Fixing Magic

[Kkat]

I was disappoint...

Some time ago, Ilushia created a wonderful new document for magical rule. I was personally highly impressed with the mechanics that she worked out, and encouraged Sunrise to implement the new rules, which he did.

Unfortunately, that document was left open to editing, and someone went in and made bizarre (and, frankly, un-FOE-like changes) to the system. Changes were made to casting rules, costs, strain-calculations, secondary-calculations and many other things.

The current document for magic revisions is a complete mess. So I'm having Ilushia rebuilt the document in it's original form. I highly suggest disposal of the corrupted version. I am encouraging her to make the new document not open for edit. And alterations should be passed through her and Sunrise. I am willing to supervise.

Update:

The changes were made mid February. The Spellcasting document has been reverted to how it was before those changes were made. We are aware of the people who decided to rewrite the rules on their own, and are fairly certain that this will not happen again. The document has been set so that Ilushia, myself and the original document owner are the only ones who can edit the document. This way, we don't have to change links.

Edits and revisions of the magic and spellcasting rules will, of course, be necessary as playtesting continues. Proposed changes should be posted here. Changes to the base mechanics need to pass through Ilushia and Sunrise before being implimented.

We are looking for many more MLP/FOE appropriate spells. More spells are definitely needed.

Thank you for your patience, understanding and assistance!

--Kkat

[Kkat]

The Spell Revisions is still very much a work-in-progress. The basic system is finished, but the spell lists are not. Ilushia and I are going through the spells one-by-one, but this will take some time.

Major revisions to may spells were worked on Sunday, May 27th. For those using these rules, the link below provides a copy of the Spell Revisions rules as they were prior to the most recent changes.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J5r ... DRupE/edit

[Kkat]

We have hammered out several new spells this last week, and made some minor tweaks to the basic mechanics: burnout is now mechanically clearer and a lot nastier; learning spells is more streamlined.

[TenMihara]

I have two things that I think need to be addressed.

First of all the the flat '45 AP' per casting. This is a problem, particularly for offensive casters, because with that kind of cost they will NEVER be able to match any other type of weapon user for damage output. 45 AP is what it costs to fire and chamber an Anti-Machine Rifle, so bear that in mind. A dedicated offensive caster should at least be able to match the average gun user. As well, early game casters won't be able to do much of anything. My suggestion would be to at least set AP cost based on spell level, instead of a flat rate.

The other thing, and this is a lesser concern, is the number of perks. As it stands, you effectively have to spend most, if not all of your perks, on casting if you want to be any good at it. In games (though comparatively few) where perks are taken every other level, this is especially harsh. I'm afraid I don't have a proposed fix for this though, just bringing it to your attention.

[SilverlightPony]

I have two things that I think need to be addressed.

First of all the the flat '45 AP' per casting. This is a problem, particularly for offensive casters, because with that kind of cost they will NEVER be able to match any other type of weapon user for damage output. 45 AP is what it costs to fire and chamber an Anti-Machine Rifle, so bear that in mind. A dedicated offensive caster should at least be able to match the average gun user. As well, early game casters won't be able to do much of anything. My suggestion would be to at least set AP cost based on spell level, instead of a flat rate.

There's a perk for that: Spell Alacrity. It has two ranks, and each rank drops the spellcasting AP cost by 5. (Personally, I probably would have made it 3 ranks, but Kkat thought that would be unbalanced.)

[RainbowYoshi]

There's a perk for that: Spell Alacrity. It has two ranks, and each rank drops the spellcasting AP cost by 5. (Personally, I probably would have made it 3 ranks, but Kkat thought that would be unbalanced.)

Um... no. That isn't enough. That lowers it to 35 AP per spell, which still means only AGI 8-9 characters can cast more than one spell per turn. Which still means that offensive casters are -well- below the DPS of a gun toting fighter.

[TenMihara]

I have two things that I think need to be addressed.

First of all the the flat '45 AP' per casting. This is a problem, particularly for offensive casters, because with that kind of cost they will NEVER be able to match any other type of weapon user for damage output. 45 AP is what it costs to fire and chamber an Anti-Machine Rifle, so bear that in mind. A dedicated offensive caster should at least be able to match the average gun user. As well, early game casters won't be able to do much of anything. My suggestion would be to at least set AP cost based on spell level, instead of a flat rate.

There's a perk for that: Spell Alacrity. It has two ranks, and each rank drops the spellcasting AP cost by 5. (Personally, I probably would have made it 3 ranks, but Kkat thought that would be unbalanced.)

Even with that perk, it is still horrendously unbalanced against casters. For it to be balanced, a dedicated offensive caster should be able to -match- the turn by turn damage output of an equivalent level fighter of any other kind.

For example: Rainbow Yoshi's character at lvl 9 has 90 AP between traits, perks and SPECIAL. She can fire a 10mm pistol (20 AP) 4 times if no modifiers are in play. 4x (16+1d10) = 68 ~ 104 less Damage Threshold
Even if a caster had the same AP as Yoshi's character, the advanced level Energy Strike spell and the first rank of Spell alacrity, they could still only cast twice per turn. Assuming an Average Pot of 3 from 6 End you get this: 2x (12+2d10) = 28 ~ 64 Less Damage Theshold

Note that unless the Caster invests in several ranks of Mighty Caster, Maxes their Endurance for a higher Pot and/or takes Mighty Spell (Whatever offense spell), they're only scraping by with half the damage of the gunslinger.

[Kkat]

I have two things that I think need to be addressed.

Thank you.

First of all the the flat '45 AP' per casting. This is a problem, particularly for offensive casters, because with that kind of cost they will NEVER be able to match any other type of weapon user for damage output. 45 AP is what it costs to fire and chamber an Anti-Machine Rifle, so bear that in mind. A dedicated offensive caster should at least be able to match the average gun user. As well, early game casters won't be able to do much of anything. My suggestion would be to at least set AP cost based on spell level, instead of a flat rate.

We have added a perk that you can take twice which will reduce the AP cost (first to 40 and then to 35). However, a lot of spells are balanced with the idea that low-to-mid level characters will only be able to cast one spell. Advanced and Expert-level offensive spells are designed to have the sort of firepower to make a dedicated spellcaster a significant opponent, but spellcasting isn't designed to be a on par with other weapons users in damage-output. Instead spellcasters are designed to have options that other characters simply don't. This is, I feel, more in keeping with MLP: FiM.

The other thing, and this is a lesser concern, is the number of perks. As it stands, you effectively have to spend most, if not all of your perks, on casting if you want to be any good at it. In games (though comparatively few) where perks are taken every other level, this is especially harsh. I'm afraid I don't have a proposed fix for this though, just bringing it to your attention.

The perks are designed based on a perk-every-level acquisition. In games with perks every other level, perk choice becomes much harsher, but this is the case with every type of character. A dedicated spellcaster will need to focus on either Potency or Versatility. Taking Advanced and Expert level spells is expected, and I would personally expect a dedicated spellcaster to take Additional Vocation. Taking increases in casting speed, versatility or potency are choices that every spellcaster will have to make, and no spellcaster is expected to take all of them -- part of the goal is to prevent spellcasters from all being alike because they all take the same set of perks.

That said, I do think there is room for improvement. One thing I am going to suggest is increasing the number of spells that Advanced and Expert give you, allowing you to take them from multiple sets.

[Suraru]

I'm just going to (while trying not to be) rudely pop in here and throw some $.02 on game mechanics that I edited in a mod for FO:NV, to make it more realistic,. You could probably use it for what I think your doing (I only read the latest post, and skimmed over the first one, so I apologize if I seem like a complete moron here).

One thing I disliked with New Vegas, was the perk ever other level thing. However, I did like the fact it was supposed to help in prevented OP couriers. The edit I made was allowing you to pick 3 (instead of 2) traits in the beginning of the game, and I added a few traits. One trait (that I think is the only one that's useful atm, for this topic) was what I called the "Quick Adapting" trait.

Basically what this trait did, was allow you to get perks every level (instead of every 2), and the requirements were divided in 2 (so something that needed you to be level 50 would only require level 25, odd numbers rounded down). However, you could not exceed level 30, or 75 in any skills, but you could get any skill to 75 (because I had it only your tag skills could get to 100, and the other skills would max out at 25 or 50, depending on the skill).

Somepony like Twilight is more of a architect, vs Rarity who would be considered an engineer. If your not familiar with the analogy, Architects eventually know nothing about everything, and engineers eventually know everything about nothing. So this trait would prevent you from mastering a skill, but would allow you to know more about other skills.

~~~

Throw this in pony terms, taking that trait would allow you to basically learn spells like Twilight, vs Mastering special spells like Rarity.
With Rarity, you could learn other spells that aren't your main, but it would be limited. With Twilight, you can't master any spells, but you can easily learn over 9000.


I hope this can be helpful in processing new ideas, I only skimmed over the first post and read the last post when I wrote this, so I hope I'm not being spammy and useless.... ya!

[Kkat]

Um... no. That isn't enough. That lowers it to 35 AP per spell, which still means only AGI 8-9 characters can cast more than one spell per turn. Which still means that offensive casters are -well- below the DPS of a gun toting fighter.

As they are meant to be. This isn't an MMO, and spellcasters -- even Offensive spell-set spellcasters -- are not meant to be on par with a gun-toting fighter in sheer damage-per-turn. Just because the spell set "Offensive" exists does not mean it should be on part with someone wielding a machine gun. Spellcasters, even those who focus on Offensive spells, are not meant to be the big damage-dealers in a party.

To respond to something said in IRC chat regarding this:
Yes, this means there is "no point" in playing an spellcaster focused on Offensive spells if your goal for creating the character is damage output per turn. I don't see a problem with this. If you want to play an Offensive spell-focused spellcaster who deals a truckload of damage, build one who wears a battle saddle.