Confused about the energy cost of Symbol Magic

[Steen]

Hello.

I'll get straight to the point. On page 175 of Thaumatology, in the segment called "Energy Cost", several different methods for measuring the cost of a spell are laid out. The first one is simply to base the cost of a symbol spell on a similar spell in the spellbook, which would often result in damage numbers like 1 FP = 1d6 damage burning/crushing damage.

Just a few paragraphs down, however, it suggests that the base cost of any symbol spell is fitting for a 1d6 spell. If using the Futhark alphabet (p. 170), the cheapest possible damaging spell would be Weaken Body, which is 4 FP. These are some significantly different numbers. One is a 4 FP spell for 1d6 damage, another is 4 FP for 4d6 damage.

Am I missing something here? How do I know which one is balanced? Is it balanced at all? Is it just up to me, the GM, to decide which one to use in my campaign?
Thank you in advance.

[Anaraxes]

Thaumatology is a design manual, a large collection of options and alternatives. Balance isn't an absolute, universal truth, but rather a range which depends on the feel of the game that you're going for. See the (short!) section on p169.

Originally Posted by Thaumatology p169

The GM is welcome to adjust difficulties and costs. This can have interesting effects on the subtlety and balance of the system and the setting. For example, if the symbol for “magic” itself has a Very Hard skill, then fundamental forces are tricky to master, while if the symbol for “weaken” has an Average skill with base energy cost 0, then magic evidently has a disruptive, entropic quality.

That does, unfortunately, call for some judgement on the part of the GM, which also entails a need for experience with at least the Basic magic system and likely playing around with some of the other variants in Thaumatology. And especially without that experience, it will call from some tolerance by the whole group as the system gets further refinement and tweaking based on experience in play.

The guidelines you mention "a few paragraphs down" are intended (1) as an alternate to the first paragraph, not in parallel with them, and (2) especially for cases where no similar spell already exists from which to copy the cost. Following those guidelines, you wouldn't wind up with two costs for the same spell, because only one case or the other would apply.

The cost of verb+noun is, per that bullet, considered suitable for 1d of damage. If you want your symbol magic to be more destructive, consider lowering that cost all the way down to 1 FP per die. You might do that for particular verb-noun combinations -- or you might just lower the cost of verbs like "Destroy" to reflect an overall tendency for it to be easier to destroy with magic than to create. (Other games might want exactly the opposite feel, in which case you'd tweak the numbers the other way.)

[Devil_Dante]

i actually used the basic verb+noun cost for the standard effect of the spell (aka, 1d6 damage for example), then i use the rule for advantage cost: every 10 points of advantage, add the same cost. So, if you want to deal 2d damage, double the cost. 3d6, triple the cost.

I have an addictional rules where every 2 MoS , the cost is reduced by one.
One of my player uses control fire to ablaze his brazier for 1 minute, dealing the damage like i wrote above.

This kind of magic is triky, you need to be elastic and to think fast, to avoid useless waste of time, looking for the rule written into thaumatology.

[Culture20]

Symbol magic is very close to aspected modular abilities, so it should have some cost built in somewhere. Higher energy cost than other magic types seems worthwhile in balance with the versatility.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by Culture20

Symbol magic is very close to aspected modular abilities, so it should have some cost built in somewhere. Higher energy cost than other magic types seems worthwhile in balance with the versatility.

When figuring balance against default magic it also may require more rolls and time to cast.