What do you want in a Skirmish Magic System?

[Faust23]

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! 

[OSHIROmodels]

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

[phreedh]

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".

[Faust23]

good feedback guys.

How do you feel about generic spell names vs flavorful spell names - for example, Fires of Drakir or Fire Blast?

[Johnno]

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.

[Faust23]

magic power will be available in 3 levels.  I also have plans for certain spells to have 3 degrees of usefulness.

[tomogui]

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.
 

[phreedh]

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..."

[number9]

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.

[Faust23]

Great discussion so far! 

What do you all think about Wizards/Magic Users wearing Armor?

Discuss! 

[Colonel Tubby]

Great discussion so far! 

What do you all think about Wizards/Magic Users wearing Armor?

Discuss! 

Not armour, doesn't seem right somehow - but allow them to weild bloody big swords!

[Drachenklinge]

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

[number9]

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?

[phreedh]

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!

[Faust23]

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!