Author Topic: Problematic Spells  (Read 8989 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Blakkrall

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • HARP GM
    • Les Chevaliers du Littoral
Re: Problematic Spells
« Reply #20 on: October 11, 2007, 01:20:35 PM »
One more point. To learn a spell, you can require the PC to have a mentor, or some teacher. If he learns them by himself, then give him a penality (just like for the untrained shield).
When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk.
--------------------
Iceland, The French Fan Site For I.C.E.
LRP store
[img]http://cdl76.com/images/Images_contenu/

Offline bunny

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Problematic Spells
« Reply #21 on: October 11, 2007, 09:17:59 PM »
Given that anyone who actually wants to keep their clothes and equipment on, needs to scale Invisibility by 3 PPs to 7, then not only is it as costly, but it also starts triggering scaling penalties. That's before disadvantages such as ends early if you hit something or something hits you are taken into account on Invisibility.
The fact that it doesnt include clothes or weapons is something essential to remember - from memory the invisible character cant even draw a sword if the spell is only scaled by 4PP anyhow. Coupled with the shorter duration, invisibility is not that powerful in HARP and has a very different flavor to what it does in other RP games imo (I remember invisibilitying the thief and having him scope out the whole soon-to-be-raided fortress in my pre-HARP days)

Offline Rasyr-Mjolnir

  • Inactive
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Problematic Spells
« Reply #22 on: October 12, 2007, 08:22:06 AM »
Once of the design concepts behind the spells in HARP is that a caster can learn the basics of a spell/spell effect early on, and then it takes time and effort (i.e. DPs) to become fully proficient with the spell.

As others have pointed out, the way HARP is designed, you can either become very proficient in a few spells, or learn the basics in a larger number of spells.

As was also pointed, every PP invested into casting a spell above its base cost, gives a negative modifier to the spell, making it more and more likely that the spell will fail.

You mention darkness having a higher cost than invisibility. Yes, it does. But then again, Darkness affects an area, a radius, while invisibility affects a single person (no items) and has a number of conditions that will very easily cancel it before its duration expires (again, something that darkness does not have to contend with).

You mentioned moving to Hero... The spell creation rules for HARP were inspired by Hero. And guess what? Go create these two spells (Invisibility & Darkness) using the Hero rules, with all of the same limitations and aspects as these 2 spells have, and guess what you will see? Darkness will cost more than Invisibility.

Another spell that folks have issues with is the Light spell, saying that it is too expensive. Problem is, if it were repriced according the rules in CoM, it would come out MORE EXPENSIVE than it is now. The spells in the core rules were priced according to a prototype of the rules that were codified in CoM, and the core rules were subject to tweaking as well (usually to lower costs).

You mentioned increasing the costs of the spells. The question is why? And what is your reasoning for how much you wanted to increase the costs? The PP costs were derived from a set of creation rules, arbitrarily changing those costs would be unfair to your players, I think.

A much better solution is to just not make them available. Take a look at the professions in College of Magics. They are all Mages, but they do not all have the same spell lists for the their Sphere. In Cyradon, there are other Mage variants, and each one there does not have the same spells on their lists for their Spheres.

Do the same thing for your setting. Create magical orders, and have each order have a specific list of spells within their spheres and each variant does not have all the spells and each variant has different spells.

Or just create 1 order, but give it several levels of membership. Thus, beginning mages might have only 10-20 spells to select from. Once they hit 6th level, they are promoted to the next ring, and get an additional 5 spells added to those that they are allowed to learn, when they hit 15th level, they get promoted to the next rank within the order and get access to even more spells, etc...

What I am saying, is to not change the costs, but to change the availability and to work that availability into your setting through a logical reason.

If you think that mages shouldn't learn Long Door until 6th level, that is fine, then make sure it isn't available until 6th level, but don't just slap an additional PP cost on it just because you don't its current cost.

The spells in HARP are balanced, against one another and against the rest of the game. You might not like the way it is balanced in some cases, but that does not make its balance wrong. HARP was trying for some very specific goals and I think that it did well and met them.

However, that balance and those goals will not be identical for everybody. Nor will it be perfect for everybody. That was one of the reasons that we made HARP so flexible and easy to change without disrupting the overall balance.


Offline Crypt

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • I like to officially parry arrows with my head
    • CryptRL
Re: Problematic Spells
« Reply #23 on: October 12, 2007, 09:33:16 AM »
Quote
You mentioned moving to Hero... The spell creation rules for HARP were inspired by Hero. And guess what? Go create these two spells (Invisibility & Darkness) using the Hero rules, with all of the same limitations and aspects as these 2 spells have, and guess what you will see? Darkness will cost more than Invisibility.

lol

 ;D


Quote
You mentioned increasing the costs of the spells. The question is why? And what is your reasoning for how much you wanted to increase the costs? The PP costs were derived from a set of creation rules, arbitrarily changing those costs would be unfair to your players, I think.


i'm thinking about another radical solution : in a low magic setting, every PP costs could be multiplied by 2 or so (even scaling PPs.)
Magic can be hard.
Spell users would be less powerfull (compared to arms users) but i think there is no good reason to balance magic and arms classes (except for those of a video game.)

EDIT: maybe a bad idea.


Quote
A much better solution is to just not make them available.

That's what i'm currently doing for teleportation spells (only) and i don't like that.
IMHO complex magic is not only a matter of parameters but also a matter of basic effect.


Quote
What I am saying, is to not change the costs, but to change the availability and to work that availability into your setting through a logical reason.

i would prefer a "magical-physic" reason than a social/background one.



But, well, i see what you mean.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2007, 11:23:18 AM by Crypt »


Offline Crypt

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • I like to officially parry arrows with my head
    • CryptRL
Re: Problematic Spells
« Reply #24 on: October 12, 2007, 11:19:17 AM »
Quote
You mentioned moving to Hero... The spell creation rules for HARP were inspired by Hero. And guess what? Go create these two spells (Invisibility & Darkness) using the Hero rules, with all of the same limitations and aspects as these 2 spells have, and guess what you will see? Darkness will cost more than Invisibility.



i had to verify that....


i may make mistakes but it seems you're wrong:

(HERO 5th)

Darkness
100 m range
constant (basically Invisibility is constant too so i don't need to change the duration)
EDIT: in order to emulate the fact that HARP's Darkness base duration is twice as long as Invisibility's, we can apply a Reduced Endurance modifier (Half END cost: +1/4).)
2 m radius
10 active points (sight)
no range -1/2
=====> 7 points
EDIT: with the Reduced Endurance mod =====> 8 points
(10*(1+1/4))/(1+1/2)=8


Invisibility
self range (ranged : +1/2 but it would totalized a huger range than the Harp version and because HERO invisibiliy includes clothes i simply ignore range advantage & clothes limitation)
constant
20 active points (sight)
no fringe => +10 points
Only when not attacking -1/2
======> 20 points


Teleportation
self range (ranged : +1/2 but it would totalized a huger range than the Harp version)
instant
100'=> 30 points
must pass through intervening space => -1/4
====> 24 points


Because these are all spells there is no need to take "spells limitations" into account here.

« Last Edit: October 12, 2007, 02:16:20 PM by Crypt »


Offline Rasyr-Mjolnir

  • Inactive
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Problematic Spells
« Reply #25 on: October 12, 2007, 02:07:33 PM »
Darkness -- you need to add +10 points for an additional hex radius (one Hero hex is not 10' across) and sight is a targeting sense.

Invisibility -- drop the "No fringe", HARP invisibility has fringe.

10' range, I would make be a "Limited Range" at +1/4 and the no clothing would be a limitation of -1/4 I would say.

So actually, with 5th edition they would be about the same cost for the base spell. (note: I was most likely thinking 4th edition and/or using Change Environment to make the darkness...)




Offline Crypt

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • I like to officially parry arrows with my head
    • CryptRL
Re: Problematic Spells
« Reply #26 on: October 12, 2007, 02:35:32 PM »
Darkness -- you need to add +10 points for an additional hex radius (one Hero hex is not 10' across) and sight is a targeting sense.

5' radius=> 1.5 m
1 hex= 2 m

Base radius of the HERO Darkness = 1 m.  (because it fills 1 hex.)
Adding +1 hex would result in a 3 m radius darkness. (1/2 hex + 1 hex)

The basic value for the Darkness effect (1  hex area ===> 1 m radius) is clearly closer to the 5' (1m50) radius of the HARP spell  than what you suggest (3 m)

note: about duration , i have edited my post and add a Reduced Endurance mod for Darkness.



Quote from: Rasyr
and sight is a targeting sense.

that's what i've used. (5th edition: Darkness : base level fills 1 hex for 10 points and affect one Targeting sense group.)


Quote from: Rasyr
Invisibility -- drop the "No fringe", HARP invisibility has fringe.

where is it written ?
(do not cheat !  ;D)


Quote from: Rasyr
10' range, I would make be a "Limited Range" at +1/4 and the no clothing would be a limitation of -1/4 I would say.


ok, so :

Invisibility :


without fringe:
(30*(1+1/4))/(1+1/2+1/4) = 21


with fringe:
(20*(1+1/4))/(1+1/2+1/4) = 14




So, at best (?) we obtain :
Darkness: 8
Invisibility: 14
Teleport: 24


Quote from: Rasyr
So actually, with 5th edition they would be about the same cost for the base spell. (note: I was most likely thinking 4th edition and/or using Change Environment to make the darkness...)


i don't know the 4th ed.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2007, 02:57:09 PM by Crypt »


Offline Rasyr-Mjolnir

  • Inactive
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Problematic Spells
« Reply #27 on: October 12, 2007, 03:05:30 PM »
Quote
5' radius=> 1.5 m
1 hex= 2 m

Base radius of the HERO Darkness = 1 m.  (because it fills 1 hex.)
Adding +1 hex would result in a 3 m radius darkness. (1/2 hex + 1 hex)

 ;D

I always thought Hero hex = 5' or so. oopsey then....  5' radius = 10' diameter (3 hexes across for 1 meter hexes).

page 75 gives the mods for seeing somebody who is invisible - the fact that they can be detected says "fringe" to me.  ;D


Offline Crypt

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • I like to officially parry arrows with my head
    • CryptRL
Re: Problematic Spells
« Reply #28 on: October 12, 2007, 06:21:00 PM »

I always thought Hero hex = 5' or so. oopsey then....  5' radius = 10' diameter (3 hexes across for 1 meter hexes).


Hero 5 uses the metric system.
They're smart guys :)


page 75 gives the mods for seeing somebody who is invisible - the fact that they can be detected says "fringe" to me.  ;D

LOL.
This is what i would call half cheating  ;D

Hero's fringe is like the predator's one = light bends around the character. (But it can be glowing eyes, faint shadow or similar.)

What you call "fringe" from Harp page 75 is different.
The Harp's one result from physical relations which have nothing to do with light (water, dirty floor, rain, talking, etc..... = we can say these are matter particles relations, whereas proton is an interaction particle.)

Removing the HERO's fringe from a HERO's invisibility doesn't remove the HARP's kind of fringe.

Removing the HARP's kind of fringe would be something like intangibility or a no-sound effect.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A word about "balancing" spells.
What does it mean ?
What is it based upon ?

I see two possibilities :
- complexity
and/or
- effectiveness and playability (IMHO this is the same thing)

(Disclaimer = i'm speaking of the base effects.)

Complexity: the only objective way of speaking of the complexity of a spell would be speaking of the real life complexity of emulating (even not perfectly) his effect.
Teleportation would be probably a lot more complex (and would require a lot more energy) to emulate than the majority of other spells.

You can reply that realism is not an obligation in a FRPG and i would agree.
You can also say that the complexity scale is defined by the magical setting and i would agree too (because i'm a nice guy, but i dislike that.)


Effectiveness : How often a spell would be usefull ? I can think of a lot of usages for LongDoor. I would not say the same about Darkness.
Ask anyone, would you prefer a 6 PP no-obstacle 30 meters teleport with a -10 malus or a 7 PP 5' radius darkness ? How often will you really use each spell ?

Before replying : One important question which has a real effect on effectiveness: does the caster see through his own Darkness spell ?
If so, Darkness could be worth his cost but it would be nice to write it.
By default, because it's not written, there is no reason to think so.


And think about it : compare 30 meters of teleportation and 1.5 meters radius sphere of darkness....



I see no other ways to "balance" spells.
Do you see others ?


« Last Edit: October 13, 2007, 08:46:35 AM by Crypt »


Offline Crypt

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • I like to officially parry arrows with my head
    • CryptRL
Re: Problematic Spells
« Reply #29 on: October 12, 2007, 07:55:43 PM »
PS: and a black sphere is not an often useful hidding device = anyone could notice it except in pitch black environments.


Offline Maldroth

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Problematic Spells
« Reply #30 on: October 12, 2007, 10:00:58 PM »
a black sphere in the open isn't too useful true but put it in an enclosed space with multiple exits covered in darkness it forces a choke point in some ways.  You have to leave the darkness a certain way to see and in a well planned situation that can give someone a tactical advantage.

Offline jurasketu

  • Seeker of Wisdom
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Problematic Spells
« Reply #31 on: October 12, 2007, 10:50:35 PM »
I would like to add that Darkness has several excellent uses.

"If the center point of the darkness is cast upon a mobile target, the spell will move as the target moves. The caster may adjust the size darkness from its full radius down to a small point with but a round of concentration."


#1: Wizard casts Darkness on a stone and throws it into the middle of his enemies. Their support troops are essentially blinded. If they try emerge from the darkness, they will be subject to surprise and flanking attacks. As needed, the Wizard can adjust the size. It essentially a nasty attack spell that can't be resisted (although a dispell would work). And then Counterspells become hard because you can't see spells coming (like a fireball). Admittedly, the side casting the Darkness might have targeting issues, too, but they are more likely to be prepared (and so might have a Mystic or Shadowblade with Nightvision who's given everyone Nightvision before the fight). This works great in surprising guards or a difficult monster. Your enemies are blind, you can see. Guess what? You win.

#2: Works like a screen against counterspells and targeted spells. Allows one side to hide "movements". Especially when a retreat is in order.

#3: Defeats Past Visions without any chance of being overcome by high rolls.

#4: Its a great diversion. SOMETHING must be going on in the darkness. Investigate. Meanwhile, we long door right past the guards...


And Long Door in a tactical situation is GREAT FUN. Its like REAL tactical magic instead of substitute "weapons". Long Door is a RANGED spell (only 10' but that's good enough). It can be used to remove a character from danger. The Wizard can bip the mighty fighter right in the face of the enemy wizard. Or in the middle of the support team. Talk about CHAOS. Nothing more fun than battlefield chaos. Like I said before, if I wanted to play battle chess, I would play D & D. Personally, I like chaotic battles with characters going in every direction and lots of tactical surprises. THAT is more like real fighting.

My PCs have a Thaumaturge that cranks out Long Door Marbles so everyone can add to the fun...

Robin

PS You are more than welcome to limit available spells as Rasyr said. I've run many campaigns where the PCs and "regular" characters had no magic available to them whatsoever. Magic was the province of a few special wizards or bad guys (you know - like Tolkien) or there was simply NO magic.

And remember, Role Playing Games are best played as a sophisticated form of interactive storytelling with everyone working towards producing a memorable outcome. Its not really a competition in the sense of Monopoly, Chess or Football. Its Improv Theater. Its "can you top this". Its "watch" - I'm going to defeat the thirty gobins using a salad fork. Its about saving the world - for the jillionth time. Its about rescuing a little girl from demonic possession. Its about inventing tactics that completely ruin the conventional tactical wisdom and turn the world upside down.

Example:

I once bought a RM module that involved a tomb that could only be reached by swimming underwater - and so there was limited oxygen in the tomb. So in theory, the PCs had but a couple of hours to completely explore the tomb before the oxygen ran out hence making things particularly difficult. But one of the PCs had 20+ ranks in Military Engineering. The PCs also had plenty of gold and authority, so they hired a bunch of local villagers and spent several days damming the river. Now, nice fresh air was unlimited in the tomb. Did I PUNISH the PCs for doing something smart? Nope. I thought it was brilliant.



It is better to be lucky than good, but it is *best* to be both.

When in fear, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!

Offline Crypt

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • I like to officially parry arrows with my head
    • CryptRL
Re: Problematic Spells
« Reply #32 on: October 13, 2007, 08:50:33 AM »
Quote
#2: Works like a screen against counterspells and targeted spells. Allows one side to hide "movements". Especially when a retreat is in order.

#3: Defeats Past Visions without any chance of being overcome by high rolls.



It's not said that the caster may see through its own Darkness.
This greatly limits 2# and 3#.


Nevermind,
I DID NOT say Darkness is useless.
I said that the basic version of Darkness is too costly compared to the basic version of LondDoor, which is more often usefull.

This does not mean that Darkness is never to be used.



Quote
And remember, Role Playing Games are best played as a sophisticated form of interactive storytelling with everyone working towards producing a memorable outcome. Its not really a competition in the sense of Monopoly, Chess or Football. Its Improv Theater.

I know that but this is a bit off-topic. I just speak about system.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2007, 09:02:40 AM by Crypt »


Offline Crypt

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • I like to officially parry arrows with my head
    • CryptRL
Re: Problematic Spells
« Reply #33 on: October 13, 2007, 09:57:05 AM »
I'm afraid we won't find any common ground here but, nevertheless, please note that despite those criticisms, HARP is still one of my two or three favorite rpgs and for sure my favorite heroic fantasy rpg.

As we say in french: "Qui aime bien chatie bien."


Offline jurasketu

  • Seeker of Wisdom
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Problematic Spells
« Reply #34 on: October 13, 2007, 03:00:45 PM »
I apologize. I didn't mean to imply that you hated the game or wasn't trying or anything. I was just trying to be encouraging in my off-handed way. Magic systems are always fraught with peril for the designers. A seemingly benign "low power" spell can be turned into a nuclear weapon by clever players. So, while I disagree - I share you enthusiasm for the game.

Robin
It is better to be lucky than good, but it is *best* to be both.

When in fear, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!

Offline Crypt

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • I like to officially parry arrows with my head
    • CryptRL
Re: Problematic Spells
« Reply #35 on: October 14, 2007, 07:16:26 AM »
Quote
I didn't mean to imply that you hated the game or wasn't trying or anything.

don't worry, i know. There was no confusion.

Quote
I apologize.

Do not.
There is no problem here  ;)


Offline Karak_Nor

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Problematic Spells
« Reply #36 on: July 12, 2008, 07:47:19 AM »
I know this one is late too...

I see no problem with low level characters having access to transportation magic.

I agree with Janpmuellers reasoning in reply #18 and Rasyr in reply #22.

If you don?t spells are undercosted, buy College of Magic and reprice them with new scaling options and costs.

Offline Pat

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 322
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Problematic Spells
« Reply #37 on: July 13, 2008, 10:46:01 AM »
IMO I think the major difference between pps for spells such as Long Door and Invisibility verses Darkness and Earthern Transmutations is that the first 2 are individual effect while the last 2 are area effect. To me this would make sense since, while Long Door and Invisibility are useful spells, they only have a limited effect on an individual while Darkness and Earthern Transmutations could effect a number of opponents. For instance, cast Darkness on a stone and throw it into a group of attackers and they're blind or cast it upon an opponents sword or armour and what do they do then? Or Earthern Transmutations in a swampy location, cast (scaled) Mud to Packed Earth around opponents feet and then Packed Earth to Stone and you could trap multiple opponents easily. (Especially if you use a Spell Adder for instance)

Offline Right Wing Wacko

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,314
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Patriot, Crusader, and Grognard
Re: Problematic Spells
« Reply #38 on: July 13, 2008, 11:09:13 AM »
IMO I think the major difference between pps for spells such as Long Door and Invisibility verses Darkness and Earthern Transmutations is that the first 2 are individual effect while the last 2 are area effect. To me this would make sense since, while Long Door and Invisibility are useful spells, they only have a limited effect on an individual while Darkness and Earthern Transmutations could effect a number of opponents. For instance, cast Darkness on a stone and throw it into a group of attackers and they're blind or cast it upon an opponents sword or armour and what do they do then? Or Earthern Transmutations in a swampy location, cast (scaled) Mud to Packed Earth around opponents feet and then Packed Earth to Stone and you could trap multiple opponents easily. (Especially if you use a Spell Adder for instance)

This is my thinking as well. Although I don't own CoM or run a magic heavy game, the above makes good sense to me...
A military solution isn't the only answer, just one of the better ones.
www.strategypage.com

"Note #0: A GM has the right to change any rule in a book to fit their game."- markc

Offline Mormegil

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Problematic Spells
« Reply #39 on: July 13, 2008, 09:35:44 PM »
In all of our games (regardless of system) we restrict the use of flying and teleport spells. This mostly stems from a rolemaster campaign where the party avoided an entire country worth of encounters in one session via the use of fly spells and the spell reins list.

In our current HARP game we're not allowed to scale long door up for range. As a compromise this means it's still useful as a utility and combat mobility spell but it's not useful for transport.