges represented by some magical reagent to focus the healing power... not sure. The ability to auto heal everyone within 10min of an encounter being over is a real concern.

Yeah, I was reading the healing thread, some interesting stuff on there.

 

I'm not working on a fantasy campaign now, but I'm considering the idea of using a fantasy setting for pick up games. I've thought of putting a limit on healing, such that there is combat healing(with the limitation 'for combat, only", and a second healing power, for non-combat, that is per hour or something like that.

[TheDarkness]

Now THIS I am wrestling with.

 

I am thinking of reducing recovery rate of the mana batter, or requiring healing spells to have charges represented by some magical reagent to focus the healing power... not sure. The ability to auto heal everyone within 10min of an encounter being over is a real concern.

Yeah, I was reading the healing thread, some interesting stuff on there.

 

I'm not working on a fantasy campaign now, but I'm considering the idea of using a fantasy setting for pick up games. I've thought of putting a limit on healing, such that there is combat healing(with the limitation 'for combat, only", and a second healing power, for non-combat, that is per hour or something like that.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Now THIS I am wrestling with.

 

I am thinking of reducing recovery rate of the mana batter, or requiring healing spells to have charges represented by some magical reagent to focus the healing power... not sure. The ability to auto heal everyone within 10min of an encounter being over is a real concern.

Reducing the recovery rate on the Endurance Reserve is a good idea. Have it recover by the hour. This slow recovery rate wi force the mage to use their powers sparringly and at low power whenever possible. But this rate is also fast enough that the mage will regain enough mojo to be active half a day later. He wont be waiting weeks to get his power back.

[Markdoc]

Another way to mitigate the difference in points created by cash purchases, assuming warriors have more access to weapons, armor, steeds, etc,, than spell users have access to gear that enhances their role in combat.

 

And a spellcaster would not buy the same kind of equipment .... because, why, exactly?

If I was going into a fight, I'd still want mundane backup even if I could fly and blind my enemies by looking at them.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Now THIS I am wrestling with.

 

I am thinking of reducing recovery rate of the mana batter, or requiring healing spells to have charges represented by some magical reagent to focus the healing power... not sure. The ability to auto heal everyone within 10min of an encounter being over is a real concern.

 

Without limits, it's not heal everyone within 10 minutes - it's heal everyone within 1 minute. So I share your concern.

 

As far as the delay goes, what I have done in my fantasy game is require magic to use long-term endurance (LTE) instead of END (a -1/2 limitation). Zero or reduced END for spells is only available in rare circumstances, with GM's permission, so spell-casting will drain LTE. No more wizards with 24/7 force fields! LTE recovers at REC/5 hours, but has an interesting in-game effect, which is that it reduces your available END as it is used up - so a wizard who goes all-in for spellcasting over a short period of time, will end up exhausted, and will only be able to walk slowly, can't carry heavy things very far, etc. On the flip side, ordinary physical exhaustion will interfere with their ability to master the titantic energies required for spellcasting. This lets wizards "nova" with a series of devastating spells, but at the cost of being burned out for a few hours. It also gives wizards a reason not to wear heavy armour all the time, as the weight and heat can prove fatiguing.

 

There's the additional advantage that it doesn't require any new mechanisms - the END cost and recovery is exactly the same - it just uses LTE instead of regular END.

 

As it happens, I've actually dropped regular END use for my FH games - it turns iout that adds little to the games I run except book-keeping, and only use END to calculate LTE both for spellcasting and also for working out fatigue/exhaustion for mundane activities. PCs (and NPCs) still have END and can buy increased END use or reduced END on powers to reflect activities that are more or less fatiguing, but we don't track it phase by phase. One PC in the last game, for example bought reduced END on his normal movement so that he could run all day without tiring.

 

cheers, Mark

[Outsider]

And a spellcaster would not buy the same kind of equipment .... because, why, exactly?

If I was going into a fight, I'd still want mundane backup even if I could fly and blind my enemies by looking at them.

 

cheers, Mark

 

 

I'd say the spellcaster doesn't bother because he's not optimized to use it.  Why spent resources and encumbrance on what will almost always be an ineffective weapon?

 

 

 

A greatsword in the hands of a 18 STR warrior who has 4 levels in "swords" does 2D6K at say, 10 OCV.  (14 DEX + 4 levels +1 from the sword)

 

A greatsword in the hands of a 10 STR Spellcaster (who spent his points on spells and skill levels to cast and hit with them) does 1D6+1 at 4 OCV (14 DEX, +1 from the sword, -2 from being under strength minimum (which also loses him 2 DCs))

 

If our caster uses a sword more appropriate to his STR (a short sword) he will do 1D6 at 6 OCV (14 DEX, +1 from the sword) 

 

Most opponents that aren't a cakewalk for the warrior will be more or less immune to the sword wielding caster.

[Markdoc]

I'd say the spellcaster doesn't bother because he's not optimized to use it.  Why spent resources and encumbrance on what will almost always be an ineffective weapon?

 

 

 

A greatsword in the hands of a 18 STR warrior who has 4 levels in "swords" does 2D6K at say, 10 OCV.  (14 DEX + 4 levels +1 from the sword)

 

A greatsword in the hands of a 10 STR Spellcaster (who spent his points on spells and skill levels to cast and hit with them) does 1D6+1 at 4 OCV (14 DEX, +1 from the sword, -2 from being under strength minimum (which also loses him 2 DCs))

 

If our caster uses a sword more appropriate to his STR (a short sword) he will do 1D6 at 6 OCV (14 DEX, +1 from the sword) 

 

Most opponents that aren't a cakewalk for the warrior will be more or less immune to the sword wielding caster.

 

Until he uses Flash to blind them. Or magic to boost his STR to 33. Or mental paralysis to make them stand still - just for a phase - so that he can headshot them. Or invisibility to give him a huge edge in combat or a Ghostblade spell to make his weapon pass through armour, or ... there's an almost endless number of ways that a mage can make very, very, very effective use of mundane weapons and armour. Decades of GM'ing fantasy hero has taught me - and my fellow GMs - that there is no more effective melee combatant than a combat mage. It's even worse if you allow them to augment mundane equipment.

 

In fact, the rules for magic (and for power frameworks) we use in our games is heavily influenced by the desire to have parties of PCs that weren't 100% composed of armoured mages. And it's not just our groups - this issue has come up again and again on the fantasy boards here, so it's a very common problem.

 

cheers, Mark

[Outsider]

What you are now describing is what I call a spell warrior, a character who uses magic pretty much exclusively to enhance his ability to hit & do damage with mundane weapons.   Not a wizard who is using a sword as a "backup" for his spells, as you initially said/as I initially read.   And yeah, spell warrior can be one of the most effective concepts in FH for players who have a bit (or more) of power gamer in them, and are playing in a setting that isn't set up to reign that build in.

[Markdoc]

What you are now describing is what I call a spell warrior, a character who uses magic pretty much exclusively to enhance his ability to hit & do damage with mundane weapons.   Not a wizard who is using a sword as a "backup" for his spells, as you initially said/as I initially read.  

 

The problem is, once you start using power frameworks, that difference is purely semantic. You can have a flying, invisible mage who can drop disabling spells on his foes ... or fire up a flaming sword and go to town on his foes in hand to hand combat, if and when that's called for. Unlike class-based systems, there is nothing in the rules per se that make those two roles distinct. Players can choose to play one or the other, but there's nothing to make, or even encourage them to do so (actually the reverse: they'll be most effective if they choose to do both).

 

That's what I've been saying from the beginning: if the GM wants those roles to be distinct, he's going to have to design his sytem to make it so: there is no inherent design bias for D&D-style mages built into hero. And if the GM designs the system so that magic is a viable option in combat, then soon, if not at the beginning, all his PCs will be mages. Nobody plays a mighty warrior to have the mages keep kicking sand in his face.

 

Now I should stress that neither of these outcomes is undesirable: we've played some great Hero system campaigns set in Glorantha and Tekumel, where everyone in the party was a mage of one flavour or another. I'm just trying to make the point that the GM should be aware of this outcome, when doing magic system design.

 

Cheers, Mark

[NuSoardGraphite]

This only becomes a problem if the other archtypes cant also develop their own abilities that put their abilities into the extraordinary zone. When fighters can develop Whirlwind attacks that allow them to down a roomfull of attackers in a single action, or Master of Shadows that allows the Theif to be inaudible and invisible on a successful Stealth roll, they wont feel the need to make a mage to perform the way they desire.

 

But you do give some good advice. The magic system does need to be limited in a way which reduces the potential for abuse. Limited use works for this. Make the recovery very slow and a mage will only have their Endurance reserve for any given encounter. 50 end goes quickly.

 

Also, breaking magic down to categories like the Colleges of Magic from Turakian Age is another good limitation. Each mage can only learn one type and this limits the scope of their spells.

 

In my games, wearing armor limits the mages ability to channel magical energy and thus the Encumbrance penalty also applies to spellcasting. So mages are encouraged to wear only the lightest of defenses. And if you think the encumbrance penalty is small....it is, but when coupled with penalties for the Active points of the spell, those add up quickly. No mage is going to want a -4 for wearing plate armor on top of the -6 inherent in casting that 12d6 fireball spell. This is in addition to any environmental penalties, or penalties for being wounded (-1 for Impaired, -3 for Disabled) or distracted.

 

There are many ways of keeping magic users in check even while allowing Framework based magic systems.

[Markdoc]

This only becomes a problem if the other archtypes cant also develop their own abilities that put their abilities into the extraordinary zone. When fighters can develop Whirlwind attacks that allow them to down a roomfull of attackers in a single action, or Master of Shadows that allows the Theif to be inaudible and invisible on a successful Stealth roll, they wont feel the need to make a mage to perform the way they desire.

Agreed. I allow all character archetypes to use power frameworks in my games, but that's not what the original poster is suggesting - as it stands, I get the impression that only mages are allowed to use frameworks, and the framework itself looks to be fairly open to powergaming. I'm not saying that's a terrible idea, merely pointing out to the OP that if he ends up with problematic characters, that's likely where they will come from.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Beowulf]

Markdoc, while I really think you have vastly overestimated the variaty of spells the caster will have  access to, and the configurations of them, you make some really good points.

 

On reading the discussion above the following seems prudent.

 

Metal disrupts the flow of magic energy. -1 to magic skill for each 1 rPD of metal armor. -1 for each peice of metal jewlery touching the skin.

 

So overall for magic:

Mana battery is required.

- Full night sleep required to recharge it.

- Extra time to recover the battery (To be determined)

 

Magic is a VPP limited to 40 points to start.

- Requires a skill roll at -1 for every 10 active points in the spell.

- Skill roll will be at an additional -1 for each point of resistant defense, and -1 for each piece of metal (jewlery, weapon etc) in contact with the caster's skin.

- Characters can deliberatly move up the time chart for a bonus to the magic skill roll.

- Side effects is an ego blast on failure

- incantations, full phase to cast

- Can only change the VPP by studying for one hour per 10 active points

- Must study magic from a book or scroll

- Spells can be reaserched with a magic skill roll. One week of uninterupted research is required per 10 active points in the spell. Success is tested with a magic skill roll as thought he spell is being cast, except the difficulty check is at -3 per 10 active points. Spells subject to GM approval.

 

Lot of rules there but nothing that seems hard to keep track of... or is there?

[Markdoc]

Markdoc, while I really think you have vastly overestimated the variaty of spells the caster will have  access to, and the configurations of them, you make some really good points.

 

Actually, I was not over-estimating (since I have no idea what spell-lists you will be using), so much as warning very, very strongly to be highly restrictive in what you permit from the beginning. It's always easier to start off narrow and relax the restrictions if you feel comfortable with how things are working, than to discover something is not working and try to stuff that particular genie back into the bottle. Experience tells us that you don't need a whole spellbook of nasty spells to be disruptive - just one or two hard-to-answer spells will do the trick.

 

As for the restriction on metal armour and weapons that's a possible and interesting approach if you want to further differentiate mages and warriors. If you want to go that route and haven't read them already, it's worth checking out the Tim Powers books The Anubis Gates and/or On Stranger Tides: they both use the "iron is inimical to magic" trope and they're both rollicking good reads, as well.

 

Edit: the way iron works in those books is analogous to a drain or suppress effect, making magic weaker where there is much iron. In the books, that effects both the spellcaster and the target, making it hard for spellcasters to directly effect someone protected by sufficient iron. That might be an interesting alternate approach, though it heavily tilts the board against spellcasters in combat.

 

Otherwise, the only thing I can see that might be a problem is spell research. If your players are anything like mine, the first thing they will want to do is spell research in any down time they have - if you have much downtime, they will be able to generate some nasty stuff fairly quickly (at which point the whole "restricted access" thing becomes moot). A month, for example would be enough to generate 2-3 really useful spells or one that fills their starting VPP, and in most games a month's downtime between adventures is not likely to be super uncommon. As long as you are on the ball, you should be able to catch anything you really don't want, but unless you actually want spell research to be a thing the PCs spend a lot of time on, I'd review whether you actually need it in your game. Personally, I don't like setting up rules constructs that will probably force me to say no to players on a regular basis.

 

In my own game, spell research is analogous to scientific research in our time - not something you knock out in a few quiet evenings in a rented room, but a painstaking process that normally takes years or even decades - preferably in a well-equipped lab - to generate usable results. That essentially places it out of reach of PC spellcasters, while still explaining the question of where new spells come from. That's an explanation that players will likely easily accept, so it causes no in-game problems. It also offers you as GM the ability to provide "breakthroughs" for players to develop their own unique spells in the form of someone else's nearly-complete research notes, if you want.

 

cheers, Mark

[Christopher R Taylor]

Another useful thing for magic is to have a -1 to the skill roll penalty for each spell run at the same time.  That will help cut back on people stacking up delayed spells or buffing themselves into massive power then going into battle.  If your 5 personal buffs cause a -5 penalty on your next spell, that's going to make it more uncomfortable to do.

 

Its also worth considering assessing a penalty to spell roll for being hit or interfered with, so players can disrupt those annoying NPC mages.

[Wardsman]

Actually, I was not over-estimating (since I have no idea what spell-lists you will be using), so much as warning very, very strongly to be highly restrictive in what you permit from the beginning. It's always easier to start off narrow and relax the restrictions if you feel comfortable with how things are working, than to discover something is not working and try to stuff that particular genie back into the bottle. Experience tells us that you don't need a whole spellbook of nasty spells to be disruptive - just one or two hard-to-answer spells will do the trick.

 

As for the restriction on metal armour and weapons that's a possible and interesting approach if you want to further differentiate mages and warriors. If you want to go that route and haven't read them already, it's worth checking out the Tim Powers books The Anubis Gates and/or On Stranger Tides: they both use the "iron is inimical to magic" trope and they're both rollicking good reads, as well.

 

Edit: the way iron works in those books is analogous to a drain or suppress effect, making magic weaker where there is much iron. In the books, that effects both the spellcaster and the target, making it hard for spellcasters to directly effect someone protected by sufficient iron. That might be an interesting alternate approach, though it heavily tilts the board against spellcasters in combat.

 

Otherwise, the only thing I can see that might be a problem is spell research. If your players are anything like mine, the first thing they will want to do is spell research in any down time they have - if you have much downtime, they will be able to generate some nasty stuff fairly quickly (at which point the whole "restricted access" thing becomes moot). A month, for example would be enough to generate 2-3 really useful spells or one that fills their starting VPP, and in most games a month's downtime between adventures is not likely to be super uncommon. As long as you are on the ball, you should be able to catch anything you really don't want, but unless you actually want spell research to be a thing the PCs spend a lot of time on, I'd review whether you actually need it in your game. Personally, I don't like setting up rules constructs that will probably force me to say no to players on a regular basis.

 

In my own game, spell research is analogous to scientific research in our time - not something you knock out in a few quiet evenings in a rented room, but a painstaking process that normally takes years or even decades - preferably in a well-equipped lab - to generate usable results. That essentially places it out of reach of PC spellcasters, while still explaining the question of where new spells come from. That's an explanation that players will likely easily accept, so it causes no in-game problems. It also offers you as GM the ability to provide "breakthroughs" for players to develop their own unique spells in the form of someone else's nearly-complete research notes, if you want.

 

cheers, Mark

Markdoc brings up some good points.

 

I personally don't like frameworks in Fantasy. But I do  believe if you allow them for the mages you should allow them for non mages

 

Ultimate Skill from 5th edition has some interesting rules on the Power Skill(Magic), Inventor skill(Spell Research), and Knowledge Skills.

 

You might also create a ranking system for spells and some sort mechanic that limits what rank of spells the caster can use.

I'm leaning towards [ (active points/10)+ (real points/10) ] /15 = Spell Rank. Ranks run 1-15 for 1st, 16-30 for 2nd, 31-45 for 3rd etc.

That way a version of a spell with more limitations is easier to acquire than the version with less.

 

Compare what mages can do vs what everyone else in damage over time.

I use encumbrance rules for armor against mages regardless of what it is made of.

 

5th has an optional figured stat called Arcane Defense. It is PD, ED. Ego Defense, Flash, and Power Defense rolled into one. But it only works against the magic special effect. Somewhere between 2-5 points in cost per point with a stat/5 adding to it if you use figured characteristics.

I've thought about letting Dwarves take it based on CON.

 

Use Spell Colleges! I'm working on my Harn translation at the moment.

[Cantriped]

I strongly disapprove of your magic system's use of the Variable Power Pool...

The entire point of a VPP is to allow character to have a greater level of versatility than the standard array of one Attack, one Defense, and one Utility or Movement power, while limiting the number of real points and/or the theme of the abilities they have access to at once. What you are proposing limits a character's selection out the gate, forces them to pay more and get less, and also creates a huge number of balancing issues for yourself.

 

This system won't prevent game breaking by spellcraft. Instead it will encourage them to power-game their spell selection (because it is so limited), and find every cheesy method possible to expand their spell lists. As mentioned above, if everyone builds a mage and then trades spellbooks you now have between 6 and 18 different spells right out of the gate. Even if they don't, every enemy mage is running under the same system, meaning you have to give them all the exact same spells the players use, or risk increasing the versatility of a spellcaster geometrically with each encounter against a magic user. The only way you have given yourself to limit character's tendency to collect an infinitely expanding list of more and more broken combinations is to take away their spellbooks (a task which is more easily said than accomplished). Caster's aren't just going to carry their spellbook on an easily yanked chain like the illustrations of Pathfinder characters might lead you to expect, nor will they carry it in their hands. Unless you specially arrange it (which will take more effect than just killing the mage), it will be almost impossible to deprive a caster of their spells once they have them. Moreover taking the spellbook won't prevent them from casting a spell they've already managed to get into their VPP (instead it prevents them from removing it). Moreover, taking away a character's equipment is frustrating for the player (who may legitimately feel cheated of the many points they spent), and if you do it frequently you will quickly lose your player's interest in the campaign.

 

In addition, making power creation limited to caster's makes your warriors even less relevant. Because they can't gain access to modifiers like Armor Piercing or Area of Effect without becoming spellcasters; meanwhile nothing prevents a spellcaster from buying a greatsword, some Martial Arts with it, and then arranging their spells to cover their weaknesses or improve their weapons beyond what a martial character can accomplish.

 

Were I making a standard "Glass Cannon" mage for your campaign I would build the following spells:

Force Bomb:  2d6-1 RKA vs. PD, Armor Piercing (+1/4), Area of Effect (2" Radius; +1/4?) (37 APs)

​Force Chains:  2d6, 3 Def Entangle, Area of Effect (2" Radius; +1/4?), Takes No Damage From Force Attacks (+1/4) (37 APs)

Force Disk: Flight, Half END (+1/4) (I am assuming Zero END isn't allowed, otherwise I'd go with that.)

With this list my tactic would be to fly out of the range I can be easily hit, then chain and bomb my enemies into submission from a safe distance.

Only dedicated archers will be able to attack me at all, and only dedicated melee fighters are likely to have the STR to break my entangle so they can (in theory) actually attack me. At the starting point level nobody can afford to be good at both, meaning every enemy on the field is likely to be locked up unless they can teleport or have an extreme level of strength. Because all my attacks are AoE, the DCV of my enemies is irrelevant (so the fact that mine probably sucks doesn't matter). Nevermind that flight lets me overcome almost every terrain based obstacle used in medieval warfare.

 

Edited to sound a little less mean-spirited. 

Edited September 22, 2016 by Cantriped