Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Why does Magery no longer add to Skill?

Tags:
  • Games
  • Video Games
Last response: in PC Gaming
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 4:13:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Hi, My group hasn't played GURPS for several years, and we're in the
process of planning a new campaign using GURPS. I bought a 4th edition
book to look over and translate old characters into the new edition.
>From my understanding of the new Magery, it no longer adds to skill
level, instead it controls how much energy you can put into spells, and
it also decreases the time required to learn new spells.

Does anyone know what the game designer's intent was in doing this?
They explain on their website the reasons for not being able to cast a
spell and toss it in the same round, but nothing about this. I don't
agree with their reasons for doing that, so for my games I've changed
it back, but I'd like to know their reasons for screwing with Magery.
If there is a good one, then I wont be changing that back.

It seems that with the way they changed attribute costs, they would
have kept magery the same. Balancing points between IQ and Magery and
spell skill levels has always been simple: Buy as high a magery as your
GM allows, then buy IQ up to where Magery + IQ is 20 or so, so that 1
or 2 points into a spell and you're at the point where energy cost is
reduced by 2. Magery was akin to cheeper IQ, but it only works for
spells, it doesn't add to non-spell skills, nor does it add to will or
anything along those lines.

It used to take around 80 points (if my memory is working correctly) to
get IQ 18, then Magery 3 (which I believe used to be the highest level
of Magery) was something like 45 points (I don't have my 3rd ed book
around to check, so bear with me). So your IQ for spells was 21. That's
125 points to get your spell IQ to 21. Now that magery doesn't add to
skill, and IQ costs a straight up 20/point, it costs 220 points to get
the same spell IQ, and it means that in order to play a mage that can
keep up with his mundane companions (in terms of ability to do what he
specializes in more often, not combat prowness), your either need about
a hundred points into extra fatigue (which doesn't fit any mage
archtype I know of), or you need to be a supergenius that could derrive
quantum physics over night using some chewing gum, a hair pin, and a
pencil.

More about : magery longer add skill

Anonymous
September 13, 2005 4:56:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Isn't that only for learning the spell (as in researching it in game?)
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 4:56:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

And that problem would be...?
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 11:31:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Shosuro Kenshin wrote:
> Hi, My group hasn't played GURPS for several years, and we're in the
> process of planning a new campaign using GURPS. I bought a 4th edition
> book to look over and translate old characters into the new edition.
> From my understanding of the new Magery, it no longer adds to skill
> level, instead it controls how much energy you can put into spells,
> and it also decreases the time required to learn new spells.

You are most certainly misreading the Magery advantage. It most certainly
adds to spells; p. B66:
Add your Magery to your IQ when you learn spells.


--
Eric B. Smith http://www.geocities.com/ericbsmith
GURPS Data File Coordinator

"A lot of people have asked me how short I am. Since my last divorce, I
think I'm about $100,000 short." - Mickey Rooney
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 11:57:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On 13 Sep 2005 12:13:47 -0700, "Shosuro Kenshin"
<ShosuroKenshin@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi, My group hasn't played GURPS for several years, and we're in the
>process of planning a new campaign using GURPS. I bought a 4th edition
>book to look over and translate old characters into the new edition.
>>From my understanding of the new Magery, it no longer adds to skill
>level, instead it controls how much energy you can put into spells, and
>it also decreases the time required to learn new spells.
>
>Does anyone know what the game designer's intent was in doing this?

Sure. Magery was too damn good for the price. Compare the price of
Magery to the price of a Talent that boosts that many skills. And now
we can have Necromancy Talent or Elementalist Talent. Which will be
cool for theme magicians who aren't useless outside their speciality.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 12:18:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Shosuro Kenshin wrote:
> Isn't that only for learning the spell (as in researching it in game?)

No, it's to add to IQ for the purpose of using spells. I'll agree that the
wording is a little foggy, but I cannot see how getting a +Magery to IQ for
learning spells would do anything but give an effective bonus to spells
skill level. Still, to my reading the intent is quite clear. If you have
Magery 3 and IQ 14 you learn spells as if you had IQ 17, and that includes
the skill level of the spell when you cast it.

Also, check out Professor William Headley (p. B315) who's Ritual Paths and
Ritual Spells all recieve a +1 from Magery.

--
Eric B. Smith http://www.geocities.com/ericbsmith
GURPS Data File Coordinator

Random numbers are too important to be left to chance.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 12:18:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

David Johnston wrote:

> Sure. Magery was too damn good for the price. Compare the price of
> Magery to the price of a Talent that boosts that many skills.

There has been much debate over that point. Remember that Magery does not
include the reputation bonus that Talents do. Still, I wouldn't argue if a
GM wanted to raise the cost of Magery to 15/level, though I would likely
sneak in a few levels of IQ! if he did so (+1 IQ, -1 Perception and Will for
a net 10 points). Hell, realistically I would likely do so anyway, since I
don't particularly think it's realistic having the Genius Magician also
being Iron Willed and Super Perceptive as well.


> And now
> we can have Necromancy Talent or Elementalist Talent.

We already have One College Magery, -40%. It can be added to Magery just as
effectively if it costs 15/level as if it cost 10/level.

--
Eric B. Smith http://www.geocities.com/ericbsmith
GURPS Data File Coordinator

"Even one billion Chinese do not a superpower make." - John Lukacs
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 12:25:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:57:54 GMT, rgorman@block.net (David Johnston)
wrote:

>On 13 Sep 2005 12:13:47 -0700, "Shosuro Kenshin"
><ShosuroKenshin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi, My group hasn't played GURPS for several years, and we're in the
>>process of planning a new campaign using GURPS. I bought a 4th edition
>>book to look over and translate old characters into the new edition.
>>>From my understanding of the new Magery, it no longer adds to skill
>>level, instead it controls how much energy you can put into spells, and
>>it also decreases the time required to learn new spells.
>>
>>Does anyone know what the game designer's intent was in doing this?
>
>Sure. Magery was too damn good for the price. Compare the price of
>Magery to the price of a Talent that boosts that many skills. And now
>we can have Necromancy Talent or Elementalist Talent. Which will be
>cool for theme magicians who aren't useless outside their speciality.

Oops. Never mind. The question was based on a false premise. It is
still my opinion that Magery is too good for the price, though, but
maybe that's because I don't keep careful enough track of casting
range.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 12:27:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On 13 Sep 2005 12:56:03 -0700, "Shosuro Kenshin"
<ShosuroKenshin@gmail.com> wrote:

>Isn't that only for learning the spell (as in researching it in game?)

Well, now I feel silly. No. Looking at the rules, which is what I
should have done, Magery still works the same way in that regard.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 1:24:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:18:43 GMT, "Eric B. Smith"
<smithericb@hotmail.com> wrote:

>David Johnston wrote:
>
>> Sure. Magery was too damn good for the price. Compare the price of
>> Magery to the price of a Talent that boosts that many skills.
>
>There has been much debate over that point. Remember that Magery does not
>include the reputation bonus that Talents do. Still, I wouldn't argue if a
>GM wanted to raise the cost of Magery to 15/level, though I would likely
>sneak in a few levels of IQ! if he did so (+1 IQ, -1 Perception and Will for
>a net 10 points). Hell, realistically I would likely do so anyway, since I
>don't particularly think it's realistic having the Genius Magician also
>being Iron Willed and Super Perceptive as well.
>

It may not be realistic for the Genius Scientist to be iron willed,
but it is very realistic for Magicians to have iron will in a magic
system like this one, where incantations and the like are primarily
aids to concentration.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 1:30:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

"Shosuro Kenshin" <ShosuroKenshin@gmail.com> schrieb

> It used to take around 80 points (if my memory is working correctly) to
> get IQ 18, then Magery 3 (which I believe used to be the highest level
> of Magery) was something like 45 points (I don't have my 3rd ed book
> around to check, so bear with me). So your IQ for spells was 21. That's
> 125 points to get your spell IQ to 21. Now that magery doesn't add to
> skill, and IQ costs a straight up 20/point, it costs 220 points to get
> the same spell IQ, and it means that in order to play a mage that can
> keep up with his mundane companions (in terms of ability to do what he
> specializes in more often, not combat prowness), your either need about
> a hundred points into extra fatigue (which doesn't fit any mage
> archtype I know of), or you need to be a supergenius that could derrive
> quantum physics over night using some chewing gum, a hair pin, and a
> pencil.

Sorry, but I honestly think, that your problem isn't the cost of magery...

Flo
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 9:17:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Shosuro Kenshin wrote:
> And that problem would be...?

GURPS?

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 9:17:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Shosuro Kenshin wrote:
> Hi, My group hasn't played GURPS for several years, and we're in the
> process of planning a new campaign using GURPS. I bought a 4th edition
> book to look over and translate old characters into the new edition.
>>From my understanding of the new Magery, it no longer adds to skill
> level, instead it controls how much energy you can put into spells, and
> it also decreases the time required to learn new spells.

I haven't read the GURPS magic rules closely, but I'm afraid that Magery
still adds to skill.

> Does anyone know what the game designer's intent was in doing this?
[...]

The reason why the game designers should have removed the skill bonus
from Magery (but didn't) is that Magery already limits access to spells.
Many spells cannot be cast unless you have a certain level of Magery (1,
or 2, or 3).

This means that many character concepts require a certain level of
Magery to work, because key spells (for that character concept) require
Magery 2, or even Magery 3.

But Magery also has a built-in skill level bonus, and since in GURPS 4E
skills "max out" at a cost of 4 CPS per skill level (per +1), you
mustn't ever allow Magery that costs less than 5 CPs per level.

That would be no problem if you're happy with everybody having general
Magery. But offering only general Magery is wrong. Single-College
Magery, as wellas Themed MAgery (e.g. all Elemental Colleges) should
also be offered.

And they are. Just not, in 4E (or for that matter in 3E), at reasonable
prices. They are painfully overpriced, and they have to be, because of
that stupid skill bonus.

If you removed it, so that Magery only gave "spell level access", and
controlled the amount of energy you could put into spells, it would be
feasible, without breaking game balance, to offer limited Mageries at a
*reasonable* cost, so that real gamers would actually buy them.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 9:19:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

David Johnston wrote:
> Oops. Never mind. The question was based on a false premise. It is
> still my opinion that Magery is too good for the price, though, but
> maybe that's because I don't keep careful enough track of casting
> range.

Does your opinion extend to One-College Magery?

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 12:39:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

> I would likely
> sneak in a few levels of IQ! if he did so (+1 IQ, -1 Perception and Will
> for
> a net 10 points).

The only thing to note about this method (which may or may not be a problem
as one sees it) is that buying IQ! is whttling away at the disadvantage
limit. The cost of IQ! is: 10 ponits, plus effectively reduced disadvantage
limit. This would eg. mean that in a 120 point game, a character with IQ! 16
(and thus Will and Perception 10) has now taken the 60 disadvantage points
available to him.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 4:34:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

David Johnston wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2005 12:13:47 -0700, "Shosuro Kenshin"
> <ShosuroKenshin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi, My group hasn't played GURPS for several years, and we're in the
> >process of planning a new campaign using GURPS. I bought a 4th edition
> >book to look over and translate old characters into the new edition.
> >>From my understanding of the new Magery, it no longer adds to skill
> >level, instead it controls how much energy you can put into spells, and
> >it also decreases the time required to learn new spells.
> >
> >Does anyone know what the game designer's intent was in doing this?
>
> Sure. Magery was too damn good for the price. Compare the price of
> Magery to the price of a Talent that boosts that many skills. And now
> we can have Necromancy Talent or Elementalist Talent. Which will be
> cool for theme magicians who aren't useless outside their speciality.

The problem for me isn't that Magery doesn't cost enough, it's that
spells don't cost enough. I think they should have done it like
they're doing psionics now: each spell would be an advantage modified
by enhancments and limitations.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 12:08:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On 14 Sep 2005 12:34:51 -0700, "Scooter the Mighty"
<Greyguy3@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>David Johnston wrote:
>> On 13 Sep 2005 12:13:47 -0700, "Shosuro Kenshin"
>> <ShosuroKenshin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi, My group hasn't played GURPS for several years, and we're in the
>> >process of planning a new campaign using GURPS. I bought a 4th edition
>> >book to look over and translate old characters into the new edition.
>> >>From my understanding of the new Magery, it no longer adds to skill
>> >level, instead it controls how much energy you can put into spells, and
>> >it also decreases the time required to learn new spells.
>> >
>> >Does anyone know what the game designer's intent was in doing this?
>>
>> Sure. Magery was too damn good for the price. Compare the price of
>> Magery to the price of a Talent that boosts that many skills. And now
>> we can have Necromancy Talent or Elementalist Talent. Which will be
>> cool for theme magicians who aren't useless outside their speciality.
>
>The problem for me isn't that Magery doesn't cost enough, it's that
>spells don't cost enough. I think they should have done it like
>they're doing psionics now: each spell would be an advantage modified
>by enhancments and limitations.

I'm glad they didn't. I've seen that approach in Hero, and the result
looked nothing like the wizards in most fantasy novels. They were
superheros in robes.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 12:42:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Scooter the Mighty wrote:
> The problem for me isn't that Magery doesn't cost enough, it's that
> spells don't cost enough. I think they should have done it like
> they're doing psionics now: each spell would be an advantage modified
> by enhancments and limitations.

There's _nothing_ stopping you from designing a magic system exactly like
that now with what's presented in the Basic book. Fantasy offers a couple
more suggestions along that vein, and I'm sure Powers will address it too.


--
Eric B. Smith http://www.geocities.com/ericbsmith
GURPS Data File Coordinator

"Even one billion Chinese do not a superpower make." - John Lukacs
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 11:13:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

>>The problem for me isn't that Magery doesn't cost enough, it's that
>>spells don't cost enough. I think they should have done it like
>>they're doing psionics now: each spell would be an advantage modified
>>by enhancments and limitations.
>
> I'm glad they didn't. I've seen that approach in Hero, and the result
> looked nothing like the wizards in most fantasy novels. They were
> superheros in robes.

Well, I'm trying the approach out in a PBP game at the moment, and I find
the result very spell-like, and the mage very mage-like so far.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 12:17:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:42:04 GMT, "Eric B. Smith"
<smithericb@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> The problem for me isn't that Magery doesn't cost enough, it's that
>> spells don't cost enough. I think they should have done it like
>> they're doing psionics now: each spell would be an advantage modified
>> by enhancments and limitations.
>
>There's _nothing_ stopping you from designing a magic system exactly like
>that now with what's presented in the Basic book. [...]

You're right: I was about to post the same.
Just remove the "Psionic -10%" limitation and add, if relevant, a
"Magic spell -10%" limitaton and voilà.

You can also mix-and-match the two systems. Magic spells for normal,
durable spells, and advantages for groundbreaking or permanent spells.

Korin Duval

--

"Truth requires a great amount of courage;
Fiction requires a great amount of maturity."
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 3:54:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:08:43 GMT, rgorman@block.net (David Johnston)
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> I'm glad they didn't. I've seen that approach in Hero, and the result
> looked nothing like the wizards in most fantasy novels. They were
> superheros in robes.

Which was, I think, the point - in Hero. Supers in robes is how
wizards tended to be treated by the comics. However, GURPS isn't
primarily a supers game, so I'm also glad magic is treated as
something different from super-powers.

--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 4:28:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Eric B. Smith wrote:
> Scooter the Mighty wrote:
> > The problem for me isn't that Magery doesn't cost enough, it's that
> > spells don't cost enough. I think they should have done it like
> > they're doing psionics now: each spell would be an advantage modified
> > by enhancments and limitations.
>
> There's _nothing_ stopping you from designing a magic system exactly like
> that now with what's presented in the Basic book. Fantasy offers a couple
> more suggestions along that vein, and I'm sure Powers will address it too.
>
>
I know there's not. And I am.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 5:02:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

> >The problem for me isn't that Magery doesn't cost enough, it's that
> >spells don't cost enough. I think they should have done it like
> >they're doing psionics now: each spell would be an advantage modified
> >by enhancments and limitations.
>
> I'm glad they didn't. I've seen that approach in Hero, and the result
> looked nothing like the wizards in most fantasy novels. They were
> superheros in robes.

I don't think such a system would have to step all the way back to the
point where each spell was created from scratch. I guess my main
objection is that spells are underpriced at a point a piece. The cost
of magery only makes up for that at a certain number of spells. If you
have magery 3 and 1 spell, you spent a lot of points for not much
advantage. If you have magery 3 and 500 spells, you got a steal of a
deal.

I also think it would be nice to allow mages to adjust things like
spell duration so they are more useful, and do it in a point balanced
way. For example, it's always bugged me that spells like "Illusion
Disguise" have a base duration of a minute (or rather the underlying
illusions spells do).
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 9:22:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:17:00 GMT, korinNOduvalSPAM@yahoo.it (Korin
Duval) wrote:
>Just remove the "Psionic -10%" limitation and add, if relevant, a
>"Magic spell -10%" limitaton and voilà.
>
>You can also mix-and-match the two systems. Magic spells for normal,
>durable spells, and advantages for groundbreaking or permanent spells.

*Powers* will cover this, by the way.

--
Phil Masters http://www.philm.demon.co.uk
Consternation: RPG Convention, Cambridge, 2005:
http://www.consternation.org.uk/
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 3:51:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In article <1126812896.786877.215190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Scooter the Mighty <Greyguy3@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I also think it would be nice to allow mages to adjust things like
>spell duration so they are more useful, and do it in a point balanced
>way. For example, it's always bugged me that spells like "Illusion
>Disguise" have a base duration of a minute (or rather the underlying
>illusions spells do).

If you use enhancements for this, I take it the end result is too
cheap for what it achieves?

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 10:55:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:38:00 GMT, raven@westnet.poe.com wrote:

>David Johnston <rgorman@block.net> wrote:
><snip>
>> I'm glad they didn't. I've seen that approach in Hero, and the result
>> looked nothing like the wizards in most fantasy novels. They were
>> superheros in robes.
>
>The thing is, I'd liked to have seen a meta system for making magical
>effects, becuase sometimes you're going to want to run a world where that
>_is_ the case,

I don't quite understand. You can make any of the advantages
mana-based and they have a system for calculating the costs of new
advantages. Or do you mean you want a standardised system for
calculating the fatigue cost of new Magic Aptitude skills?
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 12:34:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

The thing I like about the GURPS magic system is that it gives a real
feel for magic being more about what you know rather than just
something you can do. The fact that you have to start with the basics
and go up to increasingly more advanced spheres of knowledge gives a
concrete model for what's going that is missing from more abstract
representations.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 3:59:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

The Wrathchild wrote:
[IQ!]
> The only thing to note about this method (which may or may not be a problem
> as one sees it) is that buying IQ! is whttling away at the disadvantage
> limit. The cost of IQ! is: 10 ponits, plus effectively reduced disadvantage
> limit. This would eg. mean that in a 120 point game, a character with IQ! 16
> (and thus Will and Perception 10) has now taken the 60 disadvantage points
> available to him.

I thought that sold-down secondary attributes didn't count against the
disad limit?

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 3:59:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:59:41 +0200, "Peter Knutsen (usenet)"
<peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

>
>The Wrathchild wrote:
>[IQ!]
>> The only thing to note about this method (which may or may not be a problem
>> as one sees it) is that buying IQ! is whttling away at the disadvantage
>> limit. The cost of IQ! is: 10 ponits, plus effectively reduced disadvantage
>> limit. This would eg. mean that in a 120 point game, a character with IQ! 16
>> (and thus Will and Perception 10) has now taken the 60 disadvantage points
>> available to him.
>
>I thought that sold-down secondary attributes didn't count against the
>disad limit?

Page 120: Your GM may wish to "cap" the extra points you can gain
from disadvantages. This limit applies to the total points you can
get from _all_ traits with negative point costs. Mandatory
disadvantages assined by the GM _don't_ count against against this
limit.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 12:10:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

> The Wrathchild wrote:
> [IQ!]
>> The only thing to note about this method (which may or may not be a
>> problem as one sees it) is that buying IQ! is whttling away at the
>> disadvantage limit. The cost of IQ! is: 10 ponits, plus effectively
>> reduced disadvantage limit. This would eg. mean that in a 120 point game,
>> a character with IQ! 16 (and thus Will and Perception 10) has now taken
>> the 60 disadvantage points available to him.
>
> I thought that sold-down secondary attributes didn't count against the
> disad limit?

See 4e Basic Set p. 11 under "Disadvantage Limit" - "A disadvantage is
anything with a negative cost, including low attributes, reduced social
status ..."

This is one of the - if not major then at least significant - character
generation rule changes from 3e, where it was possible to fiddle with some
negative point in relation to attributes, that didn't affect the disad
limit. Not so anymore, and thus the new recommendation of the disad limit
being around 50% of starting points.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 6:11:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

>>I thought that sold-down secondary attributes didn't count against the
>>disad limit?

The Wrathchild wrote:
> See 4e Basic Set p. 11 under "Disadvantage Limit" - "A disadvantage is
> anything with a negative cost, including low attributes, reduced social
> status ..."
>
> This is one of the - if not major then at least significant - character
> generation rule changes from 3e, where it was possible to fiddle with some
> negative point in relation to attributes, that didn't affect the disad
> limit. Not so anymore, and thus the new recommendation of the disad limit
> being around 50% of starting points.

Thanks to you and David for clearing that up for me.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 5:45:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Bent C Dalager wrote:
> In article <1126812896.786877.215190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Scooter the Mighty <Greyguy3@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >I also think it would be nice to allow mages to adjust things like
> >spell duration so they are more useful, and do it in a point balanced
> >way. For example, it's always bugged me that spells like "Illusion
> >Disguise" have a base duration of a minute (or rather the underlying
> >illusions spells do).
>
> If you use enhancements for this, I take it the end result is too
> cheap for what it achieves?
>
I think it would work out OK if you made the spell an advantage, say
based on how they used to do inherent magic (Character points =2% of
energy cost to make it a magic item).