Thot

I ran that at a convention, but slightly modified: In my game, it was set in a Star-Trek-esque Sci-Fi universe, and it still worked fine. It is full of Stormbringerisms.

I would suspect some kind of servitude to Chaos/Shadow or whatever you call it would be required.

I would say so, yes.

I still own the Mongoose version of Hawkmoon, and the Granbretan book. I really like the interpretation of lost technology as magic in that world, and the way the game used its magic system for that. But I only bought it to read it. Most of the time, I prefer to create my own worlds for my campaigns - using the Young Kingdoms in my current campaign's first part is more due to nostalgia.

They are inhabitants of other worlds, other planes of existence, belonging to species much like humans, apes, dragons or mice. There, they may be simply magic users, a magic which translates into demon abilities in our world, or they might possess those abilities as a natural gift, or they might have it received from one of their gods, etc.

I really like this. And the best thing is, Magic World's rules could simply be reinterpreted, without any mechanics changes, to make this happen.

It is a sad event. Despite his years, he was too young to leave.

Considering that a minor lord in the early medieval period apparently had about 20 to 50 men dedicated to armed service, I am actually pretty sure that three dozens of skeletons with 40% skill aren't a big issue to them. If he is a minor lord, he doesn't have time to do all the necromancing. And he'll be better off learning other spells that make his holding stronger, more wealthy, more attractive to the peasants, etc. Necromancers in fantasy are scary because they can muster forces of sizable strength out of nowhere, even if it takes some time. Given the magic point cost to create undead in AS, there is a natural limit that is already on the rather low end, that's what I was trying to say.

The problem with that limited time, even if it is a longer period like "till the next new moon", is that it means the necromancer will have at most as many skeletons as the number of days the spell lasts. And a necromancer with 30 rather stupid followers is hardly a match even for a minor lord and his guard, so necromancers would not be a threat at all - they wouldn't even try. Even a lich, who has nothing to do but create such things, wouldn't really be that dangerous that way. Wouldn't that be boring? Undead have many disadvantages that prevent inflationary use except for those really dedicated to do that: You need corpses, they can be relatively easily defeated by the more courageous townsfolk, they are inherently slow, etc. They are only really useful in large numbers. But the rules as they are with the POW cost prevent large numbers.

Hm, I don't quite see how a necromancer could raise "armies" of undead even without the POW cost? I mean, creating a skeleton costs 24 MP alone , that's at least a day's worth of magic points, probably more. Sure, you could make skeletons that are cheaper, but not that much. So, a PC mage that spends a year casting Animate Skeleton every day or so will have about 300-350 skeletons, most certainly not more than 700. Good for an NPC, but a player who does that will be out of the game for quite some time. A mage could just as well spend the time earning money and hire a similarly sized army of mercenaries. And looking at the skills and abilities of that skeleton, it's probably going to loose against a human warrior of normal competency, even if both are wearing armor.

Well, let me phrase it differently: Is there any reason to KEEP the POW cost for creating undead?

Actually, there is a spell named "army of the dead" that allows for a very temporary raise of a few undead for a short time, but yeah, POW costs are indeed a big genre killer there. But of course, those rules were originally designed for Elric!, so the fantasy trope of the necromancer and his armies of the dead wasn't a priority. Hence my suggestion to remove POW cost.

Looking at the necromancy rules, I must say their low appeal derives from the POW cost associated even with the most feeble undead to create. I mean, for instance a Revenant. It is a servant that can be of use for maybe three months (as it looses one hit point every week from decay), but you still need to sacrifice one point of POW to create it. Now, maybe POW gain rolls are something that comes up every session in some campaigns, but for a dedicated necromancer, that doesn't seem all too likely. So, long story short: If you use necromancy in your games, I would suggest to remove the POW cost from the price for creating undead. After all, necromancy comes with many social disadvantages, much more so than demon summoning.

I just hope they make a fully fleshed-out setting an essential part of the new book, because with such things, examples work better than rules.

"Stolen" of course means the thief learns the demon's True Name and rebinds it. But there are! Apart from POW (which you also need to build up a big Brazier Of Power, and which I still do not see as easy to regain per rules as written), you can only have INT spells and bound demons. A sorcerer wants a demon armor, a demon weapon, and a few other items like a demon with vital skills or Knowledge. Also, some bound demons are limited in lifetime, such as a Teleport demon, so summoning is better for that.

So the general order of magnitude seems to be right, there.

Obviously binding is superior, but keep in mind that a bound demon counts against your free INT, costs that point of POW and can be stolen or destroyed. A negotiation, on the other hand, requires a summoning to take place on the spot, which requires 1D8 hours of preparation... though you can technically summon, make a deal, and call in the favour later. My favourite demon ability for the latter, if combat related, by the way, is "Horde".

Fog's height is linked to the demon's size. Also, the objects all need to be Greater Demons (so at least 25 D8 in attributes), in order for their needs to be so relatively harmless. That part is GM fiat, and I believe I miscomputed the number of D8's, but that's okay, as they're one-of-a-kind items. Good thought! However, you'd still need to find a situation where it is actually dangerous to use them on a subject that has equal or greater POW than you... which would also have to be found. My two player sorcerers have been trying to get those 6 weeks of time to do that since the beginning. No luck so far, with the end of the world being around the corner... It is a good strategy, but it depends on having the opportunity to do all these things. But then it wouldn't be dangerous to attempt the binding... a missed opportunity.

I'd argue that a dragon (as written in the book) has many different advantages, which would all need to be somewhat counterbalanced, but scaling it down the way you suggest seems more manageable. The granularity you suggest also seems to be in line, generally, with how Mythras handles things. I like it!

Yes, I am aware of that. But you know, sometimes I want to get a screw into the wood with a hammer. In my (German-language) copy of Classic Fantasy , the races do indeed also have disadvantages, especially lower characteristics. Elves are weaker and smaller, for instance. That's not necessarily balanced to the last bit, but then again, it doesn't need to be. Just noticeable enough to give players a sense of parity.

So, that of course begs the question, what would be a reasonable amount of (one-time or permanent?) luck points? Mythras equates 6 points of POW with one (permanent, regenerating) luck point. Assuming that all characteristics are of the same value, we should be able to determine the amount. A dragon would have about 189 points in characteristics (adding its average values), as opposed to a human's 89. That would mean in that group, we'd somehow close the gap by assigning a total of 17 positive or negative regenerating luck points (100/6, rounding up). This is without counting in the dragon's natural armour or its wings, etc. Let's say we assign each of these things a point value of 2 attribute points, in the case of armor, per point of armor. Then we end up with an additional 38 attribute points, or roughly 6 luck points on top, which sets the total amount to 23. In the less extreme example of a centaur in the group (97 average characteristics points plus 1 point of armor in just over half the character's hit locations, so that's 2 additional points), we'd be looking at 4 luck points, either granted to each of the human players, or subtracted from the centaur player's, or a combination thereof. That is just a very rough method, of course, but I don't believe more than that is needed. The problem with that is indeed that it gets extremely unwieldy and detailed - I mean, look at the vast amount of disadvantages systems like GURPS offer. Lots of work for the balance-oriented GM, I'd say. (Though I guess one could simply port GURPS's system over, I believe that's too detailed for most purposes.) You mean like "sure you can be a Melnibonéan, but not a sorcerer, and you can't learn spells"? Seems a lot more impacting on a character concept than some luck points or even disadvantages. I mean, the point of allowing such species to a player is to allow them more options, not fewer, right? And if it doesn't (because the player wanted to play a dragon sage all the time), there's no meaningful power balancing happening, I'd say. That's particularly difficult, because then you'll have to keep detailed track of the characters' possessions. I'd rather not do that. They'd perceive the PC's as a group, and attack them as a group (selecting targets based on their assessment of the situation). I'd rather not impose NPC action limitations based on PC group balance, at least not so blatantly openly.

You can only treat things the same where they are sufficiently similar. Where they are not (such as being played by a player or not), that will provide problems. Guys, I get that this does not come up in your games. In mine it does, so please, please, please, can we focus on solving the problem over debating whether it exists or not?

Well, the difference is, the PC dragon is played by a player in a player group. The NPC is not. At least in some (in my experience, most) groups, there will be a desire of being somewhat equally powerful. My question for this thread is: What are alternative methods for achieving that design goal - without getting too detailed like GURPS or Hero System do?

If there are any. The dragon may simply shapeshift via magic into a human (someone's gameworld's magic may allow for that, we don't know). And similarly, what about superhumans that are visually indistinguishable from humans, where such a method would simply fail? Players, at least a certain type of them, have a desire to be roughly on an equal level. That's the reason why Mythras offers a point-buy method for character generation, after all. So, SOME method to offer a (not necessarily over-precise, but working) balancing between such extremes would be nice to have. Oh, that one is easy. It should not, it just does, simply for game balance, if using that method. So basically, you have no suggestions to make other than those already in the rules?

Yes, I know, it is not really part of Mythras' or even the D100 family's philosophy to balance everything. But what if I wanted to? What if I wanted to give opportunities to players to play things that differ from the human norm? Maybe a player wants to play a dragon? The usual approach in other games is to offer players the option to do so within certain boundaries, but to require compensation by reducing their ability to outshine the other characters somehow. But would one balance them in Mythras? Now, one idea I had was a "negative luck point" account. That would be an amount of points that can be bought off with luck points or can be demanded to be spent by the GM after a successful roll of any kind in the game. If you still have negative luck points, you need to re-roll that roll and take the worse of the two (or more) results. So if playing a dragon, you would probably, for quite some time in the campaign, be a very unlucky dragon... starting probably with a few hundred negative luck points. Of course, once they are spent, outshining the other players is easily possible again. And how many "negative luck points" would be worth an extra die on STR or POW? One could also, if such a high power level was okay, just offer extra free skill points and maximum amounts of increase to the less than super players - in the above example, anybody not playing a dragon would end up being a highly experienced human, elf, centaur, or whatever, with the humans being most competent. Or one could possibly add powerful magic items to close the gap. Or experience points might do the same job. But that would mean to play on a dragon's power level. (Please note that the dragon is an EXAMPLE here, it could also just be a centaur, a minotaur, even an elf). Or what other options would or even do you use in your campaigns were nonhumans do play a role as PC's?