When looking at the sample difficulties for Magic, it seems like some of the 'Nigh Impossible' 6+ difficulties could easily be reached by a starting character who heavily focused in him magic skill and primary attribute (Rating of 8-10). Has anyone had this as a problem in their games, especially with the major effects (one-shot kill, earth shaping, etc.) that those spells can have? I don't know if the Burn damage along would be enough of a deterrent - if you're rolling 10 dice, your chances of getting 6+ successes are pretty good). Thoughts?

Well, keep in mind that Burn occurs regardless whether the spell succeeds or not.

Rolling 10 dice gives you a decent chance of getting 5 successes, yes, but that roll also gives you 5 failures, which if not ameliorated (using Style points, for example), will flatly take out most characters.

In Desolation, magic-slingers literally gamble with death every time to dip into the Weave.

Right, but say the character tries for a Diff. 6 spell like in Necromancy that immediately kills the target, and rolls 10 dice for 6 successes. The character takes 4 Burn damage (easily reduced by Talents or Style Points), but the target is dead. That just seems really powerful for a difficulty of only 6.

Should Burn be considered more like Lethal damage and take longer to heal? Should the difficulties be raised? I dunno. Keep in mind this is only in theory, as I've yet to run a game (but want to). Just something I noticed.

Hullo, Shrieking Emu,



One of the things to bear in mind is that a character who takes a spell caster (the term mage never seems right for the game, and magic user strikes me as being too D&Dish for this game ) in DESOLATION runs the risk of Burn damage with every spell they cast. Whether the Final Difficulty of the spell is 3 and the character rolls only 3 dice of his Magic pool, or whether the Final Difficulty is 6 and the character rolls 10 dice of his Magic pool, he could botch the roll, roll more successes than failure, or roll more failures than successes; regardless of whether the spell works or not, the spell caster is likely to take Burn damage. Using your spell example with a Difficulty of 6, and a Magic Rating of 8-10 (let's say 10), the character needs 6 successes to have the spell go off the way he intended it to, and even then will take 4 Burn. Given that most human spell casters have Health of 4 or 5, that 4 Burn is a lot of damage to take. If the spell goes off right. And regardless of being able to absorb Burn through the use of Style or having a Talent that helps wtih it.

What I can say, from the perspective of someone having run the game for quite some time now, is that players who take spell casters (in campaign settings, not convention demos and the like), are leery of using those Difficulty 5 or 6 spells, because with only 7 or 8 dice they aren't likely to work well. More importantly, after they experience Burn a few times and some of the stuff that goes along with having that reduced Health (even if only for a few half-hours or so), the extent to which they really rely on their magic is amazing diminished. The built-in mechanic of Burn works well as a deterrent, imo. That said, it's important to remember that in DESOLATION, every time a spell caster throws a spell, he or she is playing with death (in a manner of speaking).

Just my $0.02.

Hullo, Nestor,



Yep, you got that dead on (no pun intended).

Hullo, Shrieking Emu,



First off, bear in mind that that is a 6+ Difficulty spell, meaning a GM could argue that it requires 7 or 8 successes to kill the target outright. And, depending on the spell itself, the target will likely get a resistance roll to this type of spell, so the spell caster may have to use those extra successes he received to actually make the spell work. (There's the rule about resistance to spells that cause harm, y'know.) That said, remember that 6 successes is a lot of successes to get on a dice roll, too, assuming that one requires just that minimum. But this is a whole 'nother kettle of fish...



I don't believe that Burn should be considered Lethal damage or take longer to heal, although that could be a function of the game world that one is running or where one is in the Sconderan setting. Remember also that Burn adds a third type of damage to the game, and that even Non-lethal damage can turn lethal; same for Burn damage.

As for the Difficulty on a killing spell, that should be at least a 7, I would argue, but that's just me.

Again, just my $0.02.

I composed a detailed reply, then found out John beat me to it. I agree with most of what he said. We can quibble about exact Difficulties for major spells, but the copncept still holds.

The key points here are that if you cast spells, you will take Burn, and that you shouldn't underestimate its impact. Sure, taking 2 points of Burn when the character has a Health of 4 may seem acceptable (hey, he's still standing), but he is now 2 Wounds closer to being unconscious or dead.

And in a game where damage can easily reach twice as much and the environment itself is hazardous to one's health, that can make all the difference between seeing another sunrise and encouraging the plants to grow from beneath them.

Hullo, Nestor,



Oh my Goddess, I beat you out to a post about something?? Quick, run for the cover, the Night of Fire is starting again!

Seriously, you know how rare this is?



One of the things that I think is really important to remember here is that one should never underestimate the power of Burn. I've seen a couple of players do it early on in campaign, and they learned *really quick* about this. And, of course, one sees this a lot more in convention games and demos, where players with spell casters (especially our favourite, Menelaris :LOL: ) make this mistake. A spell caster can be crippled (in more ways than one) by taking too much Burn at the wrong time. Going unconscious in the world of DESOLATION is Not a Smart Idea(tm)!



Well spoken, good sir, well spoken.

Hello,

Good to see some discussions going here on magic. Great questions.

As an aside, we playtested with Burn being Lethal and, well, casters didn't last long. I was a big proponent of Lethal Burn damage until we playtested it. It was much too limiting -- just not much fun for the person playing the caster.

I think John and Nestor hit all the main points, but I will reiterate to remember the + in the 6+. It might be more than 6, in other words. That's up to the GM to determine. Also remember that targets have a chance to defend/resist spells.

In theory, we wanted magic users to be able to do some amazing things out of the gate (just like fighters -- see Lem's 12L damage on page 104 plus his +2 Lucky Talent and Flurry Talent), if they roll well. If not, there is Burn and the general populace's hatred of magic users with which to contend. So a caster may get lucky and kill the big bad with one spell, but then the henchmen (and possibly villagers or former allies) know who the caster is and likely will turn on him. Good luck to the caster trying two big spells in a row.

In practice, we have seen some major effects attempted by casters in games. Sometimes they work (I remember a caster knocking over a stone tower, for instance), but more often than not the big-spell caster is knocked out in the middle of the battle (I also remember a kick circle around one unconscious caster). That's the balance we wanted to strike.

Great replies, guys. I think I'll have to see how she drives in an actual game, but things are making more sense now.

Hullo, Jamie,



Yep, Shrieking Emu brought up a good point or two.



I remember back when I started playtesting the game, my players wanted to see what would happen if Burn damage were Lethal rather than Non-Lethal. All I remember is two players, playing spell casters, shouting "I am not rolling up another character! Make the damage back to Non-lethal, please!"



Excellent points on this, Jamie. Very good.


[/quote]

I'm going to have to remember that bit about the kick circle, for certes!

I'm going to have to remember that bit about the kick circle, for certes!

Well, it looks like I'm late to the party and everyone else jumped in with all the right answers. But did that ever keep me from throwing in my two cents worth? No sir.

I have had other people concerned about spell casters able to create fairly potent effects right from the gate. Heck, it's a concern we had when we playtested the game. Finding that right balance between making a spell casting character that was fun to play, but didn't overshadow the other characters (which I lovingly call the jedi syndrome) was tough. Spell casters are potent and they can do amazing things... but this ability is (IMO) balanced with the Burn, social stigma and required talents inherent to the class. Another thing I would toss out is that Stun damage still applies to Burn.

By and large, I've found that both spell casting and non spell casting characters seem to have fun and not stare at each other with envy or disdain. From what I've seen, the mage has only really become enviable when a creative player has found lots inventive uses for low level spell effects.

The last thing I would toss out is this... if you really find that magic is overly potent or characters have advanced in such a way that 6+ spells no longer carry a heavy burden, you could change the difficulties of spells or consequences of casting them. The nice thing about the apocalypse and world in flux is that nothing is stable - even magic (the Weave). House rules that I've pondered include: making any burn damage over 4 non-lethal and un-mitagatable (sp); applying Stun before Burn Reduction; increasing base spell difficulties, etc...

I like that one. I must make sure that's part of my home-rule repertoire.

And like John, I think the let's-kick-the-unconscious-mage party idea is definitely yoinkable.

While we're at it, could someone explain defending against Magic? I've read and reread the applicable section, but it's just not clear to me.