Greater difficulty for intricate spells

[Outsider]

This would have been severely off topic in the thread from which I am quoting, so I started a new thread :

 

 

 

- The difficulty of a spell has only to do with its overall power, not its intricacy.

 

There's an interesting idea...

 

Has anyone tried modifying the RSR rules such that AP derived from base power cost is easier than AP derivde from power advantages?

 

Example :

Base power = -1 per 20 points

Advantage power = -1 per 5 points

So a 3D6 RKA is -2 to cast (45/20 = 2)

but a 1D6RKA, AoEHex, Penetrating, Contiunuous is -7 (15/20+30/5)

 

 

 

 

 

One could also make certian powers 'harder' than others.

 

EB is easier than RKA is easier than Extra Dimensional Movement etc.

 

 

Anyone tried this, or see merit in it?

[Old Man]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

I've thought about that, but I actually prefer players to design spells with at least a couple of advantages. Nothing bores me more than an artillery piece mage who slings a vanilla RKA.

[Outsider]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

One could allow a certain level of advantage without penalty, or even graduate the intricacy penalty. (to make the math quicker, drop the differentiation between base power and advantage power)

 

Example :

Up to +1/2 = -1/20 skill roll

Up to +2 = -1/10 skill roll

More than +2 = -1/5 skill roll

 

So

3D6 RKA = 45/20 = -2

2D6 RKA with +1/2 Advantage = 45/20 = -2

1D6 RKA with +2 Advantage = = 45/10 = -4

1pip RKA with +8 Advantage = 45/5 = -9

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

If I ever go back and redesign my d20 conversion spells, I would almost certainly incorporate the rules from Ultimate Energy Projector which I consider one of the seminal works of HERO games; while I may have difficulty getting everyone else on board with it, because it does go against the "fast & loose SFX" feel often assigned to spells, I think it does a great job of alternating costs and flavor of spells.

 

Beyond that, insofar as having differnt spells with different requirements for casting... I don't know how I feel about that. It seems to me that the conventional 1/10 or 1/5 rule is sufficient, and beyond that (and I don't believe I'm saying this) you're overcomplicating the whole thing. Now for something like a Compound Power, where you need to use the entirety of the cost or something, you know, fine. But for general use, meh.

[Markdoc]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

- The difficulty of a spell has only to do with its overall power' date=' not its intricacy.[/quote']

 

Actually for spells that I want to make "intricate" I simply whack on limitations - extra time, requires naked virgin (or acceptable substitute ), Gestures, Incantations, and requires a difficult (or very difficult) spell roll, "can only be cast under the first full moon of winter, etc, etc. Raw power still counts of course, but it's not hard to design difficulty in.

 

It's also a good way of giving NPCs a powerful spell or item that won't wreck the campaign if the players get their sweaty little palms on it

 

cheers, Mark

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

Actually for spells that I want to make "intricate" I simply whack on limitations - extra time, requires naked virgin (or acceptable substitute ), Gestures, Incantations, and requires a difficult (or very difficult) spell roll, "can only be cast under the first full moon of winter, etc, etc. Raw power still counts of course, but it's not hard to design difficulty in.

 

It's also a good way of giving NPCs a powerful spell or item that won't wreck the campaign if the players get their sweaty little palms on it

 

cheers, Mark

 

If I have Extra Virgin Olive Oil, will that do?

[Markdoc]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

If I have Extra Virgin Olive Oil' date=' will that do?[/quote']

 

Use that in your demon-summoning and you're likely to get a Slaad* rather than a Demon - and your protection from Evil won't help you much then.

 

Cheers, Mark

 

*old obscure joke

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

Mmm... Green Slaad or Grey Slaad? The tastes are completely different. One needs oil and vinegar, the other oil and some heavy spices.

 

(Thia! Don't eat that! You don't know what Plane it's from!)

[caris]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

I've never gotten to use it in play, but I'd been working on something along these lines.

 

In my fantasy world, mages are quite versatile, but different special effects are more difficult to achieve than others. I would evaluate the SFX of each spell and assign a difficulty level. The levels were planned to be:

 

X2 Active Cost for determining SR penalty -¼

X3 Active Cost for determining SR penalty -½

X4 Active Cost for determining SR penalty -¾

X5 Active Cost for determining SR penalty -1

Etc.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

I'm already confused. 'splain, Lucy.

[Tonio]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

I'm already confused. 'splain' date=' Lucy.[/quote']

 

If I understand correctly...

 

You know how "Requires a Skill Roll" imposes a skill roll penalty based on the AP of the power? Well, the complaint is that in a fantasy campaign, you might want "complex" powers to be more difficult to cast, even if they have relatively low AP costs. The proposed solution is having a Limitation that multiplies the AP cost for purposes of determining the skill roll penalty.

 

For example, if the penalty is the standard -1 per 10 pts, a 50 AP power would normally impose a -5 on the skill roll. If the power took the "x3 Active Cost for Determining SR Penalty" described below, it would impose a -15 (50 x 3 = 150, 150/10 = 15).

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

Teh... okay. BUT. Maybe this is me being retarded. BUT.

 

If the AP is already low, then almost by both definition and design, how complex can the spell be? Or are we talking about specific SFX? Such as a Change Environment or a summon or suchlike that's similarly dramatic?

[Tonio]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

I'm guessing it's a flavor/SFX thing. Like how becoming immortal is relatively cheap, points wise, but really should be hellaciously complex in a fantasy game. The "Immortality Spell", for example, would be a prime candidate for this, I guess.

 

Edit: The only problem I see with this is that if the power (spell?) is already cheap to begin with, the Limitation will hardly save any points. On the other hand, these are probably imposed by the GM, so no biggie. =)

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

I'm guessing it's a flavor/SFX thing. Like how becoming immortal is relatively cheap, points wise, but really should be hellaciously complex in a fantasy game. The "Immortality Spell", for example, would be a prime candidate for this, I guess.

 

Edit: The only problem I see with this is that if the power (spell?) is already cheap to begin with, the Limitation will hardly save any points. On the other hand, these are probably imposed by the GM, so no biggie. =)

 

I hate those. They always create new, weird in-house rules that leave me feeling vaguely unsettled. Like I forgot to take Maalox or something after eating the Bunneh's chili.

[Tonio]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

I hate those. They always create new' date=' weird in-house rules that leave me feeling vaguely unsettled. Like I forgot to take Maalox or something after eating the Bunneh's chili.[/quote']

 

I dunno, this sounds relatively simple and appropriate, sort of like an extension to the built-in RSR options (using AP/20 or AP/5 instead of AP/10).

 

Also, Gaviscon > Maalox.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

WTD is Gaviscon?! And where does one procure it?

[Tonio]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaviscon

 

You can probably find it at your local drug store / pharmacy. ;-)

[caris]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

I'm guessing it's a flavor/SFX thing. Like how becoming immortal is relatively cheap, points wise, but really should be hellaciously complex in a fantasy game. The "Immortality Spell", for example, would be a prime candidate for this, I guess.

 

Edit: The only problem I see with this is that if the power (spell?) is already cheap to begin with, the Limitation will hardly save any points. On the other hand, these are probably imposed by the GM, so no biggie. =)

 

 

Why, yes, it would be GM imposed, but I'd probably be going with some no charging option for spells, so it shouldn't be an issue. Also, about the only limitations that I will be allowing on spells is RSR, Difficult to Cast, some Limited Powers, and Increased END. Extra Time, Foci, Gestures, Incantations, etc. will generally serve as bonuses to the Skill Roll.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

So, "Difficult to Cast" becomes its own, new limitation? Okay. Somewhere that never clicked. I don't feel so weird and awkward now. I have a handle on the nature of this thread. Balance is restored to my tiny universe.

[Tonio]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

Why' date=' yes, it would be GM imposed, but I'd probably be going with some no charging option for spells, so it shouldn't be an issue. Also, about the only limitations that I will be allowing on spells is RSR, Difficult to Cast, some Limited Powers, and Increased END. Extra Time, Foci, Gestures, Incantations, etc. will generally serve as bonuses to the Skill Roll.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I'm just not used to GM-imposed limitations on power constructs, since what I've played is mostly Champions (basically ONLY Champions), so I tend to forget about those. Dying to start playing FH... waiting for my books to arrive!!!

[Markdoc]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

I'm guessing it's a flavor/SFX thing. Like how becoming immortal is relatively cheap' date=' points wise, but really should be hellaciously complex in a fantasy game. The "Immortality Spell", for example, would be a prime candidate for this, I guess.[/quote']

 

I can see why you might want it like that but in my FH game, I simply went with the rules, so that non-aging *is* relatively cheap, and as a result, pretty much anybody important stops aging after a while. Has some interesting implications for society design .

 

Of course, that's not the same as being "immortal" since not only do you retain your vulnerability to pointy bits of metal, explosions, being digested, etc, but once you stack on a few years, a simple dispel getting through your defences will reduce you to mouldering bones...

 

cheers, Mark

[Tonio]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

I can see why you might want it like that but in my FH game, I simply went with the rules, so that non-aging *is* relatively cheap, and as a result, pretty much anybody important stops aging after a while. Has some interesting implications for society design .

 

Of course, that's not the same as being "immortal" since not only do you retain your vulnerability to pointy bits of metal, explosions, being digested, etc, but once you stack on a few years, a simple dispel getting through your defences will reduce you to mouldering bones...

 

cheers, Mark

 

That works, too. Note, though, that this change (or rather extension) to the rules wouldn't make immortality any more expensive (it'd make it cheaper, actually), just harder to acheive. So your character isn't burdened with extra character points.

 

I like it, since it gives you more campaign design options. Letting characters buy immortality right from the get-go, not as a spell, but as part of their intrinsic make up, would also work, and would make for yet another type of campaign flavor.

 

It's all good.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Greater difficulty for intricate spells

 

Why' date=' yes, it would be GM imposed, but I'd probably be going with some no charging option for spells, so it shouldn't be an issue. Also, about the only limitations that I will be allowing on spells is RSR, Difficult to Cast, [/quote']

 

I use difficult to Cast in my FH spells all over the place. If a spell has too low a penalty for the effect I am looking for, or that I want to make more uncommon, I throw that on there.

 

An simple example is the "Eternal Flame" spell. A simple 1 pip KA with limitations, uncontrolled continuous and scads of difficult to dispel (house rule for this spell is that nothing drops the continuous). It ended up costing about 30 active, but I wanted the thing to be difficult to cast, so I ended up putting lost of difficult to cast and extra end on.

 

In a multipower magic system, where the spells tend towards the point cost of the multipower increased end and difficult to cast can really help flavor out the spells, and keep them from being so samey.