Divide by Three

[Manic Typist]

Re: Divide by Three

 

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.

 

Describe the kind of wizard's that you prefer. What sort of powers and abilities do you think are ideal or appropriate, and what is some good source literature?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Divide by Three

 

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.

 

I think a key difference between the source material and the game universe is the frequency of, and emphasis on, combat. In fiction, combat doesn't occur every chapter, much less several times in a typical chapter. It doesn't dominate the story. In games, however, time slows to a crawl as we play out each nuance of the combat scene, while many non-combat encounters get resolved in far less detail than the fiction addresses it.

 

Thus, while a character short on combat utlity may thrive in fiction, the player of such a character in an RPG feels somewhat useless ofr much of the game time, resulting in boredom. Thus, they want a character with cobtat utility.

 

In games which de-emphasize combat, characters who aren't focused on combat become much more useful/acceptable as PC's.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I think a key difference between the source material and the game universe is the frequency of, and emphasis on, combat. In fiction, combat doesn't occur every chapter, much less several times in a typical chapter. It doesn't dominate the story. In games, however, time slows to a crawl as we play out each nuance of the combat scene, while many non-combat encounters get resolved in far less detail than the fiction addresses it.

 

Thus, while a character short on combat utlity may thrive in fiction, the player of such a character in an RPG feels somewhat useless ofr much of the game time, resulting in boredom. Thus, they want a character with cobtat utility.

 

In games which de-emphasize combat, characters who aren't focused on combat become much more useful/acceptable as PC's.

 

As my Sig says:

 

The greatest influencer of what constitutes a successful character design within the context of a campaign are the campaign elements the GM chooses to emphasize.

 

I discuss this basic concept in detail here: Relevance & Reliability

[Cantriped]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I've used /3 and for the most part I don't mind it all things considered. The mage I played was far fr omthe most powerful in the group, however he did pull his own weight in combat even with lots of utility powers that he never actually got to use.

Really it's not much different then a power Framework anyway except in that it is less limited (being applicable to any spell with the right modifiers and SFX), and having a smaller (generally) reduction in cost over a multipower without an apperciable buy-in cost.

If I ever used it it would probably be with the caveat that the player had other abilities considered necessary to 'learning' magic, and that they had knowledge or science skills related to the effect of the spell. meaning they would have to understand the effect they are creating before they could create it. (even if they don't need a skill roll the activate said spell)

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Describe the kind of wizard's that you prefer. What sort of powers and abilities do you think are ideal or appropriate' date=' and what is some good source literature?[/quote']

I prefer magic (and thence, wizards) to do things that can't be done without magic. It seems improbable that magic would be developed to do what existing weapons (or other technology) already does. Appropriate powers include invisibility, illusions, shape changing, healing, clairvoyance, non-lethal attacks, like mind control and entanglement, etc.

 

I'm not really an expert of fantasy literature, but off-hand, I can't think of *any* that portrays wizards as fireball-slingers (other than those based directly on B&D). For inspiration, I look to many sources, starting with classical mythology and fairy tails, and including everything from Tolkein, Lieber, Lewis, Baum, all the way to Harry Potter. Not one fireball in the bunch. There are many fantasy source I haven't read, of course.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I think a key difference between the source material and the game universe is the frequency of, and emphasis on, combat.

....

In games which de-emphasize combat, characters who aren't focused on combat become much more useful/acceptable as PC's.

I guess maybe I prefer those kinds of games, for Fantasy in particular.

 

Note that there will always be plenty of "action" in games I GM, but not all action is direct combat. It isn't just wizards that become specialized for combat duty. Other character types have the same problem. Thieves/"rogues" become guerilla-fighters who specialize in surprise/ambush tactics in battle. Clerics become combat-medics with enough armor and fighting skill to defend themselves while they heal their injured comrades.

 

There are other types of action besides just fighting. Sneaking past a threat can be just as exciting. Political intrigue, solving mysteries, influencing people, etc.

 

It is understandable that there is a huge emphasis on combat due to the wargame origins of RPGs, but it doesn't have to stay that way.

 

And I'm certainly not saying anyone is wrong for prefering it that way. I fully understand, and often just want to brawl in a game as much as anyone.

[Cantriped]

Re: Divide by Three

 

The Dragon Prince series by Melanie Rawn has a group of spellcasters called Sunrunners (elementalists specializing primarially in Fire and Light, with a little bit of air control) and even then I never read about one tossing a fireball. (granted, the organization that trains them requires a Code vs. Killing, but thats beside the point.) there was some use of things like Firewalls, or shapes (especially dragons) conjured in flames, but these were more manipulation of light then fire.

[tesuji]

Re: Divide by Three

 

When i ran my Fh games, the typical fantasy magic worked as follows:

 

Behind the curtain Casters bought a multipower pool which represented their "magical might" or "how much magic they can wield". and spells were bought as ultra slots. Each caster chose a style which included both a history and philosophy of magic, some info on who teaches it, and a set of common restrictions.

 

In front of the curtain...

 

Player chose his magic school.

Player purchased his magic rank which governed the difficulty total of spells he can cast/maintain at once

Player purchased spells, each of which had a difficulty. Difficulty makes skill roll to cast spell harder, counts against your rank limit, and also coveres how much mana you lose.

 

For those in the know, of course, Difficulty = AP/10.

RAMK = 10 Ap pool with a common -1.5 limitation applying to all spells in the school. -1/2 was skill roll and -1 was "school specific"

 

Net result.

 

RANK = 4 cp per pt.

SPELL = 1/2 CP per pt of difficulty

When you cast a spell lose mana = difficulty and make roll at penalty equal to difficulty.

 

For actual spell design, i prepared a list of several dozen sample spells, designed to cover broad based and serve as benchmarks for others. The player would then pick initially from these but could also ask for custom spells, which i would design.

 

this worked fairly well for even having relative hero novices play in a FH game.

 

It worked best when you didn't fret the details beyond the "closest 10 ap break point."

 

Schools were varied...

GRYPHON: cautious magic is science types with Extra time, concentration and inc and gestures

DRAGON: Magic as inner strength with side effects and increased end cost.

FIORO = Encanted items, specifically an enchanted OAF required for all spells.

by the time it was done, i think i had seven schools in play.

 

it worked well for several campaigns.

 

A later design (not played yet) used very similar model for spells but changed the END/MANA notes to create a different effect.

 

All spells draw from and END reserve.

 

Player s buy MANA and SIEVE stats

 

For 1 cp you get 10 MANA which are used as endurance foryour spell. -1 difficulty = -1 mana.

 

For 1 cp you buy 3 SIEVE. Each pt of SIEVE equals 1 mana recovered per hour in a typical area.

 

the basic model was the world is filled with mana flaoting around and mages are those whose bodies/spirits attract and collect it instead of just letting it flow by. So your mage is just soaking up MANA at a set rate, regardless of how much you spend. Your mana rating determined how much you can hold.

 

So some mages might have a high threshold and store a lot of mana but might replenish it slowly. A mage with "similar cost" might have a lower threshold but have a faster replenish rate. The difference is the former is greatfor a BIG fight or maybe a few smaller ones while the latter has to watch himself in bigger fights but given time can do multiple fights per day.

 

My goal with the initial system was to simplify the math involved. I found the multipower ranks and spells to work fine.

 

The net result was that most spelld were built at 10 ap breaks more or less. rarely did the spells individually meet the RANK limit cuz most players wanted to have multiple spells at once.. an offense a defense etc.

 

it was common for mages to have a "light attack" and a "heavy attack" spell, so that once could be used "while flying and with my shield up" but the other used "when just running my shield" and so on. As such, spell sizes varied a lot, but always breaking at or around 10 ap blocks since that made the difficulty thing work simplest.

 

So, i did not see much in the way of "one size spells".

 

What you do lose is the "variety that comes from stacjkng a whole lot of lims" on spells. many of the "specific to this spell" lims you see tacked on in FH spells writeen for whole points go away, because the general notion of "lims" is covered in part by the school choice.

 

so compared to build every spell from scratch, you did lose some variety... if you feel slapping -3 or more worth of lims on most spells to be variety.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Divide by Three

 

On the outside chance that anyone is particularly interested in the magic system(s) I use in my games, I'd like to clarify a few things that I said in previous posts on this thread.

 

1) I don't begrudge wizards attack spells. They will often have one or two "plain" damaging spells. They are usually built to be useful in ways that ordinary weapons aren't, or otherwise different from ordinary weapons. And of course other Attack powers not available through ordinary weapons are also fairly common: Mind Control, Entangle, Transform, Flash, etc.

 

2) I don't use the "Spell" limitation, either. Most offensive spells have those default restrictions anyway, but they get no limitation for it. There may be individual exceptions to any or all of the restrictions based on the nature of the individual spell, or based on the circumstances, or both.

 

3) Not directly related to magic itself, but related to the comparison of magic-types and fighter-types, PC's are strongly discouraged from wearing heavy armor. Encumbrance rules are in effect. It is considered impolite to walk around in a city in armor - it sends the message that you think you're in danger, or that you're looking for a fight. How would you feel if a bunch of people were walking around your neighborhood in bullet-proof vests, helmets and plexiglass riot shields? Sure, fighters can own a suit of plate armor, but they'd only put it on when they know they're about to be in a battle. As adventurers, they're going to do a lot of traveling overland, and will face natural hazards and obstacles were freedom of movement will be more important than the added protection of armor. I don't make players paranoid so they want to sleep in their armor. And there are many restrictions on defensive spells as well. Combat is dangerous. It should be. I don't want players to say, "His weapon only does 1d6 K, and I've got 6 DEF armor, so he can't do any BODY damage to me."

[Markdoc]

Re: Divide by Three

 

On the outside chance that anyone is particularly interested in the magic system(s) I use in my games' date=' I'd like to clarify a few things that I said in previous posts on this thread.[/quote']

 

Your attitude is pretty similar to mine, in many ways, but our base assumptions obviously lead to a different approach

 

1) I don't begrudge wizards attack spells. They will often have one or two "plain" damaging spells. They are usually built to be useful in ways that ordinary weapons aren't' date=' or otherwise different from ordinary weapons. And of course other Attack powers not available through ordinary weapons are also fairly common: Mind Control, Entangle, Transform, Flash, etc.[/quote']

 

I certainly don't begrudge wizards attack spells - or defence spells, for that matter. I just don't want them to be simple, easily accessible and "ordinary". In short I don't want a wizard to have a "fist of steel" spell or similar that the wizard can wield as easily casually and "non-magically" as a mace. If he can, magic ceases to be at all magical. At that point players treat it as just a skill, like horseriding. I don't want the wizard to function as an artillery piece or archer whose main task is laying down suppressive or supporting fire as a standard role. I prefer magic to be used used to do things an archer or swordsman can't. So, as you noted, illusions, mind control, flash entangle are all good. I'd add in area affect attack spells as well. However to prevent the use of those outshining the fighters completely there need to be restrictions on use, so that spells cannot be used freely or as a matter of course - I feel a wizard should be able to tip the balance of even a large fight - if he uses his magic wisely. Banging off a spell every phase is *not* what I want to see.

 

2) I don't use the "Spell" limitation' date=' either. Most offensive spells have those default restrictions anyway, but they get no limitation for it. There may be individual exceptions to any or all of the restrictions based on the nature of the individual spell, or based on the circumstances, or both.[/quote']

 

Likewise, I don't use "spell" as a limitation, because ... well it isn't actually limiting, is it? There are plenty of other limitations on spells and having -2 to -3 in limits is not unusual in my game, meaning you can purchase some pretty powerful juju for very few points.

 

3) Not directly related to magic itself' date=' but related to the comparison of magic-types and fighter-types, PC's are strongly discouraged from wearing heavy armor. Encumbrance rules are in effect. It is considered impolite to walk around in a city in armor - it sends the message that you think you're in danger, or that you're looking for a fight. How would you feel if a bunch of people were walking around your neighborhood in bullet-proof vests, helmets and plexiglass riot shields? Sure, fighters can own a suit of plate armor, but they'd only put it on when they know they're about to be in a battle. As adventurers, they're going to do a lot of traveling overland, and will face natural hazards and obstacles were freedom of movement will be more important than the added protection of armor. I don't make players paranoid so they want to sleep in their armor. And there are many restrictions on defensive spells as well. Combat is dangerous. It should be. I don't want players to say, "His weapon only does 1d6 K, and I've got 6 DEF armor, so he can't do any BODY damage to me."[/quote']

 

For me this is just basic GM'ing. Unless you are running a military game, it's be kind of wierd for people to be in armour most of the time.

 

In the last three games I've run (total running time about 6 years) the players spent most of their time - including their combat time *in* *their* *clothes* - with perhaps a discreet mail vest or padded cloth under their regular outwear. In such a setting, many people had combat luck, or its equivalent. But this, of course applies to magic-using as well as non-magic-using types and gives them an advantage here too. Nonethless, there are also times - usually associated with war or similar unrest - when the players are going to get tooled up. The system you choose should be able to function well at this end of the spectrum too.

 

So I have had mages with strong defensive capabilities - who can be (briefly) all but immune to normal weapons. And I don't have aproblem with that. The catch is that they can't do much else while doing this and they can only do it for a very, very short periods.

 

And they can never stack it with free armour

 

As noted in another current thread by the FH GM newbie, his problem is that already the mages in his game are starting to outshine the other characters and he needs a way to restrict them. This is by far, the commonest problem in FH games. It's one reason I so despise the /3 idea. It's a really ugly kludge designed to solve a problem (the weakness of magic users) that doesn't actually exist.

 

cheers, Mark

[Cantriped]

Re: Divide by Three

 

While I agree that the Divide by Three Method is a "really ugly kludge". I feel that in many cases it's to correct an issue slighly different then that of mages apparantly 'sucking'.

Basicly it's an attempt at mimicing the idea presented in most literature of spellcasters that can use their magical abilities to perform a wide verity of different 'spells', often with little in the way of obvious or effective limitations (there may be lots, but the reader may not necessarially ever discover all of those limitations, so they don't get translated into the system).

 

The problem being (IMO) that because of the flat out cost of Powers, it's difficult to create a mage with the verity he deserves thematiclly, while keeping him on Par points wise with the rest of the party.

 

This leads (IMO) to mechanics like "/3" which are shortsighted in that they solve the thematic problem, but don't address the balance issues.

 

Of course there are more balanced solutions (Power Frameworks), but the limitations there-in are less often appropos to the SFX of magic being converted. And in particular, frameworks tend to cause a casters abilities to become homogenized, detracting from the mystique and lessening the players ability to create mechaniclly unique spells.

[phookz]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I thought I'd chime in with my 2 cents.

 

I don't like /3 either. It's very arbitrary, and completely unfair to apply it to one SFX. What if a character wanted to build a ninja like character, with lots of ninja powers - should we divide their costs by 3 as well? Why do magic using characters get a break? How about building a barbarian character with a rage ability that aids STR, CON, STUN and END - shouldn't they get the same price break? Let's throw in some other abilities under their barbarian training and get them at /3 while we're at it. It should be fair - the only difference is the SFX, right?

 

This has been said by others, probably more eloquently, but the point is where does it stop? The /3 mechanic is an arbitrary cost reduction for one class of character (class being characters that use the magic SFX, not class like those other games). Someone else (OldMan I think) has already pointed this out and feels that the costs of powers in general are not appropriate for FH. I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, but that seems to be what the /3 mechanic is trying to address.

[Bismark]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I can definitely see where both the pro- and the anti- viewpoints are coming from. I am (as mentioned earlier) using /3 for my TA campaign, but I doubt that I would use it for any FH campaign that was not a kind of D#D knock-off (which TA is - a rather nice knock-off which I rather like, but still a knock-off).

 

As for the balance issue in FH generally: I remember 1st ed. FH (long before certain people had become creative with Power Frameworks for mages - thanks, Killer Shrike ) where the price of direct attack spells brought about a mirror-image situation to the one moaned about with regard to /3, namely:>

 

"why have a warrior when you can have a warrior-mage?" or "why have a warrior when you can have a warrior-priest?"

 

was preceded by

 

"why have a mage when you can have a warrior-mage?" or "why have a priest when you can have a warrior-priest?".

 

Thief-type characters have changed over the editions and settings, but "why have a Thief when you can have a Nightblade?" has pretty much applied throughout.

 

The excessive price of 'traditional' attack powers (i.e those that do not need Power Defence etc. to defend against, but twhich can be stopped by armour, shields etc.) made the most efficient designs ones that used Drains, Transfers etc. (which caused different balance problems) or those that simply buffed up attacks and defences (after all, Combat Levels [and other Skill Levels] are cheap to buy as Powers, as are Characteristics and - of course - Force Fields). We also had - with serious Limitations on it, but nonetheless we had - Damage Reduction bought as spells (now try dropping that mage with your big axe in one hit - fat chance!).

 

Old Man's comment about Powers not really being balanced for Fantasy makes more sense when you understand that he has also being playing FH since 1st ed.

 

For non-Sword & Sorcery settings (the VA book does a very good job on S&S magic - and it is tweakable for those people wanting to up the power level/ease of use to nearer Elric- rather than Conan-style), there has always been an issue with balance using the systems as presented in the rulebooks - otherwise there would never have been so much effort put in by fans to address it.

[Markdoc]

Re: Divide by Three

 

The problem being (IMO) that because of the flat out cost of Powers' date=' it's difficult to create a mage with the verity he deserves thematiclly, while keeping him on Par points wise with the rest of the party.[/quote']

 

But that's a GM decision: first to choose a magic system in which all spells are bought as individual powers and secondly to set up a magic system, where player mages are " D and D -like" in that they have access to many spells.

 

Neither is a given, and - as you note below - there are plenty of other (and better) options.

 

This leads (IMO) to mechanics like "/3" which are shortsighted in that they solve the thematic problem' date=' but don't address the balance issues. [/quote']

 

Agreed - in fact they create far worse balance issues

 

Of course there are more balanced solutions (Power Frameworks)' date=' but the limitations there-in are less often appropos to the SFX of magic being converted. And in particular, frameworks tend to cause a casters abilities to become homogenized, detracting from the mystique and lessening the players ability to create mechaniclly unique spells.[/quote']

 

This is where I disagree. I can't see any reason at all to think that Frameworks "homogenise" magic use - in my experience they tend to do precisely the opposite. A mage with a VPP will behave and seem very different to one with a MP, and both wil be different to one with an EC (the least suitable framework for most types of magic, IMO, but one which occasionally is useful) simply because of the way frameworks operate. Moreover a mage with a VPP built like a DnD Wizard (memorises spells out of a book, has to choose them in advance) operates and feels very different from one who spontaneously manipulates magic to form the effects they want (a cosmic VPP).

 

Certainly, in my current game, I have VPPs, MP and individual purchase with limitations available for mages and all of them are currently in use. There's no question that a Priest of the 12 Gods (VPP) a Heretic Sorceror (MP) or a Devotee of the Forest man (individual purchase) are all viable characters, and all play and feel very differently.

 

Now "/3" will give a different feel again - except that if you allow it, all your mages will probably use it, since it's so much more efficient than any other structure. because oftat you can't reasonably expect to mix in other magic styles and you end up with *less* homogenity rather than more.

 

Yet another reason it's a terrible idea.

 

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I use a skill based magic system, but properly handled both MPs and VPPs (with spell lists) can work well. I don't / 3.

[Markdoc]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I've used /3 and for the most part I don't mind it all things considered. The mage I played was far fr omthe most powerful in the group' date=' however he did pull his own weight in combat even with lots of utility powers that he never actually got to use.[/quote']

 

I meant to comment on this earlier - perhaps the reason you feel /3 isn't such a bad deal is because you are looking at it as a player. (If I was a player, I'd think it was cool too!)

 

I'm looking at it as a GM - and also as a GM who doesn't like to run one-shot adventures, but prefers longer campaigns.

 

You write "however he did pull his own weight in combat even with lots of utility powers that he never actually got to use". That's fine: it sounds like you didn't feel shafted, even though you never got to use a lot of your points. However, I can attest from much experience that if you have a character that can hold his own in combat and hold his own in non-combat situations *and* do stuff that the other characters can't do, then over time, the other players *will* feel shafted (especialy as mages tend to grow in relative power as the PCs get more XP)

 

I've seen it happen repeatedly in the early days when we allowed relatively unfettered magic use. You'd start off with a mixed party of rogues and fighters and magic users and soon either the non-magic users would learn to use magic, or they would retire and be replaced by magic-using characters. Not all of them specialised in magic - in many cases it would be a party of warrior-mages, specialised mages and thief-mages or something similar. But it *always* happened - until we started to restrict the utility of magic. It's pretty hard to reconcile that experience, with multiple games, multiple GMs and multiple different campaigns with the idea that magic users are somehow "weak".

 

Now if you want a game where everyone uses magic (and I've both played in and run such campaigns with pleasure: I even have the rules I used for it up on my website) that's fine. But if you don't, then you need another solution, and /3 is most certainly not it.

 

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

Re: Divide by Three

 

As an addenda to Markdoc's post: some players will question while they had to pay full-price for magical abilities or impressive talents/feats not defined as spells. And I don't think "its a spell" is a very good answer. There are extant mechanics for making things cheaper - and with control cost and slot cost it isn't a flat-cut. There is something paid for the added versatility.

[stewart]

Re: Divide by Three

 

i'm new to FH, infact, going to be running my first FH game very soon. as such, i've been playing around with characters, making NPCs, baddies and such, figuring out how i was going to do the magic system and such..

 

at first i started usinig the /3 ust because i thought it was going to be easy for players, so i'm making some wizardly NPCs or samples, and i discovered that using the /3 makes for a WHOLE lot of spells and it was very easy to design a magic using character that would over shadow everyone else.

 

so i changed to to a MP framework and that seemed to work much better and wasn't nearly as complicated as i thought it would be, especially if you make all the slots ultras.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Divide by Three

 

I've been thinking, and I've decided to abandon the /3 route (for this campaign, at least). I will begin experimenting with a VPP, and intend to start a thread on what I've got in a week or so.

 

Very persuasive arguments people, though I lament the snarkyness that emerged at times. Thank you all.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Your attitude is pretty similar to mine' date=' in many ways, but our base assumptions obviously lead to a different approach [/quote']

From what you wrote, it seems to me like we've been lead to almost the exact same approach. What was the difference you saw? Just curious.

 

Likewise, I don't use "spell" as a limitation, because ... well it isn't actually limiting, is it?

Well, it is somewhat. The "Spell" Limitation means you can't do MPAs with it, and you can't spread it or bounce it, and there's a number of other maneuvers you can't do with it. It's all there in FH p246, IIRC. But I still don't use it in my games.

 

And one other clarification of my opinions: I do like the Turakian Age setting. It's got a lot of neat stuff in it. I don't actually use it as the setting for the games I run (even though I own the book), but I steal ideas from it occasionally.

[Markdoc]

Re: Divide by Three

 

From what you wrote' date=' it seems to me like we've been lead to almost the exact same approach. What was the difference you saw? Just curious.[/quote']

 

A different approach to the utility of "/3". I see it as a loathsome abomination, a cancer on the face of hero system. Actually, that's not true, but I can't say what I really think without getting an infraction

 

 

Well' date=' it is somewhat. The "Spell" Limitation means you can't do MPAs with it, and you can't spread it or bounce it, and there's a number of other maneuvers you can't do with it. It's all there in FH p246, IIRC. But I still don't use it in my games.[/quote']

 

Yeah, the reason I think it's not really a limitation, is that most of those limiting factors have never, ever come into play in my fantasy games and that in general I would still allow special effects to trump those limits. I can't see anybody spreading a spell that conjures a speeding metal dart (for example), but I would certainly allow a player to try bouncing such a magical attack off something suitably solid. So while I have no particular objection to that limit, I just don't use it in my own games

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Yeah' date=' the reason I think it's not really a limitation, is that most of those limiting factors have never, ever come into play in my fantasy games and that in general I would still allow special effects to trump those limits. I can't see anybody spreading a spell that conjures a speeding metal dart (for example), but I would certainly allow a player to try bouncing such a magical attack off something suitably solid. So while I have no particular objection to that limit, I just don't use it in my own games[/quote']

 

Assume we have three players, each designing a spell. All three are energy blasts.

 

Player 1's spell logically cannot be bounced, spread, etc. based on its SFX.

 

Player 2's spell logically can be bounced, spread, etc. based on its SFX.

 

Player 3's spell logically can be bounced, spread, etc. based on its SFX and those same SFX imply it should be Indirect.

 

Why should Player 1 and Player 2 pay the same for their spells? Player 2 has more options than Player 1, so why should he not pay more for his spell? You aren't going to give Player 3 added utility by granting him Indirect for free based solely on his SFX, are you? If not, then why should Player 2 get something for nothing (or Player 1 lose something for no point savings)?

 

This, to me, is very different from applying a rule that all spells receive the Spell limitation by default, and a spell which can be bounced, spread and/or MPA'd must pay for this advantage over the default in the setting. In the latter case, all spells start on the same footing and, if you want to be able to spread YOUR spell, you must pay extra for granting YOUR spell this ability that other spells lack.

 

Being able to bounce (and avoid that Magic Shield of +5 DCV at the cost of -1 OCV) seems quite advantageous. Being able to subtract a couple of dice damage to add +2 OCV against a high DCV opponent, or hit two lower power opponents at the same time, also seems beneficial. Using two spells at once in an MPA against an opponent also seems like a plus. If one character has these options, and the other does not, it seems fair that the first would spend more points than the second.

[Markdoc]

Re: Divide by Three

 

If one character has these options' date=' and the other does not, it seems fair that the first would spend more points than the second.[/quote']

 

Agreed - if a player wanted to define a spell as being unable to do these things, he'd get a limit (if appropriate). I just don't see assuming those limits automatically for spells. Exactly how does being unable to spread or bounce an attack or use a MPA affect the defensive spell "Iron skin" for example? Or the spell "Invisibility?"

 

I just think "spell" is a poorly thought-out limitation - hence, I don't use it.

 

cheers, Mark

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Divide by Three

 

Exactly how does being unable to spread or bounce an attack or use a MPA affect the defensive spell "Iron skin" for example? Or the spell "Invisibility?"

The Spell limitation is described as being specifically for Attack spells. In the spell writeups in TA etc., only the Attack spells are given the Spell limitation.

 

And while I'm on the subject, three other things the Spell limitation stops you from doing: Rapid Fire, Sweep, and Haymaker.

[Markdoc]

Re: Divide by Three

 

The Spell limitation is described as being specifically for Attack spells. In the spell writeups in TA etc., only the Attack spells are given the Spell limitation.

 

And while I'm on the subject, three other things the Spell limitation stops you from doing: Rapid Fire, Sweep, and Haymaker.

 

Yep, I know - I own the rulebook. I've just never had anyone try to rapid fire sweep or haymaker a spell. Or a bow and arrow for that matter. Should magic bows include the limit "bow" in their costing?

 

And if "spell" is a good limitation for spells in general, why restrict it to attack spells. That's a rhetorical question - obviously it was dumped in there without much thought and the proposed limitations wouldn't apply to anything else.

 

It's not bad, or abusive or anything - it simply does nothing useful. Certainly in my game it wouldn't be limiting - not in 20 years of Hero system fantasy gaming has anyone tried to sweep a spell (or haymaker one). So I don't use it.

 

cheers, Mark