>1) You stated that the mage was under-powered compared to the fighter, >then you specifically disallow one of the main balancing factors?
Rather than respond on a point by point response to comments Chris made in his last post, I will start with this one, and then "ramble" as it were... Balance seems to be the primary point being raised by Chris in the line above, and subsequent responses made in the same post (ie everything else) seems to flow from that, so lets look at why I tend to discount GURPS GRIMOIRE spells and why I tend to specify certain aspects of the game as being limited by exclusion of the specific rules. As a GM, I very much dislike "Script Immunity". GURPS has a plethora of advantages and disadvantages, that it is extremely difficult to build any one "Immune to everything" type of character. This is by design for the most part. But, balance is a tricky issue. Sometimes, people think of things that the original designer did not. Anthony, for example, made a highly visible point about "balance" when he specified a one trick pony, where if a spell was used as given in GURPS MAGIC as introduced in GURPS GRIMOIRE, could have devastating results in game. The spell? ENLARGE OBJECT. For 1 fatigue per pound of the object's original weight, the object can be enlarged by one SM category. If you took for example, a single wooden object like a plate, and made it such that it was 7" in diameter, it would be treated as a 1 lb 7" object, with a SM value of -6. A mage with a 15 point powerstone could enlarge that item until it was an object that weighs 20,000 tons, and had a SM value of +9. This gives it a largest dimension value of 70 yards (essentially a 35 yard diameter object as it started off as a plate). Imagine if you will, a one lb seven inch wooden disc, dropped from a height of 10 yards atop of "ground zero" suddenly becoming 70 yard wide and 20,000 tons object. Valid under the rules as written? Sure. Balanced? Hell NO. There are other spells which have a similar problem. In some instances, there are spells which produce if not identical results, then functionally identical results to other spells, but do so for a far less energy cost than the other spell that originally debuted in GURPS MAGIC for 3e. Now, for the other issues. If I wanted to, not that I had the money, and not that I think KROMM would really do this, but if I wanted to bribe Sean with $100,000 Canadian (after all, the US dollar isn't worth what it once was), and he slipped it through the other editors at SJGames, and published the following as "canon" for GURPS, I could have the following spell become part of the standard rules... INSTANT DEATH: Special This spell invokes instant death, no saving roll allowed for any given character or diety. Such a death will not permit the return of the being to life via Resurrection of any kind. Dead is DEAD. If this spell is cast, it also removes all memory of its USE in the game universe. As a special spell, this spell has no range modifiers. It will kill any creature or being that the caster knows of regardless of where that being is. It will strike across dimensions or even those who are in an astral plane or any other plane of existence. Requisites: Magery 1 Time to cast: 1 Duration: Permanent Energy to cast: 1 Would you expect that any of the Game Masters would permit this spell in their games despite it being "official"? I suspect not. I know I wouldn't! (so no, Sean, I'm not paying you $100,000 Canadian <g>) So, that brings up the next valid point. In a "reasonable" contest, one has to weed out the unreasonable spells. I consider quite a few of the spells in GURPS GRIMOIRE and the NEW Spells never seen before until GURPS MAGIC for 4e was published, to be highly unreasonable. Spells that combine three spells into one, and do it for less energy than for all three spells combined is just "unreasonable" in my eyes. So, here was the original challenge - use only those spells contained within GURPS MAGIC (Why? It is easier to exclude the spells in GURPS GRIMOIRE entirely than to make a list of those spells I consider unreasonable - takes up less discussion time as people say one spell is abusive while other say it is not abusive. Next - why the ban on Signature gear? Point for point, it is more effective than Wealth until you reach the 20 point cost level, then VERY WEALTHY is a better buy. 10 points gains you $2,000 20 points gains you $5,000 30 points gains you $20,000 Signature gear: 10 points buys you $6,000 equipment (assuming normal wealth and starting wealth of $1,000 to begin with) 20 points buys you $11,000 equipment (ditto) 30 points buys you $16,000 equipment (ditto) Using the original rules of 1 point can be traded in for money, the rules disparity for the point cost is even more pronounced. 10 points: $2,000 (assuming normal wealth and starting wealth of $1,000 to begin with) 20 points: $3,000 (ditto) 30 points: $4,000 (ditto) So why use it if it is "unreasonable"? There is a clash between the "original wealth rules" of GURPS 3e and even clashes with the wealth rules for 4e. It is to put it mildly, munchkin bait. Come to think of it, there is one other advantage Signature Gear offers over that of simple Wealth. Usually, it seems to be that players are expected to spend no more than 20% of their starting wealth on adventuring gear unless they are wanderers etc. Signature gear is not constrained by such a limit. Last thought and I'll bring this email post to a close... Part of the problem with creating characters in a game is that wealth as an advantage does a lot more than give a player character money, it gives him the ability to exchange money for things that are possessions, things that can confer advantages upon player characters. When a character purchases Armor, he is in effect, purchasing a limited form of Damage Resistance no? When he buys a healing potion, he is in effect erasing the damage done to him already - a form of extra hit points right? When he buys a fine sword, he is in effect, increasing his relative ST for inflicting damage by one ST level, and perhaps buying a weapon that won't break as easily. Give a character TOO much starting wealth, and he can buy things over and above his basic innate abilities or skills or what have you. I'm not complaining mind you. I'm just trying to explain my thought processes. If for example, you permit a mageborn to buy a powerstone with the wealth advantage, which usually specifies that equipment costs can be no more than 20% of the starting wealth unless certain conditions are met - then you are in essense saying "Ok, you may augument your Fatigue value by a given amount". If the mage can do it, so can the witch hunter. A 30 point powerstone is worth 18,500 according to GURPS MAGIC for 4e. Multiply that by x5 to get the starting wealth required, and the cost is such that the player needs to buy an advantage confering a x100 starting wealth or filthy rich (50 points). If the rule is that you can use all of your starting wealth on equipment, the game becomes even more "odd" in the sense that you can buy a LOT of magic items for a mere $100,000 in cost. Signature gear bypasses all of that. It becomes an issue of "I can buy more and better things than you can buy. D&D almost always makes it that magic items make the character, instead of the Character makes the character. If I wanted to, I could buy a signature gear item in the form of a ring. That ring contains 3 charges of a given "magical effect". Its cost? A mere $18,000 (rounding up, it is closer to about 17,000 actually). With that ring, and an unaware mage player, I can use the ring to effect a really nasty surprise. What surprise? Imagine using money to buy invisibility potions, then sneak up on a mage who didn't have the benefit of any warning spells or mage sight or what have you. Then imagine using a lesser wish to specify a roll of a three when slinging a stone at an unarmored mage while aiming at either his cranium or his vitals? Is that a valid contest? Is it anything but a one shot surprise attack? Since a crit success on an attack removes any possiblity of an active defense roll by the defender, it is pretty much a done deal if the attack can inflict sufficient damage in one blow. Limiting wealth by limiting how many character points is one method to illustrate what I started out by saying that a well played fighter up against a mage of equal points, should be able to win easily enough. It all depends on the spell mix. If someone said "Ok Hal, create a playable character for a convention play, and the goal of the adventure is to take on a mage in his lair - WITCH HUNTER is probably the character I'd build. Sans the Magic Resistance 2, there isn't anything truly remarkable about him - and I would STILL take him into play against a resident Mage defending his lair. I'd be cautious as all hell - and I might lose my character, but I'd go in there with an appreciation for the Mage's disadvantages. I would also be vastly surprised if the GM set me up to take on a 600 point character after all the magical equipment is accounted for, all of the defensive building's lair costs are accounted for, etc. A 100 point character against a well designed 600 point character SHOULD lose. On the other hand? If I managed to secure a win despite it all, I would definitely have a sense of pride in the accomplishment. So, those are my thoughts. Keep the starting wealth for equipment to a minimum, Keep the unreasonable spells out of the mix with the understanding that they are in fact, unbalancing. Keep the rest of the spells in from GURPS MAGIC 3e, and see what can be done. Under those circumstances, you will be able to test for capability of the character versus capabilities of his possessions. _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
