Jump to content

Magic Damage?


Tywyll

Recommended Posts

I understand in the new Magic system that d6's of damage with spells tends to cost 3 MP. This is regardless of whether one is using Hit Locations or Total HP.

I was wondering if I could get some input on this and some reasoning as to why. It seems that it shouldn't be constant, either you should decrease the cost for Total HP (which seems probably better) or increase it for HL, because 2d6 vs Total HP is not the same as 2d6 to the chest/head.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is I beleive a concession to the fact that one generally accepted flaw with Magic World (which used total hit points and simple major wound level rules) is that the magic damage was too cheap at 1D6/ magic point. And in RQIII (which DID use hit locations), direct magic damage (which ignored armour) did 1D3 per magic point.

So 1D6 / 3 power points looks like a reasonable simple and fair revision to me.

Cheers,

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, as I've been told, spells like the AoE one do damage to all hit locations at once, I don't see how this can reasonably approach 'fair' or balanced.

Also, in RQ1-3 yes, 1 mp did d3 damage, but that was also a spell for a world that didn't have magicians doing much in the way of 'blast' magic, so I don't think for a 'generic' rules set that is a fair comparison. Even with, the d3 ignored armor which in WoW, most of the spells don't do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This problem looks to me like another good reason not to use the 'HP Per Location' option! ;)

But if d6/1pp was too cheap, why jump to d6/3pp - why not d6/2pp? Or is d6/3pp for multi-target 'blast'-type effects?

Britain has been infiltrated by soviet agents to the highest levels. They control the BBC, the main political party leaderships, NHS & local council executives, much of the police, most newspapers and the utility companies. Of course the EU is theirs, through-and-through. And they are among us - a pervasive evil, like Stasi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other than the spell doing damage to each location, this doesn't sound like its any more severe here than the difference in general between locational damage and non-locational; while the former can occasionally save you from a really big hit killing you outright the way it can with simple THP, more often its going to make the weapon damages more severe in practice, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a raised eyebrow about that as well. In Magic World (where that particular rule originates) a hit point total and solid armor values were used. It does cost 3 points per level in BRP, so you probably won't see more than 3d6 damage spells very often. It is still going to be rough with the right, or rather wrong, set of options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very simple.

For the HL optional rule, divide AoE damage so that all HLs are affected

by a similar ratio to how total HP are divided up.

-V

I don't know if the system has armor help against this damage, but if it does that could easily have the effect that its next to impossible to get any damage through decent armor at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read this morning in Spot Rules for Fire and Heat:

Armor protects for 1/2 its value for 1d6 rounds, IIRC.

I actually think 1d6 for 3 PP is too expensive of a spell, considering that the same Spot Rules lists a torch as being 1d6 damage. Then again, I'm basing this opinion on wanting to run an epic RPG where Player Characters theoretically have Hit Points equal to the average of SIZ & CON, plus their POW.

  • Like 1

And don't forget Realism Rule # 1 "If you can do it in real life you should be able to do it in BRP". - Simon Phipp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From RQIII there are several different possible rlationships betwween PPs spend and damage inflicted.

Disruption 1 PP = 1d3 to one location, no armour protects; but need to overcome target's PPs with caster's

Lightning 2PP* =1d6 to one location, no armour protects; but need to overcome target's PPs with caster's

Sunspear 6PP* =4d6 to total hit points, thinnest armour protects, no need to overcome PPs with own

Thunderbolt 6pp* = 3d6 to total hit points, no armour protects, no need to overcome PPs with own

* working on the model of 1 point of Divine being worth 2 of Spirit

The new BRP spells

3PP=1d6 to 'Hit Points', no armour protects, no need to overcome target's PPs with the caster's own

I cannot see a direct ruling in the book as to whether these will damage total or location hit points. (which doesn't mean that there isn't one)

Bumping up the damage for these spells might 'fix' this problem but still leaves a disparity between locational hit points and total hit points for other sources of damage. So is it in fact a problem?

Not having locational hit points is more 'cinematic' as your character stays on her feet for longer. The 'Magic' spells follow that in the same way as a Greatsword does.

Al

Rule Zero: Don't be on fire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bumping up the damage for these spells might 'fix' this problem but still leaves a disparity between locational hit points and total hit points for other sources of damage. So is it in fact a problem?

Not having locational hit points is more 'cinematic' as your character stays on her feet for longer. The 'Magic' spells follow that in the same way as a Greatsword does.

Al

Personally, I have no intention of using locational HP. That being the case, I can't see how they think d6 versus total HP and d6 versus locational HP is anywhere near equivalent.

I mean, yes, if I used Locational HP, then 3 per d6 seems 'ok' I guess (though I still think I'd lean towards 2 per d6).

But with Total HP, 3 per d6 seems far too expensive. Why be a 'blaster' magician when a bow works much better?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just taking a slight tangent, but still on topic.

I feel that magic attack is very expensive when compared to range combat.

For example a competent caster with POW 16 can only cast one spell per round at 3pp for 1D6 damage. He will only be able to do a total of 5D6 damage over 5 rounds.

Compare that to an archer DEX16 with a quiver of say 20 arrows. Using Strike Ranks, he could shoot 3 arrows per round at D8+1 (or thereabouts). Even with a dismal skill of say 33% (1 hit per round) he will be able to shoot 20 arrows in 7 rounds and cause 7D8+7 damage.

Why is there such a need to penalise magic by making it so expensive?

  • Like 1

Likes to sneak around

115/420

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just taking a slight tangent, but still on topic.

I feel that magic attack is very expensive when compared to range combat.

For example a competent caster with POW 16 can only cast one spell per round at 3pp for 1D6 damage. He will only be able to do a total of 5D6 damage over 5 rounds.

Compare that to an archer DEX16 with a quiver of say 20 arrows. Using Strike Ranks, he could shoot 3 arrows per round at D8+1 (or thereabouts). Even with a dismal skill of say 33% (1 hit per round) he will be able to shoot 20 arrows in 7 rounds and cause 7D8+7 damage.

Why is there such a need to penalise magic by making it so expensive?

Exactly!

I think they should have offered options: Low Fantasy where one should use a bow, 3 per die. Middle/Adventure fantasy maybe 2 per die (at most) and High Epic Fantasy 1 per die.

That seems reasonable to me. You might want to cap the number of levels a caster can cast in any spell to 1 per 10 or 20% in a spell. Otherwise, ta da!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From RQIII there are several different possible rlationships betwween PPs spend and damage inflicted.

Disruption 1 PP = 1d3 to one location, no armour protects; but need to overcome target's PPs with caster's

Lightning 2PP* =1d6 to one location, no armour protects; but need to overcome target's PPs with caster's

Sunspear 6PP* =4d6 to total hit points, thinnest armour protects, no need to overcome PPs with own

Thunderbolt 6pp* = 3d6 to total hit points, no armour protects, no need to overcome PPs with own

* working on the model of 1 point of Divine being worth 2 of Spirit

Its not easy modelling a good relationship between divine and magic-point fueled magic though, as divine magic was more constrained in practice by its recharge time; usually if you were off on an adventure you weren't going to get it back until you returned home. A BRP magician can cycle through his available magic points several times over the coures of an adventure. So I think you need to look at that when assessing relative balance.

The new BRP spells

3PP=1d6 to 'Hit Points', no armour protects, no need to overcome target's PPs with the caster's own

So its clear that none of them care about armor? That's a change from Magic World if so where the elemental spells and the single target mage light blast seemed to.

o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I have no intention of using locational HP. That being the case, I can't see how they think d6 versus total HP and d6 versus locational HP is anywhere near equivalent.

I mean, yes, if I used Locational HP, then 3 per d6 seems 'ok' I guess (though I still think I'd lean towards 2 per d6).

But with Total HP, 3 per d6 seems far too expensive. Why be a 'blaster' magician when a bow works much better?

Because the magician can dump enough damage out to take out a target reliably with one hit, even if its expensive for him; an archer can't do that.

It may not be what you want to have mages being one shot fire and forget weapons, but as long as they're capable of generating 6-8d6 damage with a single attack, something no non-mage can do, something's got to at least partly balance that, and their limited loiter time is what Jason chose to do it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just taking a slight tangent, but still on topic.

I feel that magic attack is very expensive when compared to range combat.

For example a competent caster with POW 16 can only cast one spell per round at 3pp for 1D6 damage. He will only be able to do a total of 5D6 damage over 5 rounds.

Compare that to an archer DEX16 with a quiver of say 20 arrows. Using Strike Ranks, he could shoot 3 arrows per round at D8+1 (or thereabouts). Even with a dismal skill of say 33% (1 hit per round) he will be able to shoot 20 arrows in 7 rounds and cause 7D8+7 damage.

Why is there such a need to penalise magic by making it so expensive?

I think you've missed the fact that even a very vanilla mage (with a 12 Int) isn't limited to 1d6 a round; unless this changed in the final edit, he can dump out 6d6 in one attack (admittedly he has to have some source of extra mana to pull that off, but even the 4d6 he can probably do is pretty bloody impressive on a single-strike basis; few human opponents will stand up to that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings all, from the dark-side of my mind:

This "conversation" is quite timely as our group was discussing facets of this issue on Monday. I got to say, it's such a relief that so many players finally have the hard-copy [please, no frenzy; I did not say "hard-cover" ;) ] or the .pdf and we can research and discuss rather than second guess and speculate blindly.

I noted that Al. mentioned,

...no need to overcome target's PPs with the caster's own...Al

but I see that the book does ask for such on page 89:

Any time a magic spell affects a living [and unwilling] target the caster must overcome the target’s POW or
power points
[emphasis and brackets added] in a resistance roll. Each spell description will designate which value is used.

I note that the Blast spell on page 94 does mention that,

"Under most circumstances, armor (non-magical) or the Armor spell will absorb the damage, and the Blast spell can be dodged. If the Blast spell is parried with a shield, the shield will take the damage, with any remainder carrying over to the target."

Thus, at least for this spell, armor is taken into account. Other "Magic" spells do as well: Fire, Frost, and Lightening suggests that non-metallic armor may defend against it.

I cannot see a direct ruling in the book as to whether these will damage total or location hit points. (which doesn't mean that there isn't one) Al

I wonder if the default is general hit points as hit point locations are designated an "optional rule" on page 29.

As an aside, when playing RQ, our group's prior BRP version of choice, a blast type spell, say Sunspear or Thunderbolt for example, caused damage to the target's total hit points according to spell description. Lightening in the RQ version damaged a single hit location.

As I plan not to use hit point locations but overall general hit points, it's not an issue for me. I DO plan to use armor point location as I like my players being able to scavange various armor types and "cobble" together as much protection as they can as armor is very cost prohibitive in my campaigns.

I'm presently going through the book and highlighting each spell's "designat[ed]" resistance roll source value, POW or power points, so as to speed up game play. I've noted that not all spells, Blast being a good example, have such specifically designated in their descriptions :ohwell: , I'm looking for/assuming there is, a default, but regardless, thankfully I'm not completely helpless (at least not after the meds' kick-in) and can decide which is which for myself :happy: .

Cheers,

Sunwolfe

  • Like 1

Present home-port: home-brew BRP/OQ SRD variant; past ports-of-call: SB '81, RQIII '84, BGB '08, RQIV(Mythras) '12,  MW '15, and OQ '17

BGB BRP: 0 edition: 20/420; .pdf edition: 06/11/08; 1st edition: 06/13/08

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the magician can dump enough damage out to take out a target reliably with one hit, even if its expensive for him; an archer can't do that.

It may not be what you want to have mages being one shot fire and forget weapons, but as long as they're capable of generating 6-8d6 damage with a single attack, something no non-mage can do, something's got to at least partly balance that, and their limited loiter time is what Jason chose to do it.

Easier balance could be achieved by limiting the number of levels they can cast with the spell by their % in the skill. 1 level per 10 or 20% (probably 20% if you want to stay on the low end). then it takes a mage with an 80% skill to do 4d6 damage.

For that, he is spending 4 or 8 MP, for a chance (he might miss and waste his MP) of doing that sort of damage. The archer can keep firing away, and even if armor does hamper him, he won't worry about becoming a 'one-shot magic item' like the wizard will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easier balance could be achieved by limiting the number of levels they can cast with the spell by their % in the skill. 1 level per 10 or 20% (probably 20% if you want to stay on the low end). then it takes a mage with an 80% skill to do 4d6 damage.

I don't disagree that'd be better, but its not what the rules do, so some other limiter had to be. I'll note that even 4d6 is a hell of a lot of damage in BRP, especially if armor is irrelevant.

For that, he is spending 4 or 8 MP, for a chance (he might miss and waste his MP) of doing that sort of damage. The archer can keep firing away, and even if armor does hamper him, he won't worry about becoming a 'one-shot magic item' like the wizard will.

And how many rounds does he has to be doing so to get the same effective result that the mage gets in one? Honestly, while I see the problem, I don't think you can overstate the potential benefit of that sort of one-shot take out potential. It can easily turn a difficult combat into a trivial one by taking down the most capable opponent early before he's had much time to do much damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree that'd be better, but its not what the rules do, so some other limiter had to be. I'll note that even 4d6 is a hell of a lot of damage in BRP, especially if armor is irrelevant.

I still assume that it isn't irrelevant, personally. And if you use top end armor (say something like Melnibonean Plate in Elric! that does d10+6 ap, or Iron Armor in a RQ style game that stops 9-12 damage) you are looking at having a difficult time making your MP count for something.

Now, maybe that is the answer (to yoink an idea from 4E): give Magicians an At Will effect that is very cheap (0 or 1 MP) so that they can still be effective, without being the equivalent of 1st or 2nd level magicians in od&d.

And how many rounds does he has to be doing so to get the same effective result that the mage gets in one? Honestly, while I see the problem, I don't think you can overstate the potential benefit of that sort of one-shot take out potential. It can easily turn a difficult combat into a trivial one by taking down the most capable opponent early before he's had much time to do much damage.

I agree that its a lot of potential damage. But how powerful are top end monsters? Dragons in RQ3 had 12 points or more of armor. Can the mighty magician even threaten such a creature?

Personally, if a spell ignores all armor, I'd probably leave the 3 per 1, but if armor was taken into consideration, I'd lower the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still assume that it isn't irrelevant, personally. And if you use top end armor (say something like Melnibonean Plate in Elric! that does d10+6 ap, or Iron Armor in a RQ style game that stops 9-12 damage) you are looking at having a difficult time making your MP count for something.

And at least in the latter case, the archer is going to be even more useless. High armor tends to make doing a lot of dice if anything _more_ attractive because you can at least potentially get something through.

(You're correct that armor helps if it works, but if I'm understanding the standard rules correctly, someone with a source of power points can do as much as 9d6 with a high intelligence, and 7d6 shouldn't be hard. The latter is about 24 points of damage and even your 12 armor points are letting way too much of that through--and as far as I can tell, that's much more armor than the default range of BRP armors; if I recall correctly 12 armor is about what Jason assumed high tech power armor stops).

Now, maybe that is the answer (to yoink an idea from 4E): give Magicians an At Will effect that is very cheap (0 or 1 MP) so that they can still be effective, without being the equivalent of 1st or 2nd level magicians in od&d.

Well, I have to point out we're talking about BRP style magicians; there's nothing stopping one being a decent shot with a crossbow _in addition_ to his magic.

I agree that its a lot of potential damage. But how powerful are top end monsters? Dragons in RQ3 had 12 points or more of armor. Can the mighty magician even threaten such a creature?

I'll turn that around; what does an archer do to that? At least 6 or 7d6 of damage expects to get through that. It just doesn't have the one shot take-out capacity it does against less tough opponents.

But keep in mind a mage will have this capacity well before he hits that kind of stuff; far as I can tell, the only reason a starting mage wouldn't be able to do it is lack of available power/mana/magic points.

Personally, if a spell ignores all armor, I'd probably leave the 3 per 1, but if armor was taken into consideration, I'd lower the cost.

I think I'd look at available armor first; my sense is that even a lot of tough opponents may not have more than 6 armor, and given that, damage in the 4d6+ range is still going to be awful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't got the book yet, but it sounds like you are saying that a person targeted by a spell gets the opportunity to dodge it AND an opportunity to have armor absorb some of the damage if the dodge fails AND an opportunity to resist the spell if neither the dodge nor the armor fully protects the target. Is that an accurate interpretation of what the rules say? If so, that makes it hard to be an effective spellcaster, since a foe gets more layers of defense aginst a spell than they would have against a weapon attack.

I think I'd prefer making any given spell either something you can dodge/parry OR that you can resist, but that only one layer of defense would apply, not both. For Blast-type spells, I'd allow physical defenses like dodge/parry/armor. For spells that are not Blast-like directed beams of energy, I'd prefer allowing a resistance roll instead.

Pyronnic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And at least in the latter case, the archer is going to be even more useless. High armor tends to make doing a lot of dice if anything _more_ attractive because you can at least potentially get something through.

Incorrect. Assuming we are in the kind of world that allows for it, the buff spell becomes king (and this was the bane of 3.X play, btw). A magician is much better off casting a 10 point buff on the Archer, that way he gets a constant +10 Damage (and +50% to hit if I remember correctly), versus a single 3d6 blast.

From a GM perspective, which is more bothersome, which has more kill power? I'd say the Buff.

(You're correct that armor helps if it works, but if I'm understanding the standard rules correctly, someone with a source of power points can do as much as 9d6 with a high intelligence, and 7d6 shouldn't be hard. The latter is about 24 points of damage and even your 12 armor points are letting way too much of that through--and as far as I can tell, that's much more armor than the default range of BRP armors; if I recall correctly 12 armor is about what Jason assumed high tech power armor stops).

Not counting magic or buffed armor. :)

Well, I have to point out we're talking about BRP style magicians; there's nothing stopping one being a decent shot with a crossbow _in addition_ to his magic.

True. As it is, the rules encourage the caster to be a buffer rather than a direct damage dealer. Granted, this is more or less the style of RQ, wherein heroic sword play was the order of the day. But it doesn't allow for the kind of play involving dangerous lightning bolts and other such spells.

I'll turn that around; what does an archer do to that? At least 6 or 7d6 of damage expects to get through that. It just doesn't have the one shot take-out capacity it does against less tough opponents.

The archer can't do anything, which is more or less as it should be. No one expects a normal person with a bow to take out a Dragon (Yes, Smaug got dropped by a single arrow, but its fairly clear it would have been a magic arrow in an rpg, and Bard was a Hero, not a scrot).

Now, give that archer a magic bow, or a buff spell, and then he might be able to hurt the dragon.

But keep in mind a mage will have this capacity well before he hits that kind of stuff; far as I can tell, the only reason a starting mage wouldn't be able to do it is lack of available power/mana/magic points.

That may be, but that is why I'm arguing for alternative limiting mechanics.

Granted, if you want to run a game that is item dependant, like RQ2&3, then I suppose it works... a powerful magician is defined by the goodies he carries.

I'd rather it be more intrinsic than that, however.

I think I'd look at available armor first; my sense is that even a lot of tough opponents may not have more than 6 armor, and given that, damage in the 4d6+ range is still going to be awful.

That's probably true, but when the average person has around 11-12 HP, you need to do 18 points to expect a kill, and that is just on the town guard. To average that, you are looking at 18 MP, or pretty much all of the caster's points for the day.

If he opts for blasts over buffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect. Assuming we are in the kind of world that allows for it, the buff spell becomes king (and this was the bane of 3.X play, btw). A magician is much better off casting a 10 point buff on the Archer, that way he gets a constant +10 Damage (and +50% to hit if I remember correctly), versus a single 3d6 blast.

Any system with augmentation spells is going to produce this result just because one is a durational effect and one isn't. And to tell you the truth, given a choice between the mage turning the archer into a 1d8+9 damage output and dumping 8d6 outright, on the whole I am more concerned about the latter; the former requires the oppositon be fairly tough or have its own magical augmentation but is doable; the latter requires opposition so tough no one _but_ the mage is going to be able to do anything.

From a GM perspective, which is more bothersome, which has more kill power? I'd say the Buff.

See my comment above.

Not counting magic or buffed armor. :)

Even then, the dice of attack spell damage outstrip those pretty fast. Using the Magic World spells as an example (since I don't have the book yet), 1 rank of spell either does 1d6 damage, adds 5% and 1 point of damage to a weapon, or adds 1 point of armor. There's some benefits to the latter two at the bottom since they're starting with some armor/damage right away, but that's washing out by the time you get to three ranks in each of them, and as you exceed that they fall farther and farther behind (someone with 4 armor and a 1d8+1 sword has a d8+9 sword and 12 armor at rank 8 spells; he's still going to take expected 16 damage with one hit from that spell, which is most likely sufficient to kill him outright. Even at rank 6 (which is a more expected result) he's getting 21 points applied to his 10 armor which is enough leave him in deep trouble if either hit locations or any kind of of severe wound system is in play (and could well leave him unconscious or dead if he's not good in Con and/or Size depending on which specific rules are in use.

Does that mean the buff spells aren't the better deal on the whole? No, of course not; frankly, there's no way for them _not_ to be the better deal except by being next to useless, simply by the fact they have duration. But that doesn't make the single large attack spell any less disruptive.

True. As it is, the rules encourage the caster to be a buffer rather than a direct damage dealer. Granted, this is more or less the style of RQ, wherein heroic sword play was the order of the day. But it doesn't allow for the kind of play involving dangerous lightning bolts and other such spells.

It does allow it. It simply means that sort of thing has a very limited loiter time without exterior sources of mana. Since BRP characters are, by their nature, somewhat more brittle than in most game systems, that's far better than having the situation where its way too easy to simply one-shot someone.

The archer can't do anything, which is more or less as it should be. No one expects a normal person with a bow to take out a Dragon (Yes, Smaug got dropped by a single arrow, but its fairly clear it would have been a magic arrow in an rpg, and Bard was a Hero, not a scrot).

Then I think the mage's limits there are the least of your problems if he's the only one that can damage the dragon at all.

That may be, but that is why I'm arguing for alternative limiting mechanics.

There are other methods, but all of them are more complex and would annoy people probably just as much; for example, you could reduce the cost but apply a penalty to the skill roll of 10% per level over one. That would tend to mean only fairly highly skilled mages could produce heavy hit spells, and they'd be unreliable.

Granted, if you want to run a game that is item dependant, like RQ2&3, then I suppose it works... a powerful magician is defined by the goodies he carries.

I'd rather it be more intrinsic than that, however.

At which point the function of other characters becomes largely to hold the mage's coat since they're not going to be able to contribute as much as he does unless he's supporting them.

That's probably true, but when the average person has around 11-12 HP, you need to do 18 points to expect a kill, and that is just on the town guard. To average that, you are looking at 18 MP, or pretty much all of the caster's points for the day.

Its not like even heroic character's hit points gust up that much higher in RQ.

If he opts for blasts over buffs.

As I said, you're never going to have buff spells in a game where they don't win. That's not an excuse to allow magical attacks that are so overwhelming that those without magical support are simply doomed, and that was pretty much the problem with the original Magic World values. I'm not saying that the solution chosen is ideal, but I think on the whole its the lesser evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...