Should all magic powers require Magery?

[Mgellis]

In GURPS Powers (p. 131), it is suggested that Magery can be used as the Talent for modifying rolls for magic-based powers. For instance, someone with an Affliction with the Magical, -10% power modifier who had paid for Magery 2 would get +2 on all rolls related to that Affliction.

This makes sense for magical powers that are effectively spells, where someone has studied magic and is using magic to alter reality. But what about creatures that are innately magical, like fairies or vampires?

For example, if a vampire can instinctively hypnotize someone with some magical mind control power (built as Mind Control, Magical, -10%), do they have to purchase Magery 0 to use it? (This assumes the ability is not one they have to study. They are not using magic. They are simply, innately, magical. And the ability is something they just "wake up" knowing how to use.)

And regardless of whether a power is learned or innate, what if it doesn't have a success roll? Should someone who takes (Invisibility, Switchable, +10%, Magical, -10%) have to take Magery 0? It doesn't seem very fair. Magery 0 doesn't do anything for them and no other power (Super, etc.) requires one to purchase a talent.

On the other hand, if you don't require Magery for some abilities, where do you draw the line? Or should you simply treat magical powers as a special case and assume that even innate powers require the 5-point +0 version of the talent, even if they cannot take advantage of any higher levels. This may be the easiest solution, but it doesn't seem very elegant to me.

Any thoughts on all this?

Mark

[Extrarius]

It sounds like that rule is assuming you're mixing magic-as-skills and magic-as-powers. If you're not, just use normal power talents.

[Captain-Captain]

Originally Posted by Mgellis

In GURPS Powers (p. 131), it is suggested that Magery can be used as the Talent for modifying rolls for magic-based powers. For instance, someone with an Affliction with the Magical, -10% power modifier who had paid for Magery 2 would get +2 on all rolls related to that Affliction.

This makes sense for magical powers that are effectively spells, where someone has studied magic and is using magic to alter reality. But what about creatures that are innately magical, like fairies or vampires?

For example, if a vampire can instinctively hypnotize someone with some magical mind control power (built as Mind Control, Magical, -10%), do they have to purchase Magery 0 to use it? (This assumes the ability is not one they have to study. They are not using magic. They are simply, innately, magical. And the ability is something they just "wake up" knowing how to use.)

And regardless of whether a power is learned or innate, what if it doesn't have a success roll? Should someone who takes (Invisibility, Switchable, +10%, Magical, -10%) have to take Magery 0? It doesn't seem very fair. Magery 0 doesn't do anything for them and no other power (Super, etc.) requires one to purchase a talent.

On the other hand, if you don't require Magery for some abilities, where do you draw the line? Or should you simply treat magical powers as a special case and assume that even innate powers require the 5-point +0 version of the talent, even if they cannot take advantage of any higher levels. This may be the easiest solution, but it doesn't seem very elegant to me.

Any thoughts on all this?

Mark

I don't think so. Most people who'll use a magic or magical designation on such traits will be in worlds where there are contrasting/alternate designations that could have been used for that ability.

You don't, get a 10% discount on the cost of magery in a Banestorm campaign. It's inherent that spells are magical without exception.

The context of how magical is used in the campaign has to be the factor determinging what qualifies as a talent. Simply stating "Magery for each and everyone one!" doesn't work.

[Polydamas]

I see Magery 0 as an Unusual Background "May buy Magic Talent, spells, and magic powers", personally. So requiring if of PCs who want magic powers other than spells would be fair game.

[GnomesofZurich]

I don't know what the canon response to this would be, but my answer would be:

No, a natural magic creature does not require Magery 0 to have a power with the Magical -10% modifier. As you point out, no other power has this requirement, so it makes little sense why magic would be singled out. In fact I would not require Magery for any user, for any type of magic power, assuming that "magic" can only be modeled by modified advantages.
In this case, I would reprice Magery to be no different than other talents, and have 4 levels of it at 5 (possibly 10 due to its wide range of abilities) points per level and call it a day.

In some campaigns this would vary, like those that require a certain level of Magery (magic talent) as prerequisite to learn certain powers, but that same could be said about any other power.

Is this the kind of scenario you had in mind (spells only as modified advantages) or a mix of spells as skills and spells as advantages?

[HeroPenguin]

In the RAW, Magery 0 is unnecessary for anything but Magic RAW (that is, Spells bought as Skills), and then only to actually USE Spells when not in High Mana zones or above. Abilities with the Magic modifier have no such special requirement, as the mod ONLY means that the ability is subject to counters that affect any magical traits.

However, you're perfectly free to define Magery 0 as essentially an Unusual Background for normally unmagical creatures that gives them access to magical traits. If you go this route, ANY inherently magical creature effectively has Magery 0 as a part of their template.

Don't get so bogged down in RAW. If you think Magery 0 is bogus, dump it! I know I have.

[KlausPrinceOfTheUndeads]

Natural abilities should never require a Talent to be used - and if they do, they should be worth 0 points for those without the talent (a feature: "Member of a race some members of which have magical abilities"; probably not worth even writing on a template, let alone a character sheet).
In my campaigns, I consider Magery to be the Talent for all magical powers (ie. Death, Fire, Illusion, etc.): each level gives +1 to all those abilities. Players who want their characters to be adept in a specific field can buy a power talent for 5 points per level. It looks fair.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Extrarius

It sounds like that rule is assuming you're mixing magic-as-skills and magic-as-powers. If you're not, just use normal power talents.

This is correct. Using Magery as the Talent for magical powers is completely optional. Per Powers, p. 29, "The GM may opt to interpret advantages from the Basic Set as Talents for suitable powers." And then on p. 131, "At the GM's option, the Magery advantage (p. B66) gives +1 per level to standard spells and Magical abilities." The GM could also decide not to use Magery this way, and to go with a standard 5 points/level power Talent that doesn't benefit spells. You only interpret the power Talent for a magical power as Magery if it benefits spells and powers equally.

Originally Posted by KlausPrinceOfTheUndeads

Natural abilities should never require a Talent to be used

This, too, is correct. Talent isn't really a prerequisite for anything. You can have a power and lack Talent for it. It might not even hurt you much if your power is one that mostly has passive abilities. This isn't any less true for magical powers.

--

The GM could fairly allow two Talents for magical powers, too. People who want to be good with their power and with spells must buy Magery, and then have to take Magery 0 before having access to any bonuses. Individuals who just want to be good with their power would buy Magic Talent.

Everything above is equally true for Power Investiture and divine powers. Using Power Investiture as the Talent for divine powers is entirely optional. Power Investiture is never required to have divine powers. It's entirely possible for Power Investiture [10/level], which benefits clerical spells and divine powers, to coexist with Divine Talent [5/level], which benefits only divine powers.

And to stave off the inevitable question . . . Being good with just one's power costs 5 points/level. Being adept with one's power and with spells is 10 points/level (plus possible Magery 0). However, it isn't cheaper to be skilled with spells alone and not powers; that's still Magery or Power Investiture. The reasons for this are pretty simple: there are so many spells -- including spells that can emulate most abilities of most powers -- that it isn't much of a drawback. The GM might permit a -10% limitation "Doesn't benefit magical powers" on Magery, but that's about it.

[Mgellis]

Thank you, Kromm. Thanks to everyone else, too.

Mark

[Mgellis]

All right, let me see if I'm getting this right...

Flight (Magical, -10%) [36] <-- You can fly! But it only works in places where there is mana. The exact level (low, very high, etc.) doesn't matter, and having levels of the Magical talent doesn't really help you, but in zones without mana your power stops working.

Affliction 1 (Magical, -10%) [9] <-- You can stun people with a magical blast. In low mana areas, you're at -5 to hit. And your power doesn't work at all in no mana zones.

Affliction 1 (Magical, -10%) [9], Magical Talent 1 [5] <-- as above, but you are at +1 to use your power in most areas with mana and in low mana zones you only have a -4 penalty.

Affliction 1 (Magical, -10%) [9]; Magical Talent 1 [5]; Magery 1 [15]; four spells at the 4-point level [16] <-- as above, but your Affliction gets a +2 (which means only -3 in low mana zones) because both Magery and Magical talent apply; the spells only get a +1 because only Magery applies to spells.

Is this correct?

Mark