House Rules for Magic/ Magical Theory

[Mistergone]

Much and more has been said about potential changes to Magic and the Magical Theories-  most notably by Zeeblee,  KJR, and Kadeton.

 

I wanted to throw my hat into the ring and socialize the House Rules I plan on using in my TtB game.

 

Criticism/Comments always welcome.

 

Magic and Magical Theory House Rules

 

The following rules clarify or replace the rules in the Fated Almanac:

·         Magical Theory is considered a General Talent.  It may be gained at any time a character could gain a General Talent, including Pursuit steps and Character Creation.  A fated may only have one Magical Theory.

 

·         The Dabbler, Graverobber, and Tinkerer Pursuits gain a Magical Theory at Character Creation, but do not gain another General Talent in addition to this.

 

·         Immuto is applied to Magia to create spells. Unusual Magia/Immuto combinations require FM approval.

 

·         Creation of spells is not allowed during combat.

 

·         A character may add a number of Immuto to a given Magia equal to their rating in the Magia’s Skill. 

(For example, a character with Sorcery: 3 could add the “Fire” Immuto twice and the “Blast” Immuto once to the Sorcery Magia “Elemental Projectile”.  No further Immuto could be applied without removing one of the others.)

 

·         The Harness Soulstone skill is the exception to the previous rule.  In addition to the existing rules for using Soulstones (FA, pg. 226) character may use a Soulstone Charge to add an additional number of Immuto to a Magia equal to their Harness Soulstone Rating. 

(Continuing the previous example, a character with Sorcery: 3 and Harness Soulstone: 2 could add the “Fire” Immuto twice and the “Blast” Immuto once to the Sorcery Magia “Elemental Projectile”- and then use a Soulstone charge to add the “Increased Damage” and “Additional Suit” Immuto as well.)

 

The following rules replace the rules for Magic Theory on pages 221-224 of the Fated Almanac:

 

The Oxford Method

Associated Symbol:  Tomes

Description:  A regimented craft that focuses on the disciplined study of Magic. Adherents are keepers of the ritualistic practices and arcane formulae commonly associated with Old Magic.

 

Advantage:  The first time in a turn the character takes the (1) Focus action, they gain the “Focused +1” condition a second time.

 

Drawback:  If this character does not benefit from the “Focused” condition, their Skill Duels to cast spells suffer a Negative Twist.

 

Twist: This character is adept at understanding the workings of Magic and is able to recognize Arcane devices such as Grimoire, magical implements, arcane runes and magical foci.  In game terms, this could provide a Positive Twist on any Duel to recognize such an object or discern its purpose.

 

The Whisper

Associated Symbol:  Crows

Description:  More a condition than a Theory, this spellcaster benefits from the “tutelage” of the disembodied voice of an otherworldly patron.  Resurrectionists are known to refer to this entity as “The Grave Spirit”

 

Advantage:  This Character adds an additional Crows Suit to the AV of any Necromancy Duel or to any Spell that uses the Immuto “Decay” or “Undead”.

 

Drawback:  This character receives a Negative Twist on all Social Skill Duels, except Intimidate.

 

Twist: This character is plagued by disturbing nightmares and visions, which grow more frequent and intense as the spellcaster continues down this path.  These omens sometimes provide useful insights- but, more often than not, only serve to chip away at the sanity of the afflicted.

 

The Darlin Theories

Associated Symbol:  Clocks

Description:  A collection of magical and scientific treatises, The Darlin Theories seek to quantify magic in academic and scientific terms.  Adherents to this theory are most concerned with experimentation, discovery, and the practical application of Magic.

 

Advantage:  Add the character’s Artefacting Skill to the AV of any Spell that targets a construct. In addition, when crafting an inanimate construct (FA, pg. 233) the character gains additional Construct Points equal to half the sum of their Engineering and Artefacting Ratings, rounded up.

 

Drawback:  Unleashing a spell with the “Construct” Immuto adds 4 to the TN of the Spell Duel (rather than 2). Chaining a spell with this Immuto works as normal.

 

Twist: This Character has an intuitive sense for the workings of constructs and may mentally “probe” a construct to understand its function or any protocols it is obeying.

 

The Court Procedure

Associated Symbol:  Masks

Description:  A collection of nearly 8,000 laws governing the access and use of magical power, the Court Procedure has its origins in the Aristocracy.  It centers on the belief that power comes from forcing others to obey rules that the powerful do not abide by.

 

Advantage:  The character adds an additional Masks Suit to the AV of any Social Duel or to any Spell resisted by WP.

 

Drawback:  All damage flips from this character’s Spell Actions receive a Negative Twist.

 

Twist: Adherents of the Court Procedure are expected to wear a mask when practicing their art.  In addition, these characters benefit from having contacts among “The Gathered” – a highly regimented society of Court Procedure adherents.  Senior members within the society may offer assistance to the character- or demand favors as proof of loyalty.  
 

Thalarian Doctrine

Associated Symbol:  Rams

Description:  The Guild’s officially sanctioned magic style.  It focuses on protection against the magical arts and on making its power available to all through Artifice.

 

Advantage:  When using the Magical Shielding ability (FA, pg. 245) this character gains a Positive Twist on any DF or WP Duel to defend against spells.  Any character currently protected by this character’s Magical Shielding ability gains this benefit as well.

 

Drawback:  This character’s Sorcery, Necromancy, and Prestidigitation Skill Duels add an additional Rams Suit to their final TN.

 

Twist: The magical sensing ability of this character has been honed. The range of this ability is doubled, and if the character can pinpoint the Magic’s source they gain additional insight into the type of magic being used and its strength.

 

The Balanced Five

Associated Symbol:  Dragons

Description:  A magical theory from the Three Kingdoms.  Practitioners believe that Magic is the very stuff of life and nature, and that harnessing its effects comes from upsetting the natural balance.

 

Advantage:  If cast by this character, any Magia with an Elemental Immuto requirement may apply up to two different Elemenal Immuto (rather than just one).  In addition, the first Elemental Immuto applied to this Magia does not raise its TN.  Additional applications of the same Immuto increase the TN as normal.

 

Drawback:  This character’s Counter-Spell Skill Rating may not be higher than their Evade or Centering Skill Ratings.

 

Twist: The character has contacts within Little Kingdom who may provide assistance, access to black market goods- or even access to Three Kingdoms safehouses.

 

Hedge Magic

Associated Symbol:  Roses

Description:  A catch-all term for those who have developed their own magical style without formal training or guidance.  This unorthodox approach to magic can result in powerful spellcraft.  However, practitioners of Hedge Magic are left to their own devices when seeking to advance their training.

 

Advantage:  This character may discard a single card before a Spell Duel to add the card’s Suit to the AV.

 

Drawback:  This character loses the benefit of any Pursuit Talent that would allow them to advance in any Magical skill in addition to those presented by the Fatemaster.

 

Twist: The character has contact with other Hedge Mages who can offer training for a price- or who would pay dearly for the Arcane secrets the character has unlocked.

 

Tradition Magic

Associated Symbol:  Keys

Description:  This practitioner of magic comes from a long line of Mages who have perfected their own casting styles for a particular school of Magic.  Few can match a Traditionalist in their practiced art- but the trappings of tradition can prove burdensome in some situations.

 

Advantage:  Choose Sorcery, Necromancy, Prestidigitation or Enchanting. This character gains a Positive Twist in Duels of the chosen Skill.

 

Drawback:  Increase the TN of this character’s Spell Duels by 3.  Spells cast by this character must apply Immuto such that the final TN of the spell is reduced by at least 3.

 

Twist: The character has contacts within their Family who may provide all manner of assistance to the character.  However, it’s expected that the character will place the concerns of the Family above all others.

[zeeblee]

I'm going to go ahead and take a crack at this in the form of my own comments as well as some questions as to your thought process (as going over the "why" of decisions is a great tool for both those of us responding to your work, and a great tool for you to review your work).  For ease of reading my thoughts will be in the green text.  (I was going to use purple, but it ended up being difficult with this background)

 

 

·         Magical Theory is considered a General Talent.  It may be gained at any time a character could gain a General Talent, including Pursuit steps and Character Creation.  A fated may only have one Magical Theory.

 

·         The Dabbler, Graverobber, and Tinkerer Pursuits gain a Magical Theory at Character Creation, but do not gain another General Talent in addition to this.

 

While I understand the purpose of this is to open up magic to characters who don't start as one of the three magical pursuits, I feel as if it robs players who want to start with these pursuits of a significant choice opportunity.  Making a mechanic for gaining magic is cool and all, but I really feel FMs should just let their players get magical talents if they want them during the story.  Though I do like how this idea lets a starting character in another pursuit have the ability to cast spells, but that also feels a bit wonky since they can't really start with a grimoire (since if we use other pursuit starting equipment as equivalents, a grimoire with two magia and three immuto is worth between 20 and 25 script.)

 

·         Creation of spells is not allowed during combat.

 

I played around with this idea for awhile as well, but then I realized that it really just rewarded players for writing out every permutation of magia and immuto ahead of time, and didn't really solve the "problem" of creating spells on the fly.  Is your goal here to sort of force a DnD Wizard playstyle upon casting in Malifaux?  Or is it to try and prevent cases of the Focus immuto or chained Genus immuto not really meaning anything?  (that last question is the problem I'm still struggling with)

 

·         A character may add a number of Immuto to a given Magia equal to their rating in the Magia’s Skill. 

(For example, a character with Sorcery: 3 could add the “Fire” Immuto twice and the “Blast” Immuto once to the Sorcery Magia “Elemental Projectile”.  No further Immuto could be applied without removing one of the others.)

 

On the surface I like this idea, but in the end I think it will be far too limiting.  With a standard skill max of 5 you will never be allowed more than five immuto per magia, and for the Elemental Projectile/Strike magia with their low starting TN, that ends up being a huge limiter on what a character with 5 ranks, a high (let's say 4) aspect, and a high card in their Twist Hand can do.  For example, 5 ranks + 4 aspect + 13 card = 22.  With a starting TN of 3 and only five immuto allocations would only allow this theoretical spell to reach Burning +5 with a TN of 13.  That's 9 potential TN wasted for a caster that truly wants to throw everything they have.  I honestly think the best way to limit things getting out of control (as I imagine the idea behind this was to prevent players from stacking -TN immuto to make more space for +TN immuto) is to really just limit what immuto each grimoire has access to.  I know this is a point of contention with others on the forum, but especially in the case of immuto I don't think grimoires should really grow.  Allowing a ton of different magia ends up being far less of an issue than allowing a ton of immutos (odd, but them's the breaks).

 

·         The Harness Soulstone skill is the exception to the previous rule.  In addition to the existing rules for using Soulstones (FA, pg. 226) character may use a Soulstone Charge to add an additional number of Immuto to a Magia equal to their Harness Soulstone Rating. 

(Continuing the previous example, a character with Sorcery: 3 and Harness Soulstone: 2 could add the “Fire” Immuto twice and the “Blast” Immuto once to the Sorcery Magia “Elemental Projectile”- and then use a Soulstone charge to add the “Increased Damage” and “Additional Suit” Immuto as well.)

 

While this does help with the whole "soulstones aren't that useful to mages" problem, I actually don't think that problemm exists (as long as Additional Suit is an available immuto, which I would almost be tempted to say it should be considered a Mastered Immuto for every caster because of how much suit manipulation matters to them).  This idea also only works with the immuto application roadblock from the previously quoted part, which then prevents a character from going all-out unless they have a soulstone.  This can be good, but the question is:  Do you want soulstones to be used to augment powers, or to unlock powers?

 

The Oxford Method

Associated Symbol:  Tomes

Description:  A regimented craft that focuses on the disciplined study of Magic. Adherents are keepers of the ritualistic practices and arcane formulae commonly associated with Old Magic.

 

Advantage:  The first time in a turn the character takes the (1) Focus action, they gain the “Focused +1” condition a second time.

 

Drawback:  If this character does not benefit from the “Focused” condition, their Skill Duels to cast spells suffer a Negative Twist.

 

This effectively is a bigger version of the current Oxford Method (+1AP to all spells, and spells with 2AP get a ).  Now if you don't want a    you have to spend 2AP, but the benefit over the current version is that you will also get a    to a resulting damage flip.  I'm not sure anyone really likes the Oxford Method right now because of the forced +1AP without real benefit (since it prevents using any 2AP magia without first applying the -1AP immuto to it first).  I honestly think the quickest and simplest fix here would be to maintain the    for 2AP or higher, but to not force a bonus AP to be spent.  Unlike the current form and your proposed form this won't force players to apply the -1AP immuto just so they can cast things like Wrench or Beckon, but instead will reward them for either casting those 2AP-base magia or for applying the +1AP immuto to the rest.  Maybe if just the    isn't enough motivation you could go with "Spells with 2AP or greater are treated as benefiting from the Focus +1 condition."?  That way they also get the    to damage.

 

The Whisper

Associated Symbol:  Crows

Description:  More a condition than a Theory, this spellcaster benefits from the “tutelage” of the disembodied voice of an otherworldly patron.  Resurrectionists are known to refer to this entity as “The Grave Spirit”

 

Advantage:  This Character adds an additional Crows Suit to the AV of any Necromancy Duel or to any Spell that uses the Immuto “Decay” or “Undead”.

 

Drawback:  This character receives a Negative Twist on all Social Skill Duels, except Intimidate.

 

As with others, I like this version of the drawback more.  I've already had one player avoid Whispers because he didn't want a    to shooting a rifle.  The advantage here actually leads me to a question I just ran into:  can you apply the Undead immuto to the Raise Undead magia?  I ask because chaining Undead means you can only target undead, but the magia targets a corpse, not an undead.  My other thought is that you can't really chain Undead immuto onto Raise Undead because the spell is already chained (in the taking control of an already animated undead version).  I think I'll start another thread on that subject, but I figured I'd also point it out here since it directly relates to how you want this Theory to work.  As far as thematically, are you wanting Whispers to play out as a master of the undead, with spells primarily focusing on the undead, or were you wanting them to also have deadly killing abilities?  In the current form of your theory Whispers practitioners will operate best as undead controllers, but not have much benefit in throwing necromantic energies at opponents.  Was that your vision of the theory?

 

The Darlin Theories

Associated Symbol:  Clocks

Description:  A collection of magical and scientific treatises, The Darlin Theories seek to quantify magic in academic and scientific terms.  Adherents to this theory are most concerned with experimentation, discovery, and the practical application of Magic.

 

Advantage:  Add the character’s Artefacting Skill to the AV of any Spell that targets a construct. In addition, when crafting an inanimate construct (FA, pg. 233) the character gains additional Construct Points equal to half the sum of their Engineering + Artefacting Ratings, rounded up.

 

Drawback:  Unleashing a spell with the “Construct” Immuto adds 4 to the TN of the Spell Duel, rather than 2. Chaining the spell with this Immuto works as normal.

 

You have definitely retained the artificer idea of the theory, but also completely got rid of the idea of a Darlist focus item.  Was that the intent?  Going way back to the casting ranks = number of immuto allowed, the way this theory is written, any Darlist who targets a construct will have a ton of potential TN which they may want to abuse (standard "maxes" being 5 spell + 5 artefacting + 4ish aspect + 13 twist = 27).  Throwing some more math at this one, with max ranks for construct creation, as the book is currently written a character will get at most 15 construct points (HT3 * 5 Artefacting), and in yours they will get 25 (HT3 * 5 Artefacting + 5 Artefacting + 5 Engineering).  Also, with your drawback were you aiming to make it more difficult to affect constructs with magia that normally cannot?  It just seemed odd given the other aspects of it (and in truth doesn't hurt too much as a 4 in Artefacting effectively neutralizes the penalty entirely).

 

The Court Procedure

Associated Symbol:  Masks

Description:  A collection of nearly 8,000 laws governing the access and use of magical power, the Court Procedure has its origins in the Aristocracy.  It centers on the belief that power comes from forcing others to obey rules that the powerful do not abide by.

 

Advantage:  The character adds an additional Masks Suit to the AV of any Social Duel or to any Spell resisted by WP.

 

Drawback:  All damage flips from this character’s Spell Actions receive a Negative Twist.

 

Gaining a to all social duels is a nice perk, but only really useful for Powerful Impression (Performer pursuit) and Scoundrel at the moment.  I'm not sure of the fluff outside of the TTB books, so my knowledge of this theory is limited.  Is Oxford about not causing damage (your version) or about more easily targeting the mind rather than the body (book verion)? 
 

Thalarian Doctrine

Associated Symbol:  Rams

Description:  The Guild’s officially sanctioned magic style.  It focuses on protection against the magical arts and on making its power available to all through Artifice.

 

Advantage:  When using the Magical Shielding ability (FA, pg. 245) this character gains a Positive Twist on any DF or WP Duel to defend against spells.  Any character protected by this character’s Magical Shielding ability gains this benefit as well.

 

Drawback:  This character’s Sorcery, Necromancy, and Prestidigitation Skill Duels add an additional Rams Suit to their final TN.

 

I actually really like the advantage you came up with.  Even in M2E most of the Witch Hunter anti-magic abilities are defense-focused rather than making aggressive action more powerful.  I'm undecided about my feelings towards adding an extra suit though.  This ends up once again hitting the "mechanical disadvantage" vs "roleplay disadvantage" that a lot of the Malifaux system plays with.  In essence, the book version doesn't make it any more difficult to actually cast Sorcery and such, but instead limits a character's growth in those areas without specific roleplay events.

 

The Balanced Five

Associated Symbol:  Dragons

Description:  A magical theory from the Three Kingdoms.  Practitioners believe that Magic is the very stuff of life and nature, and that harnessing its effects comes from upsetting the natural balance.

 

Advantage:  If cast by this character, any Magia with an Elemental Immuto requirement may apply up to two different Elemenal Immuto (rather than just one).  In addition, the first Elemental Immuto applied to this Magia does not raise its TN.  Multiple applications of the same Immuto increase the TN as normal.

 

Drawback:  This character’s Counter-Spell Skill Rating may not be higher than their Evade or Centering Skill Ratings.

 

Is there a reason why you only want to allow double-elemental application for magia which require an element?  I'm unsure if access to double element in itself is a good enough advantage, or if the addition of a free element is what makes it equal to the rest of the theories.  Though you may want to specify "Highest cost element," "Lowest cost element," or "Player's choice" for which one ends up being free.  What made you decide on switching from a Tenacity max to an Evade/Centering max for Counterspelling?

 

Hedge Magic

Associated Symbol:  Roses

Description:  A catch-all term for those who have developed their own magical style without formal training or guidance.  This unorthodox approach to magic can result in powerful spellcraft.  However, practitioners of Hedge Magic are left to their own devices when seeking to advance their training.

 

Advantage:  This character may discard a single card before a Spell Duel to add the card’s Suit to the AV.

 

Drawback:  This character loses the benefit of any Pursuit Talent that would allow them to advance in any Magical skill in addition to those presented by the Fatemaster.

 

I am really curious about your thought process with this one as it's effectively a complete rewrite of the book's version.  The extra suit is nice (as nice as the others?), but I don't really get where your drawback is coming from.

 

Tradition Magic

Associated Symbol:  Keys

Description:  This practitioner of magic comes from a long line of Mages who have perfected their own casting style and traditions.  Few can match a Traditionalist in their practiced art- but the trappings of tradition can prove burdensome in some situations.

 

Advantage:  Choose Sorcery, Necromancy, Prestidigitation or Enchanting. This character gains a Positive Twist on Duels of the chosen Skill.

 

Drawback:  Increase the TN of this character’s Spell Duels by 3.  Spells cast by this character must apply Immuto such that the TN of the spell is reduced by at least 3.

 

Again I am curious about where your drawback idea came from.  If the idea is that family tradition holds them back, then why is the immuto addition so malleable?  It would seem as if a more defined limiter like the book's version of Darlin Theories would fit better (as in a defined limiter that is consistent through every spell).  And is this universal detriment worth a to a single magic skill?

 

You may have also noticed that I didn't comment on any of your Twists for theories.  I think they're cool ideas, but most of them are grounded in fluff bonuses while Thalarian was given an actual mechanical function.  The Hedge twist is also a bit odd given the book's description of how it is distinctly impossible to share your knowledge with others.  Are you thinking of getting rid of that bit of fluff?  And again, a lot of these are cool fluff bits that actually have really powerful in-game uses, but with no mechanics to define them (like gaining "more knowledge" or "reading into the protocols of a construct").  For my "keep it simple" mentality I would err towards not including the Twists to avoid complicating the system further, but they are an interesting way to clarify more of what it means to belong to a certain category of caster.

 

 

[Mistergone]

Thanks for the feedback, Zeedlee.  I truly appreciate the time you took to dissect this. I really do. Even if I don't agree with every one of your conclusions, I respect that you have a vision of the game in mind and that you’re willing to take some of your free time to offer constructive criticism. 

 

I’m of the opinion that RPGs fall apart when they try and create a mechanic for everything a character tries to do.  Because Malifaux is a reasonably balanced game- but in TtB that slips away when character creation goes from being static ( I add this fig to my crew) to being dynamic and infinitely more complex.

 

To put it simply, my favorite mechanic in TtB- after the Crossroads Tarot- is creating Manifest Powers.  Because there ISN’T a mechanic.  There shouldn’t be.  Wyrd doesn’t know what kind of characters my players want to ultimately play- It’s an evolution. 

 

The fact that there isn’t a huge complicated system for Manifest Powers shows me that Wyrd trusts its Fatemasters enough to leave it up to them.  If we end up breaking the game- oh well.  It’s our game to break.

 

But at the end of a day, it IS a game.  Games have rules.  The rules are important because they let the players know what is and isn’t possible- especially in situations where the stakes are high, like combat.

 

But if those rules are easily exploited, or grossly unbalanced, or don’t serve a purpose- that’s worse for me as a Fatemaster than if there wasn’t a rule to begin with.  Because my players have the Fated Almanac, they know those rules already, and they’re expecting us to follow them unless I say otherwise.

 

And this goes back to Kadeton’s original post.  I agree with 99% of his points.  With the exception of “fluff” there’s no reason for a player to take any Magical Theory other than Tradition Magic.  It’s mechanically superior to all the others.  There’s no reason to raise Harness Soulstone above 1- and even then, Soulstones don’t provide much of a benefit to the Magic user (which is ironic, because that’s the entire premise of the World).

 

So this was informing my thought process in suggesting these House rules:  provide unique Traditions- all of which a player might reasonably choose at character creation. Limit exploitation, create balance, and make the choice of the Tradition mean something beyond a game mechanic. 

 

 

The Tradition is the prism through which the spell-casting Fated sees the world.  A MAGIC world.  It has an important place in the context of the story, and I tried to capture a bit of this in the form of the “Twists”.

 

I’ll reply to your suggestions/criticisms individually (as soon as I have a chance), but I wanted you to understand first where I’m coming from.

[Mistergone]

While I understand the purpose of this is to open up magic to characters who don't start as one of the three magical pursuits, I feel as if it robs players who want to start with these pursuits of a significant choice opportunity.

 

I disagree- I think getting Magic and another General talent on top of that is a little unbalancing.

 

Besides, that General Talent is almost always going to be Specialized Skill: (insert Magic skill here) so that the player starts with the suit they need for their go-to spell.

 

Making a mechanic for gaining magic is cool and all, but I really feel FMs should just let their players get magical talents if they want them during the story.  Though I do like how this idea lets a starting character in another pursuit have the ability to cast spells, but that also feels a bit wonky since they can't really start with a grimoire (since if we use other pursuit starting equipment as equivalents, a grimoire with two magia and three immuto is worth between 20 and 25 script.)

 

This suggestion is merely meant to balance newly created characters.  It’s actually meant to take the emphasis off of the Magical Theory and place it on finding the Grimoire.

 

You wouldn’t hand a player a 30 scrip pistol just because they switched Pursuit to Gunslinger. Likewise, I wouldn’t just hand a player a useable Grimoire for switching their pursuit.  Otherwise, why bother starting in a magic pursuit at all?  It’s not worth giving up all that starting equipment just to get a Grimoire and a Magic Theory that the FM is just going to hand to you anyways when you change Pursuit.

 

So, if that’s the direction the player wants to take, they have some work to do. Building up Magical Skills (which they’ll need to role-play for if they want them available at Epilogue) and spending a General Talent to gain a Magical Theory seems a suitable character advancement cost for gaining Magic.

 

Now, when they make that jump to a magic Pursuit, they’re ready to find that Grimoire- they’ve paid their dues.

 

I played around with this idea for awhile as well, but then I realized that it really just rewarded players for writing out every permutation of magia and immuto ahead of time, and didn't really solve the "problem" of creating spells on the fly.  Is your goal here to sort of force a DnD Wizard playstyle upon casting in Malifaux?  Or is it to try and prevent cases of the Focus immuto or chained Genus immuto not really meaning anything?  (that last question is the problem I'm still struggling with)

 

This rule is strictly a house rule- I’m not suggesting anyone make it official. 

 

I find that players dinking around with new Magia/Immuto combinations in combat slows things down too much.  Unless they’re Johnny-on-the-spot with calculating TNs, I don’t want them discovering their Grimoire for the first time in the heat of battle. 

 

Also, I allow some Magia/Immuto combinations that don’t “make sense” in the rules- so I like to be able to work with the player on defining what all the effects are.  Combat just isn’t the time. 

 

On the surface I like this idea, but in the end I think it will be far too limiting.  With a standard skill max of 5 you will never be allowed more than five immuto per magia, and for the Elemental Projectile/Strike magia with their low starting TN, that ends up being a huge limiter on what a character with 5 ranks, a high (let's say 4) aspect, and a high card in their Twist Hand can do.  For example, 5 ranks + 4 aspect + 13 card = 22.  With a starting TN of 3 and only five immuto allocations would only allow this theoretical spell to reach Burning +5 with a TN of 13.  That's 9 potential TN wasted for a caster that truly wants to throw everything they have.  I honestly think the best way to limit things getting out of control (as I imagine the idea behind this was to prevent players from stacking -TN immuto to make more space for +TN immuto) is to really just limit what immuto each grimoire has access to. 

 

 Forget the 4 Aspect/5 Skill mage for a moment.  Take a Starting Mage with a 3 Intellect and a 3 Sorcery Skill.  He took Tradition Magic and Specialized Skill: Sorcery to get a Tome- because why wouldn’t he?

 

 He has Elemental Projectile, Fire, and Reduce Damage in his Grimoire.  He casts Elemental Projectile with Firex5 and Reduce Damage x2 twice in a turn to inflict the “Burning +10” condition on an enemy FMC.  All he has to do is flip two 5’s- and he has positive Twists to do this and a hand full of cards to cheat with.

 

So now, I have a starting character with the potential to one-shot a Henchman-level FMC EVERY TURN.  My choices seem to be: micromanage his Grimoire (which is no fun for either of us) or limit the combinations of Immuto he can use.  I chose the latter.

 

Your hypothetical uber-Mage is still going to get plenty of positive twists on his damage flips for all those degrees of success even if we limit his Immuto.  But now he’s inclined to take the Mastered Immuto Talent to expand his choices beyond what’s currently in his Grimoire, and now there’s an added benefit to raising his Skill that goes beyond a +1 bump to AV.  

 

While this does help with the whole "soulstones aren't that useful to mages" problem, I actually don't think that problemm exists (as long as Additional Suit is an available immuto, which I would almost be tempted to say it should be considered a Mastered Immuto for every caster because of how much suit manipulation matters to them).  This idea also only works with the immuto application roadblock from the previously quoted part, which then prevents a character from going all-out unless they have a soulstone.  This can be good, but the question is:  Do you want soulstones to be used to augment powers, or to unlock powers?

 

To unlock powers.  Using a Soulstone is Magic on steroids. It unlocks possibilities that weren't there before. 

 

Also, as the Book Rule is written, the suit from Harness Soulstone can only be used for declaring Triggers- not for meeting the requirement of the Additional Suit Immuto- as you suggest.

 

The Oxford Method

Maybe if just the    isn't enough motivation you could go with "Spells with 2AP or greater are treated as benefiting from the Focus +1 condition."?  That way they also get the    to damage.

 

I’ve just realized that the problem with my proposed Oxford Method is that it breaks the game if the character also takes the “Calm and Collected” General Talent.  I’ll need to revisit this one.

 

Ultimately, I want this Theory to reward “bigger” or “more complex” spells as I feel this fits the theme.

 

Also, I’m ditching the proposed game mechanic in the Twist.  None of the others mention a game mechanic, and the Twists are only supposed to be FM suggestions for incorporating the Theory into the story in a meaningful way. 

 

The Whisper

As far as thematically, are you wanting Whispers to play out as a master of the undead, with spells primarily focusing on the undead, or were you wanting them to also have deadly killing abilities?  In the current form of your theory Whispers practitioners will operate best as undead controllers, but not have much benefit in throwing necromantic energies at opponents.  Was that your vision of the theory?

 

As masters of the Undead.  The whole thrust behind The Whisper (in TtB and in Malifaux) is that it compels you to perfect the art of raising the dead.  If a player wants “zap-kaboom” Necromancy, they’d be better served taking Tradition Magic. 

 

The Darlin Theories

You have definitely retained the artificer idea of the theory, but also completely got rid of the idea of a Darlist focus item.  Was that the intent?  Going way back to the casting ranks = number of immuto allowed, the way this theory is written, any Darlist who targets a construct will have a ton of potential TN which they may want to abuse (standard "maxes" being 5 spell + 5 artefacting + 4ish aspect + 13 twist = 27).

 

 I agree- adding straight Artefacting Rating may be going overboard- a potential +5AV is a lot.  Maybe I’ll water it down to ½ Artefacting…

 

Throwing some more math at this one, with max ranks for construct creation, as the book is currently written a character will get at most 15 construct points (HT3 * 5 Artefacting), and in yours they will get 25 (HT3 * 5 Artefacting + 5 Artefacting + 5 Engineering). 

 

However, I DID remember to halve it in the case of getting additional construct points.  Re-read my post- I specifically say “half the sum of the Engineering and Artefacting ratings”.  So the most “bonus” points this Artificer would get is +5, which isn't unreasonable for a character that’s spent that much XP on raising those two skills.

 

Also, with your drawback were you aiming to make it more difficult to affect constructs with magia that normally cannot?  It just seemed odd given the other aspects of it (and in truth doesn't hurt too much as a 4 in Artefacting effectively neutralizes the penalty entirely).

 

The drawback is, as you suggest, to make it harder to target constructs with spells that couldn’t normally target them.  This is to balance out the advantage somewhat, with the net result being positive. 

 

I dropped the “Pneumatic Focus Item” entirely.  I couldn't describe it game-mechanic terms that made sense in less than a paragraph.  It’s overly complex- and worse, it’s silly.

 

The Court Procedure

Gaining a to all social duels is a nice perk, but only really useful for Powerful Impression (Performer pursuit) and Scoundrel at the moment. 

…or for any number of Manifest Powers that my player and I crafted for their sneaky social character J

 

I'm not sure of the fluff outside of the TTB books, so my knowledge of this theory is limited.  Is <Court Procedure> about not causing damage (your version) or about more easily targeting the mind rather than the body (book verion)?

 

You have the gist of the existing lore on Court Procedure.  To my knowledge it’s not mentioned anywhere but TtB. 

 

I just like the simplicity of the rule with this wording.   My vision of Court Procedure is a magic of subtle manipulation and control, more so than direct physical damage.

 

Besides, gaining a suit on ½ of all Magia is a BIG bonus- I needed to offset it with something more than just a small TN penalty for DF resisted magic. 

 

The Thalarian Doctrine

I actually really like the advantage you came up with.  Even in M2E most of the Witch Hunter anti-magic abilities are defense-focused rather than making aggressive action more powerful.  I'm undecided about my feelings towards adding an extra suit though.  This ends up once again hitting the "mechanical disadvantage" vs "roleplay disadvantage" that a lot of the Malifaux system plays with.

 

It was my intent to impose a mechanical disadvantage.  I feel like this disadvantage is in keeping with the theme and description of the theory (you need a Ram! The Guild is all up in your Grimoire!)   And the advantage makes Counter-Spelling really good without hurting Enchanting.

 

The Balanced Five

Is there a reason why you only want to allow double-elemental application for magia which require an element? 

 

 

Name a Magia without an Elemental requirement that you would want to add an Elemental Immuto to.  I let players do it, but I have to come up with the effects myself most of the time.

 

I'm unsure if access to double element in itself is a good enough advantage, or if the addition of a free element is what makes it equal to the rest of the theories. 

 

 

Yeah.  I like this one the least. 

 

I was considering scrapping the whole theory and doing something new, but then I thought, “It would be kind of cool to hit someone with Blind and Burning at the same time”.   But I agree- it’s not that great.  So I stole the free Immuto perk from Hedge Magic to sweeten the pot.

 

Though you may want to specify "Highest cost element," "Lowest cost element," or "Player's choice" for which one ends up being free. 

 

 

I didn’t specify- I just said “the first”.  There’s no reason not to apply the highest cost Immuto first.

 

What made you decide on switching from a Tenacity max to an Evade/Centering max for Counterspelling?

 

One, because some players start with a negative Tenacity.  Two, it seemed like a good cuddle to Counter-Spell to offset the bonus of the Theory.  It makes it so, basically, Counterspelling is useless on YOU (just use your natural WP and DF), but it can still be used on others if you feel like raising it.

 

Hedge Magic

I am really curious about your thought process with this one as it's effectively a complete rewrite of the book's version.  The extra suit is nice (as nice as the others?), but I don't really get where your drawback is coming from.

 

I felt the original version of this Theory was next to useless.  Discarding a low card to gain a suit is actually a huge perk as it potentially makes every card in your twist deck useful.

 

I really like the idea of a self-taught Magic user and the drawback ties into this theme.  You don’t have access to Oxford University or a family of Mages. The Guild won’t train you and there’s no cabal or whisper in your ear telling you what to do. 

 

So these Mages are going to advance their skills at a slower rate because of trial and error.  They’re going to have to roleplay to get those skills opened up at Epilogue- rather than just saying “my Pursuit lets me raise any Magic skill whether I used it or not”.

 

Tradition Magic

Again I am curious about where your drawback idea came from.  If the idea is that family tradition holds them back, then why is the immuto addition so malleable?  It would seem as if a more defined limiter like the book's version of Darlin Theories would fit better (as in a defined limiter that is consistent through every spell). 

 

 

That’s what I was going for, but I couldn’t think of an elegant way of explaining it in less than a paragraph- it was a confusing rule. 

Besides, if a Mage is using my “Immuto limitation” rule, they’re probably coming up with a favorite way to apply that -3TN and then reusing it on every spell.  Same result.

 

And is this universal detriment worth a to a single magic skill?

 

I would say yes if you plan on focusing on that magic skill to the exclusion of the others.  Consider that Focusing costs 1AP to get a Positive twist, and that the “Added AP” Immuto gets you -3TN.

 

However, I might consider scaling it down to -2TN to make the net effect more “positive”.

 

You may have also noticed that I didn't comment on any of your Twists for theories.  I think they're cool ideas, but most of them are grounded in fluff bonuses while Thalarian was given an actual mechanical function. 

 

 

That was a mistake- they should ALL be fluff.  I like fluff.  Stories are made out of fluff.

 

The Hedge twist is also a bit odd given the book's description of how it is distinctly impossible to share your knowledge with others.  Are you thinking of getting rid of that bit of fluff? 

 

I’m not going to start listening to the book now! Not after making all these house rules!

 

Besides, how cool is the idea of needing to get your magical training directly from a FMC in some seedy, basement, magic dojo?  Or having magic groupies who follow your character around?

 

And again, a lot of these are cool fluff bits that actually have really powerful in-game uses, but with no mechanics to define them (like gaining "more knowledge" or "reading into the protocols of a construct").

 

Good.  That’s a feature- not an oversight. 

 

For my "keep it simple" mentality I would err towards not including the Twists to avoid complicating the system further,

 

 

No added complication.  There wasn’t a mechanic before, and there isn’t one now.  Use it or don't at the FMs discretion.

 

…but they are an interesting way to clarify more of what it means to belong to a certain category of caster.

 

I agree- and this is important to me.  Magical Theories are cool.  They make characters more interesting- or at least they should.  And, similar to Station, it’s like an auto-background you get to work with.

[zeeblee]

I really wish I were allowed more than just a few quote boxes, as this is about to get really funky.  Old responses clipped, converted to purple, and indented.  Newest responses once again in green.  Let's get to it!

 

"While I understand the purpose..."

 

I disagree- I think getting Magic and another General talent on top of that is a little unbalancing.

 

Besides, that General Talent is almost always going to be Specialized Skill: (insert Magic skill here) so that the player starts with the suit they need for their go-to spell.

We might just have very different gaming groups on this one.  None of my players actually started with a Specialized Skill (magic or not).  This was even after I heavily endorsed it.  I think the magic-users were just banking on that Pursuit 1 talent from either Dabbler or Graverobber to get them through the spells they were interested in.  This ended up with a hilarious moment of a Dabbler messing up at casting Teleport multiple times (though he forgot to draw cards for failure, so most likely could have cheated his second attempt.)  In this way, I think flavorful games produce flavorful players.  Especially if you have a caster who really wants to get into the thick of combat they may select a more mundane Resilience talent, or a socialite mage may select one of the social talents (both at the expense of their casting being less reliable in the beginning).

 

Making a mechanic for gaining magic is cool and all...

 

This suggestion is merely meant to balance newly created characters.  It’s actually meant to take the emphasis off of the Magical Theory and place it on finding the Grimoire.

 

You wouldn’t hand a player a 30 scrip pistol just because they switched Pursuit to Gunslinger. Likewise, I wouldn’t just hand a player a useable Grimoire for switching their pursuit.  Otherwise, why bother starting in a magic pursuit at all?  It’s not worth giving up all that starting equipment just to get a Grimoire and a Magic Theory that the FM is just going to hand to you anyways when you change Pursuit.

 

So, if that’s the direction the player wants to take, they have some work to do. Building up Magical Skills (which they’ll need to role-play for if they want them available at Epilogue) and spending a General Talent to gain a Magical Theory seems a suitable character advancement cost for gaining Magic.

 

Now, when they make that jump to a magic Pursuit, they’re ready to find that Grimoire- they’ve paid their dues.

This may again just be a difference in style.  I'm not advocating just handing over all of the tools.  I'm just advocating letting the desire to pursue a Magical Theory be enough to get one (whenever the FM deems it is time).  This may be because a mundane character came across a grimoire and now wants to study it, or because they have seen magic and are now wanting to find a grimoire to try and unlock their own potential.  Similar to how the magic skills in the hands of the nonmagical are effectively just knowledge skills, I think mundane characters shifting into magical Pursuits can do so from an "academic" origin point.  Someone wanting to become a resurrectionist may begin robbing graves and poking roadkill.  Yes, the talents won't be useful to them until they both find a grimoire and gain their epiphany moment of a Magical Theory, but that's the life they now bought into.  But also to maintain clarity on this discussion, this is merely my perspective as there is truly no "right" or "wrong" way to go about this, and I really do enjoy your ideas.

 

I played around with this idea for awhile as well...

 

This rule is strictly a house rule- I’m not suggesting anyone make it official. 

 

I find that players dinking around with new Magia/Immuto combinations in combat slows things down too much.  Unless they’re Johnny-on-the-spot with calculating TNs, I don’t want them discovering their Grimoire for the first time in the heat of battle. 

 

Also, I allow some Magia/Immuto combinations that don’t “make sense” in the rules- so I like to be able to work with the player on defining what all the effects are.  Combat just isn’t the time.

Yeah, saving time is definitely a big issue, and I fully endorse doing anything to prevent it.  As I said, I've toyed with the idea of telling players that they have to build their spells ahead of time in order to 1) save time later, and 2) make limitations like Focus and chained Genus actually matter, mwahahahahah!
 

On the surface I like this idea, but in the end I think it will be far too limiting...

 

 Forget the 4 Aspect/5 Skill mage for a moment.  Take a Starting Mage with a 3 Intellect and a 3 Sorcery Skill.  He took Tradition Magic and Specialized Skill: Sorcery to get a Tome- because why wouldn’t he?

 

 He has Elemental Projectile, Fire, and Reduce Damage in his Grimoire.  He casts Elemental Projectile with Firex5 and Reduce Damage x2 twice in a turn to inflict the “Burning +10” condition on an enemy FMC.  All he has to do is flip two 5’s- and he has positive Twists to do this and a hand full of cards to cheat with.

 

So now, I have a starting character with the potential to one-shot a Henchman-level FMC EVERY TURN.  My choices seem to be: micromanage his Grimoire (which is no fun for either of us) or limit the combinations of Immuto he can use.  I chose the latter.

 

Your hypothetical uber-Mage is still going to get plenty of positive twists on his damage flips for all those degrees of success even if we limit his Immuto.  But now he’s inclined to take the Mastered Immuto Talent to expand his choices beyond what’s currently in his Grimoire, and now there’s an added benefit to raising his Skill that goes beyond a +1 bump to AV. 

Assuming Dabbler I would say Specialization Sorcery would be far more useful, but that really isn't the current discussion (but food for thoughts.)

 

Your math here is a bit funky...  I'll do it in steps just to make it easier fo myself (and perhaps others) to follow:

Elemental Projectile TN3 , Damage 1/2/3

Reduce Damage x2:  -2 to TN for a TN1 , and Damage 0/0/1

Fire Immuto x5:  +10 to TN for a TN11 , and Damage 0/0/1, and apply Burning+5 condition. (My bad for calling the condition Fire)

The mage needs to pull a 5 or higher with your proposed stats (ignoring suit due to specialization).  A rather easy flip, but by no means guranteed.

 

This is not even close tot he Henchman killer proposed (I'm guessing there was a mistake in the TN+2 cost of Fire translating to Burning+2, when it's actually Burning+1).  However, even if it were a Burning+10 that player still needs to actually hit the Henchman who has a TN of defense+9.  Just going with a zeroed out statline that means the player needs to beat an 11.  Pulling from the Fatemaster book for what a Henchman would look like... well, there aren't any, so I'll go with the Guild Sergeant as an initial template for an explanation as to why this powerful spell is dangerous, but not game-breaking (though again, when I replicated the spell it wasn't nearly as dangerous):

 

Defense 4 (11 with Enforcer)

Armor +1

Wounds 10

 

So against an Enforcer this spell would go off and hit without a hitch (assuming no negative flips) since the TN of the spell and the defense are the same.  No matter what the damage flip is the Sergeant will suffer 0 damage due to armor.  Then at the end of the round he will suffer the Burning+10 damage, which is reduced to 9 due to the armor.  If this is the first hit the Sergeant is left with 1 wound and is still perfectly conscious.  Yes, the party can pretty much guaranteed drop him, though if he's the big bad I expect he'll be granted the benefit of negative wounds and death via criticals.  But again, the Burning condition would actually be +5, meaning this Sergeant would actually take 4 damage and be pretty much OK.  Upgrade him to a Henchman and suddenly that TN11 spell isn't guaranteed to hit as you have to match a TN13, requiring a 7 card or higher (not a huge jump in difficulty, but still a notable one).  Add into this that many Enforcers have even more ways to mitigate/heal damage, and the assumption that a Henchman would either be even heartier or hurt even more if they are not taken down quickly, and I don't see much of any problem with a 6 AV mage being able to sling out unlimited immuto every turn.  In truth, a character with an enlarged hammer can output a minimum of 3 damage (max 6) every turn as well as inflict an extra critical effect (and this is completely discounting any talent(s) said character may have).

 

Apologies for this point getting a large response.  This is just a much more mechanical part of the discussion than the rest, so it necessitates the icky math junk.
 

While this does help with the whole "soulstones aren't that useful to mages" problem...

 

To unlock powers.  Using a Soulstone is Magic on steroids. It unlocks possibilities that weren't there before. 

 

Also, as the Book Rule is written, the suit from Harness Soulstone can only be used for declaring Triggers- not for meeting the requirement of the Additional Suit Immuto- as you suggest.

Wow, I sure messed that one up.  Yeah... soulstones are rather useless on spells unless you want that or to enchant something.  Though because of my mass of explanation above, I don't think unlocking immuto is really the way to go.  Perhaps uh, ummm... free ponies?  In something closer to seriousness, maybe suits really could just be adjusted to add to AV rather than just triggers?  It's still not the greatest fix, but at least makes them equally useful for casters and critical strikers.
 

The Oxford Method

Maybe if...

 

I’ve just realized that the problem with my proposed Oxford Method is that it breaks the game if the character also takes the “Calm and Collected” General Talent.  I’ll need to revisit this one.

 

Ultimately, I want this Theory to reward “bigger” or “more complex” spells as I feel this fits the theme.

 

Also, I’m ditching the proposed game mechanic in the Twist.  None of the others mention a game mechanic, and the Twists are only supposed to be FM suggestions for incorporating the Theory into the story in a meaningful way.

 I missed the Calm and Collected problem as well.  I think one of th easiest ways to promost AP2+ spells would be to throw a at AP1 and 0 spells, and a flip at AP2+ spells.  Perhaps even make Extra AP reduce the TN of the spell even more than it already does.  Maybe TN-5 instead of the -3 that it is by default?

 

The Whisper

As far as thematically...

 

As masters of the Undead.  The whole thrust behind The Whisper (in TtB and in Malifaux) is that it compels you to perfect the art of raising the dead.  If a player wants “zap-kaboom” Necromancy, they’d be better served taking Tradition Magic. 

In that case I actually like this one quite a bit.  Though I still think you need to rule as to whether or not Undead can be applied to Raise Undead, or if Raise Undead already counts as benefiting from The Whisper bonus (I would rule that yes it does since that spell is rather core to the theme).

The Darlin Theories

You have definitely retained the artificer...

 

 I agree- adding straight Artefacting Rating may be going overboard- a potential +5AV is a lot.  Maybe I’ll water it down to ½ Artefacting…

Sounds good to me.

 

Throwing some more math...

 

However, I DID remember to halve it in the case of getting additional construct points.  Re-read my post- I specifically say “half the sum of the Engineering and Artefacting ratings”.  So the most “bonus” points this Artificer would get is +5, which isn't unreasonable for a character that’s spent that much XP on raising those two skills.

Oh!  Whoops.  That is much more reasonable.

 

Also, with your drawback...

 

The drawback is, as you suggest, to make it harder to target constructs with spells that couldn’t normally target them.  This is to balance out the advantage somewhat, with the net result being positive. 

 

I dropped the “Pneumatic Focus Item” entirely.  I couldn't describe it game-mechanic terms that made sense in less than a paragraph.  It’s overly complex- and worse, it’s silly.

Alright, so the theme of this one is effectively master craftsmen who have to go through extra steps to apply spells to constructs which don't normally affect them?

 

Alternatively, if you wanted to maintain the Pneumatic Focus but make it less of a pain, you could go with something like, "Must always apply Focus Immuto to magia, but the resulting -TN is reduced/halved/ignored/whatever.  Darlin Theorists effectively have Mastered Immuto: Focus."

The Court Procedure

Gaining... 

…or for any number of Manifest Powers that my player and I crafted for their sneaky social character J

Hah!  We hit another style difference.  I've been looking at Manifested Powers as described by the book (just spells, but spells with alternate skills/aspects/suits).  It would seem as if you have expanded MP territory into creating triggers for other actions.  Very cool, but I was unaware of that adjustment going into this.  Given that change, the to social is definitely a very useful addition.
 

I'm not sure of the fluff outside...

 

You have the gist of the existing lore on Court Procedure.  To my knowledge it’s not mentioned anywhere but TtB. 

 

I just like the simplicity of the rule with this wording.   My vision of Court Procedure is a magic of subtle manipulation and control, more so than direct physical damage.

 

Besides, gaining a suit on ½ of all Magia is a BIG bonus- I needed to offset it with something more than just a small TN penalty for DF resisted magic.

 Hmmm... given that, what if the drawback was instead to any spell which causes damage instead of to damage flips?  That or boosted TN for damaging spells and whatnot.  To me that seems to match up better with focusing on slinging nondamaging spells instead of just being bad at causing damage (that and the Fire Immuto is a good way to avoid the to damage if you really wanted to game that system).  This adjustment would mean that all of the Elemental [Keyword] spells would end up getting a as well as any spell to which a player applies an immuto which adds damage.

The Thalarian Doctrine

I actually really like the advantage you came up with...

 

It was my intent to impose a mechanical disadvantage.  I feel like this disadvantage is in keeping with the theme and description of the theory (you need a Ram! The Guild is all up in your Grimoire!)   And the advantage makes Counter-Spelling really good without hurting Enchanting.

Fair enough.  Now the Guild feels like some awful magic illness.  "I used to be a sorceror, but then I caught Thalarian."  Though I would propose changing the language from "Skill duels" to "Spell skill duels" so that you don't accidentally give Death Marshall advanced pursuit characters an extra requirement to use Pine Box (which is thankfully labled a Manifest Power).

The Balanced Five

Is there a reason why...

 

Name a Magia without an Elemental requirement that you would want to add an Elemental Immuto to.  I let players do it, but I have to come up with the effects myself most of the time.

I want my Bury to inflict Spirit Fire so that anyone I bury in the bowels of hell takes irreducible Burning damage.  Or maybe I want to my Beckon to inflict the target with Horrifying Poison.  Perhaps I want to Wrench an opponents innards with Lightning which comes forth from roots which Naturally entangle them in place. 

I'm unsure... 

 

Yeah.  I like this one the least. 

 

I was considering scrapping the whole theory and doing something new, but then I thought, “It would be kind of cool to hit someone with Blind and Burning at the same time”.   But I agree- it’s not that great.  So I stole the free Immuto perk from Hedge Magic to sweeten the pot.

After throwing out my examples I think I might have to take back my complaint that double immuto isn't worth it.  Now I'm unsure if the Hedge perk makes it great or too much.

 

Though you may want... 

 

I didn’t specify- I just said “the first”.  There’s no reason not to apply the highest cost Immuto first.

True.  I just know waaay too many rules lawyers who demand specificity.

 

What made you decide...

 

One, because some players start with a negative Tenacity.  Two, it seemed like a good Cuddle to Counter-Spell to offset the bonus of the Theory.  It makes it so, basically, Counterspelling is useless on YOU (just use your natural WP and DF), but it can still be used on others if you feel like raising it.

That makes sense.  Though since you can't even use Counterspelling without one rank, I don't see the negative Tenacity as a problem.  If anything yoking it to two skills could end up being more costly (depending on your perspective) as you will need both Evade and Centering to be Rank 1 to be allowed Rank 1 Counterspelling.  Though this system more evenly covers all mages as any mage wanting to focus on Wrench of Bury will likely have a high Tenacity, and thus be less hindered by Balanced Five than a mage focusing on Beckon.  But then I come right back to another problem:  in the Evade/Centering version your Counterspelling is really only useful for Defense duels since your Willpower will be equal to or better than your Counterspelling.  But you are also correct that it can retain its usefulness in protecting party members if you still end up with a higher Counterspelling AV than their defensive stats.  More food for thought.

 

Hedge Magic

I am really curious...

 

I felt the original version of this Theory was next to useless.  Discarding a low card to gain a suit is actually a huge perk as it potentially makes every card in your twist deck useful.

 

I really like the idea of a self-taught Magic user and the drawback ties into this theme.  You don’t have access to Oxford University or a family of Mages. The Guild won’t train you and there’s no cabal or whisper in your ear telling you what to do. 

 

So these Mages are going to advance their skills at a slower rate because of trial and error.  They’re going to have to roleplay to get those skills opened up at Epilogue- rather than just saying “my Pursuit lets me raise any Magic skill whether I used it or not”.

Well, the new advantage is really only useful if you don't specialize and/or take Additional Suit immuto , but you're right, that is indeed a useful ability.  However, I disagree that the original is useless.  In fact, given the exact wording in the book it is really really REALLY broken.  "...the Immuto never raises the TN of his Spells" and you're allowed to choose Elemental Immutos?  Assuming our favorite for this discussion:  Fire, you now get Burning+INFINITE.  Now, no sane person would ever let this fly, but by the written rule, that is exactly what a Fire Hedge Magician can do (it should really read, "The first application of the chosen immuto never adds to the TN of the spell.")  I imagine Hedge wasn't very popular amongst the testers, so no one really caught that problem.  Ignoring that horrendous issue the lack of raising TN is actually pretty awesome on expensive Genuses like Construct and Spirit (or even Elemental: Spirit).  I would actually say Hedge is incredibly strong when used with Elemental without much of any deficit since as I showed earlier, you can very easily apply Elemental immutos to tons of magia, but when Hedge is used with Genus it becomes rather cool (free Spirit Genus!), but extremely limiting (I can only hit spirits!)

 

The rest of it is just fluff preferences, so we can just do whatever.  I'm not sure your disadvantage really hurts as much as others do unless the mage absolutely never casts or the FM just never feels like putting magic skills in the player's list, but it is definitely rather cool given your version of the fluff.

 

Tradition Magic

Again I am curious about... 

 

That’s what I was going for, but I couldn’t think of an elegant way of explaining it in less than a paragraph- it was a confusing rule. 

Besides, if a Mage is using my “Immuto limitation” rule, they’re probably coming up with a favorite way to apply that -3TN and then reusing it on every spell.  Same result.

Hmmm... with your interpretation of Tradition you could effectively make it look like the book's version of Hedge magic, except open it up to any Immuto (but the Immuto will always have full TN effect).  Or as I proposed with Darlin above, require a Focus, but either give reduced or no TN benefit.  Oddly enough due to the nature of this one being a "pass it down" method, maybe you could also just take a disadvantage from another theory?

 

And is this...

 

I would say yes if you plan on focusing on that magic skill to the exclusion of the others.  Consider that Focusing costs 1AP to get a Positive twist, and that the “Added AP” Immuto gets you -3TN.

 

However, I might consider scaling it down to -2TN to make the net effect more “positive”.

I think it's actually fine in the -3 form, though as discussed above I think there are more interesting ways to get a mechanic to reflect the feel you want.

 

You may have also noticed... 

 

That was a mistake- they should ALL be fluff.  I like fluff.  Stories are made out of fluff.

I got clipped the rest off as really it is just fluff, and in this I very much agree.  The only thing to watch out for is in how the fluff you choose empowers/cripples players and how it guides FMs.  But we're all too cool to let those sorts of things go to our heads.  Right?

 

 

[Mistergone]

We might just have very different gaming groups on this one… 

Sadly, I have a two power gamers in my group.  They’re nice enough guys- and I’ve been gaming with them for more than a decade- but they live to “win”.  They’ll break combat for everyone if I let them. 

Which is why I want to identify any imbalance issues now- so I don’t have to metagame later.

This may again just be a difference in style.  I'm not advocating just handing over all of the tools.  I'm just advocating letting the desire to pursue a Magical Theory be enough to get one (whenever the FM deems it is time).  This may be because a mundane character came across a grimoire and now wants to study it, or because they have seen magic and are now wanting to find a grimoire to try and unlock their own potential.  Similar to how the magic skills in the hands of the nonmagical are effectively just knowledge skills, I think mundane characters shifting into magical Pursuits can do so from an "academic" origin point. 

We’re in agreement.  I’m just suggesting that,  just as a non-magical player would have to spend XP to raise his Magical Skills, so too should that player have to invest a General Talent in gaining the theory. 

I wouldn’t want a player to just gain a Magical Theory out of the blue- which I see now is where my wording of this House Rule falls short.  There’s absolutely a roleplaying path to even having the opportunity to take one.  But from a purely character advancement mechanics/balance standpoint, I think I want my guys to make that Talent investment before they get invited to Hogwarts.

Elemental Projectile TN3 , Damage 1/2/3

Reduce Damage x2:  -2 to TN for a TN1 , and Damage 0/0/1

It would actually be 1/1/1, after two applications of Reduce Damage if I’m not mistaken.  The spell has to do damage to apply the Condition.

Fire Immuto x5:  +10 to TN for a TN11 , and Damage 0/0/1, and apply Burning+5 condition. (My bad for calling the condition Fire)

The mage needs to pull a 5 or higher with your proposed stats (ignoring suit due to specialization).  A rather easy flip, but by no means guranteed.

 If my math is right- with a fresh deck and 3 Twist cards, the player has about a 92% chance of succeeding.  He’d pretty much need to flip the Black Joker to fail.  Once it’s out of the deck, it goes off  something like 98% of the time,

This is not even close tot he Henchman killer proposed (I'm guessing there was a mistake in the TN+2 cost of Fire translating to Burning+2, when it's actually Burning+1). 

Burning +10 comes from casting the (1) AP spell twice and having it stack.

However, even if it were a Burning+10 that player still needs to actually hit the Henchman who has a TN of defense+9.  Just going with a zeroed out statline that means the player needs to beat an 11. 

 But you’re right about the Henchman TN.  I was thinking it was DF+7 (Enforcer is +7), and I was assuming a DF of 4. 

I'll go with the Guild Sergeant as an initial template for an explanation as to why this powerful spell is dangerous, but not game-breaking (though again, when I replicated the spell it wasn't nearly as dangerous):

Defense 4 (11 with Enforcer)

Armor +1

Wounds 10

This Sergeant would actually be ok. The Armor+1 would negate the damage of the spell and Burning would never get applied.  The player would have to drop one or both of the Reduce Damage Immuto (increasing the TN) and then deal at least Moderate damage, twice.  I’m not going to do the math, but I’m guessing that the odds are worse than a coin toss.

Ultimately though, I was trying to give an example of Xtreme -Cheez ® that a starting player could pull off right out of the gate.  There are no doubt cheesier things that can be done, and especially once a player has mastered a few of the more useful Immuto.  I just wanted to identify and reign in some of that exploitation. 

I have a friend (maybe thankfully not a player in my game) who is notorious for breaking systems… maybe I’ll consult him to find out where the REAL exploits are.  Because, you’re right, limiting a Mage to 3, sometimes 2, Immuto on a spell could be underpowering Magic and making the game less fun for those players.

In something closer to seriousness, maybe suits really could just be adjusted to add to AV rather than just triggers?  It's still not the greatest fix, but at least makes them equally useful for casters and critical strikers.

You may be right.  I just feel like it might still not be worth taking considering the rarity of Soulstones, the cost of raising the skill, and how transient a benefit that ends up being (why don’t I just raise my Spell Skill instead, for +1AV on every spell?).  I want Soulstones to be like – Limit Break from FF7 (lol), but right now they’re less useful than your Twist deck.
 

The Oxford Method

 I missed the Calm and Collected problem as well.  I think one of th easiest ways to promost AP2+ spells would be to throw a at AP1 and 0 spells, and a flip at AP2+ spells.  Perhaps even make Extra AP reduce the TN of the spell even more than it already does.  Maybe TN-5 instead of the -3 that it is by default?

 Yeah- back to the drawing board on this one.

The Whisper

In that case I actually like this one quite a bit.  Though I still think you need to rule as to whether or not Undead can be applied to Raise Undead, or if Raise Undead already counts as benefiting from The Whisper bonus (I would rule that yes it does since that spell is rather core to the theme).

Raise Undead is Necromancy, so it would get the bonus either way.

 

At first glance, (and this is me as FM, I’m not saying this is the rule in the book) I would say that you could use the Raise Undead + Undead Immuto combo to take control of an Undead Minion for some duration.  You would have to beat some TN- maybe 14- to do so. 

 

Raise Undead itself is time limited, so this would be like hitting the refresh on your (or someone else’s) Undead minion.  I say Minion, because I wouldn’t want players taking control of, say, Bête Noire…

 

Now, Subsume Corpse + Undead, or Subsume Corpse + Living! What do we do there!? J

 

The Darlin Theories

Alternatively, if you wanted to maintain the Pneumatic Focus but make it less of a pain, you could go with something like, "Must always apply Focus Immuto to magia, but the resulting -TN is reduced/halved/ignored/whatever.  Darlin Theorists effectively have Mastered Immuto: Focus."

I was thinking of a wording similar to that, but at the end of the day I felt the “Focus Object as spell requirement” belonged with Tradition Magic.

Again, these were just suggestions.  I know some of them ended up being dig departures from the book mechanics.  I did, however, try to preserve the theme of the individual Theories.

The Court Procedure

 Hmmm... given that, what if the drawback was instead to any spell which causes damage instead of to damage flips?  That or boosted TN for damaging spells and whatnot.  To me that seems to match up better with focusing on slinging nondamaging spells instead of just being bad at causing damage (that and the Fire Immuto is a good way to avoid the to damage if you really wanted to game that system).  This adjustment would mean that all of the Elemental [Keyword] spells would end up getting a as well as any spell to which a player applies an immuto which adds damage.

I may change it to “Any spell resisted by DF gets a Negative Twist to Damage”, but then the work-around is the Immuto that switches the resist stat. 

 

I just like how succinct the wording for this ended up being.  Both the advantage and drawback are simple, 1 sentence rules.  But the drawback may be too much of a handicap after all.

The Thalarian Doctrine

Fair enough.  Now the Guild feels like some awful magic illness.  "I used to be a sorceror, but then I caught Thalarian." 

Witchling Stalkers wake up every morning and say this very thing.

Though I would propose changing the language from "Skill duels" to "Spell skill duels" so that you don't accidentally give Death Marshall advanced pursuit characters an extra requirement to use Pine Box (which is thankfully labled a Manifest Power).

Good idea.

 

The Balanced Five

I want my Bury to inflict Spirit Fire so that anyone I bury in the bowels of hell takes irreducible Burning damage.  Or maybe I want to my Beckon to inflict the target with Horrifying Poison.  Perhaps I want to Wrench an opponents innards with Lightning which comes forth from roots which Naturally entangle them in place. 

All very cool combos.  But understand that you’re departing from the rulebook here.  None of these spells can technically inflict these conditions because none of them do any damage.  The combos are legal, but you have to damage the defender and then the condition is applied.

 

But personally, I allow stuff like this.  The first time we played, I had a player who took Hedge Magic. He had to apply Fire to Physical Enhancement.  But we ran with it- he looked like a Super Saiyn from Dragon Ball Z when the spell went off, and I didn’t inflict him with Burning but he definitely got penalties to sneak checks.

But then I come right back to another problem:  in the Evade/Centering version your Counterspelling is really only useful for Defense duels since your Willpower will be equal to or better than your Counterspelling. 

It’ll be useless to both.  Evade is to DF what Centering is to WP.  You can still use it to protect others… but why would you waste the XP?  Maybe I can come up with a better drawback.

Hedge Magic

However, I disagree that the original is useless.  In fact, given the exact wording in the book it is really really REALLY broken.  "...the Immuto never raises the TN of his Spells" and you're allowed to choose Elemental Immutos?  Assuming our favorite for this discussion:  Fire, you now get Burning+INFINITE.  Now, no sane person would ever let this fly, but by the written rule, that is exactly what a Fire Hedge Magician can do (it should really read, "The first application of the chosen immuto never adds to the TN of the spell.") 

Yeah, it’s worded badly. We ruled that it’s the first Immuto, and subsequent applications are full price.

…as I showed earlier, you can very easily apply Elemental immutos to tons of magia, but when Hedge is used with Genus it becomes rather cool (free Spirit Genus!), but extremely limiting (I can only hit spirits!)

 You can- if you use House Rules.  And I agree, being forced to use a Genus Immuto every time removes too much of the versatility of Magic.

The rest of it is just fluff preferences, so we can just do whatever.  I'm not sure your disadvantage really hurts as much as others do unless the mage absolutely never casts or the FM just never feels like putting magic skills in the player's list, but it is definitely rather cool given your version of the fluff.

It’s as big a disadvantage as the FM wants to make it, I suppose.  I would personally make it tough, but then find ways to reward a player who went through all those hurdles to become a competent Mage.

Tradition Magic

Hmmm... with your interpretation of Tradition you could effectively make it look like the book's version of Hedge magic, except open it up to any Immuto (but the Immuto will always have full TN effect).  Or as I proposed with Darlin above, require a Focus, but either give reduced or no TN benefit.  Oddly enough due to the nature of this one being a "pass it down" method, maybe you could also just take a disadvantage from another theory?

I think it's actually fine in the -3 form, though as discussed above I think there are more interesting ways to get a mechanic to reflect the feel you want.

I agree. I think I’d like to make the Focus Object the principle part of this, like we discussed for Darlin. 

[zeeblee]

We might…

Sadly, I have a two power gamers in my group.  They’re nice enough guys- and I’ve been gaming with them for more than a decade- but they live to “win”.  They’ll break combat for everyone if I let them. 

Which is why I want to identify any imbalance issues now- so I don’t have to metagame later.

Hah!  You and me both.  I have two powergamers for sure.  One is capable of breaking systems, but usually avoids it, while the other one powerhouses as much as possible.  I've just been throwing out narrative constraints or figuring out ways to get them out of their preferred element.  It's a struggle, but doable.

 

This may again...

We’re in agreement.  I’m just suggesting that,  just as a non-magical player would have to spend XP to raise his Magical Skills, so too should that player have to invest a General Talent in gaining the theory. 

I wouldn’t want a player to just gain a Magical Theory out of the blue- which I see now is where my wording of this House Rule falls short.  There’s absolutely a roleplaying path to even having the opportunity to take one.  But from a purely character advancement mechanics/balance standpoint, I think I want my guys to make that Talent investment before they get invited to Hogwarts.

I can actually think of an "easy" fix for this.  Treat gaining a Magical Theory like a fate step/advanced pursuit step.  That could be the topic for a session.  Yes, they don't get a manifested power, an aspect, or a step in a crazy pursuit, but they do open up the world of the fantastical.  Now, this does comparatively put magic starting pursuits ahead in that regard, but I don't see it as a huge problem since to goal of a game is to tell a story anyway.  And it's not like the stats of the soon-to-be mage won't be getting better while they are learning to gain access to magic (since you can learn about the magic skills without actually casting).

 

 

Elemental Projectile TN3 , Damage 1/2/3

Reduce Damage x2:  -2 to TN for a TN1 , and Damage 0/0/1

It would actually be 1/1/1, after two applications of Reduce Damage if I’m not mistaken.  The spell has to do damage to apply the Condition.

Whoops, I missed that damage requirement on all of the Elementals.  Though I also couldn't find a way to do 1/1/1 damage.  The track starts at 0/0/1, goes to 0/1/2, then the standard 1/2/3, and onward.  Though in investigating this issue I found a loophole in "must suffer damage" for Elemental immuto:  the Reduce Severity Immuto.  Unfortunately by technicality this can still only be placed on damaging spells, but the Reduce Severity immuto does state, "Targets that would suffer effects only if they suffered damage still suffer the effects of the Magia."  Oddly enough this caused me to take a look at Increase Severity for comparison, as they both reference "set amount of damage," and I can't find a single spell which does flat damage rather than flipping between three values.

 

Fire Immuto x5:  +10 to TN for a TN11 , and Damage 0/0/1, and apply Burning+5 condition. (My bad for calling the condition Fire)

The mage needs to pull a 5 or higher with your proposed stats (ignoring suit due to specialization).  A rather easy flip, but by no means guranteed.

 If my math is right- with a fresh deck and 3 Twist cards, the player has about a 92% chance of succeeding.  He’d pretty much need to flip the Black Joker to fail.  Once it’s out of the deck, it goes off  something like 98% of the time,

Looking for a 5+ pull (ignoring suit and counting Red Joker), the mage actually has a 68.5% chance of succeeding (37/54) assuming a full deck.  But yeah, with the Twist Hand included, that skyrockets due to the tiny draw pool of the Twist Deck.  But I think that's less of a magic power problem and more of a Twist power problem.  The Twist Hand power issue is actually something I've been debating on the side as the average power of the group increases with every group member (since that increases the number of cards you burn through).  If anything that is the exploit my current game group is trying to use the most.

 

This is not even close tot he Henchman killer proposed (I'm guessing there was a mistake in the TN+2 cost of Fire translating to Burning+2, when it's actually Burning+1). 

Burning +10 comes from casting the (1) AP spell twice and having it stack.

Ah, I see what you did there.

 

However, even if it were a Burning+10 that player still needs to actually hit the Henchman who has a TN of defense+9.  Just going with a zeroed out statline that means the player needs to beat an 11. 

 But you’re right about the Henchman TN.  I was thinking it was DF+7 (Enforcer is +7), and I was assuming a DF of 4. 

I'll go with the Guild Sergeant as an initial template for an explanation as to why this powerful spell is dangerous, but not game-breaking (though again, when I replicated the spell it wasn't nearly as dangerous):

Defense 4 (11 with Enforcer)

Armor +1

Wounds 10

This Sergeant would actually be ok. The Armor+1 would negate the damage of the spell and Burning would never get applied.  The player would have to drop one or both of the Reduce Damage Immuto (increasing the TN) and then deal at least Moderate damage, twice.  I’m not going to do the math, but I’m guessing that the odds are worse than a coin toss.

Actually, armor reduces damage to a minimum of 1, so as long as the damage flip produced 1 damage, it would work.  Unfortunately for the above spell and the way Elemental immutos work, only severe damage would work, and without getting a 16 or higher on the "to hit" flip, the mage would be unable to cheat into severe damage due to .  Oddly enough my rules screwup and your correction has actually made this "abuse" a bit less dangerous.  If we want to guarantee Burning condition, then we can't apply any Reduce Damage immutos, and to preserve the TN11 we'll have to drop one Fire immuto.  That brings it down to Burning+4.  Assuming two successful hits that nets us [likely] 2 plain damage followed by 7 at the end of the round (Burning+8 -1 for armor).  This still gives us a case of a 1 wound Sergeant left standing.  Which as we've discussed is still rather powerful, but not that much more spectacular than a gun or a big sword.

 

Ultimately though, I was trying to give an example of Xtreme -Cheez ® that a starting player could pull off right out of the gate.  There are no doubt cheesier things that can be done, and especially once a player has mastered a few of the more useful Immuto.  I just wanted to identify and reign in some of that exploitation. 

I have a friend (maybe thankfully not a player in my game) who is notorious for breaking systems… maybe I’ll consult him to find out where the REAL exploits are.  Because, you’re right, limiting a Mage to 3, sometimes 2, Immuto on a spell could be underpowering Magic and making the game less fun for those players.

This conversation we're having is continuing to prove my idea (at least in my thoughts.  I have no idea about your thoughts) that the issue of spell power isn't in how many times you can slap an immuto onto a magia, but instead is how many different immutos you can play with to slap onto a magia.  For instance, if we threw Reduce Severity onto our theoretical cheez burning spell, then the mage would be damn near guaranteed to set the target alight (especially since the TN total would be 10 instead of 11 due to Reduce Severity being -3 (instaed of the total -2 from double Reduce Damage).  Though we then get into a weird semantics debate of "set amount of damage instead of a damage flip" and the fact that there are technically no magia in the book that do not flip for damage, so technically what can we even apply Reduce Severity to?  But this just makes me agree with some of our discussion further down in this post on how ignoring a lot of the technicalities makes for a much richer and usable magic system.

 

In something closer to seriousness...

You may be right.  I just feel like it might still not be worth taking considering the rarity of Soulstones, the cost of raising the skill, and how transient a benefit that ends up being (why don’t I just raise my Spell Skill instead, for +1AV on every spell?).  I want Soulstones to be like – Limit Break from FF7 (lol), but right now they’re less useful than your Twist deck.

Unfortunately I think we've just discovered that it is really really hard for anything to be more powerful than your Twist Deck.  The only thing I could think of that would out-power the Twist Deck would be, "Soulstone acts as a Red Joker."  But in that case you're just handing out auto-crits to everyone, and Handle Soulstone/Charm become the most important stats in the game (if you can get your hands on a soulstone.)
 

The Oxford Method

 I missed...

 Yeah- back to the drawing board on this one.

Ritual magic is always a rough one to deal with when you're predominantly working in small time increments. I'm actually wondering if requiring the Oxford Mage to perform a Focus action before every cast could be used to do something.  It would force them to either only use AP1 spells or to use Reduce AP on those that are AP2 (if they want to use them in Dramatic Time), but the :+fates to both casting and damage would be nice.  If going this route, then reducing the TN cost of Reduce AP would be a potential boon to give them.  And since you can only ever take one AP0 action a round, they are still prevented from being crazy spell slingers.  Though they could potentially Focus, sling a spell, and then do something mundane, which could be funky.

 

Or working off of the original book version of Oxford Method you could do something weird like, "Increase the starting AP of a spell by 1, and gain :+fates equal to the AP of the spell if the final AP is greater than 1.  Thus a base AP1 would become AP2 with :+fate to cast.  This turns Oxford mages into extremely reliable casters who are limited to only one spell per Dramatic Time.  Luckily the game also caps out at :+fate , so casting out of Dramatic Time wouldn't get insane.

 

The Whisper

In that case...

Raise Undead is Necromancy, so it would get the bonus either way.

 

At first glance, (and this is me as FM, I’m not saying this is the rule in the book) I would say that you could use the Raise Undead + Undead Immuto combo to take control of an Undead Minion for some duration.  You would have to beat some TN- maybe 14- to do so. 

 

Raise Undead itself is time limited, so this would be like hitting the refresh on your (or someone else’s) Undead minion.  I say Minion, because I wouldn’t want players taking control of, say, Bête Noire…

Actually, Raise Undead already lets you take control of any uncontrolled and non-sentient undead.  So you could just walk up to a mindless zombie and tag it as yours.  This is also how you regain control of the undead you create, but last beyond the duration of the spell (you know, so they don't start eating your throat).  I don't think you need to add the Undead immuto to do that.

 

 

Now, Subsume Corpse + Undead, or Subsume Corpse + Living! What do we do there!? J

Subsume Corpse is definitely a really... weird one.  It doesn't technically target any of the Genus immutos as written (except maybe for Inanimate), so I would probably only allow it to be combined with Genus Construct or Inamimate in order to subsume heaps of scrap.

 

The Darlin Theories

Alternatively, if you...

I was thinking of a wording similar to that, but at the end of the day I felt the “Focus Object as spell requirement” belonged with Tradition Magic.

Again, these were just suggestions.  I know some of them ended up being dig departures from the book mechanics.  I did, however, try to preserve the theme of the individual Theories.

I can get behind that.  I do still see it as kind of odd that the construct-focused theory has a hard time applying spells to constructs.  Maybe instead make it act in the reverse?  Bonuses to target constructs, but deficits when targeting non-constructs?

 

 

The Court Procedure

 Hmmm...

I may change it to “Any spell resisted by DF gets a Negative Twist to Damage”, but then the work-around is the Immuto that switches the resist stat. 

 

I just like how succinct the wording for this ended up being.  Both the advantage and drawback are simple, 1 sentence rules.  But the drawback may be too much of a handicap after all.

Yeah, short and simple is extremely elegant, but also potentially too far-reaching.  Unless of course you are running under the belief that Court Doctrine leads to more crafty ways of killing as opposed to raw damage?  I would say that fits the political nature of the theory, but for some reason I don't see the hyper beauracracy theory as being filled with people incapable of killing a dude with lightning.  You break the rules, you get the lightning.

 

The Thalarian Doctrine

Fair enough.  Now the Guild feels like some awful magic illness.  "I used to be a sorceror, but then I caught Thalarian." 

Witchling Stalkers wake up every morning and say this very thing.

Though I would...

Good idea.

That Witchling Stalker joke made my night.

 

The Balanced Five

I want my...

All very cool combos.  But understand that you’re departing from the rulebook here.  None of these spells can technically inflict these conditions because none of them do any damage.  The combos are legal, but you have to damage the defender and then the condition is applied.

 

But personally, I allow stuff like this.  The first time we played, I had a player who took Hedge Magic. He had to apply Fire to Physical Enhancement.  But we ran with it- he looked like a Super Saiyn from Dragon Ball Z when the spell went off, and I didn’t inflict him with Burning but he definitely got penalties to sneak checks.

I think I was blinded by childlike wonder, and that's how I managed to completely ignore the "when damaged by" clause.  I am going to continue to live in ignorance because it makes my spells that much more fun.  But noted...

 

I've seen a bunch of people on here throwing immutos onto magia that technically don't benefit from them at all, and I have been loving it.  It allows for more flexibility, and willingly taking penalties for fluff reasons is my favorite thing to see a player do.

 

But then... 

It’ll be useless to both.  Evade is to DF what Centering is to WP.  You can still use it to protect others… but why would you waste the XP?  Maybe I can come up with a better drawback.

Oh, it's only potentially useful to Df because its connected aspect isn't Tenacity (whereas Wp and Centering's aspects are both Tenacity).  As far as coming up with a better drawback, this might work well enough.  It tells Balanced Five mages that counterspelling really isn't their deal, but still lets them focus on it if they really really want to save their friends (why is beyond me...)

 

 

Hedge Magic

…as I showed earlier...

 You can- if you use House Rules.  And I agree, being forced to use a Genus Immuto every time removes too much of the versatility of Magic.

I'm actually ok with horrendously specialized mages, but I'm not really sure the advantage is really equivalent.  Yes, I will be the bane of spirits everywhere with my ability to freely unleash and my forced -4 to TN when chaining, but is that free unleash really worth it?  (since everyone can chain at the equivalent value)

 

The rest of it is just fluff preferences...

It’s as big a disadvantage as the FM wants to make it, I suppose.  I would personally make it tough, but then find ways to reward a player who went through all those hurdles to become a competent Mage.

Yeah.  The only iffy part there is how objective the other theories are, and then how variable this one ends up being.

 

Tradition Magic

Hmmm... with...

I agree. I think I’d like to make the Focus Object the principle part of this, like we discussed for Darlin.

That sounds solid enough to me.