TheDarkness

Yes. I made a street level detective kind of vigilante a while back, an NPC to occasionally work with characters. For his points, I had to play him so smart as far as combat went, because when it came down to it, he had bled a lot of points to have all the skills I wanted him to have. As such, compared to the characters, he was weak. But the players didn't realize that, due to a combination of a few lucky rolls and the fact that I was super cognizant of what he would do in combat. In reality, he was almost always about an inch from getting totally overwhelmed. Being an NPC, I didn't actually have to do the full build, mind you, but I kind of liked the character, even though he was mostly in it for flavor and for a contact for the group. Actually, the thing that started the issue of pools and skills for me was a villain in that game, The Spartan, who was a spirit trapped in a helmet who possessed those who wore the helmet, and they would gain his skills and such. That was a headache. I ended up handwaving a lot of that.

I'm using the tier reference using magic in a fantasy game as an example. Fantasy games generally have space for spell lists. Since the lists don't need to broken down for class for our purposes(since class largely doesn't exist, only potential archetypes and grey areas between): there could be multiple types of people with access to the same spell but for different effects or reasons, the space should actually be less than in most fantasy games' spell lists. And games that are simpler than Hero still explain what the spell does. They just don't use a CPA to write it. Mostly, the tier aspect is for balance. Since a system made from the Hero system would not show all the options and how balance is maintained, balance would have to be hardwired into the prebuilds and in what prebuilds are available at what point values of character. The lower level of complication comes from the lack of build notation. It would read like a spell in most games. There just would be no need for the class distinctions. The difference between a true wizard and someone with some magic ability would merely be dedication of points that allowed for an arsenal of spells. Now, with the dispel, yes, but put an activation roll on it, make it have gestures and incantations and whatnot, and just make sure it is powerful enough to dispel the tier of spells it is intended for, which should generally be spells that are in tiers below it, maybe in its own tier, but that would probably be expensive. At least, that's my thought on it. Conversely, each spell could have a "dispel rating" that was actually its APs, and dispel could be straight rolls. As for explaining the point values, how many years has the martial arts system existed in Hero without an explanation of the point values? And Hero gamers care A LOT more about the meanings of those point values than other gamers. Most of the time, it's just, oh, 25 points for this, I've got 25 points, cool. The Hero system was always known for balance, and what we are talking about wouldn't even have the option for the most easily munchkined stuff. As such, a 25 pt. thing will probably be worth its points. If it feels balanced, most players are not going to ask why.

On my view of why a framework that can include skills is warranted, aside from the fact that skills under powers are already not that uncommon. There are many characters whose skills are on the order of a power, but not necessarily a massive power. Batman's detective skills, from the start, are on the order of a power. As are his fighting skills. Daredevil's fighting skills. Aragorn on Weathertop, fighting off a number of nazgul with a sword and a torch. Frodo's completely non-magical resistance to the ring. And Gollum's. Legolas' archery. Robin Hood's. Mister Fantastic's science skills from the start. Bruce Banner's. The Beast's. The Flash's. Tyrian Lannister's political savvy. Now, to buy these in the game tends to eat points, although Tyrian did get to sell back some physical traits. And yet, the game effect for them is often not equal to the points. Yet, if you start with a Batman with a shadow of his detective skills, it's not like you will get more chances in game to play such skills, there will be less. Now, combat skills get used more often, and yet, those are exactly the skills you most often DO see in the powers section. With the pool I laid out some ideas for above(based on criterion supplied by Christopher), the pool would actually make it so that the combat skills would entail more points in expenditures, due to the requirement that they be tied to maneuvers, AND due to the fact that you will often have to first buy lower point versions that do the desired effect, but have limitations or are not at the ultimate level you want. Whereas, for skills that have less play-time, you will not have to do the same thing. Further, as in all pools, the topic matter will be narrowed. In essence, this pool would be for those things that characters do that are in the order of a power, but either require associated skills or are skills in a narrow field. Batman could not put his driving skill in here, that's just maybe a skill he's good at in his skills list. But his detective skills, with disguise and forensics and all, would go in one. Mister Fantastic's science skills would go in one. On the higher order of power, a sorceror, with their spells tied to knowledge of the powers that be and the rituals and all, could likewise make use of it. BUT, unlike a VPP, they could not simply buy the big powers that they want. They would be forced to pay for tiers, and while it is discounted, it will still cost. While the biggest cost will be the pool to power the most powerful spells, the small spells maybe still add a little. And every group of powers must have an associated skill. That's my view.

Further, I'm thinking the pool might require skills, not just allow them. It allows them a discount, and for non-combat skills does not require sub-slots, and if it has them, those would probably involve specific subskills within that skill. Skills that are used throughout the pool are listed and their cost placed under the pool heading. Skills that are only used in subslots are included in their header. Skills listed in a Skills Pool may ONLY be used for what is laid out in that pool. This will have less effect on non-combat skills, only serving to make it more feasible to make a street detective or that sort of thing. For the combat skills, it will have a bigger effect. CSLs in that pool cannot be applied to maneuvers they do not have in that pool, including the free maneuvers(which are, in effect, in their own Skills Pool that is completely subsidized). How I'm picturing this at this point: Skills Pool: Martial Arts(pool points: XXX) Skills: X CSLs, +X STR Slot 1: Throws- Skill: Throws Tier 1: +X STR for knockdown only +X STR for knockback only Tier 2: +X STR Tier 3: Counterthrow- Skill: Reading an Opponent(throwing), trigger(OCV VS. OCV for throws against the character), +X OCV for this roll only, if succeeds, +X STR throw Slot 2: Strikes: Skill: Striking methods Tier 1: +X... It discounts skills, it discounts the maneuvers, but it also requires the buying of more skills and more slots.

I agree with that. However, I kind of like the idea you put forward of there being a sort of sequence. It places a natural limit on the framework, and gives the feel of something skills-based to boot.

The other advantage to the set-up I put above for determining tiers is, since the first tier is any base power with or without disadvantages that achieves the effect, or, if that is not possible, one with the least advantages to achieve it, then it allows the tier one a range where someone can buy a very limited version of the power that is highly conditional, but someone more specialized can have less conditions on it, so it is better, but still within the first tier.

Let's assume the builds are sold in tiers. Make the build that no spell exists in tier X that a spell in tier Y cannot dispel. Scale up as we go. I'd have to bone up on dispels to see how that would be ensured. In the builds for dispel, apply the standard effect rule, so that all rolls are always three. Then make sure the amount of drain or dispel is sufficient to dispel ALL applicable spells at a certain tier level of spells. If we want the players to have a roll to make it seem less automatically successful, give it an activation roll. Drain is more difficult, so leaving it as Stat drains only simplifies the whole thing.

Bringing this back up as the most clear explanation we have for some guidelines for framework design... Since there could not be linking to things out of the framework, it would, by definition, have to allow skills to be in the framework. For martial arts, for order of grouping, for example, one would have to buy throw(KD) and throw(KB) and KS: Reading an Opponent(for throws my player has) before buying counter-throw. Counter-strike would have an even lengthier list. Or, it could be made that you cannot counter a move that you yourself don't have. Or it could be made that if you are trying to counter a move you don't have, you have to make a Reading an Opponent roll at a penalty. Or, the order of grouping could be more campaign specific. The problem with enforcing MUST BUY A BEFORE BUYING B is in how to put that in game design terms that preserve balance for the framework. Perhaps tiers of APs, the power must have one slot within X APs before it can have a slot of >X<Y APs? Minimum three slots, I agree on that, and that's three slots NOT of consecutive tiers, but three separate slots in the first AP tier. The real problem is determining what is the base level. Martial arts has a bit of a workaround, as the base level would, in most cases, be the free maneuvers. Arbitrary points might make it so that the cheapest version of a certain effect would be above what is considered first tier, and so there would be no way to model it. A thought. The first tier, perhaps, should be the absolute cheapest version of it while still having the desired effect. For example, for throws, throw for KD only would be cheaper than martial throw for distance, so that would have to be bought first. It could be a rule of the frame that first tier would be: The base power without advantages, with or without disadvantages, if it still fulfills the effect, or... The base power with the least advantages to achieve the effect This would still require some sort of point cap on the base power so that people don't just throw in +100 Str off the bat AND a point cap for this from one tier to the next, so that they don't add +100 STR on the next tier. APs seems the most likely measure, that way, even with a lot of limitations, a high powered thing or one with a lot of advantages will tend to naturally come after a similar one with less advantages and definitely so if the former had both a lot of power and a lot of advantages. In this case, not only the framework has a tight theme, but the sub-slots as well. In fact, the slots might be, in actual use, just headers for the sub-slots. Fire magic. Dispelling magic. Shield magic. Strikes. Throws. Sword. Then there's the question of pool points. Magic will tend to have more, whereas the normal martial artist will have less, as each move will require less than, say, Dumbledore's 'dance in my world of fire' magic. If one wanted to make a super level martial artist, they could up that pool, just like in other things. If a fantasy character was not a mage, but merely someone who could do a few spells, theirs could be quite small.

And, yes. That is a great idea...

Okay, my current thoughts on an approach to throw. Split off fast ball special into a genre-specific thing for supers. For throws, as in a martial maneuver that is not genre specific, modelling it on KB/KD efficiently does the trick, I think. Plus, since damage is already being done, there is no extra roll required, merely possible extra dice. I am currently leaning toward letting it remain OCV vs. OCV, as this is a fair representation of throws, getting a throw requires a huge risk of being thrown. This allows builds for various effects. A throw that lands the person at your feet(KD only), AND a throw that throws them for distance. That pretty much describes all the throws I can think of with one build structure. One thing I'm not sure how to model. KB/KD presumes that the direction of the throw is forward to the thrower. BUT, there are a lot of fun options that could be opened up by allowing the thrower to determine the direction, and that mimics a wide range of actual throws with just one build. Another idea I'm playing with relates to builds for counter-throws. Since the initial roll is OCV vs. OCV, I'm thinking of taking the logic of this one further. If one has a counter-throw maneuver(whether for KD only, or for distance), the trigger would be the OCV vs. OCV roll, with the winner of that roll getting to throw. Not sure if this is kosher, but if it is, it would allow the entire process to be decided in a very concise number of rolls. I also am intending to tie in a Reading an Opponent skill, which can be bought for striking, for throws, for ground fighting, for specific weapons(KS: sword vs. spear, KS: Great Sword vs. Sword and Shield), etc. I'm playing with the idea of that skill being advantageous for counter maneuvers, or more, the lack of it being disadvantageous.

I tend to think it safer to have a finished and clear product, as far as text, for an artist to work with. This way, the artist is drawing the strong points that have proven popular among the test groups who have read the text.

Versus throws, OCV is used, not DCV. Otherwise, yes, that does appear to be the way if one wanted a character who would be very hard to throw. You'd have to build some sort of change environment to avoid the effect, so the attack roll is the only clear way.

In reference to the difficulty of making a 'powered by Hero' game due to AP and drains. I think the easiest approach is to approach it in the pre-gens. IN DESIGN, made all things of a certain 'tier' have a certain range that does not exceed what a drain could effect. I think APs will almost have to be listed, but if we hardwire abilities so that they simply have a range they work within, and have what appears to be rules, but is actually part of the build(does not work against tier 3 power), it could mitigate this. Maybe. Also, as someone already stated, we could simply avoid the issue by avoiding drain constructs that strain things.

On a lighter note, for a little lighter NSFW reading on the wacky hijinks of the mystical Taoists(versus the philosophical Taoists), check out the old cult known as the Heavenly Masters. In some ways, they are a good basis for what Taoist magic backstories include, aside from the, uh, more late night cable aspects. Usually, there is an immortal spirit conveying secrets. Sometimes an albino or dwarf, occasionally a dwarf albino.

That said, it's less my intention to argue that the martial arts system would be better served done as legitimate builds, but to prove it for my own purposes and for the fun of building it.

Sorry, I'm accustomed to Taoist texts, and they always split hairs so fine that everyone's head hurts. Agreed. Ooh, I feel doubly bad, because I just reread your post and see what you mean. Sorry!

Chinese philosophy, magic, and religion is a marvelous way to eat up a ton of words to try to get across a point. Sorry I get so lengthy, but there's sometimes no way around it. The moment the monk believes he is doing anything, versus doing it, is a moment of failure. He literally is required to occupy his entire consciousness with a series of emotional and intellectual yogas with the express purpose of not having the slightest chance of thinking anything else, including his belief in it. The entire point of meditation is to differentiate between thoughts that are more like wind, just random responses based on a myriad of things including nervousness over anticipation, and what are viewed as the deeper thought processes. Meditation has no other point in Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. Meditation allows contemplation, but is not contemplation. Contemplation allows action, but is not action. Action disturbs realities one accepted in contemplation, and thus leads to meditation to regain calm, contemplation to process the new information of the contemplated versus the real results, which leads to more action. Samsara is nirvana, cause and effect is the cause of suffering and the solution in Chinese Buddhism. In this case, let's say compassion is the mindset(which would be way too simple, but I don't want to add more). Looking out and feeling compassion is what they are supposed to be doing. The moment they believe in anything, they stop doing what they are supposed to be doing. Further, they enter into realization that they just surmised an I who believes, an object of belief, and an arbitrary value to that belief, and thus extinguished the depth of compassion possible through seeing no separation between the compassionate one and the one who they feel compassion for. That's a no-no, strictly and expressly something they train long hours for long years to avoid. For Taoists, it would be observance of reality free of preferences based on assuming past cases and current situations are the same. For Confucians it would be observance of proper conduct for proper reasons with benevolent mindsets. But the relation between meditation, contemplation, and action is the same for all three, and is the foundation of all philosophical and mystical thought in China. As such, the beliefs are viewed almost as irrelevant in practice. It is not believing in the teaching that provides power, it is enacting the teaching without distraction, including the distraction of considering the truth value of the beliefs. Confucius made the point most famously, saying it's not important if the gods were real, only that offering was made as if they were. Now, in that case, we could say, see, he, during that ritual, believed. But, there are two problems with this. The first is, that belief was less important than attaining the mindset of belief, and was still not the primary goal. Decorum. Practicing decency in all things, including how one would approach possibly imaginary beings, was good practice. Second, that's just one ritual that may or not focus on a mindset of belief. Most do not. It simply is not central to these systems, it comes up here and now, nothing more. All of their rituals put aside the question of belief entirely, and are largely involved adoptions of conscious states each groups trains, and their efficacy is removed from questions of belief. Short version: the power of magic in the eastern tradition stems from the adoption of a mindset appropriate to the ritual, without interruption. The means to this was not belief, but practice of meditation, contemplation, and action in relation to that mindset until the practitioner had an informed and disciplined understanding of that mindset's influences and pitfalls in the real world. Belief may have been why they chose their discipline, but the SOURCE of any power was tied to a mindset undistracted by belief or anything else other than that mindset. Even if belief was the mindset, to believe that believing in that belief would have efficacy would be a break in that belief, and thus, would have no efficacy. This is all easier to say in classical Chinese. Aside from the vocabulary. The grammar is super dense. Famous example: The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao. That is one way the actual text can be read. In reality, a truer translation is: The way that can be way-ified is not the true Way. This further, is meant to be read as: The way that can be turned into a way is not the true Way. OR The way that can be followed as a way is not the true way. OR The way that can be acted upon as a way is not the true way. It's in the opening of Laozi, and it speaks of the accepted fact that one who follows the way is like one moving toward a distant star. You can only approximate, and if you look honestly within and without, you can only grow closer to it. But, if one was at one with the way, it would mean it was not a way, it was simply your nature as part of it.

I think the issue is, throws, unlike fastball specials, which are a genre norm, are heavily skill based. Strength helps, but generally, if you see a strong person throwing someone, they have some skill in it. Throws are really, really skill based. There's few aspects of fighting, aside from locks, that are more dependent on this. In the martial arts setup, this is not even possible: the buy-in for the system, which I still contend looks and behaves like a pool that is clearly giving a discount on moves, simultaneously makes any other builds unreasonably costly for less effect AND defines martial arts maneuvers in an unnecessarily fixed and, I would contend, dated manner that cannot be reproduced in any other way, and whose cost structure is arbitrary and vague. Further, to contend that they are system physics, one would have to show how they don't defy system physics. Yet, if throw is a function of Strength, then why is the act itself, aside from fastball special, which is really mainly a supers genre norm, not based on the long established means for determining a prone state, knockback and knockdown, which are directly tied to STR? If they are system physics, exactly WHAT is the cost structure's internal logic? Simply having a table that lists cost is not the same as a systematized approach, and that is entirely what the martial arts system is, tables that seem like maybe fair amounts if one doesn't look too closely at the builds. The advantage of the martial arts patch is that it makes making a martial artist that matches the memes that that patch allows quick and simple, but it does so in an entirely different way than everything else in the game. If this was done for energy projectors, bricks, spell casters, mentallists, and speedsters, people would scream bloody murder. The game would totally lose it's strong points. Never mind that the definition of martial arts that the system allows sometimes screams 1980s. I mean, screams it loudly, at the top of its lungs, with a Frankie Says shirt on. It's perfectly marketed to me thirty years ago, but it's narrow in its interpretations, and it enforces those interpretations with an unnecessary vigor. To further argue that it is a result of system physics, not physics themselves, I will again put forward the block. It exists to allow slow characters a fighting chance, more than anything else. This is a result of the physics of having speed and Dex stats. Not a physics unto itself. It is not the only way to do this. It is one good approach to allowing this, it shows a keen awareness of issues that need to be involved in playing the game, but its vagueness of design and magical cost structure make it impossible to choose any other way to do it without losing points. Any other part of the system, a patch like that would be seen as unacceptable and destroying granularity. Further, its totally unnecessary to have in place. There's no reason to not use the main system's methods for building things. Skills are under powers all the time. That doesn't make them powers, that means they have special effects, like everything else in the game. It is perfectly allowable to make a new maneuver of +STR for knockback, only 1 hex, and call it a short distance throw. And where would it be listed? Under the powers. To claim this is making it too complex is missing a key point. The martial arts system's complexity is undefined. You cannot measure it, and so comparing it to anything else is impossible. It says X is a function of STR, then arbitrarily makes its effect something more related to weather control. It also makes its effect absolute, while making it cost less than one that isn't. What is the cost structure of that for those who wish to build a spell that does the exact same thing? Let's suppose we price out the actual martial arts maneuvers by points. Then say, here, ten points, you can have all this. Then we build an equivalent amount in points and numbers of nuclear blast powers. We're not allowing them to be sold for ten points, not a chance. And yet, the point value should be the same, the effect should be equitable. In short, granularity. Every part of Hero has it but one. There's no real need for that to be true.

The key difference lies in the value of belief. A way to illustrate this would be the Hungry Ghost ritual, which is done in both Taoism and Buddhism, who heavily influenced each other. Using the Buddhist version. It is one of the few Buddhist rituals where the person leading the procession faces the audience, instead of the altar of Buddhas at the front. The importance and meaning of this to this discussion I'll get to. First, some background. Tradition requires that families sweep the graves of dead family members, and make offerings to them. This often gets titled 'ancestor worship', but this is problematic, as it applies a foreign concept of worship and misses many of the actual reasons for this ritual, especially the view that expressing positive qualities is transformative, and failure to express them towards those closest to one, family, is a huge loss. On the more mystical side, it was held that those dead who had no family to make offerings, or whose families failed to do so, wandered as 'hungry ghosts', forever starving with fire and blood and gore pouring from their mouths, and in their hunger, they could only wander the world, causing unrest and harm. This, again, is that common mirror to reality. The starving pouring into an area in reality could and did often bring troubles, not least of which would be overtaxing the food supply and creating more misery. The Hungry Ghost ritual is a massive and long ritual attended by many. There are great mounds of food in offering to these ghosts. But, remember, their hunger is infinite. Now, back to the importance of the one heading the ritual facing the audience with their back to the altar of buddhas. The fundamental principles of what an effective performance of this ritual entails would be consistent with Taoist performances, with only different views on what mental state is achieved by those leading and those viewing. The one facing the audience will always be one of the most experienced monks. They are required to 'take the mental state' of a particular buddha. Now, this is not to be confused with 'having Christ within me' of TV evangelists, which tend to have no set of criterion for what that entails. To 'take the mental state' of that buddha, there is a long and detailed list of what that entails. There are a host of meditations and contemplations done over years to practice the assumption of those aspects in more and more complex ways for longer and longer periods. Even each detail, like 'compassion', is broken down into endless sub-points. The Buddhas must express not simple compassion, but a compassion that recognizes the strains of cause and effect, samsara, for what they are, and so attain and express an effective compassion. In order to become a buddha for the ritual, one does not try to feel like so and so, they seek a mental state, practiced over years, that is defined by objective criterion. If this i achieved, then the magic is possible. The blessing of the food makes the food effectively infinite, and the hungry ghost's hunger is forever sated. The remaining, finite, portion of food, is then given to the poor. However, if it came out that the monk just believed they were that Buddha, most communities would consider it a scandal(because it invalidates the ritual and the act of compassion at its center), and that monk would be seen as a charlatan, no matter how deep their belief was. Who the buddha is is irrelevant, it is the mind of the buddha that is important, and the buddhas went through long sutras laughing at the concept of "I am me," and "I am this other guy" is no less laughable in context to their practices. That is not the thought of a buddha, and so to think to attain the state of one while saying it is like fishing for trout on Pluto. This is not to say belief plays no role, but that it plays such a small role, and is not anywhere near the center of the practices. The same is true in Taoism and Confucianism. The central tenet of traditional Chinese philosophies and their mystical offshoots is the same, transformation. Not belief in it, the enacting of it. Belief may drive which philosophy one may lead to, but was not viewed as empowering towards the practices themselves.

Actually, Taoist magic does not work this way. It is, in essence, a series of bribes for favors, and it is the nature of this particular being to do this favor for this particular bribe. It is a continuation of the imperial system with emperors and spirits and ancestors playing the role of the recipients of bribes, the hostile official, what have you. The belief in it is not often discussed, because Chinese thought, likely due to Confucius, long ago accepted the idea of doing something as if it was real being more relevant than the belief of its reality. Now, this does not mean some don't believe, but the belief is not important, it is the ability to emulate the exact mental conditions of 'how a supplicant to power x would carry themselves' that are of importance, but it becomes unimportant at any other time. The pantheon of characters is simply too vast to hold a solid 'belief' in any one for any length of time. At best, the belief in constant change would be the one peg they could hang their cloak on, belief wise, but it doesn't really require belief, since things do tend to change. It is entirely in the nature of taoist mysticism to one day be totally about this immortal, and the next to not even consider them at all important.

You're hiding flight usable on others instead of telekinesis in the blah blah blah, aren't you?

Yes. And I think one of the key factors in making the idea work is in avoiding SOME gaming genre memes that were actually ways to make character type X interesting within the limits of their home game, while making the memes of the original novel source material live(fantasy comes to mind) by way of Hero's capacity to build anything and everything(behind the scenes, of course). So that class becomes less of a factor. I'm actually working on a fantasy setting, and have some of what I feel(I'm biased) are some solid ideas for what would be considered rangers that Hero is actually perfect for achieving, but other systems tend to fail at. Likewise, want to cast some spells? No problem. Want to have more powerful spells? You're probably going to need to specialize a bit, as they will cost you. This allows for small magic for anyone who wants it, while making those who make magic their specialty extra special. Further, ideas that in other systems(guess which one) require a cleric to heal, well, there's no reason some healing abilities might not be available to others, and one could have the same healing spell and define it as the healing power of the Great Garden Gnome(may he rest unabducted in the great yard of garden gnome heaven) or a magical power or ancient elven herbal lore. So you could have some spells that anyone can choose from if their concept makes it make sense(my god is a fire god, and I can't cast fireball? But I can heal people? What the heck?) Then some specialty stuff that is available only for you and people like you. Some fighting abilities that everyone can choose from, a few that are special, because hey, you're an elf with a bow, or a holy knight, but these are all things that don't define you as a 'class', such that everyone else who chooses that class will be narrowly defined by the same limits and options as you, no, you are an elf with a bow, you have that advantage, but you are also one sneaky bugger, and really thievery is where you excel, though you are not entirely without merits when it comes to one or two other things that most archers and thieves lack. Thus, conceptually, we sell the idea of Hero's philosophy of build what you want, while making it far more accessible, and give GMs an incentive to buy the full system in order to tweek their world. Also, Hugh, I think you're right, make the true builds accessible online.

Okay, I think I have a handle on this now. Doing it that way provides no defense against it for attacks that cause him to be knocked down, but whose intended purpose is not necessarily to do so. So, he needs to buy both normal resistance to knock back, and heightened DCV versus sweeps, and heightened OCV vs. throws, because, while the latter two use the same mechanic for knockdown, they use different stats against it, while the first one uses an entirely different mechanic. Thanks everyone!

Does striking with the same weapon, but not as a club, add +2 DCV? I'm away from my books, it's an honest question.

Further, there is an argument for many kinds of magic being outside of bases of knowledge, and more related to creative impulses than codified knowledge. I view it as, some magic is learned, but there are kinds that one has to have the right perspective to have access to.