Divide by Three

[Old Man]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Regardless of whether one or two powers may or may not be undercosted' date=' EC is not encouraging an array of spells unless those spells are of similar cost.[/quote']

 

That sentence makes no sense whatsoever. The whole reason the EC isn't working in your example is precisely because you're cherry-picking undercosted powers.

 

 

To me, a "tight SFX" is not one possessed by half the magic users in the game, but that compromise is probably necessary to make the EC viable as a framework for magic use.

 

Yeah, the required tightness of the SFX is purely a function of the campaign. Were it a high-and-common-magic campaign, then tighter SFX would be justified, whereas such tight restrictions would be too limiting in a Western Shores-like setting. And then in a really rare-magic campaign, ECs or other cost breaks would not be justified at all.

 

 

I am arguing that the "divided by three" approach is not rendered less valid than the EC approach simply by virtue of the EC having been in the rules sooner. I am not claiming that "divide by three" is inherently superior to the use of frameworks. I am claiming it is not inherently inferior. They motivate different structures.

 

Well, I disagree to the extent that I don't see /3 altering character design except to the extent of giving mages a cost break.

 

 

Use of EC's should very much encourage Suppresses and Drains of "one magic power", however. Since magic is built with EC's, I know my adjustment powers will affect all your magic spells at the same time, so buying "Suppress all magic - +2" is a waste of points.

 

Certainly, but the cost of the advantage must vary depending on the nature of the campaign. An absurd example would be "Suppress all mutant powers", which surely should cost more in a supers game than in FH.

 

Finally, the fact you have had one or more unfortunate experiences with munchkin players who don't want to play in genre should not, in my view, govern the possible mechanical builds for spellcasters. It should govern the guidance for magic using characters, and the character review process.

 

You are of course correct, but since (IMO) magic wielding characters need a cost break of some sort, why not use a framework that helps avoid some of the game balance issues I've encountered?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Divide by Three

 

That sentence makes no sense whatsoever. The whole reason the EC isn't working in your example is precisely because you're cherry-picking undercosted powers.

 

Do wizards in your game not take defensive spells or movement spells? Or do you recost defenses and movement powers in your fantasy games?

 

I'm not picking "out there" abilities that are rare in both fantasy literature and fantasy games. I'm picking spells that, in my experience, are pretty common in both. What does a fairly typical starting wizard put in his EC in your games?

 

Well' date=' I disagree to the extent that I don't see /3 altering character design except to the extent of giving mages a cost break.[/quote']

 

I see it altering characters when compared to no cost break, multipowers, VPP's and EC's.

 

The cost break provides the wizard with the ability to have more than one or two spells, an issue if there is no discount for spellcasters.

 

The lack of EC restrictions removes the wizard's incentive to have spells that virtually all have similar AP levels. Depending on the tightness of SFX you require, it can also remove the incentive to have very specialized spellcasters.

 

The lack of Multipower and VPP restrictions allows for spells of high AP levels which are greatly limited (this can be a pro or a con).

 

The fact that raising the AP level costs extra points on every spell under the divide by three provides an incentive to have spells of varying AP levels. Multipower and VPP provide few reasons not to have the spell capable of reaching the full pool's AP limit, and EC actively discourages spells to have widely varying AP's (still waiting for that EC mage with a Breathe Water spell...).

 

Certainly' date=' but the cost of the advantage must vary depending on the nature of the campaign. An absurd example would be "Suppress all mutant powers", which surely should cost more in a supers game than in FH.[/quote']

 

In a typical FH game, it costs nothing because no one buys it. While the utility of the advantages varies, once we go to a more free market concept, where prices of abilities vary by campaign, we've made a pretty major departure from the Hero standard rules.

 

You are of course correct' date=' but since (IMO) magic wielding characters need a cost break of some sort, why not use a framework that helps avoid some of the game balance issues I've encountered?[/quote']

 

If it works in your game, I say go for it. To reiterate, yet again, I'm not saying EC, Multipower, etc. cannot work. I'm saying that divide by 3 is also a workable appproach, and should not be dismissed out of hand.

 

EC would work nicely to encourage spells at about the same AP level (or series of spells with similar AP levels if one uses multiple EC's). It would be an excellent mechanic for a game which encourages wizards to focus on specific types of magic, simply by tightening the SFX requirement from "magic" to "fire magic" and similar. It can create pseudo-class structures by setting sfx such as "priestly magic", "wizard magic" and "psionics". But it's not the be all and end all mechanic for a magic system. There is no such mechanic.

 

KS - out of curiosity, do any of your magic systems rely heavily on EC's? I know I've seen VPP's and multipowers in your systems.

[Steve]

Re: Divide by Three

 

It's really easy to teach to brand new players, which is why I am sticking to it for now. But, when I am more familiar with these constructs, and feel comfortable teaching it to the players, I might very well transition them over said frameworks. At this point though, I'm trying to make it as easy on these new players as possible.

 

And so far, I haven't been convinced that these alternate methods are easier/simpler than divide by three, and I suppose easy is my goal (for now).

 

If simple and easy is the goal, why not use Spell Skills instead? That uses a standard Hero mechanic (individual skills as spells) to replicate a magic system based on the idea of magic being a learned ability. The costs would be roughly the same as the divide by three notion.

 

This is not to say that I have anything against the divide by a number concept, since there's nothing in the rules that says a power (like Flight) must always cost the same in every campaign that exists or ever will exist. I just prefer to try and work with standard Hero as much as I can to replicate concepts. Skills should work quite well for ease of play for newbies to the system.

[Markdoc]

Re: Divide by Three

 

It's really easy to teach to brand new players, which is why I am sticking to it for now. But, when I am more familiar with these constructs, and feel comfortable teaching it to the players, I might very well transition them over said frameworks. At this point though, I'm trying to make it as easy on these new players as possible.

 

And so far, I haven't been convinced that these alternate methods are easier/simpler than divide by three, and I suppose easy is my goal (for now).

 

Actually VPP and multipower can both be very easy for players (I have mostly n00bs in my game too) if set up right. Basically in both cases, you provide the player with a pre-prepared list of spells to choose from or work with them and simply set the VPP (if used) to "Limited powers: only known spells" or make the multipower (if used) all ultra slots.

 

In that case, it works *exactly* like "divide by 3" but with reduced potential for abuse and without a totally arbitrary distortion of costs - the player has a list of spells he can use. Most of them will be one at a time, so it's pretty easy - some smaller ones can be combined. I have a totally n00b player (never played *any* roleplaying game, let alone Hero) who's doing just fine with a VPP. I put the active cost beside his spells (which were all fixed) and told him "You can have any combination at one time that adds up to 30 or less". Since he had only a half dozen spells to start, he could easily deal with that. As his VPP got bigger and he learnt new spells, he could try more combinations - but he had the idea by then.

 

cheers, Mark

[Old Man]

Re: Divide by Three

 

On further thought, it occurs to me that the worst thing about /3 is that it's a glaring admission that power costs are out of whack in FH. If power costs need to be readjusted, would it not be better to adjust them individually? I've argued that certain powers are undercosted for a long time, while certain others are overcosted. Wouldn't it make more sense to admit that costs tuned for supers are wrong for fantasy, and adjust the power costs accordingly?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Divide by Three

 

On further thought' date=' it occurs to me that the worst thing about /3 is that it's a glaring admission that power costs are out of whack in FH. If power costs need to be readjusted, would it not be better to adjust them individually? I've argued that certain powers are undercosted for a long time, while certain others are overcosted. Wouldn't it make more sense to admit that costs tuned for supers are wrong for fantasy, and adjust the power costs accordingly?[/quote']

 

I agree with you OM. The question then becomes what to adjust and by how much.

 

The gaming meta-verse that a buddy and I have been working on for a while involves a multiverse (like the old show Sliders) combined with a government oganization (combination of MIB + SG-1). One of the ideas we've discussed is that there are worlds/dimensions known to have full-blown superheroes but that their powers tend to be specific to that dimension (kryptonian heritage, speed force, etc..). This means that agents recruted for the agency that the players belong to might have minor (possibly psi) powers and/or magical aptitude but they must be of a general nature to allow usage on 75-90% of the worlds they know of.

 

So what we are looking for is a formula to allow the mixture of 3 out of the 4 major genre-character types:

1. Normals with mix of talents and skills.
   
2. Psi-Talent powers (genetic base with minimal training needed to master)
   
3. Magic-Users (different genetic base than that of Psi-Talent plus training)

This, more than any other genre imho, is where HERO could shine if the right balance can be struck between the Normals and the other 2.

[Bismark]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Sticking my two-penneth in (and staying well clear of flames - I hope):

 

I have no problems with the /3 rule for high magic settings like Turakian Age (which is what I use it for). I would not use it for S&S or low-magic settings because of the points made earlier about the superior efficiency of battle mages (or battle priests, for that matter) compared with fighters, for instance.

 

Of course, the TA setting also has the various schools of magic, for which a separate skill must be bought; this does cost quite a few points if the mage wants to cast spells from different schools which are of a high AP cost, so either the player has to put in some work convincing the GM that their school of magic should have access to the spell effect they want to use, or he/she has to spend more points buying a Magic skill for a more appropriate school of magic.

 

Obvious limitations of this system are:

 

1. If the party are 'uber-characters' who take 5 or more schools of magic, such characters could buy their INT {or EGO if they are priests} as high as they can afford so as to take advantage of the increased 'global' magic roll, especially as the points cost of doing so would be in their favour {I would certainly do this if the GM let me - but that's another story }

 

2. If the players are allowed to mess with the power constructs in the Grimoires or allowed to make their own, they could use the point breaks afforded by /3 to remove all the Limitations from a spell (aside from the ones necessary to qualify for /3).

 

3. The priestly requirement to base their Faith roll on EGO (rather than the cheaper INT-based skill of the arcane mages) is more than counterbalanced in settings where the priests serve more than one god simultaneously (or whose god has a wide remit) by the wider availability of spell effects governed by that one skill roll.

 

I get around many of these issues by designing the party's characters myself, following their character concepts, but I still have to be careful with min/maxing (something I do by instinct now - I have been doing it ever since Champions II [which introduced me to the concept of points-efficient character design] came out for 2nd ed Champions).

 

Not really an argument as such - just an observation; I would use /3 for TA, but I am not sure whether or not I would use it in another setting (like the Forgotten Realms HERO or Shadow World HERO I have been pondering recently).

 

Oh, and BTW, although I 'cut my RPGing teeth' on OD&D, I also played RQ2 a lot back then (1980-84) and both played and - gasp! - ran Chivalry and Sorcery 1st ed (which, oddly enough, had lots of separate schools of magic, each with their own requirements - I have ripped off several of their spells for FH campaigns in the past), so I am not really interested in duplicating D&D-style magic - just a similar power level.

[Eosin]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Rampaging ginsu of death he ain't. Those +5 2 point CSLs leave him with his DCV at base, which means he's gonna get clobbered pretty damn fast. And at range, where his HTH levels from martial arts won't help him, anyone with even +1 OCV will hit him most of the time.

 

4d6 Entangle? Toast. - Dodge DCV 13 with DEX 10

3d6 E RKA? Probably toast. - Dodge DCV 13 with DEX 10

9d6 EB. Toast - Dodge DCV 13 with DEX 10

2d6 explosive E RKA? Probably toast and definately hurting. Maybe, DFC -11 probably 6-8 free rDEF from Armor.

Ordinary old non-magical sword and invisibility? Probably toast Agreed

Ordinary old non-magical sword and a 30 PD forcefield 0 End? Toast and not even a slight argument about it. Not even remotely allowed in any FH game I have ever seen.

5" flight UaA at range? Toast. Cheating

4d6 Ego Blast? Toast. Toast

9d6 mind control? He might not be toast, but his nearest team-mate might well be. Break out rolls are a piece of cake, even with an 11- EGO.

And so on.

 

 

Couple o' issues with your scenerio but first ~ I tried to double check the rule about Martial Dodge and 3 Point Martial Art CSLs but could not find an exact answer. We play with it being allowed and I'll assume that this is the "standard rule." Normal 3 point CSLs do not apply to Ranged attacks but they do in the case of Martial Dodge. Either way, even without the CSL you need a 7- or less to hit and you ain't got all the END in the world. You ain't got much in fact.

 

[EDITED: Just noted that my math was wrong. There are no 2 point "Martial Art CSLs" the total points should be 38 not 33]

 

For the record, my Martial Arts would be Martial Dodge, Fast Strike, and Passing Strike.

 

Of the various attack options you presented, only one is sure fire. Ego Attacks are the bah-diff.

 

Of course you round ended the question. I can build a magical attack to beat ginsu boy strait up without a MPP for 12 points. What the question addressed was that Ginsu boy is an outstanding combatant worthy of being included in the Kings Champions. The question was - can you build a wizard for 30 points who is likewise considered to be one of the ultra elite wizards in the realm?

 

How's mr Ginsu of death going to cope with a flying invisible mage who is shooting 1d6 RKAs of firey death at him? Or who transmutes to stone (+20 PD/10 ED FF, +20 STR, 0END, 25% physical damage reduction) and just closes to hand to hand combat and kills him? Even with his martial arts and a two handed sword he's going to have hard time stunning the mage, but if the mage hits him back with a two handed sword, he's gonna be in a world of hurt. And unlike the mage he probably can't heal himself....

 

Let him run out of END... Pretty simple. Wizards require END, esp at the low level and they just don't have a bunch. The second point here is that the reason that I don't play d20 is the flying, invisible, platform of death that the game degenerates into. I haven't seen it in FH but I would suppose that it is possible although not much desired at my table. The third point on various aspects of your constructs, several of them hinge on going FAR beyond the standard campaign limits for rDEF. For me this isn't about the one time example (even several of them) that results in an ugly advantage during a set piece. I can munchkin the system as much as the next guy.

 

I'd like to find clues on how to build a better magic system that makes the game better not off handed examples of how you can exploit rules holes with no GM oversight. The ginsu of death is not menat to be a "loop hole." He is an example of how to build an excellent - elite - HTH combatant who can compete with the best HTHers in the campaign. He can be whacked by any number of other characters (the archer build destroys him even in a dodge).

 

I have built MPP, VPP, and EC mages, and like many FH fans, I find that the system does not build mages as fairly as it builds non-mage characters. /3 doesn't work for me either but (for me) it works better than a MPP or other framework (among those that I have seen).

 

I am much less interested in establishing which existing system is better and more interested in finding a novel approach, because the existing systems are all lacking (IMO). I can build the combat side of an excellent non-wizard character for 30-40 points. What I want to find is a system to build an the combat side of an excellent wizard for a similar number of points.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I don't have enough time to address the post this morning. I did want to address this issue. It isn't about your magic system(s). I was trying to acknowledge all the good work that you have done with the various systems on your site which we can all easily reference and most of us will readily acknowledge as the most well thought out systems available as a communal reference. Giving credit where it is due.

 

Second issue ~ I'll agree that you don't claim to have the answer. The whole post isn't about you having the answer, it is about me looking for "the" answer or at least a better answer.

 

I'll try to find sometime today to address the rest of your post.

 

Well if youre going to get all complimentary and such, I guess Ill accept that

 

1st level characters (to me) are town guards' date=' your average bandit, and an Orc grunt. Those are characters [i']most commonly [/i]depicted in the modules as being "1st level." These characters tend to be 50 total points in my games, give or take. I know that I have seen your take on points versus levels so point me back to it if it is on your site ~ this way we can talk apples to apples instead of disagreeing on who the best apple pickers happen to be... I want to avoid the semantics and siderail digressions.

I dont agree with this.

 

I mean, you can make a mook however many points seems right to you, but that doesnt mean that they represent the equivalent of what baseline should be.

 

Not only is there a divergence between a class and level system vs a point system at play here, there is also the well known problem class & level systems have with characters that are less capable than starting PC's -- particularly D&D. Earlier additions handled it with the idiotic "0 Level" concept, 3e handles it with watered down "NPC Classes", but both are just attempts to address an inherent mechanical flaw in the game's power tracking.

 

The HERO System's point based mechanics handle this completely differently and don't suffer from the artificial floor as severely as D&D, as I'm sure you know. A focused 50, 75, 100, or whatever points can be challenging to a 150 point "starting" character, or even higher point characters.

 

 

As far as the level to character points chart I use to convert D&D 3e characters...its here.

 

 

Also, I would like to take the opportunity to point out that this entire discourse has started to take on a D&D slant. While I do provide a conversion from D&D to the HERO System, and some of the material on my site originated from that conversion (such as the Vancian Magic System) and was genericized to be generally usable, most of the material on my site is not D&D oriented and was created in the HERO System to work for FantasyHERO games and is pure of any D&D roots or connection.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

 

In other words, the way the frameworks are set up can be used very successfully to distinguish the "look & feel" and performance of different magic systems using them. Also, each of the 3 real frameworks provide SFX hooks, and mechanical hooks that can be interacted with in various ways which can further add flavor and interesting quirks.

 

/3 does not offer this richness of design. You take the RC, divide it by 3, and thats it. Those are your options. What interacts with it? Nothing. It's a non entity mechanically. You don't even record it on your character's sheet. It doesn't exist as anything other than a means to reduce costs.

 

I think you give yourself too little credit. The EC, MP or VPP mechanic don’t add the flavour. Your magic system rules, restrictions and requirements, together with your non-mechanical descriptions, add the flavour. THAT is what always impresses me about the systems on your site, anyway.

 

A) Thanks

I disagree; when designing these systems I'm often able to extract flavor that hinges around a mechanical variance. Many of the subtlety's have their underpinning on differences in mechanical behavior.

 

An EC mechanically subtracts some points from the cost. A Multipower or VPP mechanically creates a pool I can draw on for varying effects, not all at the same time. They are just mechanics.

Mechanics that drive in game effects. Again, the EC is the weakest of the frameworks in this regard, but even still it manages to have a strong impact on the "feel" of a Magic System built around it, if you design into its curve so to speak. I'm not particularly fond of ECs for Magic and thus have only one Magic System that uses it (Aeldenaren) -- but it is a very formidable and powerful Magic System nonetheless; so much so that in the Setting of San'Dora it is the magic system of the progenitor race, the Haelfinan, and it plays a role in the background of the setting.

 

And yet even as limited as the EC is in this regard, its still leap and bounds more malleable than /3.

 

MP's and VPP's offer even more opportunities to express differences. The entire Metier Magic System on my site is based around this for instance, and practitioners of all 4 the VPP based systems (and their dozen or so combined variants) on the site feel and play out very differently from each other. This is because I deliberately used the mechanics of how the frameworks functioned are usable to shape them. This is something /3 does not support.

 

I agree it’s complex. There are huge variations. Whether it’s on the money depends on what I compare it against. As an example, translating stats. Assume Joe Fighter has an 18 stat. What’s that in Hero?

 

- also an 18 – they move across pretty well,

- a 20 – the highest stat a normal human should start with

- a 23 – very remarkable, but not the peak attainable

- a 28 or 30 – the peak of human achievement, Also a +4 skill bonus over the starting 10, just like an 18 gives a +4 skill bonus

 

My 12/10/12/12/15/14 character translates very differently depending on the “stat ruler” used.

 

What +1 base attack bonus equates to similarly skews the costs. And it dovetails to stats, since it should match the +1 obtained from a higher DEX or STR.

Well, fortunately for me, I have a well documented "stat ruler" and conversion guide available to me...and since I posted it, its usable by (and has been used by) others too.

 

I put up my original AD&D 2e to HERO System 4e conversion years and two domains ago...back in 96 or so, and it was up for many years until I allowed that particular domain to expire; it received a massive amount of play and use by myself and other GM's. It had a lot of rough edges, but it was fun and it worked. I developed and posted the current D&D 3e to HS 5e conversion about 3 1/2 years ago and have upgraded it semi-frequently since then. Neither claimed to be an exact conversion, but they do a good job of fast & loose IMO.

 

Either way; I sat down and did the 'math' and mapped things out at a high level when I set up the underlying logic, and have been gratified to convert many characters over and have them map out at or very close to the points indicated, and moreover for the basic flavor of the characters to be maintained. So, while it may not match your idea of how to convert, or someone else's, at least its fairly internally consistent.

 

 

 

I’ve never seen a “good fighter” or “sneaky rogue” with his Combat Tricks or Sneakiness EC, Multipower or VPP, so this issue exists across many systems, in my view.

I have. I've played such character's as well. Here's one in fact...

Jaram Glaive

 

In fact, one of the most memorable characters from the many and various D&D HERO campaigns of yesteryear was played by this boards own WilyQuixote; the character was too complicated to go into detail on, but basically had a VPP for heroic tricks.

 

I'd have to think back to recall the details of many (many) past characters played by many different players, but it was pretty commonplace for us in many of our campaigns for characters to have such abilities.

 

Basically, SFX is just a shtick; a particular mechanic shouldn't be "owned" by one SFX. This is another major flaw to /3; its exclusivity.

 

I’ll confess to not being a scholar of your magic systems, however. Can you point me to an example where the mage pays full price for his spells? By this, I mean one which uses no frameworks or other cost reductions – if the wizard wants a 2d6 Explosive RKA Fireball, it costs 45 points, reduced by real limitations applied to the power. If he wants another spell, he buys it separately and pays full freight. To me, this would be the relevant comparable – divide by three is intended to be used instead of frameworks, not in addition to them.

 

The only one that comes close to that is the rather unusual NPA based Metruvius, which has some substantial costs associated with it, but is completely non-standard in its architecture (being NPA based). Similarly I don't have a Magic System that just uses a vanilla EC, MP, or VPP. However, that's hardly surprising since I don't waste time "designing" Magic Systems that just use the rules as printed since anyone should be able to make such a "system".

 

When I first read the Multiple Power Attack rules, I thought “finally – a reason for an EC, rather than a Multipower, of attacks”. Then they prohibited using attacks in an EC for an MPA. Not germane to the discussion (especially as spells generally aren’t allowed to MPA anyway), but I agree with your efficiency comments.

I agree that the restriction against EC slots not being usable together for MPA's being retarded. I ignore that restriction in my own games. It makes no sense.

 

Show me an efficient magic EC which includes both viable attack and defense spells, and a spell which allows the mage, and him alone, to breathe water. That one 5 AP power neuters the benefits of the EC. The mage needs either to buy that spell outside his EC or, alternatively, make it Usable By Others and slap a bunch of advantages on it to bring its AP up to parity.

SNIP

Add the SFX issue, and I (personal preference again) don’t like the EC approach.

Well, for starters, why are we wasting time arguing about putting a low AP power into an EC? No low AP power goes well into ANY EC. The EC framework is based around forcing a minimum buy in. It's also a LS power, so it's not really intended to go into an EC in the first place. I mean sure you CAN make it cost END and stick it in one, but you derive no benefit for doing so.

 

It also raises the question of why wouldnt you let such a character buy their Water Breathing Spell out side of their main magic EC?

 

Also, this isn't really germane as a useful comparison for the wonders of /3 either -- a 5 point Power is going to cost 2 points in /3 ... you saved a whopping 3 points. And that's assuming you dont have any Lims to bring the RC down. Who cares? The effect of /3 is most felt on high cost powers, just like an EC; except that /3 cuts costs more.

 

I mean granted I'm not overly fond of the EC either, but what you seem to be glossing over or not appreciating is that the EC does not limit the maximum AP of slots in it. Its open ended at the top end.

 

Also, it does offer the "flavor" that a practitioner using an EC has a trade off between adding more powers and getting wider but not necessarily deeper, or concentrating on improving the power of their slots to up the control and basically take their magic up a notch across the board, becoming deeper but not necessarily wider.

 

You may not like or appreciate this, but its still there. /3 doesnt offer any such nuance.

 

 

 

 

Buy flex slots. No, I won’t always get the full 15 DC attack, since I’ll have other spells running, but one sniper shot and the tough bad guy is down – and it only cost a few more points. And a +25/+25 0 END force field?

 

Thats fine; purchase flex slots. Not only is it inefficient, but you still will be hard pressed to run all of the "Spells" you might need at a power level that is adequate at any given time unless your reserve is very large and / or the slots don't use all of the reserve. And again, the flexibility of the MP mechanic offers opportunities for nuance that are...ahem...lacking from /3.

 

Of course, good oversight solves this issue, but the structure does encourage uniform power levels. Multiform’s another good one. Once I’m Polymorphed to Dragon form, I don’t need my other spells anyway – or even have access to them!

Arguable; depends on how the multiform is defined.

 

As well, I’m more likely to have an attacks multipower and some common use spells outside the MP – if I’ll pretty much always want my Force Field up, why pay for it as a slot and higher pool? I’ll just buy it separately. My attacks will all have the same AP – why have only a 6d6 Flash when I can have 9d6 for a point more after limitations?

 

Depends on the stringency of the individual Magic System, and the desired feel.

 

The VPP flavour, to me, is you’re a wizard or you aren’t – no one has one or two minor spells, since the VPP makes that an inefficient choice.

To some extent all of the frameworks discourage dabbling; the overhead costs and commitment to reaping the benefit from the frameworks, not to mention any ancillary demands such as reliable skills to make an RSR, or enough END to fuel Spells, or any other "extra" or hidden costs associated with a particular Magic System. MP's are friendliest to dabblers, VPP's are in the middle, and EC's discourage it the most -- because to get the most benefit from an EC you have to commit to at least three or four slots, and the minimum AP already discussed acts to scale the cost up rather than down.

 

Actually, KS, I think this is where your experience differs from many of us. In your games, a wide array of choice exists for which magic system “my character” will use. I find many games, however, are run using a single magic system. In those games, the limitations of any given system are much more visible. In your game, if I don’t like the EC SFX restriction, I use a VPP system instead. If I want just a minor spell or two, I avoid both and select one of your systems that better fits my vision.

 

But in a game which has just one magic system, I don’t have that luxury of choice, and the flavour and mechanical limitations play out much more clearly.

 

Eh...choice is good. It's fun and adds options and makes for interesting worlds and campaigns. However, Ive played in settings with only "one" magic system as well. Not my cup of tea, but generally I can make any magic system work for me on either side of the GM's screen in just about any game system.

 

Which is beside the point. The basic point is /3 is not a "system", its just a bunch of extra points for spells compared to other characters of allegedly equal power and relevance who simply chose a different "profession".

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

KS - out of curiosity, do any of your magic systems rely heavily on EC's? I know I've seen VPP's and multipowers in your systems.

Aeldenaren

 

AELDENAREN: This Magic System is Elemental Control (EC) based, and includes the concept of different Gifts that allow access to Powers using specific base Powers. Conceptually, this is a form of inborn, natural Magic, which travels in bloodlines. Aeldenari don't cast Spells, they use their natural mystical abilities, which is a key flavor consideration. As an Aeldenari could potentially activate all of their mystic abilities (if they haven't taken any initialization Limitations that would prevent them from doing so such as Extra Time), and can run them all simultaneously as long as they can pay the END costs; this gives them a strong advantage over many Magic Systems, though at a correspondingly higher cost in character points and a loss of breadth.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Divide by Three

 

A) Thanks

I disagree; when designing these systems I'm often able to extract flavor that hinges around a mechanical variance. Many of the subtlety's have their underpinning on differences in mechanical behavior.

 

Settingrestrictions and benefits on magic can be achieved with or without a framework. Comon limitations, restructed abilities, etc. can also establish a flavour for different types of magic. I suspect that you don't start off with "here's a mechanic (VPP, EC, MP) how do I design a magic system around it?" but rather with "This is how I envision magic working - what mechanics will best represent that?"

 

Mechanics that drive in game effects. Again' date=' the EC is the weakest of the frameworks in this regard, but even still it manages to have a strong impact on the "feel" of a Magic System built around it, if you design into its curve so to speak. I'm not particularly fond of ECs for Magic and thus have only one Magic System that uses it (Aeldenaren) -- but it is a very formidable and powerful Magic System nonetheless; so much so that in the Setting of San'Dora it is the magic system of the progenitor race, the Haelfinan, and it plays a role in the background of the setting. [/quote']

 

I think the EC can be a tool for designing a magic system where all magic is based around tight SFX. You want to be a fire mage or a water mage? You'll derive full benefits from the EC. You want fire and water powers? You'll be less efficient.

 

practitioners of all 4 the VPP based systems (and their dozen or so combined variants) on the site feel and play out very differently from each other. This is because I deliberately used the mechanics of how the frameworks functioned are usable to shape them. This is something /3 does not support.

 

Emphasis mine - one mechanic, four very different feels. The framework doesn't set the feel - your useof the framework, and application of it, and addition of other advantages and restrictions sets the feel. Just as this could be done outside a framework.

 

Well' date=' fortunately for me, I have a well documented "stat ruler" and conversion guide available to me[/quote']

 

Again, my point is simply that anyone using a different basic measure, and base level of ability, will come to different results. It's a sideline issue in any case.

 

the character was too complicated to go into detail on' date=' but basically had a VPP for heroic tricks. [/quote']

 

I'm not sure how many GM's would allow that, but it would provide a nice counterpoint to a magic system based on VPP's.

 

Basically' date=' SFX is just a shtick; a particular mechanic shouldn't be "owned" by one SFX. This is another major flaw to /3; its exclusivity.[/quote']

 

One issue I see in fantasy is that one very common SFX. This plays into the adjustment power rules. In a Supers game, how potent is "Dispel Magic", "Suppress Magic" or "Drain Magic"? Now transport that to Fantasy. The value of powers limited to "only" that one SFX grows markedly since it is omnipresent in most fantasy games. Choices? Make it more specific - Fire Magic, or in your game, one type of magic, to make "Dispel Magic" less universal. Or give the mages a break somewhere else.

 

I've never seen anyone with "drian swordsmanship" or "dispel any one Heroic Power ability". But spells based on affecting magic abound in most fantasy games.

 

The often mentioned comparable cost of basic skill with a sword versus an equivalent spell is also noted frequently. There is a balancing act tio be maintained, and "divide by three" is one means of adjusting the balance. Whether it works depends on other facets of the game world. Turakian Age also requires a magical skill to use each branch of magic, making it more expensive to use multiple types of magic, potentially eroding some benefits of "divide by three".

 

Like any oyther mechanical construct, "divide by three" must be used in conjunction with the system as a whole to achieve balance - just as, I suspect, your VPP based systems don't say "You buy a VPP. Go ahead and put any spell you want in it.", but rather also set guidelines and restrictions for what those VPP's can and cannot do.

 

Well' date=' for starters, why are we wasting time arguing about putting a low AP power into an EC? No low AP power goes well into ANY EC. The EC framework is based around forcing a minimum buy in. It's also a LS power, so it's not really intended to go into an EC in the first place. I mean sure you CAN make it cost END and stick it in one, but you derive no benefit for doing so.[/quote']

 

My starting assumption is that the EC based system requires spells be put in the EC, which certainly could be a flawed assumption. My point, however, is that spells which either cannot go in the EC, or are not beneficial (and likely detrimental) to add to the EC are discuraged by using an EC based system. That may be a pro or a con depending on the types of magic you want to encourage/discourage. The EC, MP and VPP encourage/discourage certain types of spells. "Divide by three" applies a similar benefit to all spells - you can go with breadth and have many low cost spells, or go with depth and have a few high cost spells. [sounds like the EC] You could also vary between the two, having a couple of high cost, a few mid-level and a number of low cost spells.

 

Unlike the MP and (especially) VPP, "divide by three" (and an EC) discourages the esoteric spell that will rarely be useful, since the points are always tied up in that spell.

 

It also raises the question of why wouldnt you let such a character buy their Water Breathing Spell out side of their main magic EC?

 

The only reason would be that the magic system requires spells be in the EC.

 

Also' date=' this isn't really germane as a useful comparison for the wonders of /3 either -- a 5 point Power is going to cost 2 points in /3 ... you saved a whopping 3 points. And that's assuming you dont have any Lims to bring the RC down. Who cares? The effect of /3 is most felt on high cost powers, just like an EC; except that /3 cuts costs more.[/quote']

 

Compared to costing 40 points to add it to an EC, a 0 point savings looks pretty good!

 

Thats fine; purchase flex slots. Not only is it inefficient' date=' but you still will be hard pressed to run all of the "Spells" you might need at a power level that is adequate at any given time unless your reserve is very large and / or the slots don't use all of the reserve.[/quote']

 

Not every slot needs to be flex rather than fixed, or usable at full reserve points. If my entire spell selection derives from one big pool, I'll want a larger pool normally fueling several effects. My water breathing spell will be fixed and low point (although here again, a 5 point slot or a 20 point slot probably cost the same 1 point after limitations, so why not expand its effect?).

 

A flex slot costing 15 points (likely 7 or less so after limitations) rather than a fixed slot costing 7 (say 4 after limitations) allowing me to use a 5d6 KA when necessary, but usually lowered to 3d6 to fuel other spells with the remaining reserve will probably generate 3 points worth of benefit at some point in time. [more like 5 points since, if it's fixed, I'll buy a lower max since I won't generally want it to tie up the whole pool]

 

And again' date=' the flexibility of the MP mechanic offers opportunities for nuance that are...ahem...lacking from /3.[/quote']

 

I will agree the nuance and feel must be added separate from the mechanics, whiole the framework can sometimes add some of that falvour - but the flavour will be limited to those the specific mechanic provides.

 

To some extent all of the frameworks discourage dabbling;

 

So now we need to make a choice based on whether we want our magic system to encourage or discourage dabblers. In a setting where pretty much all characters will likely have a couple of magical powers, even if they're minor, the framework approach is not likely appropriate.

 

Which is beside the point. The basic point is /3 is not a "system"' date=' its just a bunch of extra points for spells compared to other characters of allegedly equal power and relevance who simply chose a different "profession".[/quote']

 

Agreed. However, in my view, an MP, EC or VPP is also not a system, in and of itself. And it simply allows more options to characters for whom the framework is suitable, while denying those options to characters not allowed to take frameworks for their schticks (like The World's Stringest Man, or a skillmonger, for example).

 

ADENDUM: In Metruvius, I suggest you have crafted a sepatae "divide by X" system which has several existing limitations incorporated into "X". Your EC based system is far more than "buy an EC and slap your spells in it", being defined by many other mechanical features creating a very specific style and feel. The EC alone does not make, or even define the system. Similarly, if the magic "system" is simply "buy what you like and divide thecost by three", it's not a system either. Like an EC, an MP or a VPP, "divide by 3" is simply one mechanic one might use as a building block, not a system unto itself.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Divide by Three

 

So, KS, which framework would you recommend for a 100 point wizard character who wants to have a variety of spells (from Teleportation to Change Environment to Energy Blasts, etc)?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

So' date=' KS, which framework would you recommend for a 100 point wizard character who wants to have a variety of spells (from Teleportation to Change Environment to Energy Blasts, etc)?[/quote']

 

Assuming you are going to use a Framework based system at all, a VPP.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Settingrestrictions and benefits on magic can be achieved with or without a framework. Comon limitations' date=' restructed abilities, etc. can also establish a flavour for different types of magic. I suspect that you don't start off with "here's a mechanic (VPP, EC, MP) how do I design a magic system around it?" but rather with "This is how I envision magic working - what mechanics will best represent that?"[/quote']

Actually, sometimes I start off with an idea and work it into mechanics, and sometimes I start off with a mechanic and design a Magic System to use it.

 

And Im not saying that restrictions can't be based around non-Frameworks either (in fact, I have many Magic Systems that don't use a Framework and use other measures instead). Rather Im saying that if you do use a Framework, there are hooks there to be used, unlike /3.

 

I think the EC can be a tool for designing a magic system where all magic is based around tight SFX. You want to be a fire mage or a water mage? You'll derive full benefits from the EC. You want fire and water powers? You'll be less efficient.

You can design a Magic System like this, and you can design a Magic System using EC that works differently as well. .

 

Emphasis mine - one mechanic, four very different feels. The framework doesn't set the feel - your useof the framework, and application of it, and addition of other advantages and restrictions sets the feel. Just as this could be done outside a framework.

I didnt say the framework set the feel, I said they offer opportunities to express differences and richness of design.

 

The frameworks permit themselves to be used and applied in variable fashion. Thats the richness of design I'm talking about; one thing, many uses. /3 does not support this

 

 

Again, my point is simply that anyone using a different basic measure, and base level of ability, will come to different results. It's a sideline issue in any case.

True, which was also my point.

 

I'm not sure how many GM's would allow that, but it would provide a nice counterpoint to a magic system based on VPP's.

 

One issue I see in fantasy is that one very common SFX. This plays into the adjustment power rules. In a Supers game, how potent is "Dispel Magic", "Suppress Magic" or "Drain Magic"? Now transport that to Fantasy. The value of powers limited to "only" that one SFX grows markedly since it is omnipresent in most fantasy games. Choices? Make it more specific - Fire Magic, or in your game, one type of magic, to make "Dispel Magic" less universal. Or give the mages a break somewhere else.

Actually, I recommend that the Expanded Group advantage be made more granular in Fantasy games for that very reason (and others).

 

Magic House Rules

 

 

I've never seen anyone with "drian swordsmanship" or "dispel any one Heroic Power ability". But spells based on affecting magic abound in most fantasy games.

Why not? If a player can come up w/ a SFX for such an ability and its appropriate to the campaign, let them have it.

 

 

The often mentioned comparable cost of basic skill with a sword versus an equivalent spell is also noted frequently. There is a balancing act tio be maintained, and "divide by three" is one means of adjusting the balance. Whether it works depends on other facets of the game world. Turakian Age also requires a magical skill to use each branch of magic, making it more expensive to use multiple types of magic, potentially eroding some benefits of "divide by three".

Sure; as implemented in TA it has a mild opportunity cost control, so its slightly less than extremely efficient.

Like any oyther mechanical construct, "divide by three" must be used in conjunction with the system as a whole to achieve balance - just as, I suspect, your VPP based systems don't say "You buy a VPP. Go ahead and put any spell you want in it.", but rather also set guidelines and restrictions for what those VPP's can and cannot do.

An idea I am very familiar with. I discuss the concept of "Controls" in (tedious) detail here: Control Factors

 

However /3 is the opposite of a control -- it's an enabler, and a powerful one. To overcome its advantaging aspect and bring it back down to something approaching parity with Magic Systems based on the real frameworks would require strong controls.

 

My starting assumption is that the EC based system requires spells be put in the EC, which certainly could be a flawed assumption. My point, however, is that spells which either cannot go in the EC, or are not beneficial (and likely detrimental) to add to the EC are discuraged by using an EC based system. That may be a pro or a con depending on the types of magic you want to encourage/discourage.

 

Yes.

 

The EC, MP and VPP encourage/discourage certain types of spells. "Divide by three" applies a similar benefit to all spells - you can go with breadth and have many low cost spells, or go with depth and have a few high cost spells. [sounds like the EC] You could also vary between the two, having a couple of high cost, a few mid-level and a number of low cost spells.

The difference being that with the EC raising the AP of the lowest slot and upping the control has a ripple effect, achieving synergy and making for a real incentive for doing so. With /3 there is no such ripple effect; each spells cost is atomic; there is no synergy to raising one spell so that you can raise other spells.

 

Granted, you may not want that effect of an EC, but it can be used to model a kind of magic that plays out differently than other styles.

 

Unlike the MP and (especially) VPP, "divide by three" (and an EC) discourages the esoteric spell that will rarely be useful, since the points are always tied up in that spell.

True. Quality over Quantity, Broad Application vs Precision Application.

 

I enjoy working decision points into my Magic Systems, and this is a good one that I get some play out of. For instance some styles like Magecraft, Aeldenaren, and Metruvius rely on a carefully selected and smaller set of abilities that are honed and concentrated on but are broadly useful, while styles like Wizardry, Arcanis Magnicus, and Spellweaving encourage the taking of a lot of narrowly defined or sectored abilities, and other styles like Sorcery, Metier, Runecrafting, and the Validus Familiaritas variants are somewhere in between where a character can take misc niche abilities if they want to but there is an efficiency impact for doing so.

 

The only reason would be that the magic system requires spells be in the EC.

Ah; Well, in such a case I would look at it like this: not all magic systems are good at everything.

 

An EC based system is good at mid to high power effects. You can start off pretty buff with an EC so it has an early payoff, and it rewards you for improving the powers in it if you do so systematically.

 

The negative image of this is that it is not good at low power effects, you start off pretty dedicated to it (to reap the most benefit by investing heavily), its difficult to add new powers to and thus has falling returns as the game progresses.

 

This is just part of the pros and cons inherent to using the framework. If this seems like a cool model to you then its a great mechanic. If not, then its not a good choice. This represents a great decision point for players and rewards them for making decisions about what they want their character to be like. Now if the ONLY Magic System available is EC based, the basic decision is to be a magic user or not which isn't so grand (but is true of any scenario where you only have one Magic System).

 

To contrast this the /3 offers no such pros or cons, decision points, or flavor. It also makes it generally illogical to even bother having other Magic Systems unless they benefit from similar hand waved cost savings as they simply cannot compete.

 

/3 is like Magic System kudzu.

 

Compared to costing 40 points to add it to an EC, a 0 point savings looks pretty good!

If you want to base your cost comparisons on something no one would actually do, I suppose.

 

"Gee...should I put this 5 point power into my EC and pay a bunch of points for nothing to meet the minimum cost...or should I just pay its negligible Real Cost outright and save all those points?"

 

Lets deal in arguments that aren't predicated in the need for people to do blatantly stupid things, shall we?

 

Not every slot needs to be flex rather than fixed, or usable at full reserve points. If my entire spell selection derives from one big pool, I'll want a larger pool normally fueling several effects. My water breathing spell will be fixed and low point (although here again, a 5 point slot or a 20 point slot probably cost the same 1 point after limitations, so why not expand its effect?).

As I said, while EC's require all powers to have the same MINIMUM AP, MP's encourage powers to have the same MAXIMUM AP. For low point powers, this can amount to the same thing in practice.

 

A flex slot costing 15 points (likely 7 or less so after limitations) rather than a fixed slot costing 7 (say 4 after limitations) allowing me to use a 5d6 KA when necessary, but usually lowered to 3d6 to fuel other spells with the remaining reserve will probably generate 3 points worth of benefit at some point in time. [more like 5 points since, if it's fixed, I'll buy a lower max since I won't generally want it to tie up the whole pool]

 

Looked at another way, assuming lims and invested points are the same, the character with all ULTRA slots will have essentially twice as many spells as the character with all FIXED slots. And that's assuming the character with ULTRA slots funds all their slots to use the maximum reserve; if they only fund them sufficiently to support the level they intend to use them at it diverges further.

 

This breaks down into granular decisions, but at a high level it is fair to say that while the FIXED slot method is more flexible, its also narrower and less efficient.

 

Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that, but again you get back to my point that an MP based Magic System has issues covering all necessary basis in the heightened circumstances encountered during actual play.

 

 

I will agree the nuance and feel must be added separate from the mechanics, whiole the framework can sometimes add some of that falvour - but the flavour will be limited to those the specific mechanic provides.

That's kind of a tautology don't you think? It's like saying that while spices add flavor to food, the flavors are limited to those the specific spices provide.

 

I mean, yeah, obviously. Just as you use the spice(s) that provide the flavor(s) you want in your food, you use the mechanics that provide the flavor(s) you want in your game.

 

So now we need to make a choice based on whether we want our magic system to encourage or discourage dabblers. In a setting where pretty much all characters will likely have a couple of magical powers, even if they're minor, the framework approach is not likely appropriate.

You mean decisions need to be made to accomplish a desired end result? :|

 

If your goal is to design one universal Magic System that is all things to all people then you will make different decisions than if your goal is to design specialized or even "boutique" Magic Systems.

 

If you feel that /3 serves as a "magic system" so devoid of pros or cons or predispositions and are ok with its total lack of flavor and staggering efficiency, then so be it, but I wouldnt want to play in a setting using that as its Magic System.

 

As a side note what I find funny, is that if anyone else other than Steve Long suggested /3 I have no doubts that it would have been almost universally declaimed as a travesty and its suggester would have been heavily derided as munchkin. But if its published it must be ok, I guess.

 

Agreed. However, in my view, an MP, EC or VPP is also not a system, in and of itself. And it simply allows more options to characters for whom the framework is suitable, while denying those options to characters not allowed to take frameworks for their schticks (like The World's Stringest Man, or a skillmonger, for example).

I disagree; while there are some things that mechanically arent supposed to be used with Frameworks and things that are not efficient or effective to use with Frameworks, just about any concept can be supported by some kind of Framework.

 

The "world's strongest man" concept can be supported by a brick tricks Framework, and a Skillmonger can be supported by a super skills Framework of some sort.

 

ADENDUM: In Metruvius, I suggest you have crafted a sepatae "divide by X" system which has several existing limitations incorporated into "X". Your EC based system is far more than "buy an EC and slap your spells in it", being defined by many other mechanical features creating a very specific style and feel. The EC alone does not make, or even define the system. Similarly, if the magic "system" is simply "buy what you like and divide thecost by three", it's not a system either. Like an EC, an MP or a VPP, "divide by 3" is simply one mechanic one might use as a building block, not a system unto itself.

 

I don't have a problem with the cost savings aspect of /3 per se. Its the other aspects I have complained about that bother me. The lack of flavor / design considerations, exclusivity, and most particularly the lack of cons that make it so extremely efficient.

 

My various Skill based Magic Systems like Spellweaving, Magecraft, and especially Validus Familiaritas offer even more extreme cost savings in their own way, for instance. However all of them have bundled cons that collectively act to (at least attempt to) balance them out and prevent any one of them from being too good (or too bad).

 

Similarly, as Ive noted, all three of the Frameworks have inherent cons (some of which we have discussed in detail in this very thread). /3 has no such "balance" or control; all of its wickets are in the "pro" column.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I’ll confess to not being a scholar of your magic systems' date=' however. [/quote']

 

Forgot to mention this previously, but the various formally written up Magic Systems available on my site are compared here:

 

Magic System Advisor

[Manic Typist]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Assuming you are going to use a Framework based system at all' date=' a VPP.[/quote']

 

Well, I'm trying to be point efficient for these new players, and for myself. Besides /3 and Frameworks, is there another way to help them find a cost break?

 

Perhaps there is a way to add flavor to /3? Maybe if you reserve it only for those who go on some sort of epic quest, or complete some daunting task, or achieve a certain level of proficency?

 

KS- let's pretend, hypothetically, that you HAD to use the /3 (at least partially). Maybe you're teaching some VERY new players the game, and they have only ever experienced the /3 system, and you think they aren't ready to learn the VPP and EC rules (ridiculous, I know, but maybe they are alergic ). If you HAD to use the /3, do you think you could adjust it so it DID have flavor?

 

Basically, you say it's broken. I ask how would you propose fixing it? Can it be fixed?

[Old Man]

Re: Divide by Three

 

/3 is little more than just using no framework, with a cost break. It doesn't fix the real problem of powers-miscosted-for-fantasy, and it introduces some serious granularity problems. The power difference between a 2cp spell and a 3cp spell would be huge.

 

So I would start by dispensing with /3 and implementing x5, which is to say that the character would spend character points for "power points" at a 5-to-1 ratio, that are used to buy powers. This way they can buy about the same powers, but without the granularity that occurs when you apply -2.25 in limitations to your 30 AP spell, and then divide the result by 3 again.

 

Then I would alter the magic skill to take advantage of this new granularity. The current system has two problems. The standard penalty is -1 for 10 AP in the spell, which itself is granular; spell AP generally stays within the range of 10-50, so spell difficulty tends not to be an issue. The bigger problem is that basing the penalty on AP overlooks the limitations. Why is it easier to cast a 20AP spell with no lims than it is to cast a 40AP spell with OAF and Extra Time 1 day? Basing the penalty on the real cost is more in keeping with genre conventions, IMO. (There is some potential for abuse this way, I know.)

 

Then finally I would divide up magic skill. Instead of having one blanket skill roll that applies to everything in the mage's repertoire, the character might have to buy skills for each GM-defined magic "school", each of which has access to 8-10 of the available powers. So a spellcaster might be very good at Binding spells but less so at Finding. Magic skills would have to be cheaper, probably 2/2 or 2/1 depending on how restrictive the schools are.

 

So this system would provide the cost break that magicians seem to need, yet improves on the original system by reducing granularity problems and providing incentives for casters to buy related powers for flavor.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Well, I'm trying to be point efficient for these new players, and for myself. Besides /3 and Frameworks, is there another way to help they find a cost break?

 

Perhaps there is a way to add flavor to /3? Maybe if you reserve it only for those who go on some sort of epic quest, or complete some daunting task, or achieve a certain level of proficency?

 

KS- let's pretend, hypothetically, that you HAD to use the /3 (at least partially). Maybe you're teaching some VERY new players the game, and they have only ever experienced the /3 system, and you think they aren't ready to learn the VPP and EC rules (ridiculous, I know, but maybe they are alergic ). If you HAD to use the /3, do you think you could adjust it so it DID have flavor?

 

Basically, you say it's broken. I ask how would you propose fixing it? Can it be fixed?

So if I had to eat garbage, which condiment would I use to make it taste better?

 

I wouldn't even use it hypothetically. Faced with running a game with a mechanic I strongly disliked and not running the game at all, I just wouldn't run it.

 

My fix for it is to not use it.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Fair enough.

[Markdoc]

Re: Divide by Three

 

[EDITED: Just noted that my math was wrong. There are no 2 point "Martial Art CSLs" the total points should be 38 not 33]

 

Yep, I based my response on the fact that 2 point levels can't be applied to DCV. Upping that to 3 point CSLs goes a long way to making the character survivable - tho' increasing the points available would also allow the mage to bump the power of his spells, so that area effect spells would be readily available - area effect entangles and flash spells are quite sufficient to take teh wind out of the sails of most high DCV characters. I didn't inquire as to his martial maneuvers since they don't affect his range DCV.

 

Of course you round ended the question. I can build a magical attack to beat ginsu boy strait up without a MPP for 12 points. What the question addressed was that Ginsu boy is an outstanding combatant worthy of being included in the Kings Champions. The question was - can you build a wizard for 30 points who is likewise considered to be one of the ultra elite wizards in the realm?

 

Shrug. Does it matter if said wizard can pwn one of the King's champions one on one? I guess the answer must be yes.

 

But that's missing the point. It's not to argue that I can malke l33t characters. It's just that if I can easily make a wizard who poses a severe challenge to an admittedly bad-ass fighter, then it's hard for me to see how the mage is somehow disadvantaged - even if he spends a minority of his spell power on non-combat magic, he can get significant utility outside combat, which the pure fighter can't match - so you get combat prowess and flexibility in one neat-o magical package.

 

 

Let him run out of END... Pretty simple. Wizards require END' date=' esp at the low level and they just don't have a bunch. [/quote']

 

The weakness to this approach is that their Foes often run out of BOD before they run out of END....

 

The second point here is that the reason that I don't play d20 is the flying' date=' invisible, platform of death that the game degenerates into. I haven't seen it in FH but I would suppose that it is possible although not much desired at my table. [/quote']

 

I have seen it all too often and it is most definately not welcome at my table either. It was to get away from it that I also left DnD, so I suspect our tastes are not that divergent. It is EXACTLY that syle of play that "divide by 3" is intended to facilitate - one reason why I wouldn't let it within dice-rolling range of my game.

 

The third point on various aspects of your constructs' date=' several of them hinge on going FAR beyond the standard campaign limits for rDEF. [/quote']

 

Whatever those are - if there are any. Usually if there are rDEF caps there are also CV caps and all sorts of silliness. It doesn't alter the fact that the system as written is quite capable of providing combat effective mages. That doesn't mean GMs can't set up systems where they can't be built, but that's a personal issue, not a rules one.

 

I'd like to find clues on how to build a better magic system that makes the game better not off handed examples of how you can exploit rules holes with no GM oversight. The ginsu of death is not menat to be a "loop hole." He is an example of how to build an excellent - elite - HTH combatant who can compete with the best HTHers in the campaign. He can be whacked by any number of other characters (the archer build destroys him even in a dodge).

 

And since he'd presumably whack the archer in melee, that's fair enough, no? But would a fire mage with a variety of potent offensive spells be "a loop hole"? A blood mage who has a variety of body-affecting spells? These can be very potent combatants even against high DCV foes - and they are fun, interesting characters (and actually are both real characters in play).

 

I have built MPP' date=' VPP, and EC mages, and like many FH fans, I find that the system does not build mages as fairly as it builds non-mage characters. /3 doesn't work for me either but (for me) it works better than a MPP or other framework (among those that I have seen). [/quote']

 

In that case, all I can say is that your experience runs directly counter to mine and that of the GM's I know.

 

But like you, I want a good system for building effective, interesting mage characters - I just want one that doesn't let them overwhelm other character archetypes. My solution, as noted, has been to significantly nerf magic in all my games so its combat effectiveness is greatly reduced. My players still choose mages - but out of a desire to play a mage, not out of a desire to play - as an earlier poster put it "cyclops in a fantasy game." Which is in fact, exactly what the divide by 3 system facilitates - and to be fair, what it was intended to facilitate.

 

cheers, Mark

[Manic Typist]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I've gone over the frameworks, and EC is definately out for me. While I can see it's utility in very specifc scenarios, it just doesn't feel right for the magic that I am trying to emulate. MP was better, but still not quite....... VPP was ALMOST right, but it had the reverse problem for me: it was TOO flexible.

 

Right now, I'm trying to start these heroes off as "greenhorns," people at the begining of their career. In my world, (for now, who knows if I will change my mind!) there is a significant difference between the concept of wizards and sorcerers. Essentially, a wizard is (typically, not always) of a lower station and power. He might know say a dozen or so spells that can be quite strong, etc. A sorcerer, on the other hands knows HUNDREDS, perhaps thousands of spells. Essentially, he has gone through enough lore and become skilled enough that he can typically find a spell for the situation (a VPP, in my mind). The stronger the sorcerer, the more points in his VPP.

 

What I had been planning on was starting them off with /3, and after a certain length of play (probably six months to a year real time) and a certain level of progression, the wizards could earn the status of sorcerer. They could take all the points that they had previously invested in magic and use it to design a VPP. Yes, it might be more expensive, but the fact is that I consider the VPP a superior system to casting magic. If I was given a choice between having a VPP and /3 as a player, I would pick the VPP. I consider the sheer versatility of it to be worth the extra points. Further, there would be a time jump most likely, and all of the players would receive an XP stipend, which would help soften some of the blow.

 

So, suggestions on how I could limit a VPP to represent the transition from a wizard (who is limited, but still powerful) to a sorcerer (who is far less limited)? If so, I would love that, because then I could stick with one magic scheme all the way through. As is, I think the VPP gives the characters too much "oophm" for their lowly status.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

So, suggestions on how I could limit a VPP to represent the transition from a wizard (who is limited, but still powerful) to a sorcerer (who is far less limited)? If so, I would love that, because then I could stick with one magic scheme all the way through. As is, I think the VPP gives the characters too much "oophm" for their lowly status.

 

 

Im not going to discuss the earlier part of your post, but you might want to look at the Arcanis Magnicus Magic System on my site, which was designed to be a hybrid between a "prepared" casting model and a "spontaneous" casting model and is very flexible.

 

As for your more limited "wizards" progressing to more powerful "sorcerers", which Im treating as labels to avoid confusion, you could reasonably handle it like this:

 

A) Use the Wizardry Magic System on my site (or something similar) for "wizards" -- and keep in mind that the names just coincidentally match and not get hung up on labels.

 

As a "wizard" character progresses they can change the limitations on their VPP and Spells to the more flexible but more expensive Arcanis Magnicus model and become a "sorcerer".

 

 

This gets you a system where while both are powerful, one is more flexible and the other is less expensive but restricted.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I'll take a look at this, and of course names are just names. I don't get hung up on them except IN game, but that's IN game.

 

Thank you!

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I've read most of this thread and thought I'd add my opinion: I also strongly dislike the /3 mechanic. In my FH games, I allow (but do not require) the use of frameworks for magic, mostly MPs and VPPs. I have very rarely used ECs.

 

I'm aware that some players may say, "How come my wizard is forced to pay full price for his Fireball EB, when the fighter gets his weapons for no points?"

 

To which I reply, "Forced by whom? I'm certainly not forcing you to do anything. If you want to buy a weapon for money (and Familiarity) go right ahead."

 

IMO, one of the most harmful legacies left by the heavy hand of Gygax is the idea that magic is all about throwing fireballs around. I have seen almost no fantasy literature that portrays wizards like that. So many young role-players have had their RPG skills impaired by this idea. "Everybody knows wizards can't use swords or armor." "Everybody knows that every wizard needs a big, zappy, attack spell; a force field spell; and a fly spell." Really? I can't stand the "wizards as walking artillary platforms" model.

 

Sure /3 may be viable for some types of games. I just happen to not prefer those types of games.