The Problem With Magic

[edk926]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

I could continue a nit pick list (Why does Great Haste make another target lose FP?

People on Great Haste are moving around ridiculously fast. That's going to be fatiguing. This is the only question I can think of an answer for.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by edk926

People on Great Haste are moving around ridiculously fast. That's going to be fatiguing. This is the only question I can think of an answer for.

That makes sense flavorfully, but then that sounds like a situation where flavor comes before balancing a supernatural effect (and then there are smaller things like if you can cast it for free then you don't get tired but others do, it's lost FP and not spent FP so absolutely cast it on machines, etc).

Originally Posted by maximara

In the light of Expert being 14-20 it makes some degree of sense. My main beef with it is it encourages the kind of min-maxing that happened in Champions and Hero systems.

That makes sense, but really it is the incredible reward for min-maxing that's the issue (and those cutoffs make it more obvious that min-maxing is the way to go).

Originally Posted by maximara

Conversely you don't wan't the situation where mages can shoot roughly 33,000 cubit feet of flaming death that fills any place it is cast in ala AD&D's fireball. Combat spells are always going to be a mixed bag.

That's absolutely true. I honestly don't know of how to balance a system of magic damage that is fully divorced from the damage determining traits (namely Striking ST). It often seems either too good or really bad.

Originally Posted by maximara

I played the 2 and 1 versions of that game and wizards (aka Magic-users) were far worse. A 25 pt wizard in GURPS has more flexibility, greater utility, and better survivability then a 1st level MU. There was even a joke that you could kill a 1st level MU by throwing a house cat at them; I think that one made it to Murphy's Rules picturing a dead mage off to one side and a cat licking itself.

From what I could tell, the 'average' person should more accurately be level 3 or higher, level 1 characters seem pathetic in just about every regard.

Originally Posted by maximara

I agree the way enchantment is presented in Magic is really messed up with Fantasy and Thaumatology trying to fix things but only adding to the confusion. What is the cost of a weapon with Accuracy enchantment vs one made via Craft Magic? No clue.

It would be one thing if the intent was focuses on money and not energy. If the enchanting system made it obvious that numbers were chosen so they'd line up with certain prices, that would make sense, except that magic items seem to be the opposite of of technology, where the higher the TL the more expensive they are.

Originally Posted by johndallman

All three are IQ-dominant characters, with IQs of 16, 15 and 15 respectively, which are at their respective campaign maximums.

Ah, that is important, it's effectively the same thing of buying IQ to 20.

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Which is something that every GURPS worldbook does if the setting includes magic.

I will accept that, and Thaumatology does have some ideas for this, it's just odd that it's not touched upon much in the book that has the spells.

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

This isn't a "problem"; this is just a feature of the magic system. The only problem it may have is to offend your sense of consistency, which isn't actually required to be a good system.

Sometimes I have the same "problem" with combat: I only have a vague History skill that covers everything to do with knowledge history, and I just make a roll to get answers, but to use my weapon skill I have to choose maneuvers, get blocked by defenses, position myself, etc., etc. Combat has a hyper-focus in the game, and so does magic. Expansion of areas of interest in the rules is a feature, not a bug.

I do see your point here, but combat is also largely expanded in game as opposed to Magic huge expansion pre game (I also have some issue with the range of skill use complexities, but I feel combat gets a pass for being part of the trinity of roleplaying aspects).

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

It's based on requiring the building blocks of simpler spells to cast more complex spells. You can't throw fireballs until you've learned to create and shape fire, for example. This isn't trying to make spells fit a certain setting; it's just trying to reflect a system of knowledge.

That idea I like, but mundane skills already do that inside of one skill (you have to learn the basics before getting to advanced stuff, which is a function of low -> high skill).

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

In other words, complaining that GURPS magic isn't one-size-fits-all when it goes out of its way to acknowledge that one size doesn't fit all doesn't make sense.

I'm not saying that it's a problem that it isn't "one size fits all", but rather with there only really being one size without a good explanation of other sizes. If the book had, say, three different prerequisite chains/tables, with certain focuses, then there could be more to build off of and see what does and doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

If you're playing in a game where all of those advantages are available as well as the spells, then sure, it's simply cost-effective to take the cheaper alternative. But consider the generic fantasy setting: nobody has Warp, Damage Resistance, Jumper, Accessory, or anything like that. All you need is Magery, and you can get those spells, if they're available, and now they're the ONLY choice for these effects.

Simply put, GURPS has no intention of balancing the cost of advantages against spells. If you've got spells, they form their own system with its own logic, regardless of how much any equivalent advantages cost. And that's fine, because in the real world there can be more than one way of doing something, and those ways might not be equally easy.

That seems to make another issue; Wizard then dominate the area of supernatural effects and thus a ton of capability. Assuming enchanted gear doesn't exist or is very hard to come by, the various other archetypes don't have any supernatural effects to rely or call upon; A warrior can't change damage types for the situation easily (no burning or corrosion damage), a rogue can't fly, turn ghost, or teleport, a scout is entirely substituted with a similar amount of spells they would get in skills, the sage is also substituted with magic (to be fair, if that's the intent that a sagely character is also a wizard, I accept), etc.

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

You make it up. GURPS is not a fantasy simulator; you won't break the fantasy reality by making up spells without the "right" statistics.

The fantasy isn't the problem, it's trying to come up with the "right" numbers for making the spell "balanced" with the rest of the system. If I make a spell with the wrong numbers, there isn't really a good way to determine if mana cost, time, or the spell's capability is the part that needs fixing.

Originally Posted by maximara

Effectively done with Maintain Spell. Why reinvent the wheel?

Maintain spell let's you prepay for a spell (with some oddities, such as it's often better not to since cost savings). I was thinking about a spell that let's you increase the size of the maintenance period of another spell, maybe even one you didn't cast (for instance, someone casts Wisdom, I want to change it from a spell that lasts a minute to lasting ten minutes or an hour or day). I have no idea how to make that.

Originally Posted by maximara

As for the rest. 4e Magic in IMHO should have gone through a few more rewrites as it feels like a rush job that simply took 3e Magic, Grimoire, and Magic items; kludged them together; and knocked off for lunch.

It feels off compared to every other 4e book that had a 3e counterpart I have read.

This. It really feels like all the issues of 3e, with a handful of changes to hopefully make it fit "good enough" for 4e.

And that's a thing; I love the idea of a magic system where all spells are skills. Even small changes like turning colleges into spells helps that a lot. My main two problems with the system is that I don't really enjoy using it as a player (I often feel OP but also constantly inconvenienced) and as a GM I want to avoid the issue of "everyone rely on the wizard, we all know she's the best character here". For instance, with no gateway advantage like Magery anyone can learn magic and then it's already far more balanced because anyone can learn a skill (just like mundane skills, some are better than others but that also means more characters, even NPCs, will likely have that skill).


(I really hoped I quoted everyone properly, I double-checked it but it's still easy to mess up)

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

The fantasy isn't the problem, it's trying to come up with the "right" numbers for making the spell "balanced" with the rest of the system. If I make a spell with the wrong numbers, there isn't really a good way to determine if mana cost, time, or the spell's capability is the part that needs fixing.

Dark truth of balance: 'right' is subjective, unless you've composed a rigorous and comprehensive formula for yourself to follow. Such a formula would not be at all generic. And I really doubt that (dubiously generic as it is) GURPS Magic is built around one.

So it's wrong if you find it doesn't behave as you want it to, and what part needs fixing is likewise a function of what result you want, not something anybody else could really tell you.

[AlexanderHowl]

If you want balanced magic in GURPS, you need to really use Powered Magic (which does not technically need to Magical source). When every 'spell' is an ability, or an alternate ability, then you have a good idea that everything is balanced.

Of course, you can also use Super-Memorization to 'ready' spells is another way to maintain a form of balance. Instead of learning spells, you learn how to store spells, so you can use them until you reallocate the points. A character with Super-Memorization 40 (Preparation Required, 1 hour, -50%; Takes Extra Time 2, -20%; Trait-Limited, Skills, -10%) [25] can acquire any spell at IQ + Magery + 9, and they do not even need to bother with the prerequisites as long as they have the required level of Magery. By limiting access to spells though, the GM can keep everything balanced through limiting the supply of spells.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Dark truth of balance: 'right' is subjective, unless you've composed a rigorous and comprehensive formula for yourself to follow. Such a formula would not be at all generic.

I've never been good at being wholly subjective about a system. At least a starting point (such as how Word magic gives baselines) is enough for me to get a feel for things. But I have no idea what that is with Magic. I don't know why or even if many of the spells in Magic are balanced around other archetypes (and as a whole I know it's not).

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

If you want balanced magic in GURPS, you need to really use Powered Magic (which does not technically need to Magical source). When every 'spell' is an ability, or an alternate ability, then you have a good idea that everything is balanced.

I'm not certain what Powered Magic is, but it sounds similar to Sorcery or other advantage-based spells. Requiring points instead of FP to have magic seems far more balanced, even if it is still often better (I've recently been using advantage-based magic systems).

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

If you want balanced magic in GURPS, you need to really use Powered Magic (which does not technically need to Magical source). When every 'spell' is an ability, or an alternate ability, then you have a good idea that everything is balanced.
.

That is a dangerous illusion. Being designed doesn't make an ability "balanced".

[scc]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

That makes sense, but really it is the incredible reward for min-maxing that's the issue (and those cutoffs make it more obvious that min-maxing is the way to go).

You make it sound as if min-maxing is bad.

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

It would be one thing if the intent was focuses on money and not energy. If the enchanting system made it obvious that numbers were chosen so they'd line up with certain prices, that would make sense, except that magic items seem to be the opposite of of technology, where the higher the TL the more expensive they are.

I have no idea what you talking about here, the enchanted items in Fanatsy us numbers pulled from Magic and I'm pretty sure the magic items in Thuamatology don't have anything to do with the normal system.

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

I will accept that, and Thaumatology does have some ideas for this, it's just odd that it's not touched upon much in the book that has the spells.

I'd say it's really odd and basically why I started this thread, all through coming at it from a different angle. If the GM is expected to cut down the spell list he needs a lot of information about the spells and the framework they exist in, while spells dealing with the astral plane require others might not be so obvious and lead to things like this

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

That idea I like, but mundane skills already do that inside of one skill (you have to learn the basics before getting to advanced stuff, which is a function of low -> high skill).

there's a MAJOR difference between lighting a candle on your nightstand with a snap of your fingers and flinging a ball of fire at your enemies a quarter mile away.

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

That seems to make another issue; Wizard then dominate the area of supernatural effects and thus a ton of capability. Assuming enchanted gear doesn't exist or is very hard to come by, the various other archetypes don't have any supernatural effects to rely or call upon; A warrior can't change damage types for the situation easily (no burning or corrosion damage), a rogue can't fly, turn ghost, or teleport, a scout is entirely substituted with a similar amount of spells they would get in skills, the sage is also substituted with magic (to be fair, if that's the intent that a sagely character is also a wizard, I accept), etc.

Definitely an area where the GM needs to cut down the spell list. Really cutting most of the knowledge college should be the default.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

If you want balanced magic in GURPS, you need to really use Powered Magic (which does not technically need to Magical source). When every 'spell' is an ability, or an alternate ability, then you have a good idea that everything is balanced.

Of course, you can also use Super-Memorization to 'ready' spells is another way to maintain a form of balance. Instead of learning spells, you learn how to store spells, so you can use them until you reallocate the points. A character with Super-Memorization 40 (Preparation Required, 1 hour, -50%; Takes Extra Time 2, -20%; Trait-Limited, Skills, -10%) [25] can acquire any spell at IQ + Magery + 9, and they do not even need to bother with the prerequisites as long as they have the required level of Magery. By limiting access to spells though, the GM can keep everything balanced through limiting the supply of spells.

By Powered Magic I'll assume you mean Magic-as-Powers. This has two problems: 1) you have to add Powers to your play stack, and 2) it will massively inflate points costs.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

That is a dangerous illusion. Being designed doesn't make an ability "balanced".

The point is that it's at least a baseline to work on that has guidelines of balance.

Originally Posted by scc

You make it sound as if min-maxing is bad.

My point is that the system more accurately punished you for not min-maxing rather than reward you for doing it.

Originally Posted by scc

I have no idea what you talking about here, the enchanted items in Fanatsy us numbers pulled from Magic and I'm pretty sure the magic items in Thuamatology don't have anything to do with the normal system.

I was talking about the numbers in Magic. Unless the numbers were chosen by reverse engineering from the money cost of items, I'm not sure what they are based on. Or why certain items seem to intentionally be impossible to make.

Originally Posted by scc

I'd say it's really odd and basically why I started this thread, all through coming at it from a different angle. If the GM is expected to cut down the spell list he needs a lot of information about the spells and the framework they exist in, while spells dealing with the astral plane require others might not be so obvious and lead to things like this

I agree on both the mechanical and flavor side.

Originally Posted by scc

there's a MAJOR difference between lighting a candle on your nightstand with a snap of your fingers and flinging a ball of fire at your enemies a quarter mile away.

(Silly remark; The difference is Light/Darkness and Fire colleges ;)

There is quite the difference. That doesn't mean it has to be different skills. College spells shows us a perfectly reasonable way to have one VH skill show an understanding of a school of magic (such as how a scientific skill can show us an understanding of a school of science). It does it by making certain uses harder, slower, and/or more costly than others.

Originally Posted by scc

Definitely an area where the GM needs to cut down the spell list. Really cutting most of the knowledge college should be the default.

That makes sense, I agree (mind, knowledge college is one of the few colleges that makes sense to base entirely off of IQ).

Originally Posted by scc

By Powered Magic I'll assume you mean Magic-as-Powers. This has two problems: 1) you have to add Powers to your play stack, and 2) it will massively inflate points costs.

Those can both be upsides. Advantages already have a handy list, are built around the rest of the system, and can even be bought unmodified as spells. And the other side is; If I make a character that can fly, has easy access to ATR, can stop time, can jump to other dimensions, and can permanently create new allies, how many points is that? Is that comparable to other 150pt characters?

[scc]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

My point is that the system more accurately punished you for not min-maxing rather than reward you for doing it.

Which is why GURPS advises that GM's go over characters and ensure that they're equally optimized.

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

I was talking about the numbers in Magic. Unless the numbers were chosen by reverse engineering from the money cost of items, I'm not sure what they are based on. Or why certain items seem to intentionally be impossible to make.

There's a rule of thumb of 100 times the energy required to cast a spell to make an item, so the permanently wrap a sword in fire, but beyond that nothing.

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

There is quite the difference. That doesn't mean it has to be different skills. College spells shows us a perfectly reasonable way to have one VH skill show an understanding of a school of magic (such as how a scientific skill can show us an understanding of a school of science). It does it by making certain uses harder, slower, and/or more costly than others.

But controlling and creating fire are easily different things, and most of the other spells in the fire college don't actualy involve either of those things

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

That makes sense, I agree (mind, knowledge college is one of the few colleges that makes sense to base entirely off of IQ).

Why only Knowledge? I believe that default assumption is any act of magic involves mentally manipulating magical forces, why shouldn't they be based off IQ?

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

Those can both be upsides. Advantages already have a handy list, are built around the rest of the system, and can even be bought unmodified as spells. And the other side is; If I make a character that can fly, has easy access to ATR, can stop time, can jump to other dimensions, and can permanently create new allies, how many points is that? Is that comparable to other 150pt characters?

Realize that now ALL your players have access to Powers and that instead of Batman or Conan the party fighter is more likely to resemble Superman in stats.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

I've been getting inconsistent numbers about that a lot. Is there a handy place that does show the numbers of things?

No... I made a spreadsheet at one point so I could dig into how much IQ and DX should cost relative to their skills...

The breakdown (not accounting for Specializations):

IQ: 146
DX: 93
HT: 14
Will: 14
Per: 13
ST: 1*


* Technically the list is 277 (and HT, Per, Will, and ST are all 1 skill less), I expanded the Hobby Skill to be in each attribute listing... just because. You never know, someone might think of a Hobby skill they want and it might just best fall under ST (Hobby Skill (Arm Wrestling) maybe?).

I remember being told that DX was better than IQ since DX has 300 skills to IQ's 200 (ignoring the much smaller list of skills on other attributes).

Someone informed you incorrectly. If you are only looking at skills, IQ wins hands down.

Even in a 'knock on' effect... IQ covers Per and Will, all those skills. However for a combat facing Character DX is supreme.

Many spells go from 1 to 0 cost at 15, making them go from "almost worthless" to "spammable"...

"Many". What a good descriptor... not very specific, but it makes it sound like a large number.

There are 837* spells (yes, I have a spreadsheet for spells), of them 108† are cost 1 or 0. Not 1 per X, just 1 or less. That's 13%. Roughly 1 in 7 spells that are 'spammable'.

Of the rest of the 1 per X spells, there are 62 more. Add in the 'Varies' and 'Special' cost spells (because most of them could be cast at 1FP) and you hit 290 spells. That's a more respectable 35%. A full 1 in 3.

But yet, that's still really not 'spammable'. Major Healing can be cast at 1FP, but in most cases it won't. You do have 61 '1 to maintain spells', so that's decent.

The real break point is 20. Here all the 2 cost spells are 'free' (up to 501 spells now, 60% of the spells in the book are 'spammable'‡). All the 3, 4, 5, and 6 to cast but 2 to maintain spells are free to maintain (and there are a nice bunch - 104 of them).


* Treating 'specialization' spells like Shapeshifting, Gate, Create Elemental, etc as 1 spell. Also, Magic only, I haven't put the new spells from Death Spells, Plant spells, etc in yet.

† Including Blocking spells. I can't remember if they enjoy the cost break when cast as Regular spells or not. If not there are like 10 less spells that can be 'spammed'.

‡ Note, this is including Enchantments that are 1 or 2 per X and all the 'Varies' and 'Special' cost spells, so some may be ineligible for 'spamming'.

...at an even more distinct advantage than if 15 skill in Bow got rid of ammo and the need to load an arrow.

There is a vast difference between bow skill 15 with no ammo counting and any Missile spell at 15.

An almost 2 for one difference, in the bow's favor. (presuming the archer has Heroic Archer, which is only fair considering the mage has Magery 3+)

The problem isn't whether people like it (I actually do like how it lines up in general), but rather for a system that's mostly generic this area seems very odd to be the place to not be generic, especially with the note that prerequisites aren't even a balancing tool.

Actually... it is a balancing tool.

What is the setting? Why do certain spells have so many prerequisites?

Because those spells are game changers. That's teh balance', a mage isn't hitting those 'out the gate'. (They can, but some are real tough without more than 250 points or real tight streamlining)

The reason I find it to be a problem is that I can generally know how good a character is going to be if I ask everyone to make 200pt characters... except default Magic wizards.

Why? They have skills just like every one else. Is it that the spells are all different things that you don't intuitively know?

And on 200pts, they will outperform almost every niche quite easily.

No they won't. The only niche they can reliably outperform is the 'Thief' niche (and the Healer niche, but that's iffy depending on Healer build).

Any 200 point Fighter is going to out damage the Mage. All day long, in melee or with a bow. And a Heroic Archer is going to out range and out shoot the Wizard as well.

A decent face will out charisma the Wizard at 200 points.

And there's your niches. The only one that gets wrecked is the Thief, because traps and locks are just no match for Lockmaster.

Which, there are two "balancing" things that can be done there;
A) Trimming the list. However, there is no handy way to determine what spells should be trimmed or the correct ways to limit them so they don't either shadow or outperform multiple niches.

Your 'handy way' is experience. And short of saying no to 'Lockmaster', there is no way to not crush a Thief (even without a Mage, the Thief niche gets short shift in most games what with Forced Entry skills and just having mountains of meat for Fighter types).

B) Liberal use of anti-magic... which itself is an issue worth an entire thread of it's own. Short explanation; Once I starts using magic systems that didn't have anti-magic built into it (such as Magic as Powers), I dropped that issue.

I think we had a communication breakdown here.

Powers as Magic (aka Sorcery) has anti-magic built into it.

Why is Great Haste only 5 mana when the spell creation system suggests a 3-1 ratio on pts to mana?

Which 'spell creation system"? What book, what pages (there a re a few).

But the likely answer is (drumroll)... sacred cow. It's a hold over from 2e.

Also... it's not really so awesome as to require costing more (though, yes, I do know Players that would still use it if it cost them 10FP up front and 10 more when it ended).

Time Slip has hilarious consequences since there's no resist check (attack enemy, Time Slip them, stand in their location, repeat for each part member)...

It's less hilarious with a GM that correctly puts either a resistance on it or limits it to willing victims (ie the caster and his friends).

...the entire Knowledge college can easily let you avoid combat on top of everything else it can do...

It can give a wary mage the chance to avoid combat... but so what? Many times it's wither "go in those rooms (and fight those enemies) or go home empty handed". Not seeing the massive issue here.

Flight is pretty fantastic at controlling combat...

Outdoors, against foes without reliable ranged attacks, yes it is great. It's equally great in your enemies hands.

Great Haste is an steal at skill 20..

Not sure I'd call it a steal... it still costs the mage 8 FP at the end (3 to cast, 5FP when it's over - if it's cast on the mage) and that's hefty. It is a game changer though, no doubt.

(oh wait, Accelerated Time is even better!)

Only if the foe is standing over there and not up in your Accelerated Time area...

Also, it's a Gate spell. A lot of GM just cut that College out entirely. And even if it's allowed it's at the end of a 20 spell prereq chain (2 spells from 10 different colleges). That's a good handful of 'useless' spells for most mages (ie, outside of their primary focus).

A handful of properly applied spells and you can easily invalidate any combat you come across, just change for taste and party composition.

Not likely. Really, I've been playing this game for a long time, I've never seen an 'invalidated' combat over a handful of spells.

FP costs are going to kill you if you don't pay attention, so it's better to cast a few spells to entirely avoid a situation that would require a lot of spells.

Sure, but it's really rare your going to just magically avoid combat with a few deft spells (not impossible, but not easy or routine either - or rather if it is, your GM is being very lenient).

14 to 15 is a gigantic shift is usefulness. An invested wizard can get there with IQM, and then buy every spell ever for 1pt each.

Well, yes... the invested mage. That's like saying the Fighter with 18 ST, 16 DX, 16 HT, and Axe/Mace, Broadsword, and Bow of 22 is invested in killing things with almost every weapon they pick up.

I can play a combat-heavy character and pick one skill wholly unrelated to combat at 12 (such as Merchant, Public Speaking, Driving) and that skill is still worth it.

Whole bunch of spells are 'worth it' at less than 15, if you're not supposed to the 'Wizard'.


I once played an Apprentice Wizard with 8 spells, the 4 Seeks and 4 Creates of the Elemental Colleges (IQ 15 and Magery 3 - this was 3e so Magery 3 was the limit). He still managed to burn down half a town before getting inducted into the Wizard's Guild and being allowed to buy more spells (and more IQ). And no, the -1 FP for casting Create Fire wasn't awesome when it was an 8 radius burn area...

That works fine for NPCs (and in fact I love Charms for just that reason), but it's not really something a PC wants.

I love Purify Air as a Charm. One of my second most taken Charms (when I'm doing that). Purify Water beats it. (Usually because the 'Creates' are off limits for Charms for those games)

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

There may be 281 skill entries, but many of those require specialization, and specializations are separate skills.

I quibble over them being separate skills, the defaults are often far too generous for that IMO, but I agree on the general principle that Specializations often bulk out a skill list for some types of Characters.

And there is no way I'll ever try to create a comprehensive list.