[House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System

[ironpoet]

I guess I just don't see any need to weaken casters at all when they already have such easily exploitable weaknesses.  ::shrug::

I don't have any problem with Wizard spell power either, but I know that other posters have complained about it.

My overall intent was to streamline/simplify the Magic system, which was costing me too many mental steps per exchange (compared to every other Power).  In the process, magic becomes a little less abuseable for power gamers, so I thought that was a selling point as well.

[Belial666]

The wizard can only do his stuff 4-5 times per combat. The assassin can do his stuff for as many bullets he has - at least twice as long. That is why wizards have more power; because they got much lower endurance.

As for the build, it is straight out of my Lara Croft build - though Lara is higher refresh and has more stunts elsewhere.


PS:
The complexity of the magic system is because magic is a quarter of the whole game; there's stunts, skills, powers and magic. The rules about spells, rituals and items do not refer specifically to evocation/thaumaturgy as powers but all magic types out there (which are more than a dozen).

[ironpoet]

Thanks for the detailed feedback!

Was it your intention to remove the 'split' in specializations and just have them effect the power of the spell?  And only focus items effect the control/to hit roll?

Yes, that was intentional.  I wanted to distinguish between Specialization and Focus Items a bit more, and it prevents doubling up Specializations and Focus Items into one unstoppable Targetting roll.

What exactly does adding duration to a maneuver get you, since maneuvers applied with a skill last for the scene unless an action is taken to remove them.

It does the same thing adding duration currently does for a maneuver spell, but I admit that's never been 100% clear.  My take is that a sticky Aspect is enforced by the spell for its duration, and afterwards its difficulty to remove becomes Mediocre (+0)

Let's say I want to blind you with a bright light.
I've got discipline 5, conviction 5, and a +1 (control?) focus item.  I do the flashy thing.  You try to resist with your alertness with the justification that. while you might be momentarily blinded, you can still sense where things are. 
I roll (+, -, _, _) on the fudge dice for at attack total of 6.  Do you compare your alertness with the attack/control roll (6) or against the power of the spell (5)?

Let's assume you fail in your defense and are blinded

Then, your action rolls around, you decide to "rub your eyes to get the spots out of them" and roll alertness again.  Is the target number supposed to be 5 (the strength of the spell)?

- You would defend against the Attack/Control roll (6) to avoid getting the Aspect/Free Tag in the first place.  This represents the difficulty to avoid getting blinded in the first place (or grabbed by vines, choked by smoke, etc.)
- For the duration of the spell (typically one exchange), the target to remove the Aspect would be the strength of the spell (5).  This represents the difficulty to escape the blindness (or vines, etc.) once it has affected you.
- After the spell expires, the target to remove the Aspect would be Mediocre (0).

I think that's the same way that Evocation maneuvers works under the normal rules (at least, that's how I intepret them), but I admit it's never been crystal clear to me.

So it's your intention to remove 'power' from block and instead have the block based on the 'control' roll?  This is sort of a bad idea, as it makes control an even better proposition. 

To be honest, the new rules for Blocking were the ones I was the least comfortable with.  I couldn't figure out a good way to combine Control and Spell Power.  So ultimately I just made the Evocation Block skill work the same as any other Block skill in the game.  But I'd be open to other suggestions.

Right now, control is great on the attack, but you need both control and power on the block.  This makes a character built for something like control 7, power 4 not ideal on the defense.  Whereas, in your rule change, control 7, power 4 guy is still great at defending.

Could you give a quick example of how a Control 7, Power 4 character is worse at Blocking than a Control 4, Power 7 character?  Wouldn't the Power focused character still need Control in order to cast a powerful Block?

Also a Wizard would still want a high Conviction in order to (a) have enough stress slots to cast spells and (b) cast larger, zone-wide spells.  And they would still want to Specialize in order to create more powerful Defensive enchanted items.

And while I think your compel for fallout or backlash rule looks alright, I think your previous rules make it much less likely for wizards to miss than the regular rules.

You lost me here... I believe a Wizard's targetting roll can be maxed out more under the old rules than these house rules (since Specialization and Focus Items could stack).  Why is missing less likely than the regular rules?

[ironpoet]

The wizard can only do his stuff 4-5 times per combat. The assassin can do his stuff for as many bullets he has - at least twice as long. That is why wizards have more power; because they got much lower endurance.

Sure, but they still have more power.  They're just packing metaphorical missiles instead of metaphorical nuclear bombs.  And your Lara Croft character could take out a Wizard under the regular rules just as easily as under these house rules.

How often does the 4-5 spell/combat limitation actually come up in play?  I would say it should definitely be an issue, but not every combat.
How often is the assassin without their guns and specialized ammunition?  (How often do they get stolen, hexed, etc.)  I would say the answers to both questions would be similar.

To be clear, I'm not trying to make a game of rock-paper-scissors, or "My character is stronger than your character" here.  I'm just trying to defend against the notion that Wizards would be "gimped" under these house rules, which makes them sound like they are weak and/or uninteresting.

PS:
The complexity of the magic system is because magic is a quarter of the whole game; there's stunts, skills, powers and magic. The rules about spells, rituals and items do not refer specifically to evocation/thaumaturgy as powers but all magic types out there (which are more than a dozen).

I'm not sure I'm following the argument here, so let me see if I understand what you're saying...  The rules for Magic should be complex because they are important to the game?  That doesn't make any sense to me.  And which other magic types are you referring to?  Sponsored Magic?  If so, I thought these house rules applied equally well to them as they did to Wizardly evocation/thaumaturgy.

[BumblingBear]

Sure, but they still have more power.  They're just packing metaphorical missiles instead of metaphorical nuclear bombs.  And your Lara Croft character could take out a Wizard under the regular rules just as easily as under these house rules.

How often does the 4-5 spell/combat limitation actually come up in play?  I would say it should definitely be an issue, but not every combat.
How often is the assassin without their guns and specialized ammunition?  (How often do they get stolen, hexed, etc.)  I would say the answers to both questions would be similar.

To be clear, I'm not trying to make a game of rock-paper-scissors, or "My character is stronger than your character" here.  I'm just trying to defend against the notion that Wizards would be "gimped" under these house rules, which makes them sound like they are weak and/or uninteresting.


I'm not sure I'm following the argument here, so let me see if I understand what you're saying...  The rules for Magic should be complex because they are important to the game?  That doesn't make any sense to me.  And which other magic types are you referring to?  Sponsored Magic?  If so, I thought these house rules applied equally well to them as they did to Wizardly evocation/thaumaturgy.

That's kind of what your house rules do, though.  Wizards in a game like that would be weaker and uninteresting.

::shrug::

People can run games however they want.  However, I am a bit surprised that you're surprised that the overall tone of replies you've gotten have not been overwhelmingly positive.

If you don't want to deal with magic, or you don't want wizards to nuke, just don't allow them in your campaign.  Don't gimp wizards.  That really goes against the spirit of the game in my mind.

I mean, Harry was able to nuke and destroy a demon in one shot in SF.... at Chest Deep level.  I would say that wizards are supposed to be powerful... and complicated.  The complication is part of what added the immersion for me.

[ironpoet]

Thaumaturgy:
Some of your complaints sound a bit like complaining about the contacts skill: 

You never roll it in combat, and it's always some guy who tells you stuff.

The 'interesting' parts of thaumaturgy are whatever zany stuff you do to get enough complexity to cast the spell, not the actual ritual itself.  If works the same way in the books, almost all of the page count in thaumaturgy is spent on the declarations (blue play-doh, ring of barbed wire, long cleansing shower, and do on).  That's the interesting part.

I think I agree with you (unless I've missed something), but that was the reason for these house rules in the first place.  There are complex rules for gathering the power to cast a spell (after the zany preparation stuff has already been done).  But once you reach +5 Control, those rules never get used.  And there's no real difference between a Wizard with +7 Divination Control and a Wizard with +5 Divination Control.

To put it a different way, under the current rules, there's no real reason to build something like "Little Chicago" to help with Divination spells.

The house rules still require all the zany prep work if you want to cast something more complicated than your Lore+4, or if you want to cast something more complex than Lore-4 without risking backlash or fallout.  But once you've done all the interesting prep work, you just roll (or don't bother, if you've already got enough shifts) and you're done.

[ironpoet]

People can run games however they want.  However, I am a bit surprised that you're surprised that the overall tone of replies you've gotten have not been overwhelmingly positive.

I certainly didn't expect overwhelmingly positive.  And I certainly expected some negative response (or simply lack of response).  But given all the posts about "How does Magic work?", "Wizards are overpowered.", "How much stress does X cost?" I was hoping for at least a few "Hey, that's interesting" replies.

As you said, though, ::shrug:: 

If you don't want to deal with magic, or you don't want wizards to nuke, just don't allow them in your campaign.  Don't gimp wizards.  That really goes against the spirit of the game in my mind.

I still can't wrap my head around how a Weapon:6, Attack+8 (that can be upgraded to Weapon:10 with a moderate consequence, etc.) is considered gimped.

I'd say that you're a better optimizer than I am (just based on the posts of yours that I've read).  What kind of attacks can an Invoker (Evocation, Refinement x3) reliably cast that make them less gimped?  It's possible that I'm underestimated how much this is nerfing Wizards, since I didn't think it made that big a difference in their power level.  (My own, non-optimized, Discipline 5, Conviction 3 character can't do nearly as well, for example.)

I mean, Harry was able to nuke and destroy a demon in one shot in SF.... at Chest Deep level.  I would say that wizards are supposed to be powerful... and complicated.  The complication is part of what added the immersion for me.

I'm happy to disagree about the complicated part.  The complication was getting in the way of immersion for me, personally.

[ironpoet]

Enchanting

While enchanters are powerful, I'm not really convinced that they are overpowered.   While they are very strong on the defense, their inability to get bonuses to hit like evocators can limit their offensive ability, and their limited uses clamps down on thier non-combat utility some too.

While it's possible to build an evocation offense, enchanted item defense character it actually takes a lot of your character focus to get there, meaning you can't do some other interesting stuff.

I agree, and I think the Enchanteding house rules either need to be tweaked or thrown out entirely.  I know there was some concern about crafters, even considering their lack of to-hit bonuses, and I wanted to make Specialization more useful, since it lost its connection to Thaumaturgy (which is another potential problem).

Since all elements are 'equal' wouldn't a good justification let you apply your already useful evocation specialty to power up whatever enchanted item you want?

I suspect there would be a few enchanted items where that just wouldn't make sense.  Could you create a tracking item using any of the elements?  I could describe the effect as something elemental (a candle flame flickers in the direction of your target, etc.) but I don't know how being "good" at Fire would make me better at tracking.  The same goes for conjuration, summoning, transformation, etc.

For defensive and offensive enchanted items, definitely.  But in that case I think it makes sense.

[BumblingBear]

I certainly didn't expect overwhelmingly positive.  And I certainly expected some negative response (or simply lack of response).  But given all the posts about "How does Magic work?", "Wizards are overpowered.", "How much stress does X cost?" I was hoping for at least a few "Hey, that's interesting" replies.

As you said, though, ::shrug::  

I still can't wrap my head around how a Weapon:6, Attack+8 (that can be upgraded to Weapon:10 with a moderate consequence, etc.) is considered gimped.

I'd say that you're a better optimizer than I am (just based on the posts of yours that I've read).  What kind of attacks can an Invoker (Evocation, Refinement x3) reliably cast that make them less gimped?  It's possible that I'm underestimated how much this is nerfing Wizards, since I didn't think it made that big a difference in their power level.  (My own, non-optimized, Discipline 5, Conviction 3 character can't do nearly as well, for example.)

I'm happy to disagree about the complicated part.  The complication was getting in the way of immersion for me, personally.

Ok - quick example here.

By your rules, wizards cannot take consequences to do more powerful actions.  This is severely limiting and goes totally against the source material.

As for how it's limiting, imagine this.  (Note - I will add all refinement bonuses to the numbers I give in these examples)

If I have a wizard with 6 discipline and 4 conviction, using your rules, the most he could ever cast is a 14 shift attack.  Max. (without aspect use).

That same wizard using the book rules could roll a +4 for his discipline like in the above example, but then raise the shifts of power by 6, taking a minor mental consequence and crossing off the "4" in his mental stress track.
This would be a 20 shift attack.  That's a big difference.

That mild consequence goes away in the next scene.  Moderate consequence stick around.

Orrrr.... what if an enemy warlock creates a magic block on a doorway that the wizard character needs to go through to save a little girl?  If that block is a 5, there is no way that a wizard using your rules with a 4 conviction could get through it.

Using the book's rules, that wizard could go up one or two stress in his stress track and make his shifts of power potent enough to counterspell the block.

If I am playing a wizard, there is no way I would use a moderate consequence to get a spell off unless I was trying to rescue the Pope or wanted my character to die.  Wizards are squishy.  A mild consequence can be worth it, but a (self inflicted) moderate consequence is just asking for trouble.

Not only that, but with a moderate consequence (possibly) hanging around for the next few gaming sessions, that gives the wizard character (1) chance to dig deep for very little return.

I hope all of this made sense.

[ironpoet]

By your rules, wizards cannot take consequences to do more powerful actions.  This is severely limiting and goes totally against the source material.

I think that's a fair criticism.  At a minimum, let's make the alternate rule official.  A Wizard can take a consequence to add that many shifts to the Spell Power.  That would make the maximum house ruled attack below 16 shifts.

As for how it's limiting, imagine this.  (Note - I will add all refinement bonuses to the numbers I give in these examples)

If I have a wizard with 6 discipline and 4 conviction, using your rules, the most he could ever cast is a 14 shift attack.  Max. (without aspect use).

That same wizard using the book rules could roll a +4 for his discipline like in the above example, but then raise the shifts of power by 6, taking a minor mental consequence and crossing off the "4" in his mental stress track.
This would be a 20 shift attack.  That's a big difference.

First of all, I calculate only a 19 shift attack for the Regular Wizard (1 Mental Stress = Weapon:4, 4 Mental Stress = Weapon:7, 4 Mental Stress+Mild Consequence = Weapon:9)

Secondly, even if your calculation are correct, I'm calling shenanigans on comparing based on perfect rolls.  The Regular Wizard who attempted a Weapon:10 attack is almost guaranteed to have between 1 and 8 shifts worth of fallout or backlash, unless you want to start adding Fate Points into the calculation.

With a rote attack spell, the Regular Wizard could safely cast two Weapon:6 attacks (for 3 mental stress each), for an average attack of 12 shifts, and then two weaker spells (somewhere between two reliable Weapon:2 Spells for an average attack of 8 shifts, or risk fallout/backlash with a Weapon:5 attack and a Weapon:4 attack).

The Houseruled Wizard could safely cast four Weapon:4 attacks for an average attack of 10 shifts.  It's either a tie or the Regular Wizard wins by a few shifts if they want to gamble with Backlash.

Orrrr.... what if an enemy warlock creates a magic block on a doorway that the wizard character needs to go through to save a little girl?  If that block is a 5, there is no way that a wizard using your rules with a 4 conviction could get through it.

Using the book's rules, that wizard could go up one or two stress in his stress track and make his shifts of power potent enough to counterspell the block.

Wait... a Block only cares about the total shifts of the attack, not the Weapon value, right.  So a 10 shift evocation will blow down a Block:5, regardless of whether it's a +8, Weapon:2 spell or a +5 Weapon:5 spell.  Or have I seriously missed something in the books?

[BumblingBear]

I

First of all, I calculate only a 19 shift attack for the Regular Wizard (1 Mental Stress = Weapon:4, 4 Mental Stress = Weapon:7, 4 Mental Stress+Mild Consequence = Weapon:9)

Secondly, even if your calculation are correct, I'm calling shenanigans on comparing based on perfect rolls.  The Regular Wizard who attempted a Weapon:10 attack is almost guaranteed to have between 1 and 8 shifts worth of fallout or backlash, unless you want to start adding Fate Points into the calculation.

You're right - it was 19.  The point is that a wizard using RAW can easily add 5 shifts of power to an attack.  I used a perfect roll just for the sake of example.  In reality, it wouldn't be hard to control that amount of power for a wizard who is tagging consequences, NVGs, or using fate points.

With a rote attack spell, the Regular Wizard could safely cast two Weapon:6 attacks (for 3 mental stress each), for an average attack of 12 shifts, and then two weaker spells (somewhere between two reliable Weapon:2 Spells for an average attack of 8 shifts, or risk fallout/backlash with a Weapon:5 attack and a Weapon:4 attack).

I wasn't talking about rotes.  I was talking about nuking.

Wait... a Block only cares about the total shifts of the attack, not the Weapon value, right.  So a 10 shift evocation will blow down a Block:5, regardless of whether it's a +8, Weapon:2 spell or a +5 Weapon:5 spell.  Or have I seriously missed something in the books?

Nope.  It's considered a counterspell - and counterspells have to match the original spell power-for-power.

[ironpoet]

You're right - it was 19.  The point is that a wizard using RAW can easily add 5 shifts of power to an attack.  I used a perfect roll just for the sake of example.  In reality, it wouldn't be hard to control that amount of power for a wizard who is tagging consequences, NVGs, or using fate points.

Okay, the difference between a 19 shift attack and a 16 shift attack doesn't seem that huge to me, but I'll grant the distinction.  A regular wizard could easily add 5 shifts of power, if they're willing to take a minor consequence and commit to tagging/invoking aspects.  (I admit I can't figure out what NVGs are...)  A house ruled Wizard could only add 2 shifts, if they're willing to take a minor consequence, but they won't have to commit to tagging/invoking aspects.

So that's a legitimate issue.  Do those three shifts really make a difference?

Nope.  It's considered a counterspell - and counterspells have to match the original spell power-for-power.

That is... not at all how I read Evocation Blocks.  They certainly can be destroyed using Counterspells, but they could just as easily be destroyed by using bullets, an incredibly strong kick, or a strong Evocation attack.  The attack would still be weakened by the strength of the Block, but the Block would get destroyed in the process.  Do you believe that if a wizard threw a Weapon:4 fireball at a Strength:5 Block, the attack would be negated, regardless of how many shifts were gathered on the targeting roll?

Also note that, if something really needs to be counterspelled, the houserules treat that as Thaumaturgy.  And houseruled Thaumaturgy can increase Spell Power by tagging/invoking or by taking a consequence.  So a Wizard with +3 Lore could counterspell up to a Block:7 in a single exchange (although most likely they would have to tag/invoke in order to do it successfully).

[ironpoet]

Oh, and by the way, I really appreciate the feedback.  I may be disagreeing with a lot of your arguments, but it's really helping me to figure out exactly what the implications of these rules are, and who they would and would not work for.  So thanks!

[BumblingBear]

Okay, the difference between a 19 shift attack and a 16 shift attack doesn't seem that huge to me, but I'll grant the distinction.  A regular wizard could easily add 5 shifts of power, if they're willing to take a minor consequence and commit to tagging/invoking aspects.  (I admit I can't figure out what NVGs are...)  A house ruled Wizard could only add 2 shifts, if they're willing to take a minor consequence, but they won't have to commit to tagging/invoking aspects.

So that's a legitimate issue.  Do those three shifts really make a difference? 

They can.  3 shifts more can be the difference between taking out a creature or not - and that could be the difference between the PC being taken out or an innocent dying.  Nerfing is nerfing.

That is... not at all how I read Evocation Blocks.  They certainly can be destroyed using Counterspells, but they could just as easily be destroyed by using bullets, an incredibly strong kick, or a strong Evocation attack.  The attack would still be weakened by the strength of the Block, but the Block would get destroyed in the process.  Do you believe that if a wizard threw a Weapon:4 fireball at a Strength:5 Block, the attack would be negated, regardless of how many shifts were gathered on the targeting roll?

I think you were misunderstanding my example.  You're thinking of a shield style block.  I am talking about a magical obstacle.  For instance, think.... a huge, hot, roaring flame blocking a doorway.  6 shift block that will last for... 6 rounds.  Just blasting that obstacle with an evocation will not get rid of it.  It hast o be counterspelled. 

Check out the counterspell rules.

Also note that, if something really needs to be counterspelled, the houserules treat that as Thaumaturgy.  And houseruled Thaumaturgy can increase Spell Power by tagging/invoking or by taking a consequence.  So a Wizard with +3 Lore could counterspell up to a Block:7 in a single exchange (although most likely they would have to tag/invoke in order to do it successfully).

That sounds more complicated to me than the RAW... lol.

Oh, and by the way, I really appreciate the feedback.  I may be disagreeing with a lot of your arguments, but it's really helping me to figure out exactly what the implications of these rules are, and who they would and would not work for.  So thanks!

No worries.  That is what the boards are here for.

And if I thought you were stupid or somehow lacking, I would not be arguing with you.    I know exactly where you're coming from.  I'm just trying to explain why I think it may be limiting for some players.

[crusher_bob]

Could you give a quick example of how a Control 7, Power 4 character is worse at Blocking than a Control 4, Power 7 character?  Wouldn't the Power focused character still need Control in order to cast a powerful Block?

In the stock rules, since a blocks ability is based on the power of the block, not the control roll, a wizard who relies on evocation blocks for defense wants as high a block power as possible.  This usually manifests was equal power and control on the defense, and then that block being made a rote so they never have to worry about failing the discipline roll.

So the wizard with control 7, power 4 can only generate power 4 blocks at one stress.  And in wizard scale combat, a power 4 block is something that's probably blown through in an instant.

What this does is push conviction up the totem pole of wizard skills, so that choosing your pinnacle wizard skills is harder.  Also, you want all three as high as possible, which is one of the real weaknesses of wizards: they usually want three pinnacle skills (Discipline, Lore, Conviction) that have sort limited utility in other situations.  Then, if you want to be a fighting wizard, you have to squeeze in athletics and alertness and ...  But, with the removal of block power being based on your conviction, a wizard really only 'needs' a conviction of 3 for the 4 mental stress boxes.  That leaves him more skill options than a stock wizard.

You lost me here... I believe a Wizard's targeting roll can be maxed out more under the old rules than these house rules (since Specialization and Focus Items could stack).  Why is missing less likely than the regular rules?

Mostly because you've made power much less important.  Before, for example, a wizard might have to waste focus item slots in defensive power items.  But now there are only two choices for focus items, offense or defense (and not 4).  Of course, offensive power was a mug's game, so you really had 3 choices (offensive control, defensive power, defensive control).  With the need for defensive control removed, I think wizards can probably squeek out another foci point into hitting things.

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

I think that the foci only add to control, specializations only add to power is a rules space worth exploring some; your proposals will just have to be kicked around a bit more until all the rough edges get worn off.