Old and New Pow gain methods

[Tywyll]

I noticed that in new BRP, you only get a POW gain roll if your chance of success in a Pow vs Pow contest is less than 50%, whereas in old RQ2&3 you got one every time you overcame a target's resistance.

So, why the change? Was the old method too generous? Is there a probably playing it the old way? If I switch over, will there be a downside I'm not seeing?

What are people's personal experience of the old and the new ways of handling it?

I'm running a fantasy campaign and I'm finding that unless the casters go after other casters directly, there is little chance they'll improve their POW, without facing steadily increasingly potent enemy casters.

[Harshax]

I found that characters who did not bother to learn attack spells (pow vs. pow), were much maligned by the POW gain routine. My house rule was that you could also qualify for a POW gain by successfully resisting magic.

I don't see what would happen if you changed the rule to what you're more familiar with, but then again, the best recommendation is to 'play as is' until you're sure you want to change it.

[NickMiddleton]

I noticed that in new BRP, you only get a POW gain roll if your chance of success in a Pow vs Pow contest is less than 50%, whereas in old RQ2&3 you got one every time you overcame a target's resistance.

So, why the change? Was the old method too generous? Is there a probably playing it the old way? If I switch over, will there be a downside I'm not seeing?

It's mostly a question of logic, and heading off a bit of munchkin power gaming. If ANY POW vs. POW roll will do, what's to stop the PC from spending a quiet week casting Disruption (or the equivalent) on worms, squirrels and the occasional rat? The rule simply insists that for there to be chance of gain, there must have been a substantive chance of failure...

This is mostly just an extension of the RQII rule (where you got no POW gain roll if your chance of success was greater than 95%).

What are people's personal experience of the old and the new ways of handling it?

Funnily enough, I've had a house rule that's basically the same as the new BRP rule for a long time, so I can't really contrast the two - but I can say that I've been largely happy with the BRP like house rule I've been using.

I'm running a fantasy campaign and I'm finding that unless the casters go after other casters directly, there is little chance they'll improve their POW, without facing steadily increasingly potent enemy casters.

One of the reasons for my house rule is that I was never fond of the "personal stat inflation" that the RQII/III rule caused, but others will no doubt have a different view.

Cheers,

Nick

[frogspawner]

If ANY POW vs. POW roll will do, what's to stop the PC from spending a quiet week casting Disruption (or the equivalent) on worms, squirrels and the occasional rat?

The requirement for it to be in a crisis situation. That should be enough to limit it, even if you widen it to allow POW gains for defensive resistance too.

[soltakss]

Only giving a POW gain roll if your chance of success is below 50% seems a bit harsh.

I wouldn't use it.

If you had sword attack 70% then you would get a tick if you used it, so why not for POW?

I can see the munchkin argument, but that has never applied in my games. But there again I like people getting more POW as I prefer higher powered games.

[GianniVacca]

I think POW gains are only legitimate in settings where POW is also lost, e.g., in older versions of RQ you had to sacrifice POW to get Rune spells, hence the interest of being able to re-gain lost POW through POW gains.

But in settings where PCs never lose any POW, why should there be POW gains?

[NickMiddleton]

I think POW gains are only legitimate in settings where POW is also lost, e.g., in older versions of RQ you had to sacrifice POW to get Rune spells, hence the interest of being able to re-gain lost POW through POW gains.

But in settings where PCs never lose any POW, why should there be POW gains?

Becuase it makes sense that someone can exercise the will and refine their attunement to the magical flow of the universe and thus increase their chracterisitc POW in the same way they can train and imporve their STR or DEX?

I certainly agree that I don't think POW should shoot up the way it could in RQII when it can't be lost in a similarly profligate fashion (which is why I've long used rules simlar to the new BRP's) - but on the other hadn it does make sense to me that a character should have SOME faciilty to improve their POW.

Cheers,

Nick

[Nightshade]

I think that often Power did advance too fast under the old system; on the other hand, I think that you probably should be able to train it, or get advancement from resisting spells. The sword skill argument doesn't seem really parallel, because Power does a lot more things than just improve success (this is particularly true in environments where Power can be sacrificed for permanent or quasi-permanent benefits).

[RMS]

I always allowed POW gain checks for anyone attacking or defending with POW v. POW for spells in old RQ2/3, and would do so again. The same was true of fighting in spirit combat (though I don't honestly remember the official rule for when you got a POW gain check here). It basically boiled down to giving the PCs a POW gain check after each adventure, so 2-3 times per year (typical number of "adventures" per year) everyone got a POW gain check, in addition to one on the high holy day. With any reasonable level of POW this still doesn't end up with that much POW gain (1-2 points per year), which promptly got spent on divine magic. Without that, POW would just float up to the 18-19 level and sit. It's capped so it's not like it's going to grow off the chart, even if there's nothing to spend it on.

[Nightshade]

The problem is that being even in the 18-19 range meant that you were pretty much immune to magical attack from mediocre opponents. Also, while 2-4 points might be okay for character who only adventure a few times a year, there's nothing to require that to be the case; with relatively continuous adventuring, it wasn't hard to see people racking up 12 points of sacrificed power in a year, and that got to be a bit much.

[RMS]

The problem is that being even in the 18-19 range meant that you were pretty much immune to magical attack from mediocre opponents.

That's true, but I don't see it as a problem. If you get up to 18-19, you either trade some in for some really good magic or horde it to be immune to petty magics. It's a trade off, but everyone I've played with would agree that the most economical way to play (in a pure min/max way) is keep POW around 13-14 so you can gain POW to trade in for more magic at a reasonable rate while still having a decent chance at attack/defense.

Also, while 2-4 points might be okay for character who only adventure a few times a year, there's nothing to require that to be the case; with relatively continuous adventuring, it wasn't hard to see people racking up 12 points of sacrificed power in a year, and that got to be a bit much.

Since the whole advance of time is generally background, I'm not sure it really matters in the big scheme of things. However, I suppose a move to having POW checks (as well as skill checks?) being based on time (every season for example) would elevate this. In fact, I was doing something similar in my homebrew game. It has no experience system based on adventures, but simply allows more skills over time (based on age) of the characters and a corresponding drop in physical attributes over time. (Characters were allowed to shift some points around to reflect a loss in a neglected skill for gain in a different skill.) In fact, I always ran downtime for both occupational skills and trained skills this way in RQ/BRP: some number of skill checks per season and some additional ones for specific training. It was much easier than calculating the gains for trained skills via the rules and there weren't any rules for gaining skills per occupation after play started.

[Trifletraxor]

Both rules could actually pretty easily be combined:

"Any win on the POW vs. POW table, as the active or passive part, under stressed conditions, is awarded with a POW gain check, up until a character has reached its normal species maximum POW (18 for humans). After that a POW gain check is only awarded in situations similar to the one stipulated above, where a character has a success chance of 50% or less."

Actually I think I might start using this rule!

:beetle:

Edited October 14, 2008 by Trifletraxor

[Nightshade]

That's true, but I don't see it as a problem. If you get up to 18-19, you either trade some in for some really good magic or horde it to be immune to petty magics. It's a trade off, but everyone I've played with would agree that the most economical way to play (in a pure min/max way) is keep POW around 13-14 so you can gain POW to trade in for more magic at a reasonable rate while still having a decent chance at attack/defense.

[RMS]

Sure. But if you're in an environment where there's nothing to sacrifice POW on (which is true of at least of a couple of the BRP paranormal systems--the psychic system comes to mind) its not a choice, just the way the result will end up over time.

OK, potentially dumb question here: would you even be receiving POW checks at all in such a case? Getting POW checks, or not, definitely has to be setting specific or an optional rule because obviously it needs to work different in different genres. I can't think of a reason for even using the standard POW gain rule unless you spend POW on things. Otherwise, force characters to go through standard training of some sort or hand them out judiciously like other stats that are potentially improved through extra-ordinary exertions.

The thing with the Power issue is that in settings with no power sacrifice, it quickly makes the PCs juggernauts of resistance (and if mages themselves, attack), and in settings with Power sacrifice it can quickly rack up a lot of functional power (as it did in RQ in many games).

See above. If you don't want PCs to become (nearly) immune to direct magic attacks and there's nothing to spend POW on, then I'd think it'd make perfect sense to opt out of POW gain roles. In fact, I can't think of a BRP setting were POW gain roles are handed out with regularity and POW isn't also spent quickly...or do like a lot of BRP settings and make all POW gain a 5% option which really slows advancement down. (Didn't most of those allow unlimited POW gains too, so you could end up with POW in the 30s or 40s with an old sorcerer.)

Even in RQ it was a bit broken for some nonhumans. I've mentioned on here before one of my players who acquired an awaken shadow cat allied spirit. They have a maximum POW of 38 in RQIII, so can keep POW in the mid-20s, getting automatic increases, while being able to blow through human defenses at will. That PC let the cat cast all the direct magic, while the PC cast warrior-type spells on himself. It was a nasty combination, especially considering the speed, quickness, and stealth abilities of the cat make it virtually impossible to engage for a human. (Note: I went back to RQII for maximum POW and, while still powerful, it brought the shadow cat back down to some semblance of reasonableness.)

Well, honestly, I suspect the designers didn't really expect PCs to be significantly operating in their original occupations after the start of play.

I suppose I fall under the label of hardcore simulist and just don't conceive of the PCs sitting around doing nothing while waiting for the next "adventure" to come along. Mine are always off doing things that just aren't interesting enough to play out, but it's rarely their "original" occupation. It's generally something more in character, like standard military duty, or guarding a caravan through uneventful events, or studying somewhere (for sages or mages), etc. It breaks my suspension of belief completely if someone simply hops from danger-to-danger without respite.

[Nightshade]

OK, potentially dumb question here: would you even be receiving POW checks at all in such a case? Getting POW checks, or not,

If you're a psychic yourself, in psychic combat. If there's a fair number of opponents who can do so, you might even end up in it fairly frequently if you aren't one.

definitely has to be setting specific or an optional rule because obviously it needs to work different in different genres. I can't think of a reason for even using the standard POW gain rule unless you spend POW on things. Otherwise, force characters to go through standard training of some sort or hand them out judiciously like other stats that are potentially improved through extra-ordinary exertions.

If the game had rules for training POW, I'd agree, but at least currently it doesn't.

See above. If you don't want PCs to become (nearly) immune to direct magic attacks and there's nothing to spend POW on, then I'd think it'd make perfect sense to opt out of POW gain roles. In fact, I can't think of a BRP setting were POW gain roles are handed out with regularity and POW isn't also spent quickly...or do like a lot of BRP settings and make all POW gain a 5% option which really slows advancement down. (Didn't most of those allow unlimited POW gains too, so you could end up with POW in the 30s or 40s with an old sorcerer.)

I don't think there's actually too much to spend POW on in the Magic system, but a mage in it would still be getting POW gain rolls by the book; in fact, that'd be the case in any version that had magical attacks but not POW sacrifices.

We saw a fair bit of this in RQ too, as there were characters who had spirit magic attack spells (Demoralize, Disruption, Befuddle) but weren't serious enough mages to know anything they could use to sacrifice magic on (a spirit mage who doesn't know enchantments doesn't really have anything he can even potentially sacrifice POW for).

So I don't think its as tidy as you're presenting it.

Even in RQ it was a bit broken for some nonhumans. I've mentioned on here before one of my players who acquired an awaken shadow cat allied spirit. They have a maximum POW of 38 in RQIII, so can keep POW in the mid-20s, getting automatic increases, while being able to blow through human defenses at will. That PC let the cat cast all the direct magic, while the PC cast warrior-type spells on himself. It was a nasty combination, especially considering the speed, quickness, and stealth abilities of the cat make it virtually impossible to engage for a human. (Note: I went back to RQII for maximum POW and, while still powerful, it brought the shadow cat back down to some semblance of reasonableness.)

That's certainly a problem for any nonhuman with a high POW maximum. Fortunately, there aren't a lot of them that are typically playable as PCs; elves are the worst, and they're at a tolerable level.

I suppose I fall under the label of hardcore simulist and just don't conceive of the PCs sitting around doing nothing while waiting for the next "adventure" to come along. Mine are always off doing things that just aren't interesting

In my experience, they're usually training; if the environment supports frequent adventuring, that's more than enough to tie up their time between adventures assuming they have the funds to do it.

enough to play out, but it's rarely their "original" occupation. It's generally something more in character, like standard military duty, or guarding a caravan through uneventful events, or studying somewhere (for sages or mages), etc. It breaks my suspension of belief completely if someone simply hops from danger-to-danger without respite.

That's as it is, but it hasn't got much to do with how the game--like most games--is played by most people. I have no evidence that most people in most games of any stripe assume more than modest amounts of downtime.

[Kloster]

Both rules could actually pretty easily be combined:

"Any win on the POW vs. POW table, as the active or passive part, under stressed conditions, is awarded with a POW gain check, up until a character has reached its normal species maximum POW (18 for humans). After that a POW gain check is only awarded in situations similar to the one stipulated above, where a character has a success chance of 50% or less."

Actually I think I might start using this rule!

:beetle:

I like it and will propose it to my GM.

By the way, we currently allow POW checks for any win, wether active or passive.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Trifletraxor]

I've started to use it myself now. My players blast through POW on one-use divine and DI's, so a steady supply is needed!

SGL.