Love for Non-Casters?

[Markdoc]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Thanks for the insights Mark, very good stuff.

 

Couple of questions spring to mind:

1) What, if any, story reason was there for the restriction? It makes sense mechanically, but how did it work 'in the world'?

 

Heh. A good GM should always have a reason for "why it works" not just "how it works".

 

It's pretty simple actually. As for "not adding swords together" or "not wearing two suits of chainmail at once" that's self explanatory. In the case of things like "Combat luck" which reflect skill, luck or divine favour, it's also easy. A character with Combat luck isn't made of anything hard, he just manages to not get hit by the full force of the blow. In that case, if he avoids the blow by dint of a dodge, I simply rule that the armour doesn't help much. If he is hit by the full force of the blow, then clearly his combat luck didn't work - but his armour might.

 

With regard to magic, if you can make a forcefield that is (say) as tough as steel - how does that add to armour which is also "as tough as steel"? After all, having an extra millimetre of Steel on the outside of your armour isn't going to help much (real armours can vary in thickness by more than that!) And presumably forcefields are both more yielding than steel and also close to skin-tight in fit - forcefields don't render the user unable to pick things up, fit through doorways, etc. The same goes for making your skin harder. If the blow coming through your armour is hard enough to penetrate steel, is the fact that your skin (which is rather thin) is hard as steel going to help much? It might help a little, but the damage system is relatively granular: I rule (and my players, who are often an argumentative bunch accept) that it doesn't help enough to warrant adding the DEF. If the magical defence is harder than steel, how does having something softer underneath help?

 

This is how the rules on breaking things work. Making a wall thicker doesn't add DEF. It just adds BOD, meaning it is just as easy to damage but it takes longer to carve a hole all the way through. In the case of living or quasi-living creatures, it is the "just as easy to damage" that is the crucial point. We're not talking about carving large holes in them, since they'd be dead by that point, anyway.

 

One idea we have played around with (but never implemented) is the oft-referenced non-linear nature of Hero. You could - if you wanted - allow that every doubling of DEF by adding defences increased overall DEF by a DC (effectively, 2 points of DEF). So adding a 2 point forcefield to chain armour would have no effect: the armour is so much tougher), but adding a 6 DEF one would give to +2 DEF. I haven't bothered with this, but it should wrap up the logical arguments, without being too unbalancing.

 

2) Did u find powers like Aid applied to free attacks/armor equally unbalanced?

 

No, not at all. Aid is actually designed to enhance existing attacks and so tends not to be unbalancing: after all, it doesn't matter so much if it is applied to free attacks or points-based ones, it works the same way. The limitations inherent in Aid (takes time to activate, fades away with time, costs End, etc) means that it is much more expensive to augment a free weapon that way than it would be to just buy extra and add it to the weapon or armour, or to increase damage by using CSLs.

 

cheers, Mark

[drunkonduty]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Markdoc.

I love the "Gifts" idea you outlined above. Specifically the bit where you say people can give Gifts to others. It immediately made me think of the placing of curses/geases on characters when they break some taboo or cause some great offence. Like a guest who breaks guest-right or an oath breaker. Am thinking allowing a character to immediately use any unspent XPto create a curse in the right circumstances.

 

Something like:

Major Transform; xd6. 1 non-recoverable charge. Target must have broken a taboo/oath. Power of the Curse must be commensurate with the offence. Heals back through fulfilling a geas or balancing the offence.

 

Is there some way to model making it able to abort to it? Well, not in the rules per se, but thinking maybe a house rule to allow someone to pronounce a dying curse when they've been betrayed.

 

Anyway, just riffing. Must away to work.

 

cheers.

[Markdoc]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Markdoc.

I love the "Gifts" idea you outlined above. Specifically the bit where you say people can give Gifts to others. It immediately made me think of the placing of curses/geases on characters when they break some taboo or cause some great offence.

 

Yep: that's exactly where it came from - old celtic and norse stories. People in those are always getting magical powers from people (or things), which usually come with strings attached. I first used it in a short one-off campaign where all the players were vikings and liked it, so added to the current campaign.

 

Like a guest who breaks guest-right or an oath breaker. Am thinking allowing a character to immediately use any unspent XPto create a curse in the right circumstances.

 

Something like:

Major Transform; xd6. 1 non-recoverable charge. Target must have broken a taboo/oath. Power of the Curse must be commensurate with the offence. Heals back through fulfilling a geas or balancing the offence.

 

I've had a house rule in my FH games for a long time allowing curses. Curses are worse - but more strictly controlled - than the version you described. I allow people to use already spent XP - in that case they lose some powers - as well as unspent XP to cast a curse. That makes dying curses supremely potent, since the dying person can use up all their existing life-force (ie: XP). It's not like they care! However to keep control of the whole deal, and stop curses being flung willy-nilly, to curse someone requires a magic roll. You can't be cursed by a butcher, no matter how badly you've treated him, unless he has at least a smidgen of magical power or some way to access it (he might be able to do it if some dark power hears him, for example, and agrees to help in exchange for a pact). That also means that it's hard to cast a 300 pt curse on someone, since the minus on your skill roll would be .... large. And a person uttering a dying curse usually doesn't have the time to get a lot of bonuses. Beware the dying curse of an arch-mage, however!

 

Curses themselves are transforms - they can be cosmetic (a plague of warts is a classic) - minor or major. Like any transform, there has to be a way to "heal" the transform, so a curse has to have some way to end it. You can't just curse someone to drop dead on the instant. In addition, the skill roll simply has a couple of custom skill modifiers. One is "justified" and the other is "link". If you have a justification for the curse (betrayal, etc) then you'll get a bonus to your roll. If you're simply doing it out of spite, then you get a minus. Likewise, if you have a link to the victim - by blood, possession of a lock of hair, etc, then you'll also get a bonus. Cursing some guys you just met will net you a minus. In game terms these are merely applications of "Excellent conditions for performing the Skill" and "Character uses good equipment in connection with the Skill Roll", etc. Truly is it said "Beware a mother's curse!" - because you know she's gonna get a big bonus on the skill roll

 

There's two subsidiary notes here. The curses I am describing are "spontaneous". Anyone can curse spontaneously, if they have any magical talent. However, some spell-casters can actively cast curses: these operate exactly the same way, except that they have the "Curse spell" bought with points - which makes it a regular transform, not one they purchase with XP.

 

Secondly, this kind of "spontaneous magic" is not limited to curses: they're merely one example. People can - with exactly the same rules - give "benedictions". A dying mother might for example - cast a spell to protect her infant son from the powerful evil wizard who killed her and her husband She gets big bonuses for "justified" and "link" in that case. In-game, a long while back, we had a trapped and badly-wounded paladin who had been betrayed, use up his XP to create a sanctified area around his corpse, to keep evil things and people at bay - and protect the relic he was carrying against looters.

 

"Gifts" fall under another category, though. Essentially to give someone a gift is analogous to creating a magic item. You are using XP (this must be unspent) and unlike a benediction, someone can, in turn pass the gift to another person.

 

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

I've moved away from the traditional "cast spells" style of magic.

 

These days I'm more inclined to go with summoning and deal making with skills representing summoning, circle drawing, relevant knowledge, and the like. Not to mention the interactions skills, presence, or even reputations that go into it. While skills are cheap, if you apply penalties for the point cost of the summoned being they will need a huge skill roll, a lot of supporting factors to offset the penalties, or both. You can also customize the requirements for various rituals, create adventures about obtaining information, etcetera. The other route that appeals to me is to have various psychic powers (not comic book psionics - more subtle and maybe weirder too), or odd suites of abilities that stem from some sort of supernatural nature/curse/investment. One example would be a character who could see and interact with spirits. Another might be a navajo skinwalker rip.

[Tywyll]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

So to get back to the question at hand, any other examples of point saing techniques for non-casters?

I think the alchemy idea is good, though thematically isn't much different from magic. What about fighters and rogues? Any non-martial arts based mp? Something that relies on 'free' weapons common to heroic levels?

I read Harbinger's Vpp but don't feel it fits most fantasy games (barring extreme high power).

[mayapuppies]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

The Combat Tricks stuff from Valdorian Age is perfect IMHO.

 

I use a variant of it in Kamarathin and I have long converted D&D Feats over to my fantasy hero games for non-mage type characters. With the addition of the "Combat Tricks" skill it makes Feats even more feasible for low-fantasy games.

[Tywyll]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

The Combat Tricks stuff from Valdorian Age is perfect IMHO.

 

I use a variant of it in Kamarathin and I have long converted D&D Feats over to my fantasy hero games for non-mage type characters. With the addition of the "Combat Tricks" skill it makes Feats even more feasible for low-fantasy games.

 

Hey,

Those r quite cool, but they aren't really frameworks or other point saving mechanics (like div/3). I'm looking for similar cost saving systems for non casters.

[mayapuppies]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Sorry forgot about the original intent, but they can be point saving mechanics if designed well and then stuck in a framework (particularly an MP). With the focus lim and the focus being "point free" you give all kinds of bonuses for little investment without creating new rules (like div/3).

 

Then again, I "gimp" mages in my game worlds rather than pump up non-mages. So I'm probably coming at it from a completely different direction.

 

[Panpiper]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Coming back late to this conversation, but here is me having fun with it:

 

I'd still like to see a framework that would add to a warrior's damage/fighting capability directly, tied to a weapon, that doesn't involve them 'buying' their 'free' weapon over again.

Technically this requires a GM's permission because one is not supposed to put Naked Advantages into a power framework without GM permission.

 

Naked Advantage Multipower for a Warriors Weapon: (6th Ed.)

 

15 "Perfect Warrior" 30 AP Naked Advantage on 60 AP of Killing Attack; -1 OAF (Weapon of Specialization)

1 "Perfect Focus" +½ Armor Piercing, 0 Endurance on Advantage - End cost: Normal Str

1 "Perfect Form" +½ Area Of Effect: 4m Radius, Selective Target - End cost: Str+3

1 "Perfect Followup" +½ Autofire; 3 shots, Half Endurance - End cost: ((Str+1)*3)/2

1 "Perfect Chi" +½ Affects Desolid - End cost: Str+3

 

This is ideally suited for a warrior with a lifetime's pursuit of perfection with their martial art. Obviously for the character conception to make sense, taking at least the minimum of martial art maneuvers would be virtually obligatory for the character, as would be defining a weapon element and specialization.

 

...there is no easy way with the existing frameworks to improve raw damage dealing on a normal weapon...

Er... Heh. That's the LAST thing any GM needs around me is yet 'more' ways for me to increase raw damage with my warrior characters, right KS?

 

Weapon Master allows a GM to allow a warrior character to buy whatever level of raw damage dealing on a normal weapon that the GM is comfortable with.

 

T"Combat Luck" added to a free set of plate armour means you are almost invulnerable to normal weapons: you can be stunned' date=' but you can't be physically damaged.[/quote']

I just want to point out that a stunned character cannot avail themselves of combat luck, so any other blows that strike them while they are stunned are going to have a much easier time doing damage. That said, in my game I require that Combat Luck be bought with the limitation "Does not stack with armor" (-1/2). Arguably I may be undervaluing the limitation.

[mayapuppies]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

I like that MP, I'd never allow it, but it is a flavorful little build.

That said' date=' in my game I require that Combat Luck be bought with the limitation "Does not stack with armor" (-1/2). Arguably I may be undervaluing the limitation.[/quote']

This is a standard assumption in my games (since no defenses stack) so I don't add it in. But I can see how most people would stack it.

[Vondy]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Coming back late to this conversation, but here is me having fun with it:

 

 

Technically this requires a GM's permission because one is not supposed to put Naked Advantages into a power framework without GM permission.

 

Naked Advantage Multipower for a Warriors Weapon: (6th Ed.)

 

15 "Perfect Warrior" 30 AP Naked Advantage on 60 AP of Killing Attack; -1 OAF (Weapon of Specialization)

1 "Perfect Focus" +½ Armor Piercing, 0 Endurance on Advantage - End cost: Normal Str

1 "Perfect Form" +½ Area Of Effect: 4m Radius, Selective Target - End cost: Str+3

1 "Perfect Followup" +½ Autofire; 3 shots, Half Endurance - End cost: ((Str+1)*3)/2

1 "Perfect Chi" +½ Affects Desolid - End cost: Str+3

 

In a more cinematic game, I'd allow it.

[Vondy]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

So to get back to the question at hand...

 

Because the idea of a tangent in an internet forum is unthinkable!

 

Very well, I shall stomp off and take my tangent ELSEWHERE.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

The main thing to remember here - and I'm joining this thread late so it may have already been mentioned - is that the "discount" "spellcasters" get is in the form of power limitations. If enforced, the non-casters should have the upper hand at least every now and then.

 

Let's say you have a 60 Active Point limit. Your barbarian goes with a 2 1/2 d6 HKA Battle Axe (and has enough STR to bring it to 3d6), some martial arts, some CSL's. So he is swinging a 4 to 5d6 HKA, can use the sweep maneuver, etc.

 

Now the wizard has a 4d6 RKA Lightning Bolt. It is in a MP Framework, to represent the single target 4d6, an AE Line with lower DC, an AE Explosion, an Indirect version, etc.

 

First off, the lightning bolt cost points for the MP and slots, then more points for his "Magic Skill" and the + to RSR to enable him to reliably cast said spell, and hopefully some points on CSL's to ensure he can hit with it. Compare this to the barbarian: The Axe was free, so he had more points to put towards Strength, Dex, Con, Body, PD, ED, REC, STUN... CSL's for the Axe... Martial Maneuvres.

 

Both of them can do 4d6 to one target, or somewhere close to that to several - the Wizard certainly has the upper hand on Area of Effect, but that Barbar doing a sweep maneuver is going to do more damage to his targets than the wizard will to his. Depending on what they are fighting, naturally. In addition, the barbarian is only making one check - the to-hit check. The wizard is going to have to make his skill roll, then the to-hit check, and might be completely unable to cast - silenced (barbar no need talk, barbar smash), entangled (barbar break puny net), grappled (barbar like wrassle, barbar win), or in a magic-dead area (barbar think talky-man funny), or doesn't have the components (barbar only need this axe).

 

The whole thing is you can't compare them directly, and you have to sculpt your encounters so that on occasion, the limitations imposed on spellcasting are an actual drawback. If you never hit them with a situation where they simply can't use their magic, then what good are the limitations they are using

 

And at the highest end:

 

Your Archmagi now wields the power to sunder whole armies. Let's say with 200 AP of Summoning, or whatever. Again, the same limitations apply - END cost, RSR (extra time or massive super-skill), gestures, whatever.

 

Now, give your barbar the same AP in, say, Followers.

 

See where I'm going? Goooood

[Markdoc]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

The main thing to remember here - and I'm joining this thread late so it may have already been mentioned - is that the "discount" "spellcasters" get is in the form of power limitations. If enforced, the non-casters should have the upper hand at least every now and then.

 

Let's say you have a 60 Active Point limit. Your barbarian goes with a 2 1/2 d6 HKA Battle Axe (and has enough STR to bring it to 3d6), some martial arts, some CSL's. So he is swinging a 4 to 5d6 HKA, can use the sweep maneuver, etc.

 

Now the wizard has a 4d6 RKA Lightning Bolt. It is in a MP Framework, to represent the single target 4d6, an AE Line with lower DC, an AE Explosion, an Indirect version, etc.

 

First off, the lightning bolt cost points for the MP and slots, then more points for his "Magic Skill" and the + to RSR to enable him to reliably cast said spell, and hopefully some points on CSL's to ensure he can hit with it. Compare this to the barbarian: The Axe was free, so he had more points to put towards Strength, Dex, Con, Body, PD, ED, REC, STUN... CSL's for the Axe... Martial Maneuvres.

 

Both of them can do 4d6 to one target, or somewhere close to that to several - the Wizard certainly has the upper hand on Area of Effect, but that Barbar doing a sweep maneuver is going to do more damage to his targets than the wizard will to his. Depending on what they are fighting, naturally. In addition, the barbarian is only making one check - the to-hit check. The wizard is going to have to make his skill roll, then the to-hit check, and might be completely unable to cast - silenced (barbar no need talk, barbar smash), entangled (barbar break puny net), grappled (barbar like wrassle, barbar win), or in a magic-dead area (barbar think talky-man funny), or doesn't have the components (barbar only need this axe).

 

The whole thing is you can't compare them directly, and you have to sculpt your encounters so that on occasion, the limitations imposed on spellcasting are an actual drawback. If you never hit them with a situation where they simply can't use their magic, then what good are the limitations they are using

 

And at the highest end:

 

Your Archmagi now wields the power to sunder whole armies. Let's say with 200 AP of Summoning, or whatever. Again, the same limitations apply - END cost, RSR (extra time or massive super-skill), gestures, whatever.

 

Now, give your barbar the same AP in, say, Followers.

 

See where I'm going? Goooood

 

I see where you're going - but we've already been there and left, because we didn't like it. The argument falls apart because the Axe-wielding Barbarian has one power - HKA. The mage can have anything he can get past the GM. So when the Barbarian starts frothing and waving his big scary axe, the mage simply rolls his eyes and sighs sadly .... because he's not only invisible, but he's also desolid - though his psyche-draining dagger isn't ...

 

In general, the ability to have a whole suite of powers that aren't accessible to all characters is incredibly useful in itself. Combine that with a price break, and .... well. There are of course many ways to balance this situation - allowing similar price breaks to any archetype is a good start. Plonking limitations on the broader power sets is another. But in my experience (and looking at how many people just in this thread have learned to gimp spellcasters a bit, it seems to be a widely spread experience) the GM does need to design the game to reflect the benefit ofa broad powerset.

 

cheers, Mark

[Ice9]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

The argument falls apart because the Axe-wielding Barbarian has one power - HKA.

Well that's your problem right there - you're restricting the Barbarian unnecessarily. Right off, the bat, through axe techniques alone, we've got this:

 

* Drain Running + Leaping (leg attack)

* Drain STR + DEX w/ one arm (arm attack)

* Continuing NND HKA (bleeding wound)

* Stun (blunt side to the head; done with Change Environment now, IIRC)

* AoE, radius or line (charging/sweeping strikes)

* Ranged attacks (throwing the axe)

* Drain HKA (smash claws and teeth)

* Drain Flight (slash wings)

* And many more

 

But that's not all. I'd imagine a legendary barbarian to be rather impressive, giving us:

* Presence Attack (don't underestimate it, it's a giant selective AoE that can take people out of the fight entirely)

* Followers, with their own skills to contribute

* Riot-rousing (could be a Summon)

* Inspiring fury (Aid STR and DEX, maybe; makes his followers into a pretty dangerous force)

 

And if he's at all skilled and resourceful, then we've got:

* Clinging (fast wall climbing, and climbing up onto large monsters)

* Setting traps (entangles or KAs with Trigger)

* Healing (herbalism and first aid)

* Danger sense

* Gathering information, especially in the underworld.

 

And all that's assuming he isn't one of those "hero of destiny" types that always seems to have luck favoring them and able to find just what they need. If he was, we'd probably need a VPP to cover it all.

[Markdoc]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Well that's your problem right there - you're restricting the Barbarian unnecessarily. Right off' date=' the bat, through [u']axe techniques alone[/u], we've got this:

 

* Drain Running + Leaping (leg attack)

* Drain STR + DEX w/ one arm (arm attack)

* Continuing NND HKA (bleeding wound)

* Stun (blunt side to the head; done with Change Environment now, IIRC)

* AoE, radius or line (charging/sweeping strikes)

* Ranged attacks (throwing the axe)

* Drain HKA (smash claws and teeth)

* Drain Flight (slash wings)

* And many more .

 

As I've noted above, I'd allow all of those things. However, I was imprecise: what I should have said is "All the barbarian's free axe gives him is one power - HKA" I was responding to the idea that the ability to leverage free equipment like KA (or HA/EB) more efficiently makes up for the wide powerset available to mages. In our games (with multiple GMs and multiple quite different GM'ing styles) it doesn't.

 

To me, the obvious answer is to let non-mages buy powers as "superskills" or magical gifts (bath in the blood of a dragon, gain invisible armour, etc.) and to let both mages and non-mages use power frameworks. That's exactly how I run my games. The same goes for mages, too: the other abilities you mention like climbing, healing, herbaism, etc. Indeed, i still fondly remember an earlier mage/martial artist character I played in one of Mike Surbrook's games. He was recruited onto the team after reputedly killing a kind of lycanthrope. The team leader was skeptical Saying "You expect me to believe you killed a hengyokai with your bare hands?" Ironically, shortly thereafter, we were ambushed by hengeyokai and with a great damage roll, I do one 24 BOD with a killing strike (magically augmented, of course!) basically tearing it in half. I turn around, splattered in blood and say "Yeah. With my bare hands"

 

Just as Barbarians don't have to be limited to HKA, mages don't have to be feeble or incapable in combat.

 

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

I tend to agree with Markdoc. The discount method unfairly benefits casters over non-casters when the versatility casters have is taken into account unless you actively take steps to balance the scales. This could be via allowing both to have power frameworks, allowing super skills, or having a very specific, narrow application for magical effects. Short of that, the discount system, or even casters with frameworks and non-casters without, does give them an undue advantage.

[Tywyll]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

The main thing to remember here - and I'm joining this thread late so it may have already been mentioned - is that the "discount" "spellcasters" get is in the form of power limitations. If enforced, the non-casters should have the upper hand at least every now and then.

 

Actually, no, that's not correct. The discount the caster gets is in the system itself, either from the core system (Limitations, Frameworks, etc) or in the world setting (such as TA div/3 real cost, or the Atlantean Age new take on Frame Works, or any of the numerous systems presented in Fantasy Hero example magic systems). So there are plenty of methods out there to allow casters to have a plethora of powers (AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT IS A BAD THING) but nothing canonical for fighters, rogues, etc.

 

Though Panpiper and Markdoc have done some good examples of MP frameworks (though both are technically against the rules-or require GM approval).

 

 

And at the highest end:

 

Your Archmagi now wields the power to sunder whole armies. Let's say with 200 AP of Summoning, or whatever. Again, the same limitations apply - END cost, RSR (extra time or massive super-skill), gestures, whatever.

 

Now, give your barbar the same AP in, say, Followers.

 

The barbarian would get 8 points worth of followers, as the spell only cost 8 real points (since at the time I was using the TA div/3 method) so I don't think that would be very equal.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Actually, no, that's not correct. The discount the caster gets is in the system itself, either from the core system (Limitations, Frameworks, etc) or in the world setting (such as TA div/3 real cost, or the Atlantean Age new take on Frame Works, or any of the numerous systems presented in Fantasy Hero example magic systems). So there are plenty of methods out there to allow casters to have a plethora of powers (AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT IS A BAD THING) but nothing canonical for fighters, rogues, etc.

 

Though Panpiper and Markdoc have done some good examples of MP frameworks (though both are technically against the rules-or require GM approval).

 

I have never, ever allowed spellcasters to use the additional discounts from any of the FH Settings or sourcebooks.

 

It is completely unneccesary if you are already using power frameworks and more than one or two limitations to make the powers fit the setting's definition of "magic."

 

The barbarian would get 8 points worth of followers, as the spell only cost 8 real points (since at the time I was using the TA div/3 method) so I don't think that would be very equal.

 

Again, I don't allow the "additional discounts" of the settings books - in fact I don't much care for any of the existing Fantasy settings of nearly any published RPG and use my own - and don't really think anyone should if they want to balance casters vs. non-casters. And again, that 8 point cost of that specific spell is overlooking a lot of other associated costs for having magic in general, so Followers vs. Magic can be made to balance out when looking at the overall costs of the powersets.

 

I know in my own Fantasy Hero games, I have only rarely had issues where the spellcasters just plain unbalanced the campaign or made non-spellcasters feel useless. And those were my earliest games, I learned from those mistakes, and mostly what I learned was "Pay attention and enforce the limitations on magic."

[Ice9]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

The discount the caster gets is in the system itself, either from the core system (Limitations, Frameworks, etc) or in the world setting (such as TA div/3 real cost, or the Atlantean Age new take on Frame Works, or any of the numerous systems presented in Fantasy Hero example magic systems).

Oh, I agree that the DIV/3 thing really isn't a good fit - I have the impression that it's supposed to be a substitute for frameworks. Frameworks have been covered. And as for limitations, warrior-types have plenty that work, although not always the same ones. For that matter, Limitations aren't free points - a spellcaster who puts Gestures, Incantations, and Focus on all their spells will have some considerable weak points.

[Matt Holck]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

If it's an OAF the character might as well buy gestures because it's already restrainable

[Ice9]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Well yeah, and accordingly it's 4x as much limitation. Actually, I'm not sure what the deal with Gestures is - is it supposed to be used in addition to Restrainable, or are one-handed Gestures not considered fully restrainable?

[Markdoc]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

I wouldn't allow both gestures and restrainable, since although they are slightly different, the overlap is too great for them to be worth a cumulative limitation. While in many cases, OAF and Gestures place you at a potentially similar disadvantage (ie: if there's someone nearby who can grab you) they are different enough that I'd allow both - the OAF allows the GM to seperate from your power for a period of time, restrainable allows the GM to interfere with your power even if he doesn't get the OAF away from you. Both make you more vulnerable than either alone.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Matt Holck]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Besides grabbing, how else would one interfere gestures?

 

 

Well yeah' date=' and accordingly it's 4x as much limitation. Actually, I'm not sure what the deal with Gestures is - is it supposed to be used in addition to Restrainable, or are one-handed Gestures not considered fully restrainable?[/quote']

 

I believe grab allows the grabber to restrain two limbs

[Markdoc]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Besides grabbing' date=' how else would one interfere gestures?[/quote']

 

Lots of ways - encumbrance (can't gesture if you are carrying a heavy load), webs or similar entangles, dropping them into thick mud that inhibits movement or - and this happened in last night's session - requiring them to climb (can't gesture when you are hanging on for dear life).

 

It was particularly amusing because the caster in question has a telekinesis type spell (wind control) which would have allowed him to lower his team mates safely to the ground - but he couldn't cast it while clinging on - and he couldn't cling on forever. As a result, all three fell and were injured.

 

cheers, Mark