Power of battle magic

[Joachim Schipper]

Hi all,

I'm not really sure if this is the appropriate place to ask, but since
discussion has died down a bit and since I feel I've contributed
sufficiently to be somewhat 'justified' in asking a question now, I'll go
ahead. I've got something of a design problem; namely, how powerful should
(fairly standard high fantasy) mages be in combat?

I'm using something similar to GURPS - the amount of house rules is almost
beginning to surpass the amount of book rules still in use by now - which
means the 'fighters' will be bound by realism. They can be pretty good, but
nothing like D&D lets them be - two competent fighters can defeat most
fighters alive if they are smart, and trying to defeat an army
single-handedly equals suicide. Of course, there are numerous options beside
combat which can deal with two people or even whole armies (raise an army,
kill the commander, even trigger an avalanche...), but basically the
characters are no better than very competent people in our world are.
Another point of note is that GURPS charges for *any* skill you have -
combat is a possible specialization for a character, but a 100-point fighter
is balanced against a 100-point academic, at least in theory.

Mages should be on the same scale, generally speaking. Very, very powerful
mages might be able to do stuff that 'normals' cannot accomplish in any way,
but most of the best wizards alive are the equal of engineers or professors
nowadays - quite competent, quite irreplaceable, but not really out of the
league of a 'normal'. There are a rare few who are much more powerful, but
they are *very* rare.

I'm now designing a new magic system for them, but my GM (who runs the
game...) and I (who create the rules...) disagree on the combat power of
mages.

He basically wants mages to be able to stand up to fighters and have a
decent chance in a battle even if the fighter starts out armoured and armed
at relatively close range (say about 10, 20 metres).

I argue that such a power level would make mages too powerful - after all,
equal combat power *plus* waaay more applications for their skills outside
of combat means that mages are much more powerful, overall, than fighters.
I'd say that only the very best wizards have a chance to stand up against a
fighter in melee combat, mostly by having their spells take much longer than
swinging a sword.

I've thought for a bit about making a specific battle-magic college, which
can only be used in combat or somesuch - but the fact is, even clearly
offensive spells like D&D's Fireball have very powerful peaceful
applications, and such a college doesn't fit well into my idea of how the
world should work.

So, basically, I need two pieces of advice:
1) How powerful do you think mages should be in combat? Better yet, are
there any ways to make them somwhat capable in combat and still no more
powerful, overall, than a fighter? Maybe having very powerful defensive
spells but little direct offensive spells would work?
2) Does anybody have an idea for a magic system that accomodates both
budding cantrip-wizards and world-wrecking archmages? I've experimented a
bit with a dice pool, inspired by Peter's recent post about his magic system
(it's not quite the same, Peter - I ripped out or did not understand half
the rules and added a few of my own device, but I like the idea of variable
casting time and Fast-/Slow-Cast). However, I am not sure if it accomodates
uber-powered mages well.
Basically, the magic system should scale seamlessly from 'realistic'
mages (i.e. mages that are balanced against realistic fighters) to
'cinematic' mages (i.e. mages who are very, very competent and easily
surpass any 'normal' in personal power).

As a side note, I dislike systems based on specific spells - it takes the
magic out of the magic system, we feel. We are currently using pretty much
'freeform' magic.

Eagerly awaiting your advice,

Joachim


---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.497 / Virus Database: 296 - Release Date: 4-7-03

[SteelCaress]

First of all, I would recommend the following link to anyone using freeform
magic:
http://www.io.com/~sjohn/element.htm

S. John Ross has done a wonderful job of adapting GURPS' magic system to
something alot more flexible. That, or something akin to it, is the system
I'd use (I already have my own freeform magic/superpowers system in place,
but some parts were inspired by that page).

Second, to address your specific questions, Mages should be about as
effective in combat as the world/genre you're trying to mirror.

In the Atlantean Trilogy rpg, swords & sorcery seemed to be the genre, as
spellcasters weren't combatants, and their spells took 1 round per level (up
to 7) to cast. In this way, they could influence the tide of battle,
without necessarily stealing the warrior's thunder. There weren't any mages
specifically created for combat.

Swords & Sorcery (as a genre) is where Conan is from. Generally, the wizard
takes time to cast his spell, and the warrior runs up and slices him in
twain before he can get a spell off.

All this is well and dandy except I think it reduces the effectiveness of
the wizard. High Fantasy has wizards at the head of armies, and Gandalf (we
all know him) wasn't hesitant to draw his sword.

What I think might make a decent counterbalance between what you and your GM
want is that the heavy duty spells take longer to cast (like, say, Sphere of
Immolation), and lighter spells (like enchanting a sword to do a bit more
damage) or defensive spells (say SwordWard) can be cast in a shorter span of
time. Creating some limitations for combat spells (like SwordWard will
defend against blades but is useless against Morningstars) will not only
enhance tension, but perhaps make your GM more willing to accept it.

As for a magic system, give S. John's system a look. It seems to handle
everything from guys who know a couple spells to get them out of trouble all
the way up to the earth-shakers.

I would advise against using ST or HT for fatigue and casting spells. I
always found that encouraged wizards who were either insanely strong or
insanely healthy. Elric of Melnibone' would have been screwed! I think
maybe a better choice might be Mana, based on IQ or Spellcasting Skill.
--
Eric
***@wyrdtech.com
"Dance like it hurts. Love like you need the money. Work when people are
watching"
-- Dilbert Wisdom

Post by Joachim Schipper
Hi all,
I'm not really sure if this is the appropriate place to ask, but since
discussion has died down a bit and since I feel I've contributed
sufficiently to be somewhat 'justified' in asking a question now, I'll go
ahead. I've got something of a design problem; namely, how powerful should
(fairly standard high fantasy) mages be in combat?
I'm using something similar to GURPS - the amount of house rules is almost
beginning to surpass the amount of book rules still in use by now - which
means the 'fighters' will be bound by realism. They can be pretty good, but
nothing like D&D lets them be - two competent fighters can defeat most
fighters alive if they are smart, and trying to defeat an army
single-handedly equals suicide. Of course, there are numerous options beside
combat which can deal with two people or even whole armies (raise an army,
kill the commander, even trigger an avalanche...), but basically the
characters are no better than very competent people in our world are.
Another point of note is that GURPS charges for *any* skill you have -
combat is a possible specialization for a character, but a 100-point fighter
is balanced against a 100-point academic, at least in theory.
Mages should be on the same scale, generally speaking. Very, very powerful
mages might be able to do stuff that 'normals' cannot accomplish in any way,
but most of the best wizards alive are the equal of engineers or professors
nowadays - quite competent, quite irreplaceable, but not really out of the
league of a 'normal'. There are a rare few who are much more powerful, but
they are *very* rare.
I'm now designing a new magic system for them, but my GM (who runs the
game...) and I (who create the rules...) disagree on the combat power of
mages.
He basically wants mages to be able to stand up to fighters and have a
decent chance in a battle even if the fighter starts out armoured and armed
at relatively close range (say about 10, 20 metres).
I argue that such a power level would make mages too powerful - after all,
equal combat power *plus* waaay more applications for their skills outside
of combat means that mages are much more powerful, overall, than fighters.
I'd say that only the very best wizards have a chance to stand up against a
fighter in melee combat, mostly by having their spells take much longer than
swinging a sword.
I've thought for a bit about making a specific battle-magic college, which
can only be used in combat or somesuch - but the fact is, even clearly
offensive spells like D&D's Fireball have very powerful peaceful
applications, and such a college doesn't fit well into my idea of how the
world should work.
1) How powerful do you think mages should be in combat? Better yet, are
there any ways to make them somwhat capable in combat and still no more
powerful, overall, than a fighter? Maybe having very powerful defensive
spells but little direct offensive spells would work?
2) Does anybody have an idea for a magic system that accomodates both
budding cantrip-wizards and world-wrecking archmages? I've experimented a
bit with a dice pool, inspired by Peter's recent post about his magic system
(it's not quite the same, Peter - I ripped out or did not understand half
the rules and added a few of my own device, but I like the idea of variable
casting time and Fast-/Slow-Cast). However, I am not sure if it accomodates
uber-powered mages well.
Basically, the magic system should scale seamlessly from 'realistic'
mages (i.e. mages that are balanced against realistic fighters) to
'cinematic' mages (i.e. mages who are very, very competent and easily
surpass any 'normal' in personal power).
As a side note, I dislike systems based on specific spells - it takes the
magic out of the magic system, we feel. We are currently using pretty much
'freeform' magic.
Eagerly awaiting your advice,
Joachim
---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.497 / Virus Database: 296 - Release Date: 4-7-03

[Joachim Schipper]

Post by SteelCaress
First of all, I would recommend the following link to anyone using freeform
http://www.io.com/~sjohn/element.htm
S. John Ross has done a wonderful job of adapting GURPS' magic system to
something alot more flexible. That, or something akin to it, is the system
I'd use (I already have my own freeform magic/superpowers system in place,
but some parts were inspired by that page).

Yes, it's pretty good.

Unfortunately, it isn't really new to me. The main problem with it is
skill-independent casting time, which means that no archmage will ever have
a change at killing whole groups of adventurers at once. Aside from that,
though, it works. I used something similar to that before finding out that
GURPS' 3d6 mechanic doesn't scale well to infinity (or at least
'uber-competent-ness').

[As you may guess, an archmage being unable to kill a whole group with a
thought is a feature the GM is slightly more interested in than I am, even
though the group has one of the most powerful mages in existence amongst
it's members - it's just too dangerous giving anyone that power if you ask
me...]

Post by SteelCaress
Second, to address your specific questions, Mages should be about as
effective in combat as the world/genre you're trying to mirror.
In the Atlantean Trilogy rpg, swords & sorcery seemed to be the genre, as
spellcasters weren't combatants, and their spells took 1 round per level (up
to 7) to cast. In this way, they could influence the tide of battle,
without necessarily stealing the warrior's thunder. There weren't any mages
specifically created for combat.
Swords & Sorcery (as a genre) is where Conan is from. Generally, the wizard
takes time to cast his spell, and the warrior runs up and slices him in
twain before he can get a spell off.
All this is well and dandy except I think it reduces the effectiveness of
the wizard. High Fantasy has wizards at the head of armies, and Gandalf (we
all know him) wasn't hesitant to draw his sword.
What I think might make a decent counterbalance between what you and your GM
want is that the heavy duty spells take longer to cast (like, say, Sphere of
Immolation), and lighter spells (like enchanting a sword to do a bit more
damage) or defensive spells (say SwordWard) can be cast in a shorter span of
time. Creating some limitations for combat spells (like SwordWard will
defend against blades but is useless against Morningstars) will not only
enhance tension, but perhaps make your GM more willing to accept it.

Yes, I was trying to incorporate something like this.

What do you think, should higher-level spells always take a long(er) time to
cast, or should archmages be able to cast them rather quickly? I think we
need archmages to be able to cast them rather quickly right now...

BTW, FFRE's system did quite a good job at this - archmages are *much*
faster than dabblers and use less 'mana' as well.

Post by SteelCaress
As for a magic system, give S. John's system a look. It seems to handle
everything from guys who know a couple spells to get them out of trouble all
the way up to the earth-shakers.

Which magic system? Unlimited Mana? Hedge Magic? Elemental Magic?

At any rate, UMana (mages get a big pool of mana, and if they take more mana
than their threshold from the pool they stand a chance of Bad Things
Happening...) is a good literary idea but doesn't work in-game, at least not
for us. My GM has a penchant for giving us quest which involve saving the
world at the very least, in which case a chance of blowing yourself up is
more of an inevitable risk than a deterrent...

Hedge Magic (giving some freeform-ish rules for small, day-to-day magic) is
very cool but doesn't scale well to uber-powered mages, and while I'd love
to use it someday I don't think it's what we're looking for now.

Elemental magic, is, as I said, pretty good. I borrowed quite a few ideas
from it.

Post by SteelCaress
I would advise against using ST or HT for fatigue and casting spells. I
always found that encouraged wizards who were either insanely strong or
insanely healthy. Elric of Melnibone' would have been screwed! I think
maybe a better choice might be Mana, based on IQ or Spellcasting Skill.

Yes, I always found that... strange in GURPS. I once tried it with a mage
I'd originally created for D&D (but we switched systems before I ever got to
play her) who was basically a crippled halfling. She was damn good with
magic (she had only 100 points, but almost no ST, a lowish DX, little HT,
and a bunch of other disadvantages...), but she would have to be *very*
conservative in her use of energy. All in all, she was considerably less
effective than standard mages, even though nearly every training she had was
geared towards magic.

I think that magic being dependent on some sort of mental attribute is
better - as you say, mages aren't that strong on average. In the case of the
halfling, one of the reasons for studying magic was being a crippled
halfling...

Joachim


---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.497 / Virus Database: 296 - Release Date: 4-7-03

[Jared Thaler]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:51:27 +0200, Joachim Schipper

Post by Joachim Schipper
At any rate, UMana (mages get a big pool of mana, and if they take more
mana than their threshold from the pool they stand a chance of Bad Things
Happening...) is a good literary idea but doesn't work in-game, at least
not for us. My GM has a penchant for giving us quest which involve saving
the world at the very least, in which case a chance of blowing yourself
up is
more of an inevitable risk than a deterrent...

Well, it might depend on how amenable the force behind the bad things
happening is to bargaining... (even if it doesn't
communicate with the players, it may be smart enough that it
recogises that major disasters / changes in the mundane world
are unpleasant for it.

Then they could find that big spells for a good cause are fine, but abusing
magic for no good reason causes bad things to start happening...

[Jared Thaler]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:23:35 +0200, Joachim Schipper

Post by Jared Thaler

Post by Jared Thaler
Well, it might depend on how amenable the force behind the bad things
happening is to bargaining... (even if it doesn't
communicate with the players, it may be smart enough that it
recogises that major disasters / changes in the mundane world
are unpleasant for it.
Then they could find that big spells for a good cause are fine, but

abusing

Post by Jared Thaler
magic for no good reason causes bad things to start happening...

Good point. 'You don't get blown up *if* you sell your soul to me
instead.'
(It's unlikely to be truly benevolent...)
Ooh... like that one. Not really usable now, but quite a good idea to
have
around.
Aside from that, not giving any penalties for exceeding the threshold in
some circumstances just makes UMana mages even more powerful than they
already are.
Joachim

You could balance this by lowering the threshold for particularly frivolous
uses of magic.

Or by having "consequences" that were not neccesarily fatal.

Or combine the two.

"Yes you over drew your threshold, but since you were saving the world at
the time, the forces of balance have not intervened.
Instead they are just cutting off your magic for the next 121 days..."

Alternately, some clever mage with lots of points in crono-magic may have
developed a spell that allows you
to siphon magic from your future self... Of course, that means that you
wont have that magic there later.
(So if you are going to cast a really big spell, better make sure you are
going to not need to cast anouther
big spell any time soon...

(Having evil visions of mages learning a spell equivelent of the "Fugue"
advantage, so that a single mage can perform an entire 12
mage ritual ceremony... )

Jared

[Joachim Schipper]

Post by Jared Thaler
Well, it might depend on how amenable the force behind the bad things
happening is to bargaining... (even if it doesn't
communicate with the players, it may be smart enough that it
recogises that major disasters / changes in the mundane world
are unpleasant for it.

I just don't see this working. So you have an enemy who can
cast UMana spells. Do you treat him with kid gloves, never threatening
him enough to incite him to overcast? Or do you make a preemptory
strike and secure yourself permanently against the risk he presents?
Even if you don't threaten him, he may come after you with lethal
force, and then how do you keep him from overspending? (And why do
you care? You'll be dead.)

There's only one sane way of dealing with mages, and that's using snipers
(protected from divination magic, preferably). Mages don't have too good a
range, and in GURPS, a good sniper is likely to kill them before they can
react.

Then again, most fantasy settings don't include guns, let alone guns good
enough for modern-day snipers to be viable. Arrows will not kill quickly
enough - and assassination is very dangerous and still doesn't guarantee
success.

My gut feeling about UMana is that preemptory strikes would be very
common; wayward mages are incredibly dangerous. GURPS balances area
of effect and power of spells by mana cost. This means a UMana mage
can cast almost anything, once. (In some version I've seen the top
table entries have "and the spell fails" which is, in my opinion, a
wise move. Otherwise any small-time wizard with a damage spell can
destroy the kingdom at the cost of his/her own life, which is rather
destabilizing.) The only way to be sure this won't happen is to kill
the sucker or destroy his powers.

Yes. It's strong on what we called 'tactical instability' recently. D&D is
pretty bad, but UMana probably manages to be worse - and with GURPS as a
base, no less!

Post by Jared Thaler
Then they could find that big spells for a good cause are fine, but abusing
magic for no good reason causes bad things to start happening...

This would take a lot of player/GM trust; it could easily appear
that spells the GM approves of or spells that advance the adventure
are okay, and others are not. I've seen similar arrangements dissolve
into horrible arguments the first time players and GM disagreed about
what was "for a good cause."
If the players are not touchy about railroading, it could work.

I don't *really* mind something of this form - otherwise the freeform-ish
system wouldn't work for us, either - but this is a bit too extreme. Unless
'good cause' is clearly defined (for instance, the god of magic controls
such stuff and his creed is well-known), I'd have the same problems you
have.

I have never played more than a few sessions of UMana, but in watching
my husband's gaming group experiment with it I was quickly convinced
that it's a bad idea. My husband had a character destroyed rapidly
by a UMana death spiral. She overspent slightly and picked up a psych
disad that made it out-of-character for her not to overspend more (I
think it was one or both of Pyromania and Impulsiveness). Before the
character actually died she had become unplayable, with more psych
disads than the player could grasp--GURPS' tendency toward freakishness
taken to a monsterous extreme, with something like 100 points of
insanities.

Yes, I forgot about that - it doesn't even kill you cleanly.

UMana sounds like a great idea, but it just doesn't work. A pity.

Joachim


---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 10-7-03

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by Joachim Schipper

This would take a lot of player/GM trust; it could easily appear
that spells the GM approves of or spells that advance the adventure
are okay, and others are not. I've seen similar arrangements dissolve
into horrible arguments the first time players and GM disagreed about
what was "for a good cause."
If the players are not touchy about railroading, it could work.

I don't *really* mind something of this form - otherwise the freeform-ish
system wouldn't work for us, either - but this is a bit too extreme. Unless
'good cause' is clearly defined (for instance, the god of magic controls
such stuff and his creed is well-known), I'd have the same problems you
have.

I think it's particularly a problem that it's a *judgement*. I don't
mind the GM answering questions about cause and effect, but it's iffy for
him to be judging the goodness of the PCs' actions, especially if he
is not privy to their reasoning. The first time that he's really wrong
about their motivations--he sees something as trivial that actually has
a strong moral rationale in their eyes--it's going to be ugly, even if
the group can reach a peaceful resolution.

I guess pretending to be a god is always tricky, and this is a rather
interventionist kind of god. You want god-like perception, even
wisdom; you may not get it out of a human GM.

Also, there are many mage-PC conceptions where a little bit of "gratuitous"
spell use is rather important to the conception. There is a scene in
_The One Tree_ in which the terribly powerful (and angst-ridden and
conflicted) protagonist uses the raw power that shapes the worlds as a
tool to *shave* with. It works in context; it says something about his
growing acceptance that he has power and can use it. I'd hate to see a
GM step on it with a "hey, that's frivolous."

I have a character with a "mana pool" of substantial (and unknown to me)
size; he has never drawn it down all the way--it would probably kill him
to do so. The more he spends it down, the hungrier (in a vampiric sense)
he gets, so he's reluctant to spend a whole lot without the prospect of
an immediate kill. This works well for me. The GM lets me moderate the
hunger aspect myself, though; I'm not sure how well it would work the
other way. All the GM provides is cues: "He's spent *way* more than usual;
the hunger's really severe this time."

Hunger, though, is a relatively predictable problem. I don't think I
would be happy with the arbitrary psych lims of UMana. The mechanic
could be improved somewhat by letting the GM and/or player pick the psych
lims, I think; at least that might make sense. You could try to link
them to the overspending: paranoia to use of fear spells, say, or
pyromania to use of fire spells, or obsessional behavior to use of control
spells. The problem of getting an unplayably freakish character would
still be there, though.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Chris J. Whitcomb]

Post by Joachim Schipper

Post by SteelCaress
First of all, I would recommend the following link to anyone using

freeform

Post by SteelCaress
http://www.io.com/~sjohn/element.htm
S. John Ross has done a wonderful job of adapting GURPS' magic system to
something alot more flexible. That, or something akin to it, is the

system

Post by SteelCaress
I'd use (I already have my own freeform magic/superpowers system in place,
but some parts were inspired by that page).

Yes, it's pretty good.
Unfortunately, it isn't really new to me. The main problem with it is
skill-independent casting time, which means that no archmage will ever have
a change at killing whole groups of adventurers at once. Aside from that,
though, it works. I used something similar to that before finding out that
GURPS' 3d6 mechanic doesn't scale well to infinity (or at least
'uber-competent-ness').
[As you may guess, an archmage being unable to kill a whole group with a
thought is a feature the GM is slightly more interested in than I am, even
though the group has one of the most powerful mages in existence amongst
it's members - it's just too dangerous giving anyone that power if you ask
me...]

Post by SteelCaress
Second, to address your specific questions, Mages should be about as
effective in combat as the world/genre you're trying to mirror.
In the Atlantean Trilogy rpg, swords & sorcery seemed to be the genre, as
spellcasters weren't combatants, and their spells took 1 round per level

(up

Post by SteelCaress
to 7) to cast. In this way, they could influence the tide of battle,
without necessarily stealing the warrior's thunder. There weren't any

mages

Post by SteelCaress
specifically created for combat.
Swords & Sorcery (as a genre) is where Conan is from. Generally, the

wizard

Post by SteelCaress
takes time to cast his spell, and the warrior runs up and slices him in
twain before he can get a spell off.
All this is well and dandy except I think it reduces the effectiveness of
the wizard. High Fantasy has wizards at the head of armies, and Gandalf

(we

Post by SteelCaress
all know him) wasn't hesitant to draw his sword.
What I think might make a decent counterbalance between what you and

your

Post by Joachim Schipper
GM

Post by SteelCaress
want is that the heavy duty spells take longer to cast (like, say,

Sphere

Post by Joachim Schipper
of

Post by SteelCaress
Immolation), and lighter spells (like enchanting a sword to do a bit more
damage) or defensive spells (say SwordWard) can be cast in a shorter

span

Post by Joachim Schipper
of

Post by SteelCaress
time. Creating some limitations for combat spells (like SwordWard will
defend against blades but is useless against Morningstars) will not only
enhance tension, but perhaps make your GM more willing to accept it.

Yes, I was trying to incorporate something like this.
What do you think, should higher-level spells always take a long(er) time to
cast, or should archmages be able to cast them rather quickly? I think we
need archmages to be able to cast them rather quickly right now...
BTW, FFRE's system did quite a good job at this - archmages are *much*
faster than dabblers and use less 'mana' as well.

Post by SteelCaress
As for a magic system, give S. John's system a look. It seems to handle
everything from guys who know a couple spells to get them out of trouble

all

Post by SteelCaress
the way up to the earth-shakers.

Which magic system? Unlimited Mana? Hedge Magic? Elemental Magic?
At any rate, UMana (mages get a big pool of mana, and if they take more mana
than their threshold from the pool they stand a chance of Bad Things
Happening...) is a good literary idea but doesn't work in-game, at least not
for us. My GM has a penchant for giving us quest which involve saving the
world at the very least, in which case a chance of blowing yourself up is
more of an inevitable risk than a deterrent...
Hedge Magic (giving some freeform-ish rules for small, day-to-day magic) is
very cool but doesn't scale well to uber-powered mages, and while I'd love
to use it someday I don't think it's what we're looking for now.
Elemental magic, is, as I said, pretty good. I borrowed quite a few ideas
from it.

Post by SteelCaress
I would advise against using ST or HT for fatigue and casting spells. I
always found that encouraged wizards who were either insanely strong or
insanely healthy. Elric of Melnibone' would have been screwed! I think
maybe a better choice might be Mana, based on IQ or Spellcasting Skill.

Yes, I always found that... strange in GURPS. I once tried it with a mage
I'd originally created for D&D (but we switched systems before I ever got to
play her) who was basically a crippled halfling. She was damn good with
magic (she had only 100 points, but almost no ST, a lowish DX, little HT,
and a bunch of other disadvantages...), but she would have to be *very*
conservative in her use of energy. All in all, she was considerably less
effective than standard mages, even though nearly every training she had was
geared towards magic.
I think that magic being dependent on some sort of mental attribute is
better - as you say, mages aren't that strong on average. In the case of the
halfling, one of the reasons for studying magic was being a crippled
halfling...

How about a system that uses IQ-based mental fatigue, but that if you push
too far it starts to damage your HT. For example, your mental fatigue is
based on IQ + Magery... with an IQ of 13 and Magery3, that'd be a mental
fatigue of 16... if you ever tried to cast a spell requiring 20 mana, you'd
up your 16 pts and then take temporary reduce your HT by 3 and permanently
reduce your HT by 1.

[Joachim Schipper]

"Chris J. Whitcomb" <***@worldnet.att.net> schreef in bericht news:eqRPa.51176$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
<snipped extensive quoting>

Post by Chris J. Whitcomb
How about a system that uses IQ-based mental fatigue, but that if you push
too far it starts to damage your HT. For example, your mental fatigue is
based on IQ + Magery... with an IQ of 13 and Magery3, that'd be a mental
fatigue of 16... if you ever tried to cast a spell requiring 20 mana, you'd
up your 16 pts and then take temporary reduce your HT by 3 and permanently
reduce your HT by 1.

I do think that if some sort of 'mana pool' is used, it should be based on
some sort of mental attribute (in GURPS, that's IQ - there's no other,
officially). However, I dislike giving people random permanent troubles - I
don't usually have fighters hacking off their own limbs on failed rolls, so
mages shouldn't get crippled by rolling badly either.

That, and allowing mages to cripple themselves makes it too much of an
option in desperate situations - which is good for the party, but not
necessarily for the player that played the mage.

[BTW, sorry again for extensive response time - I just returned...]

Joachim


---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18-7-03

[Chris J. Whitcomb]

Post by Joachim Schipper
<snipped extensive quoting>

Post by Chris J. Whitcomb
How about a system that uses IQ-based mental fatigue, but that if you push
too far it starts to damage your HT. For example, your mental fatigue is
based on IQ + Magery... with an IQ of 13 and Magery3, that'd be a mental
fatigue of 16... if you ever tried to cast a spell requiring 20 mana,

you'd

Post by Chris J. Whitcomb
up your 16 pts and then take temporary reduce your HT by 3 and permanently
reduce your HT by 1.

I do think that if some sort of 'mana pool' is used, it should be based on
some sort of mental attribute (in GURPS, that's IQ - there's no other,
officially). However, I dislike giving people random permanent troubles - I
don't usually have fighters hacking off their own limbs on failed rolls, so
mages shouldn't get crippled by rolling badly either.

Well, I wouldn't equate it with a fighter hacking off his own limbs, but
more like a fighter extending himself too far and pulling a muscle, or
trying to lift much and throwing out your back...

There seems to be a precedent in fantasy literature of a wizard drawing too
much energy and permanently damaging his health or burning out his ability
to cast spells...

Post by Joachim Schipper
That, and allowing mages to cripple themselves makes it too much of an
option in desperate situations - which is good for the party, but not
necessarily for the player that played the mage.

I'd go with it. You're health is a little worse and you're a little weaker,
but you have a better understanding of magic. Kinda like the kid who sticks
his hand in the fire.... sure he gets burned, but he learns not to stick his
hand there anymore... :>

[Joachim Schipper]

Post by Joachim Schipper
<snipped extensive quoting>

Post by Chris J. Whitcomb
How about a system that uses IQ-based mental fatigue, but that if you

push

Post by Joachim Schipper

Post by Chris J. Whitcomb
too far it starts to damage your HT. For example, your mental fatigue

is

Post by Joachim Schipper

Post by Chris J. Whitcomb
based on IQ + Magery... with an IQ of 13 and Magery3, that'd be a mental
fatigue of 16... if you ever tried to cast a spell requiring 20 mana,

you'd

Post by Chris J. Whitcomb
up your 16 pts and then take temporary reduce your HT by 3 and

permanently

Post by Joachim Schipper

Post by Chris J. Whitcomb
reduce your HT by 1.

I do think that if some sort of 'mana pool' is used, it should be based on
some sort of mental attribute (in GURPS, that's IQ - there's no other,
officially). However, I dislike giving people random permanent

troubles -

I

Post by Joachim Schipper
don't usually have fighters hacking off their own limbs on failed rolls,

so

Post by Joachim Schipper
mages shouldn't get crippled by rolling badly either.

Well, I wouldn't equate it with a fighter hacking off his own limbs, but
more like a fighter extending himself too far and pulling a muscle, or
trying to lift much and throwing out your back...
There seems to be a precedent in fantasy literature of a wizard drawing too
much energy and permanently damaging his health or burning out his ability
to cast spells...

Right, but most heroic fighters don't pull a muscle when fighting, let alone
do permanent injury to themselves...

Post by Joachim Schipper
That, and allowing mages to cripple themselves makes it too much of an
option in desperate situations - which is good for the party, but not
necessarily for the player that played the mage.

I'd go with it. You're health is a little worse and you're a little weaker,
but you have a better understanding of magic. Kinda like the kid who sticks
his hand in the fire.... sure he gets burned, but he learns not to stick his
hand there anymore... :>

Well, I guess we have to invoke the 'difference rule' here, then - I
wouldn't like this, especially not in our current campaign. 'Magic is a very
dangerous, barely understood, phenomena' is not what I'd like to go for in
this campaign.

OTOH, it might be interesting for the next campaign...

Joachim


---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18-7-03

[SteelCaress]

FFRE: heh, heh, you said "Fudge." A good basis to build from, then adapt.

I'm not into the big pool of mana thing. And I like the idea of being able
to cast spells faster and more cheaply the more powerful you are.

Most spells can be defined very simply, with RANGE (Short, Medium, Long),
DURATION (Short, Medium Long), DAMAGE (A Little, More, A Lot), and/or EFFECT
(Minor, Moderate, Major). I usually use a scheme like that, and then assign
hard numbers if my group wants that. I'm more into cinematics than
calculating things down to the last centimeter. I'd up the casting time
based on that scheme, and lower the casting time a similar way that they
lower cost in GURPS Magic. (sorry for the all caps, but it does tend to
distinguish items of importance). The 1, 2, 3 progression helps keep
bookkeeping down to a minimum. Now, you take your casting time, and base it
on how the numbers add up there. A12 point spell, say, will take a while to
cast. Going even further, you let the caster *choose* long range, minor
damage, etc to figure out how much mana he wants to spend. Therein lies the
true flexibility -- and ease of use -- of this system. I recall AD&D days
laying around napping for a couple hours while the spellcasters dickered
over which spell they'd cast based on listed damages and ranges. *Boring!*

Now, I like the rules for Magic Rituals in GURPS Magic. In my edition, it's
pgs 7-8. right under *Time Required to Cast Spells.* That section lists
energy reduction costs, and time to cast spells based on level of skill.
That made a lot of sense to me. Higher levels of skill might take a second
to cast a spell, with little or no energy cost.

In the GURPS Fantasy campaign we were in (homebrew world and magic system),
mages were able to cast their combat spells pretty fast. Anything else was
likely to take a little time.

Ross' Elemental Magic was the one I recommend for what you're looking for,
but it seems you've found it already.

[Joachim Schipper]

Post by SteelCaress
FFRE: heh, heh, you said "Fudge." A good basis to build from, then adapt.
I'm not into the big pool of mana thing. And I like the idea of being able
to cast spells faster and more cheaply the more powerful you are.
Most spells can be defined very simply, with RANGE (Short, Medium, Long),
DURATION (Short, Medium Long), DAMAGE (A Little, More, A Lot), and/or EFFECT
(Minor, Moderate, Major). I usually use a scheme like that, and then assign
hard numbers if my group wants that. I'm more into cinematics than
calculating things down to the last centimeter. I'd up the casting time
based on that scheme, and lower the casting time a similar way that they
lower cost in GURPS Magic. (sorry for the all caps, but it does tend to
distinguish items of importance). The 1, 2, 3 progression helps keep
bookkeeping down to a minimum. Now, you take your casting time, and base it
on how the numbers add up there. A12 point spell, say, will take a while to
cast. Going even further, you let the caster *choose* long range, minor
damage, etc to figure out how much mana he wants to spend. Therein lies the
true flexibility -- and ease of use -- of this system. I recall AD&D days
laying around napping for a couple hours while the spellcasters dickered
over which spell they'd cast based on listed damages and ranges.

*Boring!*

Post by SteelCaress
Now, I like the rules for Magic Rituals in GURPS Magic. In my edition, it's
pgs 7-8. right under *Time Required to Cast Spells.* That section lists
energy reduction costs, and time to cast spells based on level of skill.
That made a lot of sense to me. Higher levels of skill might take a second
to cast a spell, with little or no energy cost.
In the GURPS Fantasy campaign we were in (homebrew world and magic system),
mages were able to cast their combat spells pretty fast. Anything else was
likely to take a little time.

Yes, I think I'll go with something like this for using a freeform-ish
'instant spellcasting' system. I might also use the (rather similar)
suggestions of Sebastian Palm and Haaken Lid (this is really one response to
two threads - very little to say here).

It might be possible to just keep adding categories to the top - if you want
to level an entire city at once, that is Instant Duration, Extreme Area of
Effect, Extreme Damage, and hopefully Long Range.

Post by SteelCaress
Ross' Elemental Magic was the one I recommend for what you're looking for,
but it seems you've found it already.

Yup...

Thanks all!

Joachim


---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18-7-03

[Joachim Schipper]

Post by Joachim Schipper
I'm now designing a new magic system for them, but my
GM (who runs the game...) and I (who create the
rules...) disagree on the combat power of mages.
He basically wants mages to be able to stand up to
fighters and have a decent chance in a battle even if
the fighter starts out armoured and armed at
relatively close range (say about 10, 20 metres).
I don't think one on ones are necessarily the best way to judge

comparative

Post by Joachim Schipper
power here; mages in combat are often better in groups. On the other

hand, if

Post by Joachim Schipper
the way the mage gets an even chance is by using up his entire day's worth

of

Post by Joachim Schipper
magic in one spell that has a 50% chance of taking out the fighter, I'm

not

Post by Joachim Schipper
sure it's necessarily unbalanced, either.
I've thought for a bit about making a specific
battle-magic college, which can only be used in combat
or somesuch - but the fact is, even clearly offensive
spells like D&D's Fireball have very powerful peaceful
applications, and such a college doesn't fit well into
my idea of how the world should work.
Can you expand on what you want here? I'm used to balancing mages by

having

Post by Joachim Schipper
them specialize, just like nonmages. If any mage can do the same things

as any

Post by Joachim Schipper
other mage of equal power, it's likely that their flexibility alone will
threaten to make them unbalancing - unless the usefulness of magic is very
narrow, for example being limited to destructive spells only.

In our current system, magic is divided into 'spheres of influence' of some
sort. For instance, a fire mage would have skill in Fire (and a few other
things that aren't too important right now).

This means that he can lob Fireballs at enemies (though it isn't the most
efficient way of burning people...), but he can also light campfires, warm
food, create light (a fire means light, usually), melt iron to improve
forgery techniques in case such a thing is discovered, and some other
applications I can't think of right now.

And that's one of the most battle-oriented colleges; something like Flesh
(mostly used for healing and changing form) or Metal would be very, very
useful outside of combat.

Post by Joachim Schipper
1) How powerful do you think mages should be in combat?
Better yet, are there any ways to make them somwhat
capable in combat and still no more powerful, overall,
than a fighter? Maybe having very powerful defensive
spells but little direct offensive spells would work?
Actually, I've had better luck with the opposite approach: give them

powerful

Post by Joachim Schipper
offensive spells, but little in the way of defense. Alone, they can't

cast

Post by Joachim Schipper
their spells fast enough to hold their own against a closing fighter, but

in a

Post by Joachim Schipper
group - especially a group with sufficient fighters to screen them - they
become increasingly useful.

That's a combination of weak defence and long casting time. Ok, I'll
consider that - though I am more likely to make defences weak by making them
defend against a single 'type of attack' than by making them ineffective at
doing so.

Post by Joachim Schipper
A while back, I instituted a large set of rules changes that as one effect

a

Post by Joachim Schipper
great reduction in how fast mages could deal out damage, but allowed them

to

Post by Joachim Schipper
continue to cast spells for longer. I don't think I liked that effect;

things

Post by Joachim Schipper
were more interesting when they did damage faster, as they could

contribute

Post by Joachim Schipper
during the typically short duration of one battle, and their extreme
vulnerability after they had burned out made for more interesting niche
differentiation.
2) Does anybody have an idea for a magic system that
accomodates both budding cantrip-wizards and world-wrecking
archmages?
Straight D&D works pretty well for that, actually. Its major problem is

that

Post by Joachim Schipper
characters progress to the 'world-wrecking' level awfully fast, but that's

easy

Post by Joachim Schipper
to fix.

D&D is, as you note, 'world-wrecking', and it's also awfully hard to
manipulate. The basic idea is 'balance everyone in combat ability' and
'codify every (combat) option', which makes it very hard to use a magic
system we like.

It's also much too coarse at the lower levels - the "a bunch of cats kills
commoners
easily' problem.

Post by Joachim Schipper
As a side note, I dislike systems based on specific
spells - it takes the magic out of the magic system, we
feel. We are currently using pretty much 'freeform' magic.
Er, what are cantrips if not spells?

Er, what do you mean?

Post by Joachim Schipper
Can you describe further what you are looking for? In particular, it

might be

Post by Joachim Schipper
useful to know more about what feels 'magical' to you.

Well, D&D and standard GURPS have (long) lists of spells. Wizards pick a
spell and cast that one.

The disadvantage to this approach is the inflexibility. If a mage wishes to
do something that doesn't have a spell, he'll have to resort to research or
very, very powerful spells (Wish). This means that a Teleport- and
Telekinesis- expert, with most of his training focused in that area, will be
unable to tie his own shoelaces until quite a high level of competence.
Sure, he can Teleport himself to the other side of the world and he can
Telekinetic Throw (or whatever you want to name that spell...) every
opponent who confronts him to death, but he cannot tie his own shoelaces
without touching them.
[Disclaimer: there's no Telekinetic Throw in either system, and GURPS
considers Telekinesis to be a psionic discipline - I just mean a magic spell
that lets you apply force to stuff.]

GURPS is slightly better in this regard, because it has a more exhaustive
spell list with more focus on everyday magic, but it's still very rigid.

I like a magic system in which mages can cast spells in their general area
of competence when necessary. Exhaustive research and pre-created formulae
might help, depending on the setting, but they are not necessary, as long as
the mage has a good understanding of the general area he's working on and
magic in general.

For instance, a commoner couldn't cast a single magic spell in most worlds.
A fire mage would be able to do most of the things listed above, with or
without specific training in the specific spell (indeed, whether or not that
works at all is world-dependent). He wouldn't be able, though, to mend
wounds - that's outside of his area of competence. He could, keep people
warm, desinfect stuff quite well and even burn bleeding wounds shut when
necessary, but that would be the end of the medical applications.

So, that's a first condition - mages are versatile.

A second condition is that magic is primarily used by (sentient) minds,
usually with talent - but that is not always necessary, depending on the
world - and usually without the need for much beside, possibly, a ritual. A
'techie' without his gizmos would be nearly useless - a mage without his
equipment handicapped. (In fact, the techie can be said to use his equipment
to 'cast the spells' while the mage does it himself.)
[Of course, the engineer could 'rebuild' his tools from scratch with things
he found in the wild, and the mage may occasionally need a spell component -
but this is the most common situation.

Thirdly, magic is not science. Science works fairly reliably, magic is
fickle. Very powerful mages are likely to have good control, but even they
will occasionally fail when casting difficult spells. Tech works every time,
and produces reliably repeatable effects; magic is fickle, not necessarily
repeatable, and seldom reliably repeatable unless the mage is very, very
good - and even then, 100% reliability is unlikely.

Fourthly, but that's not really an in-world problem, it shouldn't be too
all-mighty or the game and the gameworld would fall apart.

Summarized:
#1 Mages are not bound to use only the formulae they have learned
#2 Magic is primarily cast by (sentient) minds, without the *need*
for tools (though they may be so useful as to be practically indispensable
in a few rare cases).
#3 Magic is fickle - success is not guaranteed, and even spells that
have worked once may fail to work again.
( #4 Magic shouldn't be able to wreck the gameworld.)

It's mostly #1, the flexibility of wizards, that occasionally causes
problems - for one, it means that even combat-oriented mages (in our world,
a good deal of them are fire-mages - fire is scary and an effective way of
hurting people very badly, giving them horrible wounds easily and quickly,
and killing them without too much effort on the part of the mage - I read an
article advocating treating the use of fire-magic as a sort of atrocity, and
I thought it made (some) sense, but it's not currently implemented) will
still have plenty of applications for their skills outside of combat. Then
again, I'm not willing to drop that one - I'd be more willing to give up
both #2 and #3 than #1.

The magic system we followed also had some general 'rules', which can all be
changed but seemed to work most of the time:
There are many ways to achieve a result - it's up to the *player* to
describe just *how* he's going to kill that orc or make dinner. Some ways
will be easier than others.
Spellcasting is governed by three statistics: the amount of
available spell points, the skill in using magic of the relevant sphere(s),
and a general 'fine control skill'. The first is the most important
restraint on number of spells cast, the second is the most important
restraint on the power and 'sphere' of the spells cast, and the third is
used nearly exclusively for spells that actually require fine control,
assuming the mage has at least some 'fine control skill'. The required
amount of spell points for a spell depends on it's power, the skill in using
magic is changed by lots of modifiers - none of which involve 'spell
difficulty', and the 'fine control skill' is used when necessary. Note that
one can use more energy to get a bonus to skill or take a penalty to skill
to make do with less energy.
For 'real' ranged magic, you (probably) need a ritual. Even very
small ranges cause a penalty - it's best to touch the subject of the spell.
Casting spells on yourself is easy.
Casting spells on your environment (that is, inanimate matter) is
the default. The closer the object is to you, the easier the spell, due to
reduced range penalties.
Casting spells on an object held by another offers the owner of the
object a chance to resist the spell - usually at a penalty.
Casting spells on another living being offers the subject a chance
to either resist the spell (roll against attribute) or evade the attack (the
mage must roll against an 'aiming' skill of some sort and the victim can
dodge or block the projectile). [As a consequence of this, archmages are
more likely to erect walls to stop fighters or change themselves into a
dragon to confront them head-on than to cast a 'kill all' spell, like D&D's
archmages like to do.]

Anything you can do with all this? Any advice is welcome, of course...

Joachim


---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 10-7-03

[Niggle]

"Joachim Schipper" wrote (heavily snipped)...

Post by Joachim Schipper
In our current system, magic is divided into 'spheres of influence' of some
sort. For instance, a fire mage would have skill in Fire (and a few other
things that aren't too important right now).
I like a magic system in which mages can cast spells in their general area
of competence when necessary. Exhaustive research and pre-created formulae
might help, depending on the setting, but they are not necessary, as long as
the mage has a good understanding of the general area he's working on and
magic in general.

You have just described part of the core magic rules in Ars Magica
almost exactly. If you're not familiar with the game, the core
rulebook is available as a free download (check Atlas Games website).
Might be useful for ideas.

Post by Joachim Schipper
#1 Mages are not bound to use only the formulae they have learned
#2 Magic is primarily cast by (sentient) minds, without the *need*
for tools (though they may be so useful as to be practically indispensable
in a few rare cases).
#3 Magic is fickle - success is not guaranteed, and even spells that
have worked once may fail to work again.
( #4 Magic shouldn't be able to wreck the gameworld.)

Again, ArM covers the first three fairly well. It's flexible and there
is usually some risk involved. Magical items are generally only
created for effects that the creator would struggle to cast normally.
It falls over a bit on the last point. Under the standard rules, it
takes about 20-30 years for a starting mage to reach a reliable
army-killing stage. You can tone this down by tweaking the
experience/training rules fairly easily though.

Niggle

[Joachim Schipper]

Post by Niggle
"Joachim Schipper" wrote (heavily snipped)...

Post by Joachim Schipper
In our current system, magic is divided into 'spheres of influence' of some
sort. For instance, a fire mage would have skill in Fire (and a few other
things that aren't too important right now).
I like a magic system in which mages can cast spells in their general area
of competence when necessary. Exhaustive research and pre-created formulae
might help, depending on the setting, but they are not necessary, as long as
the mage has a good understanding of the general area he's working on and
magic in general.

You have just described part of the core magic rules in Ars Magica
almost exactly. If you're not familiar with the game, the core
rulebook is available as a free download (check Atlas Games website).
Might be useful for ideas.

Post by Joachim Schipper
#1 Mages are not bound to use only the formulae they have learned
#2 Magic is primarily cast by (sentient) minds, without the *need*
for tools (though they may be so useful as to be practically

indispensable

Post by Niggle

Post by Joachim Schipper
in a few rare cases).
#3 Magic is fickle - success is not guaranteed, and even spells that
have worked once may fail to work again.
( #4 Magic shouldn't be able to wreck the gameworld.)

Again, ArM covers the first three fairly well. It's flexible and there
is usually some risk involved. Magical items are generally only
created for effects that the creator would struggle to cast normally.
It falls over a bit on the last point. Under the standard rules, it
takes about 20-30 years for a starting mage to reach a reliable
army-killing stage. You can tone this down by tweaking the
experience/training rules fairly easily though.

Downloaded Ars Magica, will start mining it for ideas as soon as I'm done
responding to all the mail I got in the meanwhile. rfg.advocacy has been
quiet, but rfg.gurps less so...

Joachim


---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18-7-03

[Sebastian Palm]

Post by Joachim Schipper
Hi all,
I'm not really sure if this is the appropriate place to ask, but since
discussion has died down a bit and since I feel I've contributed
sufficiently to be somewhat 'justified' in asking a question now, I'll go
ahead. I've got something of a design problem; namely, how powerful should
(fairly standard high fantasy) mages be in combat?

I'm not that familiar with the GURPS magic system, having bought mostly "RL"
supplements, so I'm not going to have much to say on the various already
given advice. But...

One of my favorite RPG's had a system where one could boost spell effects
like damage, range or duration by multiplying the casting cost of the spell
(typically, as in almost no exceptions, one power point), and subtracting
10% from the skill level for the spell for each additional power point. This
would let a skilled mage deal out a fair amount of damage, but since a
normal human had a cap of 18 power points, they'd have fairly limited
endurance.

A typical damage spell would be "Fire", which would do 1D6 damage per power
point, (same as a single hit with a broadsword), had a range of (Unmodified
skill in % x 10 ft), and a duration of "immediate". Base point cost was
around 4 (?) character points per 5% level (A basic weapon skill had a point
cost of 2 per level, with a stat-based default between 1 and 4). Also,
"Fire" had a prerequisite skill level of 6 (30%), in the 5 pts/level
"Elemental Magic" skill. There are examples somwhere of spells with point
costs on the order of 18 pts/level, with prereqs of 30 or more levels (a
whopping 150%) in some magical discipline.


Ok, now that I'm done with the history lesson (the system referenced is
"Drakar & Demoner Expert" and "Drakar & Demoner 4th ed", which were based on
BRP), why not use something like the above, where you can trade either
casting cost, casting time, chance of success, or a combination for more
power/range/duration? The DoD systems were balanced in that it was brutally
expensive, character point wise, to create a character which could face down
an army and live to tell the tale, but it *could* be done...

SP

[Haaken Lid]

Post by Sebastian Palm
Ok, now that I'm done with the history lesson (the system referenced is
"Drakar & Demoner Expert" and "Drakar & Demoner 4th ed", which were based on
BRP), why not use something like the above, where you can trade either
casting cost, casting time, chance of success, or a combination for more
power/range/duration? The DoD systems were balanced in that it was brutally
expensive, character point wise, to create a character which could face down
an army and live to tell the tale, but it *could* be done...

I played DoDE too. It was pretty cool, but the character point system
made it _very_ expensive to specialise in more than a few spells (each
spell was a skill) if you wanted to use them with a relyable effect.

I think you should add a few factors to your spell cost formula. In
addition to casting cost, time, chance of success, and power, you can
have control (aiming the fireball, ordering the earth elemental around
etc) low control reduces the chance of hitting your opponent, but also
makes collateral damage more likely - it could also be possible that
the effect is less or more than intended (summon a goblin instead of a
troll or vice versa).

[Russell Wallace]

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:04:27 +0200, "Joachim Schipper"
I think you need a third piece.

Post by Joachim Schipper
1) How powerful do you think mages should be in combat?

What results are you looking for?

Do you want "And then Tzora burned, one huge flame consuming stone and
metal and flesh; there is a sheet of glass where one of the greatest
cities in the world once stood"? Or do you want "By the time a wizard
has figured out how to summon a naked virgin, he's so poisoned with
mercury fumes he doesn't know what to do with her"? [1]

So here's my advice: Figure out what you want to happen in the game
world first, then decide what sort of system would give that.

[1] I think the first quote is verbatim; the second is fuzzy, but
communicates the idea.

[Joachim Schipper]

Post by Russell Wallace
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:04:27 +0200, "Joachim Schipper"
I think you need a third piece.

Post by Joachim Schipper
1) How powerful do you think mages should be in combat?

What results are you looking for?
Do you want "And then Tzora burned, one huge flame consuming stone and
metal and flesh; there is a sheet of glass where one of the greatest
cities in the world once stood"? Or do you want "By the time a wizard
has figured out how to summon a naked virgin, he's so poisoned with
mercury fumes he doesn't know what to do with her"? [1]
So here's my advice: Figure out what you want to happen in the game
world first, then decide what sort of system would give that.

The second quote is pretty funny, but not entirely what I want.

Basically, I want a magic system that allows for great flexibility, some
measure of game balance, and scales nicely from hedge wizardry to near
infinite power (yes, your first example should be covered if possible -
we're none too sure our main opponent in the campaign can *not* do that...)

Joachim


---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18-7-03

[Joachim Schipper]

Post by Joachim Schipper
Eagerly awaiting your advice,
Joachim

Hi all,

there I am again, this time to make my apologies - for I hadn't thought
about my upcoming holidays when making that post! I feel it's quite rude to
ask a question and depart before the thread has stopped or gone off-topic,
but I am afraid there is very little I can do about it now - worse still, I
must hurry right now!

I'll read any and all responses once I return, on the 21st, and will not
make such a mistake again.

Again, my sincere apologies.

Have fun on the newsgroup!

Joachim


---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 10-7-03

[Warren J. Dew]

Joachim Schipper posts, in part:

Summarized:
#1 Mages are not bound to use only the formulae they
have learned
#2 Magic is primarily cast by (sentient) minds,
without the *need*
for tools (though they may be so useful as to be
practically indispensable in a few rare cases).
#3 Magic is fickle - success is not guaranteed, and
even spells
that have worked once may fail to work again.
( #4 Magic shouldn't be able to wreck the gameworld.)

It's mostly #1, the flexibility of wizards, that occasionally
causes problems ... Then again, I'm not willing to drop that
one - I'd be more willing to give up both #2 and #3 than #1.

I think that unfortunately, the natural tension is between #1 and #4. In the
games I have seen that used relatively freeform magic systems, a clever player
can cause even an inexperienced mage to have worldbreaking abilities.

Earlier in the post, you use the example of tying one's shoelaces by magic.
Unfortunately, choking off a small coronary artery doesn't require any more
force, giving any shoelace tying mage the ability to remotely kill people by
heart attack with impunity.

For that matter, he could simply tie his enemies' shoelaces together just
before they were about to walk down some stairs. In such a world, perhaps
people wouldn't wear shoes with laces, but figuring out all such consequences
ahead of time is essentially impossible. Doing it on the spur of the moment -
for example, responding to "I tie his shoelaces together telekinetically" with
"you can't - everyone wears pull-on boots in this world" - seems arbitrary to
most players.



Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[Håken Lid]

Post by Joachim Schipper
#1 Mages are not bound to use only the formulae they
have learned
#2 Magic is primarily cast by (sentient) minds,
without the *need*
for tools (though they may be so useful as to be
practically indispensable in a few rare cases).
#3 Magic is fickle - success is not guaranteed, and
even spells
that have worked once may fail to work again.
( #4 Magic shouldn't be able to wreck the gameworld.)
It's mostly #1, the flexibility of wizards, that occasionally
causes problems ... Then again, I'm not willing to drop that
one - I'd be more willing to give up both #2 and #3 than #1.
I think that unfortunately, the natural tension is between #1 and #4. In the
games I have seen that used relatively freeform magic systems, a clever player
can cause even an inexperienced mage to have worldbreaking abilities.
Earlier in the post, you use the example of tying one's shoelaces by magic.
Unfortunately, choking off a small coronary artery doesn't require any more
force, giving any shoelace tying mage the ability to remotely kill people by
heart attack with impunity.

I think the best solution is to give everyone some sort of magical
protection field thingy - like _auctoritas_ in _Nobilis_ This would
make any magic targeted directly at an individual (except the caster)
much more difficoult/expensive/weak. However the field can be
partially bypassed by using some sort of sympatethic magic (like
voodoo dolls, the true name of the target or some of the target's
blood)

This stimulates creativity, since the magic user must try to find ways
to harm his opponent indirectly. This field would protect against the
heart attack, but maybe not against shoelace-tying. However, tying
shoelaces together does involve quite a lot of manual dexterity and
hand-eye coordination. Perhaps telekinesis doesn't give you that sort
of fine tuned control? Perhaps you need to actually see the shoelaces
clearly and maybe you can't do it with more than one pair of shoes at
a time - after all it would take days to tie the shoelaces of an
entire army if you did it manually - why should you be able to do it
instantaniously with magic?

[Chris J. Whitcomb]

Once again, I'll have to recommend Ars Magica

Post by Joachim Schipper
#1 Mages are not bound to use only the formulae they
have learned

Spontaneous casting - pick a technique (verb) and a form (noun) and roll to
see how powerful an effect you can create.
Formulaic casting - pick a spell formula, produces standard results each
time.
Ritual casting - spending hours/day to produce more powerful effects.

Post by Joachim Schipper
#2 Magic is primarily cast by (sentient) minds,
without the *need*
for tools (though they may be so useful as to be
practically indispensable in a few rare cases).

No components needed, instead various items give a boost to the spell when
used.

Post by Joachim Schipper
#3 Magic is fickle - success is not guaranteed, and
even spells
that have worked once may fail to work again.

All spells require skill rolls, with low rolls causing fatigue

Post by Joachim Schipper
( #4 Magic shouldn't be able to wreck the gameworld.)

Ars Magica has a listing of things magic can't do (according to the medieval
paradigm). The main restriction is magic cannot create anything permanently
without an equivalent sacrifice. Other restrictions are things like:
Affecting the lunar sphere or anything above it, creating true human life,
restoring the dead to life, or altering the passage of time.

And the biggest thing.... the 4th edition rulebook is available as a free
download (PDF) from Altas Games... :D

[Doug Lampert]

Yes, I read them. Quite good.
Then again, Ars Magica's mages are not really 'balanced with other
characters', now are they? The sole reason they don't wreck the gameworld

is

because the gameworld has been made specifically to accomodate them.

I have used the system in a more generic setting, if you take away the
Wizard
advantages (10 points of disadvantages instead of 7 or 3, something like
45 extra skill points, 150 points in arts), give the gentle gift as a
default, and
declare that anyone can learn Parma Magica and that arts and forms are
learned like any other skill and the magic system is reasonably balanced.

The Wizard's are unbalanced in Ars Magica because if you price arts like
they were skills the Wizard typically has about 10 times as many skill
points
as most companions or grogs, more useful advantages, and higher key
characteristics to boot! They are unbalanced because of things not really
inherent to the magic system. Allow characters made as a companion,
but able to spend experience points on arts and increase arts only by
experience points and you will find that if anything the magic is too
weak, not to strong.

And the system can still represent major spells cast by Gods and Demons
on the same scale.

DougL

[Haaken Lid]

Post by Joachim Schipper
I argue that such a power level would make mages too powerful - after all,
equal combat power *plus* waaay more applications for their skills outside
of combat means that mages are much more powerful, overall, than fighters.
I'd say that only the very best wizards have a chance to stand up against a
fighter in melee combat, mostly by having their spells take much longer than
swinging a sword.

Unless magic is very common in your game world, the mage should have a
huge psychological advantage in combat, too. Most opponents would be
very reluctant to attacking a mage - unless they are Conan, undead or
mages themselves. If the mage cleverly uses quite low level to a
dramatic effect, he might avoid being attacked oruboy himself some
time to prepare some real firepower.

The reason why everyone is reluctant to enter a fight with a mage, is
that you can never know how powerful he is or what tricks he has up
his sleeve. With a fighter OTOH, anyone can estimate how dangerous he
is by looking at his equipment.

[Joachim Schipper]

Post by Haaken Lid

Post by Joachim Schipper
I argue that such a power level would make mages too powerful - after all,
equal combat power *plus* waaay more applications for their skills outside
of combat means that mages are much more powerful, overall, than fighters.
I'd say that only the very best wizards have a chance to stand up against a
fighter in melee combat, mostly by having their spells take much longer than
swinging a sword.

Unless magic is very common in your game world, the mage should have a
huge psychological advantage in combat, too. Most opponents would be
very reluctant to attacking a mage - unless they are Conan, undead or
mages themselves. If the mage cleverly uses quite low level to a
dramatic effect, he might avoid being attacked oruboy himself some
time to prepare some real firepower.
The reason why everyone is reluctant to enter a fight with a mage, is
that you can never know how powerful he is or what tricks he has up
his sleeve. With a fighter OTOH, anyone can estimate how dangerous he
is by looking at his equipment.

Mages would likely be like several skilled craftsmen rolled into one - they
are rare and hard to find, but they are not something the common man is
unfamiliar with. He might not know any magic, but he's not going to be
frightened by the mage *because the mage is strange* (he might be frightened
by the mage because the mage can turn him into a toad, may make a mistake
and summon a demon, or he may look up to the mage with respect as he would
look up to nobles and the like).

To some degree, I'd agree with the second paragraph. Mages will likely get
some equipment they can use, maybe something like Peter's Foci. Mages also
tend to be far more versatile than fighters - if a fighter has a sword,
you're pretty sure he's going to stick it into you. You may not be able to
do much about it, but most of the time there will not be too much of a
surprise. A fire mage may decide to toast you, but if he feels like it he
can also turn into a fire elemental...

That is the first. Second, mages can do much more nasty things. A fighter
might be able to run his sword through you, but that's at least something of
a clean death. Even a nice fire-mage is likely to cause very nasty burns,
and I shudder to think what a mage who was set on torturing you for all
eternity could accomplish...

Joachim


---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18-7-03

[Erol K. Bayburt]

Delurking...

Post by Joachim Schipper
Mages would likely be like several skilled craftsmen rolled into one - they
are rare and hard to find, but they are not something the common man is
unfamiliar with. He might not know any magic, but he's not going to be
frightened by the mage *because the mage is strange* (he might be frightened
by the mage because the mage can turn him into a toad, may make a mistake
and summon a demon, or he may look up to the mage with respect as he would
look up to nobles and the like).

I like to think of mages as being something like martial arts masters - in
particular, martial arts masters with "ranged unarmed attacks."

o They both commonly fight without weapons or armor, but sometimes use odd
objects as weapons (nunchucks, wands)

o In particular they both can often do seriously weird and 'magical' things
with a simple wooden staff.

o Their attacks don't always do the same sort of straight-forward damage as a
sword or mace, but sometimes hurt or hinder you in odd ways (e.g. a martial
arts throw or a 'trip' spell that knocks you on your ass without inflicting any
'real' damage on you).

o They both often have interesting non-combat abilities, ranging from the
ninja-ish (ability to Not Be Seen) to the off-beat mundane (ability to cook up
meals of strange but tasty food).

o They both tend to have a different outlook on life than the common man, with
their different outlook being related to their special abilities.

[Joachim Schipper]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:18:43 +0200, "Joachim Schipper"

Post by Joachim Schipper

Post by Haaken Lid
The reason why everyone is reluctant to enter a fight with a mage, is
that you can never know how powerful he is or what tricks he has up
his sleeve. With a fighter OTOH, anyone can estimate how dangerous he
is by looking at his equipment.

Mages would likely be like several skilled craftsmen rolled into one - they
are rare and hard to find, but they are not something the common man is
unfamiliar with.

Sounds boring. I like to keep the magic in my game much more
mysterious (and scary) than something "skilled craftsmen" can do. A
mason or carpenter can never kill hill you just by looking at you with
his "evil eye" no matter how skilled he is in his craft.

As I said to Chris, above, this is not how magic works in the current
campaign. Mages, really, *are* more like very skilled craftsmen combined
with a warrior-ish aspect. They are useful, they are dangerous, and they can
do things no-one else can do - but ultimately, they're not really mysterious
(most of them, anyway).

Post by Joachim Schipper
He might not know any magic, but he's not going to be
frightened by the mage *because the mage is strange* (he might be frightened
by the mage because the mage can turn him into a toad

No. He would be afraid because he _believes_ the mage can turn him
into a toad. Whether the mage actually is able to do that sort of
thing is not important as long as his opponent thinks he is. Therefore
most people will stay out of a mage's way.

Of course, but they would also stay out of the way of a well-armed
and -armoured fighter. My point was that commoners are not going to be too
frightened by magic per se.

Post by Joachim Schipper
or he may look up to the mage with respect as he would
look up to nobles and the like).

He only respects the noble because he knows that the noble can get him
punished or killed if he shows disrespect, much like a mage who can
turn him into a toad or a cloud of fire and ashes.

I completely agree with Warren's response, here, but aside from that, yes -
he may well 'respect' the mage only because he knows what happens if he does
otherwise.

Joachim


---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18-7-03

[Warren J. Dew]

Haken Lid posts, in part:

He only respects the noble because he knows that the noble
can get him punished or killed if he shows disrespect, much
like a mage who can turn him into a toad or a cloud of fire
and ashes.

Respect does not have to be based on fear. A noble can gain respect by
fulfilling his responsibilities to his subjects justly and well, without
corruption or selfishness.

I occasionally play in a massively multiplayer game where there are many nobles
who gather factions to attempt to gain control of various fiefdoms. The most
powerful is a princess who is the head of an alliance of factions that
typically holds the majority of the domains in the game. The reason she is so
powerful is because she has kept taxes low, she has kept the kingdom at peace,
and she is fundamentally a fair and good person. For this she has earned the
respect and even love of most of her subjects.

Respect and fear can have similar effects, but to me they are different things.
A noble or mage can use his power to gain obedience through fear, but true
respect is more likely to result from refraining from using that power
unnecessarily.

Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by Warren J. Dew
Respect and fear can have similar effects, but to me they are
different things.
A noble or mage can use his power to gain obedience through fear, but true
respect is more likely to result from refraining from using that power
unnecessarily.

And that works fine in theory and in fantasy land. There isn't exactly a
lot of real world evidence to back you up.

[st3ph3nm]

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Warren J. Dew
Respect and fear can have similar effects, but to me they are different things.
A noble or mage can use his power to gain obedience through fear, but true
respect is more likely to result from refraining from using that power
unnecessarily.

And that works fine in theory and in fantasy land. There isn't exactly a
lot of real world evidence to back you up.

Nonsense. Do you obey Police Officers out of fear or respect? Why?

Are you more likely to work well for an employer who you fear or one you respect?

Cheers,
Steve

[Erol K. Bayburt]

Post by st3ph3nm

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Warren J. Dew
Respect and fear can have similar effects, but to me they are different things.
A noble or mage can use his power to gain obedience through fear, but true
respect is more likely to result from refraining from using that power
unnecessarily.

And that works fine in theory and in fantasy land. There isn't exactly a
lot of real world evidence to back you up.

Nonsense. Do you obey Police Officers out of fear or respect?

Fear.

Post by st3ph3nm
Why?

Because they enforce not only the just laws, but the unjust ones as well (and
the later outnumber the former). Because they're armed and *de facto* above the
law - and too often act like it. Because they're dangerous and arrogant and,
well, evil.

Post by st3ph3nm
Are you more likely to work well for an employer who you fear or one you respect?

Respect.

I don't think "And that works fine in theory and in fantasy land. There isn't
exactly a lot of real world evidence to back you up." is nonsense, but I do
think it's incomplete:

"Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or
feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but,
because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared
than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. [...]

"Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not
win love, he avoids hatred..."

(Machiavelli: The Prince, chapter XVII)

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by st3ph3nm

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Warren J. Dew
Respect and fear can have similar effects, but to me they are different things.
A noble or mage can use his power to gain obedience through fear, but true
respect is more likely to result from refraining from using that
power unnecessarily.

And that works fine in theory and in fantasy land. There isn't
exactly a lot of real world evidence to back you up.

Nonsense. Do you obey Police Officers out of fear or respect?

Fear.

I've never met a police officer I respected.

Post by st3ph3nm
Why?

They can do totally fucked up things to you and you can't do anything
about it.

Post by st3ph3nm
Are you more likely to work well for an employer who you fear or one you respect?

Fear.

Post by st3ph3nm
Cheers,
Steve

[g***@ichr.uwa.edu.au]

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by st3ph3nm

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Warren J. Dew
Respect and fear can have similar effects, but to me they are different things.
A noble or mage can use his power to gain obedience through fear, but true
respect is more likely to result from refraining from using that
power unnecessarily.

And that works fine in theory and in fantasy land. There isn't
exactly a lot of real world evidence to back you up.

Nonsense. Do you obey Police Officers out of fear or respect?

Fear.

Post by st3ph3nm
Why?

They can do totally fucked up things to you and you can't do anything
about it.

Post by st3ph3nm
Are you more likely to work well for an employer who you fear or one you respect?

Fear.

I must say, the reponses of different people are rather illuminating.
Different strokes I suppose...

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by g***@ichr.uwa.edu.au

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by st3ph3nm

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Warren J. Dew
Respect and fear can have similar effects, but to me they are different things.
A noble or mage can use his power to gain obedience through fear, but true
respect is more likely to result from refraining from using that
power unnecessarily.

And that works fine in theory and in fantasy land. There isn't
exactly a lot of real world evidence to back you up.

Nonsense. Do you obey Police Officers out of fear or respect?

Fear.

Post by st3ph3nm
Why?

They can do totally fucked up things to you and you can't do anything
about it.

Post by st3ph3nm
Are you more likely to work well for an employer who you fear or one you respect?

Fear.

I must say, the reponses of different people are rather illuminating.
Different strokes I suppose...

The answer to the second was caused more by lack of a full selection of
choices - I actually work for self gain. The first one is true though.