[Optional] Spells: Cost vs. Complexity

[Harshax]

I was describing the Magic Powers system to a potential player, and he was turned off by how expensive a simple "magic missile" spell was. Being familiar with other brp games, he said the costs of the various "boom" spells seemed cost prohibitive. And while he appreciated that the rules wouldn't stop his wizard from also being a competent swordsman or archer, the system seriously constrained his image of a wizard who relied primarily on their magic for attacks.

So I did the math (Approximation):

It costs approximately 12 MP to kill your average human with Blast. (average 3.5 damage per die) This would require approximately 2 Blast spells and two combat rounds, since the average human (INT 13) would be limited to Level 6 Spells.

But for 5 magic points, the same wizard could transform the average human into a cow. And for 1 more MP, I could transform 1 of his friends as well, and still be in the Level 6 Spell Limit.

So, for half the magic points, and half the time, a wizard could neutralize 2 human sized creatures for 6 MP, versus blasting 1 human to bits.

Separating Cost and Complexity

I was thinking of splitting Cost & Complexity of a spell. Cost would be the MP per level of the spell. Complexity would determine how much a 'level' of a spell counts toward your INT maximum.

By separating Cost & Complexity, you keep a magician from casting uber-powerful spells, but you make their cost more (or less) reasonable.

I was thinking of changing Blast, Flame, Frost, Heal, and Lighting from (3) to (1/3) which means it costs 1 MP per Level, but the spell counts as 3 per level against INT maximum.

What do you guys think?

[bobapple]

So, for half the magic points, and half the time, a wizard could neutralize 2 human sized creatures for 6 MP, versus blasting 1 human to bits.

But for the "Change" spell you have to overcome the targets POW. Also, a cow can be pretty dangerous, I would go for something a bit more harmless

[vagabond]

As Bob points out, Blast has no resistance roll attached. Armor affects

it, but other than that, bring on the pain. Also, it has a significant

range advantage over Change. Also, Blast is permanent, Change has

a 15 minute per MP duration.

Makes sense that Change costs so much less.

Also, I believe it takes more than 1 extra MP to add a second target.

You need to have enough SIZ covered - I read as you need the total

SIZ covered to extend to another target i.e. adding 1 MP adds another

target, but the two targets must total less than 15 SIZ.

-V

Edited January 21, 2009 by vagabond

[Arch0n]

Harshax, the difference between "damage" and, say, "cow transmogrification" is that damage stacks linearly, while cow transmogrification is binary on/off.

For instance, let's take a powerful monster with 50 hit points and POW 30. 6 wizards are gathered to oppose the monster, each with POW 20 and a magic missile doing 1D10 damage and cow trans.

With "cow trans", each wizard could theoretically end the fight in one blow, but none of them is likely to do so, because of the 20:30 POW resistance roll.

But six magic missiles are virtually certain to kill the monster in a round or two, even though each individual magic missile could do less than 10% of its hit points in damage.

Likewise, a wizard firing magic missiles stacks with the efforts of an archer, fighter, etc., while a wizard doing cow transmogrification doesn't.

When one type of effect stacks and another doesn't stack, the type that stacks needs to be kept more limited in power, especially since RPGs are mostly played in groups.

[vagabond]

But for the "Change" spell you have to overcome the targets POW. Also, a cow can be pretty dangerous, I would go for something a bit more harmless

Especially a cow with the original stats of the target, and potentially any

powers ...

-V

[sdavies2720]

...But for 5 magic points, the same wizard could transform the average human into a cow. And for 1 more MP, I could transform 1 of his friends as well, and still be in the Level 6 Spell Limit.

So, for half the magic points, and half the time, a wizard could neutralize 2 human sized creatures for 6 MP, versus blasting 1 human to bits...

This is one of the things I like about BRP. As I think about classic mythology, there are lots of examples of people (usually lovers) being turned into cows, trees, swans, etc. There are not that many examples of people being blast to smithereens.

Also, that cow can run away, get detransmogrified, and come back as a great enemy ("Bart, originally I just wanted to rob those uppity adventurers. But spending 3 months as a cow gave me some other ideas.")

To me, it's not just about neutralizing opponents in a combat. It's about where magic fits with everything else in the world.

Steve

[Harshax]

Likewise, a wizard firing magic missiles stacks with the efforts of an archer, fighter, etc., while a wizard doing cow transmogrification doesn't.

And this is precisely my argument. It doesn't stack. If you have a 10 or 11 POW, you might be able to cast between 5 and 6 blast spells over the course of a day, whereas an archer will probably have much more ammunition.

If you look at their activities mechanically, the archer and the magician are doing the same thing; doing 1dx damage at a distance; but the magician is constrained simply because it's "magic". True the archer is limited by availability of ammunition, but that limitation is easily overcome, because missile weapons are common, and archers will normally arm themselves with a large supply. And while it can be argued that an archer could lose his weapon, and be imprisoned without his tools, the same can be said for the magician.

Vagabond - You're right about the spell cost. In my example, I could still only affect one individual. (But it is still cheaper to neutralize a creature with Change, than it is with Blast).

Arch0n - I disagree that damage stacking and transmogrification do not stack, since the end result is the same: target neutralization.

sdavies - I can only agree that the magic system in brp may be more similar to the romanticized fantasy/mythology, but there's not a few examples of people being struck down by lightning or turned into stone in mythology. Also, per my OP, I am trying to emulate a more high fantasy style of magic.

All - Maybe a cow can still do something (runaway, cause interference, bite, or maybe not down an opponent), but it is far less deadly (and easier to kill) than say . . . a knight in fullplate, wielding a 2 handed sword. Whose afraid of a SIZ 13 cow?

[frogspawner]

Rather than introduce separate Complexity, you could allow blast-spells to be 1pp/die but limit their effectiveness by introducing more defences against them.

I have players brought up on that 'other RP game', so I use all the old favourite spells from it, including all the mindless-violence magic they love, at roughly 1d6 per MP. But I also allow DEXx5 'saves' to halve the damage, and have 'amulets' that knock-off a few d6 damage from such blasts.

Getting the balance right is tricky, though.

[threedeesix]

So I did the math (Approximation):

It costs approximately 12 MP to kill your average human with Blast. (average 3.5 damage per die) This would require approximately 2 Blast spells and two combat rounds, since the average human (INT 13) would be limited to Level 6 Spells.

I'm not going to argue with your main point because I'm thinking about reducing the spell cost of the various "blasting" spells for Sword & Spell for this very reason. But I just want to point out one possible error in your above example, If I am reading it correctly.

Everything is correct except the example INT 13 wizard would still be able to get the spell off in one round because a 4d damage magic missile spell would be 4 spell levels, not 12 as I think you're implying.

If I misread, you I apologize.

Edit: Actually, I'm not changing it in Sword & Spell as much as adding an option to this effect. That way, those that are thinking about picking it up to add some new spells to their BRP games will find them already balanced with the ones in the core book.

Carry on.

Rod

Edited January 22, 2009 by threedeesix

[Turloigh]

Whose afraid of a SIZ 13 cow?

It still has horns.

And a damage bonus, most likely.

And it will be suffering from a massive sense of humour failure.

Yes, colour me scared.

[Harshax]

I'm not going to argue with your main point because I'm thinking about reducing the spell cost of the various "blasting" spells for Sword & Spell for this very reason. But I just want to point out one possible error in your above example, If I am reading it correctly.

Everything is correct except the example INT 13 wizard would still be able to get the spell off in one round because a 4d damage magic missile spell would be 4 spell levels, not 12 as I think you're implying.

If I misread, you I apologize.

Edit: Actually, I'm not changing it in Sword & Spell as much as adding an option to this effect. That way, those that are thinking about picking it up to add some new spells to their BRP games will find them already balanced with the ones in the core book.

Carry on.

Rod

You're right. I was determining the spell level by multiplying the cost.

A 4d spell is still 4th level (not 12th), but costs 12 MP.

I'm also realizing that I have the option of letting a starting magician begin with both a staff and a familiar. So a completely average character might have a starting reserve of approximately 30 MP. (Assuming 11 POW for the PC and Staff and 8 for the familiar)

In light of the extra MP from the items, I see the problem is partially solved, so I need to reconsider my math.

[Tywyll]

I'm also realizing that I have the option of letting a starting magician begin with both a staff and a familiar. So a completely average character might have a starting reserve of approximately 30 MP. (Assuming 11 POW for the PC and Staff and 8 for the familiar)

In light of the extra MP from the items, I see the problem is partially solved, so I need to reconsider my math.

I agree with your assessment of the base Wizardry system in BRP and is one of the main reasons I don't use it. A wizard is far better off (mp to effect) casting buffing magic and then possibly hitting with a wizard staff than ever using a blast style spell (yes it ignores armor, but not dodges... so while the cow spell has a PvP roll, there is still a 'saving throw' involved in blast spells that makes them potentially binary).

The archer example is a great point and something that (*gasp, horror*) I think that new edition of /that other game/ handles very well... allowing wizards a reusable blast ability that is on par with an archer's arrow that they can use all day long. I'm uncertain how to fairly model this in BRP, but I'm working on it. If you play a wizard it's because you want to blast thing (well, generally) and BRP's roots in RQ never allowed for that.

Finally, just a note. If you use BRP RAW, unless you are starting your campaign quite powerful, characters shouldn't start with a familiar or staff... both only come at Epic and Superheroic levels of play because they are supposed to be quite difficult to gain.

I've been playing with a different spell system, wherein my player's main blaster mage either has a 1-4 mp spell that does d4 per level and ignores mundane (but not natural or magical) armor, or a 2-8 mp elemental burst spell, that does 1d6 per mp, over a 1m area per mp, but armor of any kind help stops it. On top of this he has 12mp worth of magic storing crystals and a familiar (old RQ style) that provides another 13 or so MP. Even with that, he's not overshadowed the party, and I'd say he's just only been able to stay contributing over the long haul to fights and stuff (though his 3 point unbreakable bond spell has done more to end fights than his damage spells). The most recent session was during the course of a siege and he was sweating something fierce when by the time the battle was over being so close to unconscious.

Edited January 24, 2009 by Tywyll

[Harshax]

The archer example is a great point and something that (*gasp, horror*) I think that new edition of /that other game/ handles very well... allowing wizards a reusable blast ability that is on par with an archer's arrow that they can use all day long. I'm uncertain how to fairly model this in BRP, but I'm working on it. If you play a wizard it's because you want to blast thing (well, generally) and BRP's roots in RQ never allowed for that.

I think I'm going to lower the spell costs, or at least add a tier mechanic.

My reasons are similar to yours:

1. If you want to be a blaster, go for it. Mechanically, a wizard is no different from a Archer in this regard.

2. I need to figure out a tier mechanic, because at 1P/Level, the temptation to nuke powerful foes is too great and anticlimactic.

GM

"After months of tracking Krang, the most feared assassin in..."

Wizard

"9 dice bolt to the head!"

GM

<groan>

I'm thinking that the cost for these boom spells might increment every 2 levels. For example: Blast

LVL     Cost  Minimum INT

1  1d6  1     -

2  2d6  2     -

3  3d6  4     -

4  4d6  6     -

5  5d6  9     -

6  6d6  12    11

7  7d6  16    13

8  8d6  20    15

9  9d6  25    17

But you can only solve so much of the problem with rules. Like Frogspawner has mentioned, you have to adapt play to the gameworld. This goes beyond the availability of amulets. This goes to tactics -

Be ready to interrupt a spellcaster. If you're an archer, and you notice that the wizard is spending several DEX ranks casting a spell, shoot him. The guy in the robe? Shoot him. The guy with the staff? Shoot him.

These tactics are a natural evolution of magic use in warfare. Much like tactics changed with the advent of the stirrup, the rifle, the tank.

This is very satisfying and Old School. Too harsh? Then don't listen to The Harshax. >:->