Starting spells

[Thot]

Mythras assigns starting spells via concluding them from a character's magic skills, or some of them.

 

That's odd, because later on, you buy them with experience points like everything else. So why don't the rules do the same for spells on character creation? I'd propose 15 points cost for folk spells, 20 points for everything else (because that's about the equivalent of the XP they would cost).

As spells are then no longer free at character creation, I'd give everybody 60 to 100 extra points to compensate. That would offer everybody a few more choices, while keeping overall power level roughly the same..

Edited June 13, 2018 by Thot

[Matt_E]

The answer is simple:  Rather than bothering with the extra arithmetic, the designers decided to allow GM's fiat to give out spells at character creation.  Considering the great variability in magic from setting to setting, this seems quite sensible.  There is a rule about how many Folk Magic spells a generic character gets (based on POW score), but beyond that, it's freeform.

Your method is fine, but calls for further bookkeeping; you assign a cost to something that's nominally free, but then give extra points.  Do you mean those points could be used for anything at all, not just magic skills?  Is your concern that higher-form magic users get some advantage at chargen?

 

[Thot]

My concern is balance. Not every character has access to magical skills and spells, so giving some who get that ability stuff for free on top of that just doesn't ring well with me - it makes those who do have access more powerful as a reward for being more powerful.

After all, if it costs experience points later in the game, why should it not equally cost a resource at character generation?

 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Thot

[Matt_E]

2 hours ago, Thot said:

After all, if it costs experience points later in the game, why should it not equally cost a resource at character generation?

 

Well, I think you could make that same argument for other things, too...  You pick a culture and a career, you get access to some Professional skills, but not others.  If that career is magical, so be it; you get access to magic spells/abilities because they are the only "tools" that make the profession and its Professional Skills worth getting.  To me it seems like complaining that a warrior would get good armor and a shield for free at chargen, whereas someone else would have to pay real money for it later.  I am mixing XP and SP here, and skills and spells and equipment, but I think you see what I mean.  Viewed through the prism of "natural consequences of choosing a career", I think these ideas are quite comparable.

My other thought is, who said everything must be balanced down to the last penny?  You should also complain, then, about Social Status giving some people much better resources.  That is a random roll, I grant you, not a design choice...except in games like mine, where you let the players make the characters they want to play (within reason).

I'm not trying to say that you're wrong to want fairness, but thinking over my many experiences as both player and GM, I have never had anyone complain about so-and-so's character having an unfair advantage, just for being a [fill it in].  I'm not sure it is an actual problem, in the eyes of the people with the highest stakes in the proposition.  That said, I don't know your group, and in any case you are certainly allowed to take a principled stance, even in the absence of a practical concern. 🙂  I just personally don't see a need to introduce a bunch of extra rules to cover it.  I suppose the designers of the game  (who are thoughtful guys) take that same stance.

 

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Matt_E

[Thot]

1 hour ago, Matt_E said:

 

Well, I think you could make that same argument for other things, too...  You pick a culture and a career, you get access to some Professional skills, but not others.  If that career is magical, so be it; you get access to magic spells/abilities because they are the only "tools" that make the profession and its Professional Skills worth getting. To me it seems like complaining that a warrior would get good armor and a shield for free at chargen, whereas someone else would have to pay real money for it later.  I am mixing XP and SP here, and skills and spells and equipment, but I think you see what I mean.  Viewed through the prism of "natural consequences of choosing a career", I think these ideas are quite comparable.

Except the magic-user gets not only access to spells, but a certain number of spells, based on how good he is with the skill he will need to use them!

Access to spells makes sense, sure. But an ability worth 20 skill points or 5 XP for free? Seems a bit much.

I don't believe the equipment comparison works here. Items can be lost; knowledge rarely is. Moreover, it is much, much, much easier to buy new stuff than to learn a spell.

 

Quote

My other thought is, who said everything must be balanced down to the last penny? 

 

It doesn't have to be, a bit more balance is just the way I like it more. And in my experience, so do most players.

Sure, balancing everything "down to the last penny" is futile - GURPS for instance is over the top there. But gross imbalances do bother people. And a very simple adjustment like the above can make things so much... cleaner.

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Thot

[Matt_E]

Well, I intend not to argue any more, though we don't see eye to eye here.  The higher score in the skill indicates the amount of time the magician has put into studying; why shouldn't that correlate with learning more spells?  How can you say it is much harder to learn a spell than to buy equipment when you haven't named a price?  Yes, gear can be lost, agreed.  If you want to house-rule this, go for it, as we always say.

I have not checked, but I wonder if the Gods of Game Balance have already been invoked in giving magicians fewer choices for skills, or something like that.

[Thot]

5 minutes ago, Matt_E said:

[...] The higher score in the skill indicates the amount of time the magician has put into studying; why shouldn't that correlate with learning more spells?  How can you say it is much harder to learn a spell than to buy equipment when you haven't named a price? [...]

Why should it correlate with any spells at all? The system does handle learning spells separate from the skill, and rightly so.  Why drop that distinction just for character generation?

We do know that learning a new sorcery spell takes 5 XP and a month of your time. There is no piece of armor or weapon or other gear that is that hard to get, especially given how adventurers tend to accumulate money more quickly than regular people.

[lawrence.whitaker]

As the Gods of Game Balance, our view is this...

If you feel that magic using characters have an advantage over other characters, by all means give the non-magic using characters some extra skill points to compensate. Your calculation of how skill points, based on the Experience Roll cost for learning spells, seems fair and equitable. Conversely, you may not wish to give magic using characters any spells at all, and have them earn them in-game.

It's up to you. The advice on page 118 above 'Starting Magic' makes it clear that, if magic forms a part of the campaign, access to it deserves some forethought - and starting spells should form part of this forethought. What the rules offer is a default position; it's by no means the right one for every campaign or every play style.

YMYM: Your Mythras is Your Mythras.