Magic Damage?

[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.

Does it by gad? I'm guilty of assumption there, then

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."

Which would seem to make Blast less useful than the other attacking spells.

The point which I was TRYING (and apparently failing) to make was that locational or total hit points work in different ways.

By all means buff up attacky-blasty-death spells but realise that this makes them inconsistent with big sharp lumps of metal.

Of course once one has realised that it doesn't mean that the inconsistency is bad or unwelcome.

Al

[Tywyll]

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.

I disagree that buff spells must by default be better than direct damage spells. Buffs need to be a viable tactic, but so do Blasts. Currently, this is not the case and Buffs are the only viable tactic.

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.

You've made part of my point for me: 3MP per d6 is good when HL is being used, but not when total HP are being used. The two values are _not_ the same and shouldn't be treated as though they are.

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.

Again, I disagree that the system inherently requires that buff spells be 'better' or that they be useless. If direct damage can remove an opponent from the equation directly than the tactical choice is relavent. If it cannot, then and only then to buff spells always become the better deal.

And again, while a world in which the only spells a caster knows are 'buffs' is perfectly valid (Glorantha), it isn't the standard 'adventurous fantasy' setting.

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.

So the problem is fixed until MP storage items are entered into the equation, an then it reappears? That's not really a fix. Further, not all games are D&D like in that they expect characters to be pants until they get their gear. I'd rather see spell casters be potent on their own right.

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.

I use it as a thematic example only. I don't expect a mundane human to ever be a threat to a dragon. A spellcaster, by virtue of not being mundane, should have a chance. A guy with a normal sword, barring the most exceptional string of criticals, shouldn't.

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.

If the magician's potential unbalance is the concern, then I think that is a far better 'fix', in that the most unbalanced characters are only those that are very, very skillful (appraoching the same range in which warriors get two attacks for example).

I fail to see how a -10 or -20 is that complex.

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.

Compared to the current function of the mage which is to make the other character's even better while he himself does nothing particularly effective.

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.

Situation plays a big role in which method is preferable. The problem with the current model, as I see it, is that it is _always_ preferable to cast a big buff than it is to cast a big blast, even if only against a single foe that must be dropped quickly, 4d6 damage is less reliable than the +60% +12 damage buff option.

That's a problem. Anytime a choice is a given in a rpg then that choice is too good. The tactics should each have flaws and advantages, so that one style of play doesn't become the only style of play.

[Nightshade]

I disagree that buff spells must by default be better than direct damage spells. Buffs need to be a viable tactic, but so do Blasts. Currently, this is not the case and Buffs are the only viable tactic.

You're missing my point; once buffs are doable at all, unless they're crippled they _will_ be the better choice simply because of their duration. That's a functional reality that you can't preturb except by making them so weak they're negliable. They've been the better choice in every single game I've ever seen where they weren't so weak no one bothered.

You've made part of my point for me: 3MP per d6 is good when HL is being used, but not when total HP are being used. The two values are _not_ the same and shouldn't be treated as though they are.

Actually, I agree with your second clause but not your first; when hit locations are being used I think even at 3 die the spells are too powerful, too capable of taking almost anyone out with one hit and even a bit of luck.

Again, I disagree that the system inherently requires that buff spells be 'better' or that they be useless. If direct damage can remove an opponent

Then you disagree, but I think that's not only true in BRP but in _any_ game as I indicated above. Its been true of every game system I've ever seen where there was any sort of resource management on spellcasting at all.

from the equation directly than the tactical choice is relavent. If it cannot, then and only then to buff spells always become the better deal.

All right; I should qualify that it isn't the better choice when attack spells are so overpowered they're the real solution to most problems. Since I don't consider that any kind of virtue I wasn't including it in the discussion.

And again, while a world in which the only spells a caster knows are 'buffs' is perfectly valid (Glorantha), it isn't the standard 'adventurous fantasy' setting.

I don't believe that there is any such beast.

So the problem is fixed until MP storage items are entered into the equation, an then it reappears? That's not really a fix. Further, not all games are D&D like in that they expect characters to be pants until they get their gear. I'd rather see spell casters be potent on their own right.

Once a lot of MP storage appears, typically magic items empowering non-casters in various ways does too. As to your second statement--you need far weaker magic in general if you're going to avoid gear mattering, since otherwise all you've said is "the mages get to win". Because that's exactly what high-magic, low equipment environments do (unless the other characters are mages in everything but name, such as Earthdawn).

I use it as a thematic example only. I don't expect a mundane human to ever be a threat to a dragon. A spellcaster, by virtue of not being mundane, should have a chance. A guy with a normal sword, barring the most exceptional string of criticals, shouldn't.

Then unless you apply other paranormal systems to other characters, you have effectively decided that everyone else is there to hold the mage's coat.

If the magician's potential unbalance is the concern, then I think that is a far better 'fix', in that the most unbalanced characters are only those that are very, very skillful (appraoching the same range in which warriors get two attacks for example).

I fail to see how a -10 or -20 is that complex.

Because it still requires constant use of those modifiers, in a system that actually has never been all that big into applying modifiers and where a lot of people (including some on this board) don't like to have to do so. I have no problem with it at all, but I'm not all of BRP's fanbase.

Compared to the current function of the mage which is to make the other character's even better while he himself does nothing particularly effective.

Given there's nothing much stopping the mage making _himself_ better (a mage with a high rank weapon and armor enhancing spell is a better fighter than the fighter is most likely, though he doesn't have their loiter time), I still maintain that's the lesser evil. At least he serves a function there; with strong, easily reusable attack spells, about all anyone else is going to do is be a meat shield.

That's a problem. Anytime a choice is a given in a rpg then that choice is too good. The tactics should each have flaws and advantages, so that one style of play doesn't become the only style of play.

Since I've never seen a resource management spell system where one or the other doesn't (and don't think functionally that its possible) then I think you simply have a problem. The only methods that don't make buffs more attractive either leave them trivial, cripple them in other ways, or make attack spells too powerful for good play balance in my opinion. The bottom line is that you can't have an attack spell that is that much better a choice than a weapon attack in BRP unless you're going to make it seriously unattractive in some ways, or it becomes simply the winning way, because BRP defense isn't on the ablative model.

[Greymagius]

Just a thought... Total levels you can cast are equal to 1/2 INT. Assuming a not unseasonable Magic user with 16 INT, that means possibly 8 Levels. It would require 24 POW, but with a familiar or wizards staff for extra power, and a slightly above average POW of 13 (For 26 POW available) you can get 8d6 damage. Average damage would be 28 points. Sure, it may be one shot only, but it will kill almost every base player character I can imagine.

Sure, Armor might provide some defense, but not enough. I'm thinking I might need to use a house rule of Max POW not spell levels equal to INT/2. With that in place, we may see 3D6 bolts of magic, but I think that might be more viable and less instant kill.

Any thoughts or opinions?

Oh yes, my starting campaign will be a campaign originally D&D based using 'Sorcery' as 'Divine' spells and 'Magic' for Wizardly spells. I'm hoping the interaction is not a total FUBAR.

Thanks,

Grey

[Shaira]

Sure, Armor might provide some defense, but not enough. I'm thinking I might need to use a house rule of Max POW not spell levels equal to INT/2. With that in place, we may see 3D6 bolts of magic, but I think that might be more viable and less instant kill.

[...]

Any thoughts or opinions?

I ended up opting to use the Sorcery powers rather than the Magic powers in my campaign, but for a while I was toying with using the Magic rules, with a level cap equal to your "spell skill score" divided by 10 rather than INT/2. It struck me that most beginning Magic users would have 50-75% max, meaning 5-7 levels of magic spell, rather than a pretty-much-standard 8. Then, really serious magic users with 100%+ skills would be lethal, whilst beginning cantrip-level hedge-wizard apprentice types would struggle to cast a couple of levels.

It helps you a bit with the magnitude issue, but admittedly doesn't resolve it. But then, powerful wizards *should* be scary and dangerous - dirty great warriors with 90% halberds and a +1D6 damage bonus certainly are (4D6 damage on a normal hit unlimited at *zero* PP cost ... never mind specials and criticals... urk).

In the end I opted for Sorcery. It's "magic as augmentation" much more than "magic as artillery", but the choice is definitely an issue of campaign style.

Cheers,

Sarah

[Tywyll]

I ended up opting to use the Sorcery powers rather than the Magic powers in my campaign, but for a while I was toying with using the Magic rules, with a level cap equal to your "spell skill score" divided by 10 rather than INT/2. It struck me that most beginning Magic users would have 50-75% max, meaning 5-7 levels of magic spell, rather than a pretty-much-standard 8. Then, really serious magic users with 100%+ skills would be lethal, whilst beginning cantrip-level hedge-wizard apprentice types would struggle to cast a couple of levels.

It helps you a bit with the magnitude issue, but admittedly doesn't resolve it. But then, powerful wizards *should* be scary and dangerous - dirty great warriors with 90% halberds and a +1D6 damage bonus certainly are (4D6 damage on a normal hit unlimited at *zero* PP cost ... never mind specials and criticals... urk).

In the end I opted for Sorcery. It's "magic as augmentation" much more than "magic as artillery", but the choice is definitely an issue of campaign style.

Cheers,

Sarah

I think I've found the fix I'm going to be happy with.

Spells cost 1MP per level. Max level worth of a spell you an cast is 1 per 20% (minimum of 1) So you'd need a skill of 40% to cast a 2d6 bolt, for example.

Spells that do direct damage to a single target and can be mitigated by armor will do the d6 per level.

Spells that do AoE damage and can be mitigated by armor do d4 per level.

Spells that do direct damage to a target and ignore armor/defenses do d3 per level.

Buff spells will be limited to +3-5 in general, so we won't have buffed combatants completely dominating the battlefield and making combat purely a measure of who your friends are.

Since I'm going to mix and match several spell styles, this will keep Wizardry on line with the other stuff I'm going to put into the mix (and leave Divine Magic as more potent in a stand up fight).

[Nightshade]

Just a thought... Total levels you can cast are equal to 1/2 INT. Assuming a not unseasonable Magic user with 16 INT, that means possibly 8 Levels. It would require 24 POW, but with a familiar or wizards staff for extra power, and a slightly above average POW of 13 (For 26 POW available) you can get 8d6 damage. Average damage would be 28 points. Sure, it may be one shot only, but it will kill almost every base player character I can imagine.

That's the concern I have with it, too. 8d6 is just a godawful amount of damage in BRP scale; I saw RQ characters able to take that, but it was because they had moderately heavy magical enhancement _and_ were getting a parry in the way, usually, and its not clear in a game where Magic is in use that the first will apply (and I don't know whether the rules let you shield parry most of these sort of spells--I've gotten the impression not, but I'm still a-waitin' on my book).

Sure, Armor might provide some defense, but not enough. I'm thinking I might need to use a house rule of Max POW not spell levels equal to INT/2. With that in place, we may see 3D6 bolts of magic, but I think that might be more viable and less instant kill.

Any thoughts or opinions?

I'm of two minds; if you do that on one hand I think you should reduce the mana cost--but 3d6 is still a hell of a lot if you can't parry it and are dealing with mundane armor. If you're not using hit locations it probably is okay.

[Al.]

Ever since SBIII I have limited demon (and other magic) weapons to no more than twice the base mundane damage. (i.e. Stormbringer being a Greatsword does 2d8+2d8 not the 2d8+every d6 or d10 in existence of the official write ups)

Al

[Nightshade]

I ended up opting to use the Sorcery powers rather than the Magic powers in my campaign, but for a while I was toying with using the Magic rules, with a level cap equal to your "spell skill score" divided by 10 rather than INT/2. It struck me that most beginning Magic users would have 50-75% max, meaning 5-7 levels of magic spell, rather than a pretty-much-standard 8. Then, really serious magic users with 100%+ skills would be lethal, whilst beginning cantrip-level hedge-wizard apprentice types would struggle to cast a couple of levels.

It helps you a bit with the magnitude issue, but admittedly doesn't resolve it. But then, powerful wizards *should* be scary and dangerous - dirty great warriors with 90% halberds and a +1D6 damage bonus certainly are (4D6 damage on a normal hit unlimited at *zero* PP cost ... never mind specials and criticals... urk).

Yeah, but often at the level where the warriors are swinging around 90% attacks, people have 90% parries, so most of that damage never actually arrives at the target; I'm still not clear on what most targets do about magical attacks, and this thread and some things I've read Jason say seem slightly contradictory.

The questions I have are:

1. Do these spells actually require Power attacks?

2. Does armor help?

Neither of these are perfect, because as far as I can tell, most higher level non-spellcasters aren't going to have any higher Power than they started with (without a paranormal ability to permit advancement, how could they?) and armor will only get you so far unless its very high end.