Meta-comments, not necessarily applicable to the spell(s) under discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom
• does limiting the spell by making it Very Hard vs. Hard to learn matter?
|
It matters very little. The difference between Hard/Very Hard is -1 to skill per any given level of skill. That is, 4 character points, maximum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom
• ditto for adding the High skill does not reduce this spell’s cost language
|
This matters more for spells with a relatively high basic cost, say 4+ mana/FP/whatever to cast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom
• what about making the Time to Cast the spell be 2 seconds (vs. one)?
|
Time to cast is a big game balancer when designing new spells. 1 vs. 2 seconds isn't that big a deal (unless it's a spell which would be really convenient to cast in just one second, like a Protection spell), but moving from 1 sec. to 3 or 5 sec., or 3 or 5 sec. to 10+ sec. makes a spell much less effective in combat.
Casting time for non-combat spells has little effect as long as they have sufficient duration or low enough maintenance cost that they can be cast before combat and sustained/ maintained once the fighting starts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom
• and most importantly, exactly how much FP should this spell cost?
|
Assuming your average mage has FP 10-12, and possibly 3-5 points in powerstones, energy reserves, etc.:
1 FP: Trivial spells where it's reasonable for a mage with skill 15+ to cast or maintain the spell for free. This includes combat spells which do ~1d HP damage with a second skill roll like Innate Attack or Brawling.
2-3 FP: Relatively minor spells which won't slow a mage down too much if they're cast several times in quick succession, and where it might be reasonable for a high skill mage to maintain or cast the spell for cheap or free. This includes combat spells which do 2d to 3d HP damage with a second skill roll.
4-5 FP: Moderately powerful spells which will slow a mage down if they're cast more than once per combat. This includes combat spells which have a decent chance of taking out a foe with a failed resistance roll.
6-9 FP: Powerful spells which will slow the mage down if they're cast more than once per combat. These should be "potentially fight ending" or "adventure completing" spells which have a decent chance of taking out a major foe or solving a major problem.
10+ FP: Very powerful spells which are basically "one and done" unless a mage has access to major energy reserves. These are "guaranteed fight enders" or major problem-solvers like teleportation or "death spells."
The same holds for maintenance costs, but since maintenance costs tend to be 33-75% of casting cost, a comparatively low maintenance cost allows a powerful mage to maintain a spell indefinitely as long as they're willing to take the penalty for having an "on" spell. Requiring a minimum maintenance cost of 1 FP regardless of skill is a very good game balance tool.
THE big game balancer is the prerequisite tree. Spells which regularly do 3d to 6d HP damage a turn, or which can reliably defeat powerful foes become much less unbalanced if you have to invest at least 15-25+ points in other spells before you can "unlock" them.
Other tricks for game balance:
* Requiring minimum attribute levels other than IQ (e.g., DX 13+).
* Requiring additional advantages other than Magery, notably Unusual Background or social traits like Rank.
* Requiring at least some of the casting or maintenance cost to be paid in HP.
* Imposing ugly side effects, like risk of permanent attribute or advantage loss.
* Imposing a minimum area of effect for Area spells.