[Thaumatology] Realms-based magic question

[Eltharon]

Hi all. Quick question

In Realms based magic, the energy cost is 2x the highest realm level, plus any other realm levels. Yet this means that the more "granular" your realms are (as in, the more levels you have), the higher the cost.
For example, if I play with a 3 realm limit, then most spells cast at level 3 will cost 6 energy. But if I play with a 5 realm limit (and assuming that the level 3 and 5 both indicate the same level of power), then things will cost 10 energy, despite the fact that the level 3 and level 5 realm give the same amount of power.
Am I missing something?
Thanks

[Kromm]

You're missing nothing. In a system that goes to Realm/3, the top shelf is more accessible in terms of both a smaller number of steps to get there and fewer FP to work magic. In a system that goes to Realm/5, the ceiling is more of a challenge in terms of both steps and energy cost. That is, the GM picks more steps when he wants to make powerful magic harder.

[Eltharon]

That actually makes sense. Thanks

[Pesterfield]

the energy cost is 2x the highest realm level, plus any other realm levels.

Does that plus other levels mean that in the Realm/3 example the cost would be 6+2?

What about if you just went to Realm/2, on that Realm/3 example? Would it be 4+1?

Don't have the book yet, waiting for the hardcopy.

[Eltharon]

It means if I cast a fire/5 and mind/4 (for example) spell to set someones brain on fire, it costs (5x2) + 4 = 14 energy

[Silverblade]

I seem to be missing something as well.

If I read this right, point cost per level goes up when you have more Realms, and goes up more if there are weaknesses.

More realms doesn't automatically mean more power, as far as I understand, that depends more on the breadth of the Realm itself. Wood/3 (in a campaign with three max levels) doesn't seem more powerful than Life/3 to me, and much less powerful than, say, Omnipotence/3. If a campaign with a Wood Realm has the weakness "Can' affect oak" and the campaign with Omnipotence has none, the point cost for the latter would be lower than the first...?

[Kromm]

Point cost goes down if you have more weaknesses. You might want to re-read that rule!

The base cost per level of an individual Realm is 60 divided by the number of levels, including levels unavailable to mortals. If I have three levels that cover everything, then base cost is 60/3 = 20. If I have six levels that cover everything, but mages can only buy the bottom three, then base cost is 60/6 = 10. While both are three-level schemes, the one where mages are less powerful costs half as much. Thus, if you define "weaknesses" as unavailable levels, the more of these you have, the more levels you have, the larger the divisor, and the lower the cost.

The final cost per level equals the base cost multiplied by a factor that depends on the sum of the number of Realms and the number of inaccessible aspects of reality. This factor decreases as that sum goes up. If base cost is 20 and I have three Realms and no inaccessible aspects, then final cost per level is 60. If base cost is 20 and I have three Realms and six inaccessible aspects, then final cost per level is 20. While both are three-Realm schemes, the one where mages can influence less of the universe costs 1/3 as much. Thus, if you define "weaknesses" as inaccessible aspects, the more of these you have, the larger the sum of Realms plus inaccessible aspects, the smaller the factor, and the lower the cost.

I see no way to get higher cost from weaknesses.

[Silverblade]

Right. Goes down not up. Read table wrong.

This is my "I cannot brain today, I have teh dum" day, it seems. -.-

Sorry. :)

[dataweaver]

That said, it might have been better if the multipliers had been based on abstract "breadth of Realm" ratings, with "number of Realms" being presented as a guideline of how many Realms of a given breadth can reasonably coexist without significant overlap: so x5 would be the multiplier for an "Extremely Broad" Realm, with a note that you probably won't find more than two of these coexisting without significant overlap, whereas an "Extremely Narrow" Realm could be purchased at half the usual cost, and would represent something so focused that there might be any number of other such Realms that don't even come close to overlapping. This approach would allow for a more flexible system that allows for a mixture of broad and narrow Realms, such as (in an extreme example) allowing Omnipotence and Insects to coexist as Realms.

Also, the "overlap" concept might result in higher costs. For instance, consider a setting that has both Path Magic (from chapter 5) and Realm Magic existing in parallel: that is, each Realm corresponds to a Path, and shares the Path's skill. (The idea here is to use Realm Magic for supernatural creatures who are somehow attuned to the purview of a given Realm, while Path Magic represents the tools available to "mere mortals".) Between the Paths and the areas not covered by Paths, the number of Realms + Weaknesses easily exceeds a dozen. OTOH, the Paths have a fair amount of overlap, and the areas not covered by any of them aren't all that large; so it wouldn't be unreasonable for the GM to rule that Path-based Realms cost the normal amount per level (e.g., 20 points if there are three levels).