Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Topic started by: Faust23 on 06 June 2011, 01:34:41 AM
-
I'm working on my Fantasy supplement for my skirmish game, and am interested in your input.
3-20 models per side. What would you like to see & not see?
All feedback welcome. Let's shake it up! :D
-
Obviously something simple but also something that brings character to the game and isn't over powerful. Make it risky but fun :)
Are your characters going to have stat sheets or are they just on the table as is?
cheers
James
-
Some random ramblings while working, so pardon me being unfocused. =)
I guess a few basic effects can cover almost anything.
Ranged offense effect (possibly both target and area of effect)
Buff and debuff
"Transfix" to nick an SBH term
A healing effect might also be nice, if there is cumulative damage in your game.
Would be nice if mages could be differing levels, having a slot per level where a spell can be allocated. The magic users of SBH are a bit too cookie cutter and don't really differ from warband to warband (I do know there are specialisations, but still)
Depending on the scope of your games, maybe have spells be "one use only".
-
good feedback guys.
How do you feel about generic spell names vs flavorful spell names - for example, Fires of Drakir or Fire Blast?
-
I like flavourful magic names.
Having different levels of magic users would be cool. Higher levels= more access to spells, more powerful spells
Some 'basic' spells that everyone would know. Like a shield charm.
Some magic items would be cool.
Potions and stuff.
I was actually thinking of doing something like this in a not Harry Potter sort of way.
-
magic power will be available in 3 levels. I also have plans for certain spells to have 3 degrees of usefulness.
-
One of the best skirmish magic systems I've seen is in Skulldred. Magicians open up "portals" at distant locations on the battlefield, which stay open and can be used in subsequent turns to cast all kinds of spells/summon creatures etc. Enemy sorcerers can dispel them or hold them closed though.
It works because it adds a physical strategic element: you know where the portals are, and thus where the magic will be coming from, so you can try to avoid or control it somehow.
-
How do you feel about generic spell names vs flavorful spell names - for example, Fires of Drakir or Fire Blast?
I'd prefer just "Blast", let the player himself flavourize (wtf?! is that a word?) it...
There's not much difference between an electrical blast, magical blast or good old fire blast. The end result is the same, someone is getting hurt. =) Having them all collected under one term helps speed up games, instead of having to leaf through a magic compendium. Rather have many different effects, than small variations and permutations. "So uh.. .fire blast was 2D6+1 damage, and electrical blast is 2D6-1 unless standing in water, in which case it's doubled... unless the character has his wellingtons on..."
-
I too dislike combing through dozens of pages of spell effects that amount to very little tactical difference for the sake of variety. I love spell archetypes; damage, summon, protect, illusion, support, impair, and displace cover just about all the kinds of spells I could dream up to fill a skirmish game of reasonable detail.
Following your "3 levels" idea, you'd just have:
DAMAGE
level 1: single target, low damage attack
level 2: single target, high damage attack
level 3: blast, high damage attack on central target, low damage attack on surrounding targets
SUPPORT
level 1: single friendly target, improve a skill test
level 2: single friendly target, improve a damage roll
level 3: multiple friendly targets, improve morale
DISPLACE
level 1: move caster a certain distance
level 2: move friendly model a certain distance
level 3: move enemy model a certain distance
etc.
Terms are easy to remember, and effects can be imagined depending on the kind of force being fielded. Using the same mechanics and the same spell descriptions one should be able to summon a horde of zombies or a powerful demon.
-
Great discussion so far!
What do you all think about Wizards/Magic Users wearing Armor?
Discuss! :D
-
Great discussion so far!
What do you all think about Wizards/Magic Users wearing Armor?
Discuss! :D
Not armour, doesn't seem right somehow - but allow them to weild bloody big swords!
-
what I often miss in such systems is the effect of choosing a side/aspect of magic, without having any (negative!) consequences.
Many systems have ways of magic (fire, water, earth, air, life, undead, light, darkness, etc.) but so to speak everything goes in every way (beside the most obvious ones like e.g. making somesone dead alive again ...).
Flying magic
- with undead magic (make me an undead spirit ... 2 mana)
- with light magic (make me an etheral being ... 2 mana)
- with earth magic (make me light as dust ... careful! ... completely different ... 3 mana)
... well, and so on, but basically EVERY magician can fly one way or the other. And that is nearly with all the important stuff ... walking without sound or healing magic (why should e.g. FIRE could heal someone? Maybe cauterize, YES ... but HEAL? Alas, even without a scar, beacuse it is our beautiful sorceress).
But what about ... picking Your side/way/aspect, so damn eat all the negative side effect, too! You choose earth? Never be able to learn swimming (you like to feel like a stone, remember?) ... choose light ... cannot stay in the shadow longer than an hour (whatever), choose water ... cannot sit to close to fire without extincting it just as a reflex, etc. (well, these are extrem, but I hope You got the meaning).
In most cases choosing one aspect of magic enables one to do things, without anything to give up for it. And REALLY give it up! Choose fire? Hate water! Choose water? Hate fire!
I think, this goes with abilities in general in RPGs. One normally is always able to do something (good or not so good), and also beeing able to learn EVERYTHING else later, if so choosen. Or ... things one cannot do, is in most cases "being ablo to do with a value of zero" ... but he may use dice nonetheless.
But with magic ... hoooooo! ... it is a decission with or for or against (other) powers of nature! Certain things from "the other side (or sides)" should not only "not work", but also being extremely carefully avoided!
For some druids they choose to make rules "do not kill animals" ... but heck, in the next inn the whole group eats bacon! Clerics should not lie or cheat, but killing enemies from behind is completely ok (it's the enemy, so wtf?) ...
I think character choosings based on this would really make magical decissions much more realistic in playing (maybe rewarding, too).
Even in skirkish systems, when choosing a side ... certain things simpy are not possible anymore. That also might make the magicians more different, and the rule-making more challenging, I think.
best wishes
Drachenklinge
-
If your goal is to facilitate games with any collection of figs for anyone's particular vision of fantasy, why would you write "no armor for wizards" into the rules beyond the necessity for play balance?
Are you creating a distinction between the "magical" effects of faith in a deity, and the "magical" effects of manipulating elemental forces/the arcane/mirrors/portals/alchemical combinations/the principles of light and darkness/etc?
Clerics wear armor up to a certain type in D&D, mages don't. Both practice "magic". Are the distinctions between them mechanically important for a skirmish level tabletop wargame, or can the distinction simply exist in the minds of the participants and serve as flavor and theme only?
-
If your goal is to facilitate games with any collection of figs for anyone's particular vision of fantasy, why would you write "no armor for wizards" into the rules beyond the necessity for play balance?
Are you creating a distinction between the "magical" effects of faith in a deity, and the "magical" effects of manipulating elemental forces/the arcane/mirrors/portals/alchemical combinations/the principles of light and darkness/etc?
Clerics wear armor up to a certain type in D&D, mages don't. Both practice "magic". Are the distinctions between them mechanically important for a skirmish level tabletop wargame, or can the distinction simply exist in the minds of the participants and serve as flavor and theme only?
Very good (and eloquently put) point!
-
If your goal is to facilitate games with any collection of figs for anyone's particular vision of fantasy, why would you write "no armor for wizards" into the rules beyond the necessity for play balance?
Just to be clear, I didn't write 'no armor' for wizards. I asked what you all thought about it. ;)
I happen to agree with the 'all possible' builds idea, because that's the nature of my game. :)
Since I'm gathering the opinions of any willing LAF contributors, I thought I'd ask about that particular convention, even though I don't abide by it myself.
Great points to all. Keep the ideas/discussion flowing! :D
-
Gotcha. I was being a bit rhetorical. I think your approach through this forum is very admirable.
-
Cool. Just didn't want to give the wrong impression.
Thanks for giving such solid feedback Nine! :)
-
No armour but maybe some defensive spells to protect against damage.
I think a fire spell instead of a generic blast spell is better as there could be cumulative effects. ie a missed fireball could set a building on fire instead
-
[q ;)uote author=Johnno link=topic=30052.msg360915#msg360915 date=1307720864]
No armour but maybe some defensive spells to protect against damage.
I think a fire spell instead of a generic blast spell is better as there could be cumulative effects. ie a missed fireball could set a building on fire instead
[/quote]But that can be stipulated by the individual players and doesn't have to be set in rules.
-
I've kicked around the idea of having specific types of energy effects to differentiate fire, cold, etc. but I'm still out on that idea....
-
I've always thought it would be nice to have a system where the caster buys his spells - I suppose the closest analogy would be how scrolls tend to work in fantasy settings - you buy it, you read it once, and then its gone.
So, if you wanted to be able to do three fire balls, for instance, you would have to buy three fire ball 'castings'.
The main reason for this is that it provides a 'finite' feeling to the available magic in the game, and the more magic you want, the more you will pay for the character. This approach also allows you to give non-mage characters the ability to cast, following the traditional D&D Ranger, Bard type of scenario - so you can spread your magic out across your warband. Doing that allows players to tailor their warbands a little more - they can either have several characters that can cast small, cheap spells that don't have much effect, or they can focus their magic on one or two more capable casters who are probably specialists and shouldn't get involved in combat, but can produce much more effective magic.
You can also build limits into the system by saying a wizard only has a certain amount of points to spend on spells. So, in the case of a wizard who has, say, 100 points - he could either buy two big daddy fireball s at 50 points each, or he could get five lightning bolts at 20 points each, or one fireball, two lightning bolts and something else for 10 points. This makes spell selection more strategic than the typical random generation that I've seen in other games.
Also, if one applied a caster level to the mix, you might find that players will be forced to sacrifice cheap spell slots at lower levels in order to afford some of the spells at higher levels. I suppose the whole mechanism allows players to apply a quantity vs. quality argument argument to their spell choice, without the whole thing becoming too dominant a part of the game.
-
Interesting point. I had kicked around the idea of buying spells like other pieces of equipment. I may still do that.
I've considered having the 'spell caster' trait or what not, and then that allows you to purchase spells.
-
the problem with magic is, that we have no "real" compare to it. E.g. Why does a - say - swordmaster need to buy sword-strikes for?
In comparison a magician might need to buy (and learn!) the scrolls ... even some incredients for specific spells, but (without incredients) why should he need ressources everytime? ok, he have to concentrate or need specific brain-juice (mana), but this given swordmaster does need power to, therefore in every system chars need to get to sleep.
What I wouldn't do is to restrict the "mana". But as mentioned above would enforce some specific behaviour, like avoiding all meet or all vegetable or whatever. Some set-back, forcing the player of the magician to think about his doings at every minute (of the game) - to concentrate!
Since in most games magicians sooner or later have all the spells they need for climbing, fishing, fighting, fire-making and flying, they should try to assemble a specific attitude in the game to represent the "way of a magician", not only by "I am looking for scrolls at the bookmarket!"
best wishes
Drachenklinge
-
I totally agree on magical limits. Mages that can do everything can become automatic choices for players which diminishes the pull of other classes and professions.
I think if you are still going with a level system, you simply establish a cost for a number of spell levels a player wants, and give it a firm cap for PCs (there is only so much that the mind can handle afterall, even in magic). You also make it such that a player cannot take a level 2 version of a spell unless they take the level 1 version, or the level 3 until they take level 1 and level 2. Borrowing a bit from an earlier post I had:
EXAMPLE:
Mages are provided with a number of spell points equal to three times their proficiency rating. Starting proficiency ratings have a set cost as laid out below:
Mage proficiency 1: 10 points
Mage proficiency 2: 20 points
Mage proficiency 3: 30 points
Though mages of proficiency 4 and 5 exist in the world, they are epic beings of terrible power that are best governed by a GM or a special scenario.
If I choose a mage of proficiency 2 I am given 6 spell points to go buy spells with. Each spell costs 1 point per level of spell. Thus a level 1 spell costs 1 point, a level 2 spell costs 2 points, etc. In order to purchase a higher level spell of a particular category, you have to have purchased each of the lower level spells in the same category. For instance if I wanted the level 3 version of a damage spell, I'd need to also have the level 1 and level 2 damage spell. In effect this means purchasing a level 3 spell costs 6 total points (1 point for the level 1, 2 for the level 2, and finally 3 for the level 3).
Back to my mage proficiency 2; with my six points I could become a specialist and gain all three levels in one category, or I could be a generalist and know 6 different level 1 spells from 6 different categories, or land somewhere in between.
This kind of limiting still allows players to theme their mages exactly how they want without forcing a specific preconceived world on them. Proficiency could just be another skill any race or profession can take for a cost, thus you can have all the hybrid-type classes you see in traditional RPGs or in fiction. Maybe my fantasy world is populated by elite knights of necromancy and they terrorize the land in full plate with good fighting skills, raising the battered bodies of those they defeat in battle into a shambling army of the dead! Maybe your fantasy world is full of a select council of wizened old men barely able to stand, let alone fight, that wear no armor, wield no weapons, and guard their magical secrets to the grave.
I often wonder at the massive investment in time and creativity on display when provided with a magnificent, rich fantasy background world which plays out with sub-par game mechanics that I am forced to modify and tinker with to suit my group's preferences. I want it the other way around. Provide magnificent, rich game mechanics and leave the fantasy world to me lol
-
Great points of discussion guys. I am soaking it all in.
What did you all think about Mordheim's magic system? Too simplistic?
-
I'm thinking that magic at the skirmish level should be limited, and not overtly game changing.
I also think Magic Items will be fun and should be useful, but not unbalancing.
In working on these concepts I find it tempting to go all out with the Big Magic shizzle, but I'm still resisting.
Would you prefer Magic Items that are unique or that are ubiquitous?
-
Rare, I think, but not unique. Only characters would have access. My ideal would be for characteristics that can be purchased to construct a magic item. E.g. +1 to wound, non-magical armour ignored, bearer causes fear etc.
Perhaps there would be a limit to the number of characteristics that could be purchased? Linked to the character's status, or a max for the warband as a whole?
Anyway, players could then describe it any way they saw fit. So, my 'sword of the elder kings' could be the same as your 'dragon's-breath-forged blade', his 'excaliber' or the other bloke's 'glamdring' if they each had particular in-game effects. This would have a similar feel to the magic system y'all have been discussing above.