5th Edition: How much for this limitation, "must have X amount in Y skill"?

[Wardsman]

Background: Assume to cast certain spells the caster must have X amount in Y background skills. These are not the skills rolled to cast. Just background knowledge you must have to be able to cast this or that spell. 

• May need more than one background skill, IE need KS Hermetic and Wiccan Magic
• May need one or the other skill, IE KS Hermetic OR Wiccan Magic

 

Thoughts?

[IndianaJoe3]

It seems reasonable. I'd allow them to at least be used as complementary skills for casting, or make them useful in some other way.

[Wardsman]

It seems reasonable. I'd allow them to at least be used as complementary skills for casting, or make them useful in some other way.

You misunderstand. I'm not thinking requires skill to cast sense. I'm thinkinking in terms of the old 4 edition you must know so many points in this school of magic. But instead of knowing so many points in a magic school. They must have a prerequisite skill or skills at certain levels.

 

I apologize if I was unclear.

[Beast]

not much if say up to 4pts of Fam is all that is needed at best -1/4
-0 if each magic school needs 4 pts of Fam

It is just the price to do business
pretty much you need Weapon Fam if you want to swing a sword or shoot a bow

[Lucius]

 

There are two precedents for something like this under the current edition.

 

There is the STR Min that can be applied to weapons. But that is usually regarded as an "equipment build" Limitation not usually for something a player actually spends points on.

 

There is the Linked Limitation. In this case, you would link the spell Power to the Skills in question. Since the spell probably has many more Active Points, this may work out to a -0 Limitation.

 

I suspect that most people will tell you this is like the Required Skills for a Martial Art - not something you get a Limitation for, but just something you have to have in order to buy the spell/maneuver/whatever.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary suggest Unified Power, but that would mean if someone Drains the spell, you forget the lore....

[Lucius]

not much if say up to 4pts of Fam is all that is needed at best -1/4

-0 if each magic school needs 4 pts of Fam

It is just the price to do business

pretty much you need Weapon Fam if you want to swing a sword or shoot a bow

Actually, if you spent your own Character Points for that sword or bow, then no, you don't need a Weapon Familiarity Skill.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Weapon Familiarity: Palindromedary Mounted Weapons

[L. Marcus]

I see this as a meta-rule for the campaign in question, and not worth a Limitation. I mean, in what way would it limit the character? "If you don't have KS: Aeromancy at 12- or more, then you can't buy Rincewind's Burst Of Speed. You do? Well then, go ahead and buy it!"

[Nolgroth]

But it would mean that a character would have to spend points to get the necessary background skills. Those same points could be used elsewhere.

 

I like the flavor this brings too. In order to buy more powerful spells, you have to invest in learning the theory behind them.

 

I would go from -0 for Familiarity to -1/4 for 11-, to -1/2 for 14-. I would not allow for anything higher than -1/2. The Limitation value would only be based on the most stringent requirements, if multiple skills were required. No extra bonus for multiple skill requirements.

[Netzilla]

My take on it is "it depends".  If there's a semi-common way for the character to loose the prerequisite, then it's worth a Limitation.  That way, there will be circumstances under which the power cannot be used or only used in a weakened manner.

 

Otherwise, like L. Marcus, I just view this as campaign flavor.  If the Limitation never has any game impact after character creation, it's really not much of a Limitation.  Also, those background skills should have uses in and of themselves, otherwise why pay points for them?

[L. Marcus]

But it would mean that a character would have to spend points to get the necessary background skills. Those same points could be used elsewhere.

But it doesn't limit the usefulnes of the power once the character has it -- in play, any such Limitation would just be gravy points. In contrast to STR Min, where a character with STR below the minimum can still use the Power, just less efficiently.

[Wardsman]

My take on it is "it depends".  If there's a semi-common way for the character to loose the prerequisite, then it's worth a Limitation.  That way, there will be circumstances under which the power cannot be used or only used in a weakened manner.

 

Otherwise, like L. Marcus, I just view this as campaign flavor.  If the Limitation never has any game impact after character creation, it's really not much of a Limitation.  Also, those background skills should have uses in and of themselves, otherwise why pay points for them?

 

 

 

 

 

Mind wipe anyone? Drains on Skills?

[L. Marcus]

Mind wipe anyone? Drains on Skills?

Down that road lies the opening of a can of game-balance worms, I think. Think of how cheap the Draining of a Skill would be in comparison with the Powers they enable -- six times? Ten? Not to mention one Skill Drain would affect a number of Powers.

 

And how often would the PCs encounter a Drainer? Once in a great while could be fun and challenging and exciting -- but once a game night? The spellcasters, I assume, would get bored and protest that they get sidelined.

[Outsider]

This sounds like a limitation that isn't likely to limit the character any time except in character creation.  Unless, as Netzilla said, things that remove the prerequisite skill will be coming up occasionally.

 

I too would probably mark it up to "campaign flavor requirement for spell casting" and be on my way.

 

 

 

However... if I really really wanted it to be a limitation on the spell, then I would look at how it would change the character point budget during creation, and value it such that it was likely to be a wash or a near wash. .  Even as just a -1/4 limitation, this impact can be pretty big, depending on how you're allowing people to buy spells.

[Netzilla]

Mind wipe anyone? Drains on Skills?

 

Well, as I intimated in my previous post, it depends on the commonality of such things in your campaign.  If they'll come up as often as someone disarming a warrior's sword, then it's worth the same value as an OAF (-1).  If they might only come up once every 4-6 adventures (for example), it might be worth a -1/4.  If they're only likely to come up once or twice in a campaign overall, I'd call it a -0.

 

The thing to keep in mind with Limitation values is they're really only worth something if they actually inconvenience a character in play.  How much they're worth depends entirely on how much and how often they weaken the power they're attached to.  Something that only affects character creation is not something that affects said character in play. 

 

For example, your character's powers are built with the Limitation "Not in the presense of Moldy String Cheese".  If you get points back for that, then you're basically telling the GM that you expect this to be used against you on a semi-regular basis (how often depends on the Limitation value).  Conversely, if you don't get any points for it, you can still have that on your character sheet but it will almost never come up in play and on the very rare occasion that it does, the situation will be easily overcome.  So, by granting a value to your "Prerequisite Limitation", you're basically telling the GM that they should neutralize those Prerequisites on a semi-regular basis.

[Wardsman]

This sounds like a limitation that isn't likely to limit the character any time except in character creation.  Unless, as Netzilla said, things that remove the prerequisite skill will be coming up occasionally.

 

I too would probably mark it up to "campaign flavor requirement for spell casting" and be on my way.

 

 

 

However... if I really really wanted it to be a limitation on the spell, then I would look at how it would change the character point budget during creation, and value it such that it was likely to be a wash or a near wash. .  Even as just a -1/4 limitation, this impact can be pretty big, depending on how you're allowing people to buy spells.

The main thing is if a spell is found it determines if the character can use it or it is just beyond their reach.

[Beast]

I took this as a Heroic level game
say 175 pts where a magic sword would take up a lot point vs a super heroic game at 400 pts
so in general fighter types need to take weapon fam skills or take  a -3 OCV(you still might want to take weapon fam skills as you might not have your uncle's glow when orc are around sword)

 

so what works for fighters can work for mage types also

Actually, if you spent your own Character Points for that sword or bow, then no, you don't need a Weapon Familiarity Skill.

Lucius Alexander

Weapon Familiarity: Palindromedary Mounted Weapons

[Nolgroth]

Down that road lies the opening of a can of game-balance worms, I think. Think of how cheap the Draining of a Skill would be in comparison with the Powers they enable -- six times? Ten? Not to mention one Skill Drain would affect a number of Powers.

 

And how often would the PCs encounter a Drainer? Once in a great while could be fun and challenging and exciting -- but once a game night? The spellcasters, I assume, would get bored and protest that they get sidelined.

 

I see this as no different, spiritually speaking, than having Complications/Disadvantages. If used with a healthy dose of GM oversight, it can reward a distinct concept by providing a cost break. Ironically, I pretty much hate Complications and I like the idea of limiting individual powers or power frameworks. I can totally understand your position though. One thing that might be an actual compromise is to wrap up this aspect into the Spell limitation. Even with both yours and Netzilla's well-reasoned responses, I would still allow such a thing into a larger magical system construct.

 

I imagined a pretty complex magic system last night that limited these background skills as well, by requiring either a Library or Access perk to a mystical library of the same rating or higher. So not only is the skill required, there are further mechanical and campaign considerations. Sure, finding a copy of Unspeakable Cults isn't too difficult. Finding the original Unaussprechliche Kulten is a whole 'nuther matter, not to mention convincing the owner of said book to either let you peruse or buy it. This can be abstracted to things like Perk: Necromantic Library 11- or Access: Arkham Library Restricted Stacks 14- but the point remains that this concept provides a fairly straightforward, razor focus for a character. It will also prevent anybody from just becoming a master of the arcane. I mean, how many warriors are going to take the time to build up a library, develop the background and spell casting skills necessary to use magic, and pump a bunch of points into spells? You can have dabblers hucking low powered spells, but to actually be a wizard of note, you need a solid foundation in the basics.

 

Then again, I have seen a larger ideological rift between my own evolving preferences and the "Hero method" of character creation. I tend to give as much weight to narrative hooks these days, as I do to mechanical ones. That may be one reason we are not seeing eye to eye on the subject.

[L. Marcus]

The Zeroth Law of Role-Playing Games: Fun Trumps All! And every GM and every table has their own definition. If it adds to your game -- go with it.

 

Or something.

[eepjr24]

I agree with the general trend of the thread. I would probably go with "campaign requirement". If you want to give the characters something for a limitation, go with Unified. All the spells that have the same requirements are drained the same. 

 

- E

[Outsider]

The main thing is if a spell is found it determines if the character can use it or it is just beyond their reach.

 

Ah, see this could be something entirely different.  

 

When a spell is found, does the character have to spend experience points to learn it, or does he simply have that spell available from then on if he has the requisite hermetic or wiccan skill?   The first option would be like finding an instruction book on how to make a magic sword that the gm says will allow you top spend experience to make one.  The second is like finding an actual magic sword.  Pick it up and go!

[Wardsman]

Ah, see this could be something entirely different.  

 

When a spell is found, does the character have to spend experience points to learn it, or does he simply have that spell available from then on if he has the requisite hermetic or wiccan skill?   The first option would be like finding an instruction book on how to make a magic sword that the gm says will allow you top spend experience to make one.  The second is like finding an actual magic sword.  Pick it up and go!

What if is both? 

Spells are bought with real points. 

Sebastian is a modern Hermetic with KS 14- Hermetic magic. He finds a spell that requires you to know Ancient Chaldean ceremonial magic 14-.

While there might be some overlap in understanding they different that he can't cast or may have to risk risk backfire or side effects if the GM wants to let him jury rig the spell so to speak.

[Lucius]

Ironically, I pretty much hate Complications and I like the idea of limiting individual powers or power frameworks.

I've been coming around to something like that view, I think.

 

But I worry that this is making the game less accessible to new people. The idea of Complications is relatively "intuitive" compared to the idea of Limitations.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And an unlimited uncomplicated palindromedary

[Hugh Neilson]

5e removed the concept of limitations for spending points elsewhere. I also don't get any points for "cannot cast fire spells".

 

Requires a Skill Roll has a minimum value of -1/4. A skill-based roll which must be made each phase the ability is used is -1. Using a KS,PS or SS reduces that by -1/4, and dropping the penalty to -1/20 points reduces it another -1/4. Drop it another -1/4 for "AP does not penalize roll at all" and we'd be at -1/4, but still need to roll, not just have the skill.

[Wardsman]

5e removed the concept of limitations for spending points elsewhere. I also don't get any points for "cannot cast fire spells".

 

Requires a Skill Roll has a minimum value of -1/4. A skill-based roll which must be made each phase the ability is used is -1. Using a KS,PS or SS reduces that by -1/4, and dropping the penalty to -1/20 points reduces it another -1/4. Drop it another -1/4 for "AP does not penalize roll at all" and we'd be at -1/4, but still need to roll, not just have the skill.

 

I understand that. But I may or may not use RSR. And if I do it will be a different skill.

I'm trying to simulate the need for background knowledge needed to cast a spell. Some spells will require more knowledge than others.

Using "must know X active points in spell college" or must know a KS in that spell college are the only ways I figured out to do that.

 

What stops an Illusionist from casting a pyromancy spell they find even if they never studied that school of magic?

That is that I'm trying to simulate. You don't like how I propose to do it, then give an alternative without frameworks.

[L. Marcus]

Campaign meta-rules are the answer. You simply tell the mage's player "Sorry, that's not how magic works in this world."