[Magical Styles] Rule of 17 Perk

Yami Fowl · 11-27-2010, 09:54 AM

Hi people,

Something came up on my table yesterday, on a Warcraft game...
Due to high point characters, most defenses are higher than 16.

My question is, the Rule of 17 Perk, states that your minimum level for the roll is 17 regardless of the target original defense. But if the target's original defense suprass 16; as per Rule of 16 you should roll with a minimum of the target's original defese, thus my question:

If my enemy has Will 18; and I have Mind-Search 22; I have the Rule of 17 perk.
But my minimum level is 18; I belive is fair to add the "Rule of 17 Perk" to whichever minimum level the target has.

Basically speaking:
If the caster has the Rule of 17 perk and the target has will bigger than 16; the Rule of 17 would become something like Rule of +1; allowing the caster if his skill is higher, to roll at the target's defense +1.

Am I being unfair?
Some of my players said this was to overvalue a perk; but I for myself think it's very unfair with someone who spend one of the valuable Magical Perks (limited by how many CP you have on spells).

Gudiomen · 11-27-2010, 03:35 PM

Ugh, let's see if I understood right...

Caster has Petrification at 22.

Target has effective HT of 18.

Normally, you'd roll at 18 vs. 18, because you're limit is 16 or the target's trait, if it's higher than 16.

The situation where the Rule of 17 is useful is if that target had, say, HT 14.

In that case, you'd roll at 16 vs. 14 normally, or 17 vs. 14 with Rule of 17.

What you propose, would turn the first situation instead of 18 vs. 18 as 19 vs. 18, and the second situation as... 15 vs 14?

Yami Fowl · 11-27-2010, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

What you propose, would turn the first situation instead of 18 vs. 18 as 19 vs. 18, and the second situation as... 15 vs 14?

Kinda,

Caster: Petrification at 22; with Rule of 17.
Target #1: HT at 15.
Target #2: HT at 20.

Caster vs. Target #1: 17 vs. 15
Caster vs. Target #2: 21 vs. 20

EDIT: Thanks Dinadon; you're right.

Dinadon · 11-27-2010, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yami Fowl

Caster vs. Target #1: 22 vs. 17
Caster vs. Target #2: 22 vs. 21

Shouldn't that be 17 vs. 15, 21 vs. 20?

Tinman · 11-27-2010, 10:06 PM

It's an interesting question question. I'm a GM and in my games I (think) that I might do it that way. I don't think it would brake anything & would ballance things with high-point chars.

Rule of 16+1. (I think it's good!)

Yami Fowl · 11-28-2010, 04:15 AM

Yeah, from my point of view, that seems to be very fair...
But somehow, I think mainly because Kael'Thas (One of the most powerful mages on Warcraft) was using the spells against a player, all my players thought that as unfair...

I am looking for more opinions on the matter...

Darekun · 11-28-2010, 06:10 AM

If I were the GM, it'd be separate perks to raise the Rule Of 16 to Rule Of 17, and to grant +1 to the target's resistance WRT the rule.

For example, Sheturo has Perk: +1 Against Resistance, and Thobaul has Perk: Rule Of 17. Both know resisted spells at 22. Against the same two targets:

Sheturo vs. Target #1: 16 vs. 15
Sheturo vs. Target #2: 21 vs. 20
Thobaul vs. Target #1: 17 vs. 15
Thobaul vs. Target #2: 20 vs. 20

(In practice, I would expect Thobaul to have lower spell skills, and to put those points into an Energy Reserve instead; each perk without the other lends itself to a different build.)

If it's about an NPC, though, the point total isn't strict. Kael'Thas has the abilities the GM thinks he has, and if his point total is 5 higher than the GM thought, what of it?

Uralter · 11-28-2010, 06:16 AM

Hallo,

I think that the rule of 17 means 17 not defense+1. You leave the peak ground if you add the +1 to all defense rolls.

Uralter

Gudiomen · 11-28-2010, 06:25 AM

If I understand correctly, you want the high level mage to have some advantage in resistance rolls, when he outmatches the attribute that resists his spells.

It'd read something like...

The caster's spell level is limited to 16 or the target's resistance+1 (whichever is higher), up to his effective skill with the spell.

Let's see... on the one hand it gives you the possibility of higher skill level, that would need several levels of the Rule of 17 perk... (Rule of 18, 19, 20...). On the other hand it's only useful if the target has a resistance of 16 or more, and in this case it only gives you a small advantage in rolls.

Yeah, seems fair. I'd consider it as a house-rule, applied to the entire setting, instead of a perk for some mages. I rather like this, it does what the Rule of 16 originally intends to do (avoid automatic success by high level spells or powers) without doing something it does that I dislike (making a high level spell equal to the lower level defense). You preserve the advantage of having a high skill, without opening the doors to abuse.

munin · 11-28-2010, 09:33 AM

Since ties go to the defender, equal scores mean no matter how high the attacker's skill is originally, they only have a 45% chance of winning. Capping the attacker at defender+1 increases the attacker's chances to 55%. That seems reasonable given that they do actually have higher skill than the defender's resistance.

11-27-2010, 10:06 PM	#5
Tinman Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: New York City	Re: [Magical Styles] Rule of 17 Perk It's an interesting question question. I'm a GM and in my games I (think) that I might do it that way. I don't think it would brake anything & would ballance things with high-point chars. Rule of 16+1. (I think it's good!)

11-28-2010, 04:15 AM	#6
Yami Fowl Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Brazil	Re: [Magical Styles] Rule of 17 Perk Yeah, from my point of view, that seems to be very fair... But somehow, I think mainly because Kael'Thas (One of the most powerful mages on Warcraft) was using the spells against a player, all my players thought that as unfair... I am looking for more opinions on the matter... __________________ Current Playing: Gurps Fantasy. Current GMing: DnD 3.5 on an original setting. Planning a GURPS Sci-Fi Campaign.

11-28-2010, 06:10 AM	#7
Darekun Join Date: Dec 2009	Re: [Magical Styles] Rule of 17 Perk If I were the GM, it'd be separate perks to raise the Rule Of 16 to Rule Of 17, and to grant +1 to the target's resistance WRT the rule. For example, Sheturo has Perk: +1 Against Resistance, and Thobaul has Perk: Rule Of 17. Both know resisted spells at 22. Against the same two targets: Sheturo vs. Target #1: 16 vs. 15 Sheturo vs. Target #2: 21 vs. 20 Thobaul vs. Target #1: 17 vs. 15 Thobaul vs. Target #2: 20 vs. 20 (In practice, I would expect Thobaul to have lower spell skills, and to put those points into an Energy Reserve instead; each perk without the other lends itself to a different build.) If it's about an NPC, though, the point total isn't strict. Kael'Thas has the abilities the GM thinks he has, and if his point total is 5 higher than the GM thought, what of it? __________________ If you must feed the troll, take it to PMs. "If it can't be turned off, it's not a feature." - Heuer's Razor Waiting For: Vehicle Design System

11-28-2010, 06:16 AM	#8
Uralter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Germany	Re: [Magical Styles] Rule of 17 Perk Hallo, I think that the rule of 17 means 17 not defense+1. You leave the peak ground if you add the +1 to all defense rolls. Uralter

11-28-2010, 06:25 AM	#9
Gudiomen Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: in your pocket, stealing all your change	Re: [Magical Styles] Rule of 17 Perk If I understand correctly, you want the high level mage to have some advantage in resistance rolls, when he outmatches the attribute that resists his spells. It'd read something like... The caster's spell level is limited to 16 or the target's resistance+1 (whichever is higher), up to his effective skill with the spell. Let's see... on the one hand it gives you the possibility of higher skill level, that would need several levels of the Rule of 17 perk... (Rule of 18, 19, 20...). On the other hand it's only useful if the target has a resistance of 16 or more, and in this case it only gives you a small advantage in rolls. Yeah, seems fair. I'd consider it as a house-rule, applied to the entire setting, instead of a perk for some mages. I rather like this, it does what the Rule of 16 originally intends to do (avoid automatic success by high level spells or powers) without doing something it does that I dislike (making a high level spell equal to the lower level defense). You preserve the advantage of having a high skill, without opening the doors to abuse. Last edited by Gudiomen; 11-28-2010 at 06:29 AM.

11-27-2010, 09:54 AM	#1
Yami Fowl Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Brazil	[Magical Styles] Rule of 17 Perk Hi people, Something came up on my table yesterday, on a Warcraft game... Due to high point characters, most defenses are higher than 16. My question is, the Rule of 17 Perk, states that your minimum level for the roll is 17 regardless of the target original defense. But if the target's original defense suprass 16; as per Rule of 16 you should roll with a minimum of the target's original defese, thus my question: If my enemy has Will 18; and I have Mind-Search 22; I have the Rule of 17 perk. But my minimum level is 18; I belive is fair to add the "Rule of 17 Perk" to whichever minimum level the target has. Basically speaking: If the caster has the Rule of 17 perk and the target has will bigger than 16; the Rule of 17 would become something like Rule of +1; allowing the caster if his skill is higher, to roll at the target's defense +1. Am I being unfair? Some of my players said this was to overvalue a perk; but I for myself think it's very unfair with someone who spend one of the valuable Magical Perks (limited by how many CP you have on spells). __________________ Current Playing: Gurps Fantasy. Current GMing: DnD 3.5 on an original setting. Planning a GURPS Sci-Fi Campaign.

11-27-2010, 03:35 PM	#2
Gudiomen Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: in your pocket, stealing all your change	Re: [Magical Styles] Rule of 17 Perk Ugh, let's see if I understood right... Caster has Petrification at 22. Target has effective HT of 18. Normally, you'd roll at 18 vs. 18, because you're limit is 16 or the target's trait, if it's higher than 16. The situation where the Rule of 17 is useful is if that target had, say, HT 14. In that case, you'd roll at 16 vs. 14 normally, or 17 vs. 14 with Rule of 17. What you propose, would turn the first situation instead of 18 vs. 18 as 19 vs. 18, and the second situation as... 15 vs 14?

11-28-2010, 09:33 AM	#10
munin Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Vermont, USA	Re: [Magical Styles] Rule of 17 Perk Since ties go to the defender, equal scores mean no matter how high the attacker's skill is originally, they only have a 45% chance of winning. Capping the attacker at defender+1 increases the attacker's chances to 55%. That seems reasonable given that they do actually have higher skill than the defender's resistance.