Rules talk:Magic Power/Committee to Preserve Doubled Learning

This page assumes that mage doubling is preserved in some fashion. Discussion here will, therefore, concern points of balance for Magic if mage doubling retains its current form, or new forms of the mage doubling rule.

Altered mage doubling possibilities:

• Mage doubling applies only at startup.
• Mage doubling applies only to a central concept for the mage in question.
• Mage doubling applies only to CTs.

If mage doubling is left alone, balance possibilities include:

• Reduce mage stats (natural charge/charge cap/charge rate) to equal those of a Ki fighter.
• Strictly enforce the original magic idea of elemental/"traditional" focus on tech scope.
• Create a character tech day cap so that old techniques must be deleted or forgotten Pokemon-style to learn new techs once the cap has been reached.
• Cause magic spells to have increased stamina drain so that casting spells is much more tiring than using non-spell techs of equal power.

Somebody else better start talking too. You guys suck right now. Tiryst 12:10, 11 February 2008 (PST)

Okay! I'll start talking! I recall being for mage doubling only applying during startup. The idea behind mage doubling was to give mages a way to not be total defenseless squishies right out of the gate, and a cheaply-obtained barrier, movement, and attack kit really does help that. But once a mage is established? Doubling all the time just makes it crazy-easy to get powerful fast. Limit it to a "central concept?" That would only work if we sat down and codified the things that "central concepts" can and can't do. Otherwise everyone would just app whatever spells they wanted and say "oh yeah it's ice elemental" or "oh yes and it's very Orderly", and... no. As for only applying to CTs... well, maybe it's good, but I don't like it, so nyaaah. Pamela 12:28, 11 February 2008 (PST)

The concept thing is kind of lame exactly because of what happened with Order Focus, where pretty much anything could be justified. The original magic concept thing, however, was that magic would deal only with elemental or "traditional magic" forces, and was intended to limit the scope of what spells could accomplish when compared to ki and psi (mainly psi, with conflict between psionic time/space control and "time magic" or some crap). If this were to be adopted, staffers would have to aggressively pursue concept limitations and could not allow people to "justify" their way into having an ice mage slow down time around him or something. Tiryst 13:29, 11 February 2008 (PST)

Even with my self-censorship on what could be applied for Alothin, given sufficient time, I can bend just about any desired end mechanic into something Orderly. Concept limitations won't work, in my opinion. Although we've denied a few apps before for infringing on the special stuff psi can do, that's about it, and I don't see requiring a central concept fixing it. We'd need to define the end functions, which would involve multiplying the amount of rules for magic by ten or more, which is far too much work. And, inherently, with that many more rules, there'd be that many more loopholes waiting. Hroefn ^T 17:13, 12 February 2008 (PST)

I'm still of a mind that the most optimal solution for balancing mages lies in doubled learning applying only at start-up. I don't have anything new to add to that particular argument, I'd simply like to reinforce my standing. Doubled learning will not negatively effect new mage characters, and will not require grandfathering and audits, which are usually the most intensive and sometimes the most difficult part of a major rules change. Deeze

No auditing is always a good thing :D Tiryst 10:21, 13 February 2008 (PST)

I'm actually gonna have to go with the increased stamina drain idea on this one. Mages already burn alot of stamina as it is because of their heightened base charge. To cast a barrier, movement spell, and or any kind of utility spell takes 60% of their PL in stamina. Make it cost 1.25x more and it would costs 75% or 1.5x for it to cost 90% of their stamina. Although I think 1.25 is more then enough to really put a dent into mages and to make them balanced. NicholasDeLeone 11:14, 12 February 2008 (PST)

I have to disagree with Curt. Increasing a mage's stamina drain isn't going to balance squat. All it's going to do is force mages to spend over 1/3 of their stamina just on a barrier and movement spell (and 90% base stamina drain? What in the hell are you smoking, pal?), further shorten their endurance in combat, and make stamina extension upgrades nigh-mandatory. Personally, I am in favor of keeping Doubled Learning only during character creation to give mages a leg up in building their template. After that, they're on the same playing field as everyone else. Additionally I'd like to see mages forced to conform to a more "traditional" concept of magic. --Kamin 11:57, 12 February 2008 (PST)

In Alt, what would a "traditional concept of magic be? Over time, it's gone from "it's what wizards do, with the hands and stuff" to "uh, it does everything", more or less. In spirit, I like the idea of limiting mages to a certain theme or domain of effort, but I'm not sure that it's enforceable. Not without somehow laying out an Alt DBZ Official System Of Magic that's fair and that doesn't clash too terribly with all the existing mages. (I'm not opposed to rules changes that cause slight retcons, though, and the recent Saiyan thing didn't go over TOO badly...) Also, relating to the a higher stamina drain? I'm not for that. Technically, mages already have a higher stamina drain than other power types. It's 60% base, while ki users get 30% and psions get 20% per slot. Increasing it any further would just be painful. Pamela 17:17, 12 February 2008 (PST)

My original "extra stamina" idea was more of a "mages can cast this many spells before they burn out" rather than an actual stamina thing, but for some reason that didn't translate through my fingertips. I meant, therefore, for mages to have to worry both about stamina and about a sort of "spells per day" system.

"Traditional" here has nothing to do with "in Alt". I mean traditional things people see as magic--so elemental stuff, plus things like conjuration or necromancy. No time/space magic or other things like that. Tiryst 13:21, 12 February 2008 (PST)

A mage's 60% base charge is enough of a double-edged sword to not make it necessary to increase stamina drain. A spell can deal 60% damage off the bat, but a non-damage effect, such as a sensory spell, will cost the mage 60% stamina, where the same effect is achievable for 30% stamina for a ki-wielder, and 20% for a psion. I'm not in favor of increasing the amount of stamina it takes for them to cast spells, as aside from possibly wrecking numerous character builds, it's easily circumventable (lol made-up word lol) if doubling is still in effect. Deez

The last time we were discussing this stuff, it seems that somebody brought up the idea of mages being the "glass cannons" of the power wielder populace. Powerful, but fragile. This is currently not the case; while they may have to sacrifice a post and some stamina to get it up and running, their learning rate and dependency on Barrier derivative techniques makes them have one of the most potentially defendable characters in the game. They don't become glass cannons, they become uber tanks in an infantry war. Against them, you can only hope somebody brought the rocket launcher and land mines (anti-magic techniques). They can stand out in the open and pick off spells at you with relative impunity. Since this is the "preserve doubled learning" discussion, the problem then lies in how accessible durability is.

Formerly, this branch of the discussion got sidetracked with ki equivalents, and ultimately resulted in a premature reduction of ki durability expansion costs. After all, ki wielders can use barriers too, right? So what's the big deal? I'll tell you what's the big deal. Potential! If there is room for expansion in something, a mage can reach that maximum faster than anyone with equivalent techniques. Changing the cost of an already rather disadvantageous ki durability expansion technique doesn't make mages less fragile, it just makes their grass look a slight shade less green. Slight. Very slight. I believe the thing to do would be to nerf out all upgrades to Barrier and variant techniques, and to prohibit a mage from having more than one protecting technique up at a time. THAT will make them fragile. At the same time, their doubled learning will make them powerful offensive presences. --Ice 13:57, 12 February 2008 (PST)

Ice's idea has some merit to it, under the pretense though that mages can choose to cast a barrier to replace the barrier that they already have up. Switching out the ability to layer barriers and to just remake them when their about to run out. Although the major issue I see is that I don't like capping mages durability at 200% for this reason. Nullifier, it would be utterly destructive instead of just good. Ki has 200% durability because its physical and always apart of them. Psi have 400% because its part of them but its energy based. I believe that is why mages are allowed to have 600% barriers because its not part of them and their normally considered energy based. But getting rid of barrier layer is a good idea.NicholasDeLeone 14:11, 12 February 2008 (PST)

The glass cannon idea was the original idea behind magic. Ki was supposed to be balanced, with Magic being highly offensive and Psi being highly defensive. Somewhere along the way that distinction got lost.

Lowering Barrier maximums and disallowing stacking of Barrier effects is definitely a possibility. The fact that Nullifier would be destructive is exactly the point of Ki's eneergy-decaying effects anyway, as well as reinforcing the glass cannon idea of magic. Tiryst 15:28, 12 February 2008 (PST)

I don't price techs, so my arguments may have a few holes in them, bear with me. Generally speaking a barrier that is not energy is easily obtainable, and the upgrade to make it so that they do not incur additional damage from the standard nullifier is not prohibitively expensive. Figure in something skin-tight (also not too expensive) and you've got a mage with functional bodily durability that's upgradable far beyond what a ki-wielder's bodily durability is. I'll even point the barrel at myself for a second and use Alida Blandine as an example; her barrier spell grants actual bodily durability, making her as immune to nullifier as any ki-wielder. Granted, that makes it much easier to prevent her from casting spells as she can be grappled and such, but the fact remains that she can emulate something that is not meant to be part of her power-type template. I'm not certain people can even embrace the idea of a mage only being allowed 200% PL in durability one way or the other, but I am not opposed to it considering how the inherent weaknesses of a barrier can be worked around. Another option I could suggest (but will likely be rejected just as quickly) is to disallow upgrades for barriers that allow a durability-granting spell to be anything but energy-based for the purposes of factoring in nullifier damage. Allowing 600% seems more reasonable when anyone has access to a technique to wear it down quicker. Deeze|

This is actually a much better idea than just limiting all barriers. Let the normal Barrier stay as it is, and have anything modified from it (non-energy-based or skintight, etc.) suffer from reduced maximum durability. If we go with this type of option, I vote for Dev's suggested version. Tiryst 10:21, 13 February 2008 (PST)

One of the major limitations of magic was supposed to be that they took longer to get ready to fight. They had to cast durability, (possibly) movement and sensory effects, and so forth and so on, before they'd be the equal of the average ki fighter. That's why we have things like the multifunction penalty, to penalize those who try to get around that limit. Another possible way to balance things out is by accentuating this. Requiring that spells take a certain number of posts to cast (perhaps linked to their tech day cost, as a representation of complexity) would emphasize this. If to get off their big attack, they have to cast for three posts, without their concentration being interrupted, that puts a big damper on their expensive mage-doubled spells. It also emphasizes that a prepared mage is a much more dangerous foe than a surprised mage, which fits nicely with the fluff, in my opinion. Hroefn ^T 17:02, 12 February 2008 (PST)

I remember this kind of being the case, actually. Hell, Fahst's flame shield originally took two charges to cast. Tiryst 17:09, 12 February 2008 (PST)

Yeah, but Mandatory Charges gave you a break on the spell cost, instead of being required for every spell. A little different in principle, although similar in function. Hroefn ^T 17:14, 12 February 2008 (PST)

That's very true. I remember now having mandatory charges allow TD cuts. On the other hand, I believe my shield went for significantly more TDs than the Barrier CT would, even factoring in the retributive damage. Either way, I like the idea of casting times. Tiryst 18:08, 12 February 2008 (PST)

The only argument I have against this suggestion lies in how it will affect mages that are already established. Using a system that makes a spell take x number of posts per TD's invested (including upgrades, I'd assume) may actually weaken mages more than I'd feel comfortable with, which says quite a bit. This, of course, would mostly be because concentration is largely ignored, which while annoying (anyone who's ever seen a character take half their durabilty in damage (or more) and continue fighting unimpeded can likely agree) is not hampering to any one power-type. Using a suggestion such as this one will make mages universal targets for tactics and techniques that hamper concentration while other PL types can prance about unimpeded, even if they should be subject to the same restrictions, if only in a lesser degree. Deeze

Eh I can see that then Al, but then again what becomes the functionality of autocharges to mages then. Wouldn't autocharges just get right around what were talking about then? Also I would like to note that it would take one heck of a casting time table to actually be balanced and not totally ruin mages. I could see if the casting time cost was way to high it ending up being the total destruction of the PL as well.NicholasDeLeone 01:03, 13 February 2008 (PST)

We could restrict autocharges from even affecting casting times, if necessary. Tiryst 10:21, 13 February 2008 (PST)