Agreed. The fact that such a creature was defeated through multicasting is proof enough of its potency.
All in all, a magus usually has most interest to learn how to multicast a low-level spell than a higher-level one, and this is at its worst with might-stripping spells.
There's already enough talk about the bigger spells (like Ball of Abysmall Flame, or lvl 40 DEO) being, due to penetration, seldom useful compared to lower ones (like Pilum of Flame). Multitasking while conserving the same penetration only makes this worse.
Sounds like you have an issue with how Penetration works eh?
As some of y'all stated earlier, Marko uses a different Might Scale, one that I happen to prefer, as it tends to lend itself towards higher power encounters. In the situation that was referenced, the character did not use a bunch of level 10 Might Strippers, in fact he used his level 50 version. Hooray for wizard's communion / vis? The character in question has two versions of Might Strippers, his level 10 voice range versions and level 50 ac range versions. G-d bless Adaptive Casting.
That said, I have always played in Sagas with Mights Scores leaning towards the higher end, much like Markos. Again, I prefer these kind of games, however I could see how people could take issue to the way Might Destruction is handled if they go by the RAW Might Scale. But, as I've never actually played a game that does, I have yet to encounter this issue.
Yes, bigger spells tend to not see use due to penetration. However, there are plenty of ways around it, and you can quite easily get disgusting penetration totals on such spells. A Creo + X specialist can easily get 50+ Penetration on such a spell with very little effort. You can always go the route I did and group cast. I think it would be quite interesting to see a group of Mercurians acting like the cult of old, going into the field and group casting spells at their enemies. Imagine the penetration totals a specialist could get on Ball of Abysmal Flame when it was a effectively a level 12 spell! Yes yes, I know that it's not exactly the same, but hush!
At the end of the day, I do believe this all boils down to the Power Level of the Saga you wish to run/play in. Personally, I see nothing wrong with Multi Casting and Might Stripping, but again, I've always played with a modified Might Scale and High Power Levels. To each their own I s'pose.
Before I get into a debate about Might scores, I should point out that you all seem to have missed that I mentioned my main villain has a Might of only 20, and in two years no one has managed to lay a finger on him.
Direct conflct and climatic battles don’t always make for the best story. In fact, I personally think a long pitched battle usually means that the players made a serious mistake.
The game is Ars Magica, not “Ars Impossible”. “Difficult” means that not everyone can do it.
I should point out that I rarely ever use demons. Also, none of the character magi in my group are novices, they all have at least 20 years or more experience.
And sometimes, a one-hit kill is totally feasible. It takes careful planning, allocation of resources, and stealthy approach. Players should be rewarded for using clever strategy.
And, if the enemy has placed himself in such a vulnerable position to begin with, then he deserves what he gets. This isn’t D&D. A big final fight scene is not always the best way to go. A good villain should be using cunning, careful planning, minions, and trickery.
As I said, my main villain only has a might of 20, and I have gotten quite a bit of longevity out of him.
Reasonably, a top dog demon would not allow itself to get caught in an open fight. If it does, it did something stupid and deserves destruction.
But I also don’t use demons that big. I use dragons and giants. Giants are not always so clever. And the magi have taken down a few drakes, but never a dragon.
Also, I want to point out that according to the design rules in RoP-Magic, I pretty much need them to have high might scores so I can afford the qualities I want them to have.
And might 50 is magus level, according to RAW.
Another good point. The Titus character did indeed put a lot of his time and resources into his specialty. He deserves to be good in his field, not nerfed just because some think he is too powerful.
And if I really want to stymie and challenge Titus, I would design a villain for him that isn’t so vulnerable to might stripping. As I said, the problem is rarely the power level of the characters. Rather, the problem is usually the SG’s inability to think creatively enough to come up with an appropriate challenge that matches the strengths & weaknesses of the characters.
And I am not at all accusing anyone of that. I am mean to say rather that I think some of you are looking at things from the wrong perspective.
Exactly-exactly-exactly!!!!
This man gets my point. As I mentioned, my main villain is only might 20, and he has outwitted the PC’s for years now. A villain that gets himself caught in open battle has made a serious mistake and deserves to be defeated.
Cleverness is far more important than power level.
?!??
Okay then, a specialist is supposed to totally suck in his field then?
There is more than one spot. The top dogs in PeVi might not necessarily know each other. And if they do, they may be unwilling to admit that any of the others are better than he is. There is no official judge that gives you a trophy and says “You are the best at PeVi in the whole world”. There maybe such contests in individual tribunals, butstill, the proclamation of “best” is pretty much only the opinion of said magus and the ones who are closest to him. There could be another guy who vows to beat you in the next contest, and a guy in another tribunal who doesn’t even consider your contest valid or serious.
The best stories require players to think. Stretching your limits is one option. Clever planning is another. Drawing together allies and resources is yet another. The ideas are endless. Requiring players to stretch their limits each and every time gets boring quickly and turns the saga into constant escalation like Dragon Ball Z (“This villain has ultimate power! This next one has super ultimate power! This one has super-duer ultimate power”).
They don’t all need it. Jut one. This will give the players pause the next time.
And I have never used that idea in my current saga. I may use it eventually, but it would have to be thematically appropriate for said supernatural being.
I haven’t boosted anything. I just call it as I see it and do what seems realistic to me. RoP-Magic does in fact say that might 30 to 50 is magus level, and powerful dragons can be 75+. My scale may be higher than that of some others, but everything is within the guidelines of RAW. Not a HR at all.
I am a storyguide, not a GM. A GM or DM is, by their very nature, the opponent of the PC’s. An SG is not the enemy, he is there to facilitate a story. Sometimes the SG helps the PC’s.
And this SG does not find the above mentioned option more fulfilling. It is an option, but only one, and if used repetitively it gets boring. Quickly.
Yes they do. The rules for power design and Improved Powers/Mastery Points specifically state that Mastery Points may be spent on Spell-like Mastery Abilities. A lot of my magic beasties, especially genies, have Multi-Cast and Fast-Cast associated with various powers.
Level playing field.
But they can be hit with fire, corporeal destruction, mind-control, and etceteras.
Yeah. Improved Powers/Mastery Points again. Reduce the cost to 0, take Penetration as a Mastery and as an Ability. Not a problem atall.
Also, you have just pointed out another reason why I need my large threatening opponents to have Might scores. They need the Penetration (as well as the MR).
50 is large, not huge. Mind you, I have stated several times I usually don’t muck around with demons. I am using RoP-Magic. That book specifically states might 50 is magus level, powerful dragons have a might of 50 to 75, and top-dog dragons (such as the Midguard Serpent, Fafnir, and Pan Caudrax) have might scores of 75+. All RAW.
As for angels, Might stripping is useless anyways. God is an infinite source of Divine power, and if he chooses, he can replenish his servants faster than any magus can deplete them. God’s power is absolute and infinite. No magus can defeat even the weakest of angels unless He so chooses to allow it.
Ad that’s great. Your opinion, your saga, do what works for you. This is what works for me, and I feel I am well within the guidelines of RAW.
RoP-Magic yet again, it mentions that the dragon found in the core rulebook (with might 50) is a small dragon and relatively weak. To me, that says “not a god, not a prince of hell, etceteras”.Most of the giants Titus faced were only Might 30 anyway. Only the top dog was might 50. And, well, he was supposed to be powerful. There is one more giant in the mountains that is even bigger still. Not at all common, but yes, I do indeed feel that this is the level of power that is suitable for these magi. In fact, the main reason I want the characters in my game to be amped up is because these are the sorts of creatures that I want to design.
Indeed, this is the heart of the matter. And I must say I have had great fun so far.
I had one anti-clamatic battle. One magus multicast a Fatigue stripping spell on a Might 40 drake (he was a big drake, twice the power of the other local drakes). He took the drake out in one shot. I wasn’t disappointed. Instead, I was impressed and awed.
And it lead to more story twists. Before they could move in and kill him, the drakes father stepped in to intercede. Appearing in human form, the Great Dragon Sigmundo made a bargain to spare his eldest and strongest son. The drake was banished to Africa, and the dragon owed the magi a favor. This had the effect of drawing the dragon closer to the plots and stories of the magi. They eventually had to call in the favor, and that has lead to fantastic adventure.
Yes it is
I respectfully disagree
Oh, they need to do that anyway. Titus blew a huge load of vis on taking down that storm giant. Vortigern painstakingly researched true names for his spirits.
And dramatic combat is not realistic nor is it always all that interesting. Sometimes it is, but not always.
Basically, in my opinion, if you are in a fair fight then you have done something wrong.
That’s you. But my point is that this opinion is not universal, and that I feel that I operate well within the limits of RAW.
Excellent! We have reached middle ground. Multicasting is not a game killer, and for some SG’s (such as myself), it greatly enhances the fun.
Ah, my old friend. It seems we meet to debate again
The point here is that I intended for said opponent to be taken down with multicasting. It was part of my plan, and my take would have stalled without it.
You say “worse”, I say “better”.
And PoF can barely scorch a giant with a Soak of 25. It takes a BoAF or an IoL.
Different, yes. But still within the limits of RAW for a high powered saga.
There I may have made a mistake and didn’t notice that the spell had a different than normal range. Adaptive Casting only works for General Level spells that are the same in every way save for the level of power released. The other spell cannot have a different R/D/T. Only a different base Magnitude of General effect.
I am not going to undo anything. What happened happened. But keep an eye on this in the future.
Again, I feel that my Might scale is within RAW. I am just using the higher end of it as described for use in high powered sagas.
Except that it doesnt. I described how an almost fresh magi can go out and ka-zap one-hit-kill a strong demon with zero planning, resources or stealth.
Didnt miss it and dont disagree at all. However, unless you allow yourself as SG the advantage of author fiat, YOU will also make occasional mistakes, or a player comes up with a solution you didnt predict, and if you dont fiddle with the nubmers or reality then, your big bad villain could get killed in a second.
And what might your big bad has or has not is totally irrelevant as long he avoids direct combat.
Which is why i said "specialist" yes? However, considering how easy it is to get if you play by RAW, any character that doesnt make sure to get a DEO with multicast mastery isnt playing well. Once you can cast a level 10 DEO with enough penetration, getting a mastery score of 2 or 3 in it becomes an automatic thing to get, because its so overpoweringly good that it solves half the combat problems.
So what? Wether YOU use might creatures or not says zero about if others do.
Oh yes, certainly. But a big bad villain with might creatures as minions becomes rather a joke.
As i dont have RoPM i cant comment seriously on anything from there.
Except that said fresh magus is specifically tailored and designed for the task, which does indicate carefull planning.
And I pose to you the challenge I issued earlier. Join my on-line game. See what happens in actual field experience ratherthan just theory.
Very different world...
All SG's/GM's/DM's should be allowed a lttle fiat now and then. I recently used fiat to declare that one of the giants managed to escape, so I can retool him and have him return for vengence at a latter date.
And yes, on occasion the players do surprise me and take advantage of any errors I made as the villian. But I like when that happens
Basically, watch any movie or read any action story, and pretty much this is how the hero wins in the end.
Might scores are generally a problem, as they're all over the place in relation to each other and poorly balanced to the power of Magi.
Marko's right about powerful dragons being given 41-50 Might in RoP:M. But the same book gives "Kosmokrators" (the Titans of Greek Myth are given as an example) Might of 50-75 and the minor Greek gods, or Theoi, 30-50. And as was already noted, Dukes of Hell are all 50 or less in RoP:I.
None of these scores are much of a problem for an optimized experienced Magus. Which is a big problem IMO. Running a story about a big hard giant sounds like fun. Having that Giant be on the power scale of Atlas sounds unintended and unnecessary.
The combination of Life Boost and multicast means a character that at age 25-30 or so can one-hit-kill a Might 50 demon. Why would it be a problem that the magi is totally spent afterwards if it means getting rid of what should be a really badass STRONG opponent in a few seconds?
I would consider that to be going WAY TOO FAR. As that would almost equate to giving a human Greater Immunity against injuries/death
Greater Immunity to Might Destruction done by magic, yeah that might be acceptable.
Same where i play. Whatever got stripped of might is still around, very pissed off, and if it gets away will start healing might at 1 pt per week minimum. And we run with adding 1/5 of might to soak, something that doesnt go away even if the creature goes to 0 actual might(nor does it magic resistance change according to actual might). So any big bad might creature can still be seriously dangerous even as a temporarily mundane opponent.
My experience is that there´s ALWAYS at least ONE player who comes up with a way to get around the "fight smart" part.
The advantage is that by them, almost any might creature has potential to be a major obstacle. And truly highlevel might creatures, above 60s or so needs VERY careful and special handling because even powerful specialists wont dispose of them easily.
Thats how we run it. Once the Might pool is drained, THEN it starts loosing its Might score.
But if the creature gets a few seconds to think, it can sacrifice a single point of Might score to regain 1/5(5 minimum) of its pool.
But the big difference is that after penetrating, unless the DEO spell is higher than the creatures base Might score, it will be ineffective(ie spell level-score is how muh damage is caused).
Yes, but add 10-30 years on at least 1/4 of the magi i´ve seen played, and ANY OF THEM can easily handle a might 50 opponent if playing by RAW. Add 30-50 years to the majority, and they can all handle that sort of opposition.
Lol, i would either die messily and quickly or bulldozer my way through it. As i´ve said before, i´m really a damned poor RPG player. I tend towards simple and conventional power playing except when i occasionally come up with something sneaky. Which is why my usual involvement is assisting the SG to play the opposition(with a secondary , supporting character or two among the players). :mrgreen:
And frankly, i think i would be even worse still playing over the net.
Of course. But there is, or should at least be a limit to that, otherwise players will see that your playing with "crooked dice" and simply authoring the story with the players actions only working when you want them to.
So, lets say one of your players suddenly comes up with a way to instakill the big bad opposition?
And CAN do it only because he´s a bit on the weak side against spell-caused damage...
Yeah, well sometimes players being really sneaky about it can give you serious problems...
A player once developed a fairly simple buy high level spell for teleporting water in huge amounts. She had her character use it very neatly and all, but it was rather funny later on seeing that after the SG had given a rough map of the surroundings she had figured out something the SG didnt consider...
So, when an advance force of the mongol hordes got too close for comfort, they of course camped overnight in the best spot nearby, and with plenty enough of their own magicusers to provide cover against just about any direct spells... So the player in question had her maga move the lake from one side of a mountain to the other.
Drowning around ten thousands of mongol warriors in the process and simply removing an upcoming "plot" completely before it even had time to start. The fact that she perfectly anticipated this event based on a sketchy map(sure, that valley WAS the logical approach but still...) and faint "rumours" about what would be coming many years later in gametime, and THEN go ahead and develop a spell suitable for the task 2 decades in advance for a completely different stated purpose(and coming up with ways to make good use of it in the meantime), even keeping totally quiet about it to everyone else so as not to warn off the SG that was just neat. Oh she´s GOOD with getting strategic surprise.
:mrgreen:
I think my point might have been better made if you had quoted my next comment rather than skipping it
My point was that a specialist has specialized (and usually narrow) skills. That is not the same as saying that a specialist has world-beating power within the specialty (though equally it might).
However it may be the same as saying that the character may have the potential to develop world-beating power within that specialty.
Or to put it another way,
If the five-year Vim specialist can defeat any demon or perform any Vin-task placed in front of him,
Why did the 20-year Vim specialist bother with the next 15 years?
How many years of learning should it take to become "best in field" and what are the advantages of pushing that boundary?
Most folks consider thinking to be stretching limits too (though it is often stretching the players limits rather than the characters, and it is certainly stretching different limits),
If the characters can just stomp through the opposition they might skimp at the thinking stage though,
If the "enemies" aren't a credible threat (be it socially, mentally or physically) then a lot of that stuff is lost down the cracks and games can become extremely boring. And consider that a "credible" threat needs to be able to oppose specialists too (that doesn't necessarily make specialists less valuable, and the threat doesn't necessarily need to meet the specialism head-on, but it must in some way be able to oppose the specialist and win in order to be credible),
Now that isn't the same as saying that an enemy needs to be a physical threat, but wouldn't it be nice to have it as an option in your stories so that you can use it if you want it? Especially since players can occasionally take plots in very unexpected directions, requiring social bad guys to face the players physically or vice-versa (and you should be able to tell an interesting story even then)...
I strongly disagree,
I consider the terms to be completely interchangeable,
I don't care about the title you choose to give yourself when you run a game. And regardless of the game, I still do not think that I am there to directly oppose the players whether I am referred to as the GM, DM, SG, Storyteller, Keeper, or Grand-Master of all RPGs.
I play games to have fun, both for myself and for my friends, and that means that the AM definition works regardless of the RPG being played (no RPG I can think of off-hand really places the GM in direct opposition to the players (and note that I said players, and not characters - there is player-consent to the story even in games like paranoia), though some come pretty close),
If you choose differently just because an RPG assigns you a different title then I would be deeply worried
Then be deeply woried, be disturbed, and afraid. I am flat-out-dead-serious about this. A GM or DM has no place in Troupe Style Play. An SG asks other playes for their opinions on rulings and rules. An SG has their own PC that is not an NPC. An SG hands off the title sometimes to let others run games.
A Dungeon Master is the opponent of the players. He designs his maze and stocks it full of traps and monsters, he waits paitently for players to make little mistakes so he can jump out and say "ah-ha! Gotcha! A GM has to have somewhat of a meglomania complex. It comes with the job.
An SG is "first amongst equals". I rarely if ever lay the hammer down, and even when I do I can be convinced to reconsider. I have had players over rule my rulings because they are in the majority. A GM/DM is always worried about the PC's trashing his carefully designed plots and plans. The SG is more worried about himslef and accidentally trashing the player's plans.
Troupe Style is very different from conventional RPGs, and has as its source and origin this very game, Ars Magica, and the halmark of this style is the term "storyguide".
Couldnt disagree more. To me thats just myth and prejudice with zero grounding in reality.
Being a SG doesnt mean you automatically play more with the others. Being a GM doesnt mean you automatically play more against the others.
SOME GMs play as purely the "evil opposition" sure, but most play WITH the other players. The GM makes the rules if needed, but wether thats done as a despot or by democratic vote, thats personal and situational, not wether you call it GM or SG.
Oh and btw, me and my cousin were playing "troupe style" rpgs 25+ years ago. And we had never heard about AM then.
Its different if you MAKE IT different.
1/ He wouldn't be able to keep his players (excessive player-deaths and tedious storylines tend to result in in players voting with their feet) and,
2/ He would always win, because there are no restraints upon his power (many games make this explicitly clear if it was not already obvious). An opponant with ultimate power is impossible to defeat (unless they let you, but why would a megalomaniac do that?).
Even in the (very stereotyped) game you describe (did you stop playing other games in the 70's or something - you've certainly missed out on the many Indie games on the market at the moment, take a look at Cold City or similar and tell me how their GMs are "in opposition"), there is an expectation that the players can win through (and even if they don't, most will survive the experience), and that the GM/DM will telegraph dangerous situations (to avoid instant party-death, etc).
I have yet to meet a game where it was expected that the GM/DM cynically plot against the players to defeat them... (and I say "players", and not "characters" again, because in some games character death or insanity is plausible even if they "win" - take CoC for example where defeating the big villain might well involve loss of a PC or ten. But then, that is expected by the players and seen as (an important and amusing) part of the story they sign up for when saying "sure, I'd like to play in your Cthulhu game"),
Well, there's the little issue of the second, invisible demon with a totally mundane knife standing behind him for a start. Or the fact that what he thought was the demon was actually the local bishop's niece, wrapped in illusion, and so totally unaffected by the spell but absolutely terrified of the madman shrieking and waving magic around.
Not all magi are obsessed with combat. Not all opposition occurs on the field of battle. You can totally break any and all games with no higher than first magnitude spells if you're careful and plan things, stirring Mythic Europe up like soup.
This is a classic example of the Succubus problem from D&D - Succubi had Invisibility, Suggestion and Charm Person at will, as well as Teleport. As such, any party without access to disjunction, see invisible and enchantment resistance cannot ever defeat them. Eventually one of the party will snap after being charmed and given many subtle suggestions and kill his allies, and then rinse and repeat. Once you know that it's a succubus, you can fairly easily deal with them with one scroll and a heavy sword, but the battle is not to kill the beast but to find out that it is there in the first place and survive until you can manage it. Magi have massive power, but they have limited and generally focussed power. The trick for making the game fun is for them to work out ways to use their power innovatively.
Can he, really? Why did the character become a Vim specialist? If he just wanted to kill demons then perhaps he wouldn't bother any further. Why improve your Ignem if all you really want is to be able to light your candles trivially and get on with life? Perhaps he liked the subject and was interested in expanding the understanding of magic. Perhaps he collects metamagic, and has spent his time learning new and fun ways to take other magic he already knows and trying to make it sing. Perhaps he craves Hermetic acclaim and wishes to discover a way or making the Aegis non-Ritual, to allow travelling magi to protect their companions and goods more effectively. Perhaps he's a member of House Criamon and believes that if he just learns enough Vim, he can bypass most of this pesky living business and achieve union with the Axis Mundi directly. Perhaps he's paranoid and realises that if he can boost his spells, so can others and he wants to be ready to defend himself with all the Perdo Vim he can possibly summon, living in terror and spending everything he has for a bit more Vis to study, a few more Tractati to scour for the hope of peace.
Is Multicasting powerful? Without a doubt. Does it break the game? No. Does it mean combat can be over quickly? Yes. Does it mean combat is over quickly? Not in the slightest. You can cast all the PoF you want, but if your opponent is Wizard's Sidestepped than all you'll do is burn the grass and give him time to take action of his own. A level 50 Might stripper with penetration 80 will have no effect whatsoever on an angry peasant with a crossbow. When your pet noble's castle is under siege and the Quaesitores are looking at you carefully, the question is not how can you kill the army but how can you make them leave before your allies starve to death. The easiest way to kill a mage is to bribe/threaten/blackmail/control his cook and add a little extract of Belladonna to his food.
Marko, I pretty much agree with everything you've said here except this which is total bollocks. I've had good DMs and bad SGs. I've had mediocre both. I've seen different playstyles clash and leave everyone unhappy. What you've described is one mode of play, which suits a subset of gamers, and which can be applied in every game from Ars Magica to GURPS to World Tree to Vampire: The OhStopWhining. Some games suit it better, some less well, but that's more because of the assumptions made about the default type of play than anything else. The difference between Halaster and Davnallous depends entirely upon the bloke running the game, and is independent of the rulesystem used. He can be a cunning foe or a statblock in either case.
Nooo, but the question i was adressing was that in combat, might creatures tend to be rather weak and easy to kill.
Which is why i used a just shortly out of apprenticeship magi as example, because at least to me, such a magi shouldnt be able to one-hit-kill one of the infernal realms greater demons.
Which there is no need for when DEO multicast is the simple, hypereffective and all-encompassing answer to any might creature.
I agree. Might Stripper spells are vastly overpowered. They should only strip might pool, not score, since otherwise they're magnitude for magnitude, well, orders of magnitude more effective than anything else combatwise. For the multicasting though ... nahh. And, of course, if you cast the the Might Stripper aligned with the wrong domain, the time spent casting is plenty of time for a magus/claw intersection to occur.
If magi make a point of slaughtering any creature they discover, then the creatures will learn subtly and keep a low profile, and eventually the more intelligent and powerful ones will embark on a campaign against the magi and they will die. In combat, magi are powerful. With advance warning, magi are obscenely powerful, especially if you can convince them to work together or spend resources. If an opponent uses tactics no more advanced than "charge" then they will lose. There is no doubt about that, regardless of multicasting or not. A sponted ReCo spell for most magi will move them away from any physical threat, and the Parma will protect from most nonPhysical ones. The second the opponent becomes more than a goblin with a stick, it all changes. An intangible demon capable of crafting illusions, for instance, can destroy a coventants reputation trivially. A few mad cackles here and there, a misheard word, and an apparent flinch when church bells sound are so easy as to not be worth mentioning. Do that for a while, and then when next a murder occurs, make sure a witness sees the magus, preferably with appropriate satanic attire and behaviour. Voila - the magi now either have to prove a negative (and be believed by the mundanes and the church) or mindwipe a whole city. Aside from the lynch mob, no violent encounter has been required and the demon, once said mob forms, will doubtless bask in the glow for a bit and then move on to the next vulnerable group of outsiders to make the target of wrath. Sure, someone with the ability to sense Infernal taint will be able to sense the presence of such, but that doesn't exactly strengthen the magi's case. Hermetic magic can't even reliably detect that - a demon could choose to leave Hermetic sigils to his work if he so wishes, with apparently magical traces. How would magi hunt down this demon, even assuming they could detect it in the first place?
One mundane is very little threat to a magus. Regardless of how many times a round he can cast PoF, a mundane army is a massive threat. He can't cast offensive spells forever, his defenses will expire, he'll grow fatigued and even if he had infinite stamina, his crops would be trampled, his trade routes disrupted and he'd find himself before Tribunal answering for breach of the Code. Exactly the same applies to magical beasties, except they have even more options for causing problems.
Multicasting is not a problem unless you make it so.
In the first instance, either you run out of magi or you run out beasties. This is what happens when you have equally matched sides, and why the Cold War existed. I see no problem, especially since most people want to live and so won't want to pull the dragon's tail. As for the second ... why would a magus kill the mundane girl? How would the magus know it was an illusion? Most magi can't see through illusions without special spells, and explicitly can't determine the truth in a demon's lies. All the magus would see is his spell fizzle.
Against the big monsters Might Stripping is nasty, but ultimately just another tool until Multi-Casting comes into play,
Multi-casting is a force multiplier that makes all of those pinpricks dangerous as a group - and to make matters worse it is even pretty cheap to get compared to boosting casting rolls significantly,
Incidentally, how would you feel about Might-Stripping powers if the guideline was rewritten as "Reduce a Targets Might by 'Level of the Spell +10 minus the Creatures Might' as long as the spell penetrates the Targets Magic Resistance." (i.e.: subtracting the creatures Might from the Stripping) with an additional guideline of "Reduce a Targets temporary Might by 'Level of the Spell +10' as long as the spell penetrates the Targets Magic Resistance."
This would ensure that you need high-level spells to go against the tougher bad guys (Level 70+ for creatures with Might 75, and even then it's just a pinprick and an awesome casting total), and even a Might 30 creature would need a serious spell to have any effect,
And doesn't that sound like a fun game for us all to play...
The point was that you arbitrarily changed the basic situation.
So fine, my new answer then becomes "i kills it with my battleships".
The demon is the one getting killed, obviously. Or do you refer to the girl as "it"?
Really? So if it takes magi 5 turns instead of 1 to kill a demon makes no difference in your opinion? Thats rather strange i think.
So if it takes 5 or 10 turns instead of 1 to kill a might creature makes no difference?
Sponted? You cant do it without fatigue so then i reverse your earlier question, what do you do when the character is exhausted?
Except that wasnt the question here. You´re arguing that its fine that a brand new magi can kill a powerful demon with ease, because the demons can be sneaky. Thats totally twisted, the two has no connection at all.
My point is that your situation is about as realistic as "You find an orc in a 10x10 room with a chest." How you got there is what matters. If you have a magus and a revealed demon standing opposite each other in an empty field and the magus wins initative then yes, a magus who is designed to kill demons will kill the demon. Likewise, a magus designed to talk to trees will be utterly shafted.
Two men on a duelling field, one with a machine gun and one with a rapier - the outcome isn't particularly difficult to guess, but the problem is not that machine guns are broken.
The scenario was supposed to illustrate that just because a magus thinks there is a demon does not mean that there is one.
If you go by the assumption that Magi can kill demons, yes. If you make the assumption that your magus has developed the spells, controlled the situation perfectly and cornered his foe, whether he makes the rolls simultaneously or sequentially doesn't matter a jot. In a borderline case, then it does matter.
Nope. Not when you make the assumption that your magus is invulnerable. Of course, realistically, your magus is not.
Die. Rapidly and painfully. That's what happens when people fight.
Dude, I could walk out my house, knock on my elderly neighbours door and, upon her opening it, stab her in the face. I could probably do that several times, to several people, before some other overwhelming force stopped me. Is my kitchen knife brokenly powerful? No, there are other reasons why I don't do that, notably that I'm not a total nutter. Hermetic Magi have massive power. They can kill things. Given advance warning, they can kill anything. The only time balance matters is between things magi can do; Within the system Hermetic Magi are more powerful than anyone else save the Divine and that is a design feature. Frankly, if every scenario ends with, "and then I kill it" then you're playing in dull scenarios.
A man with a sword and armour can kill a man without those. This is not the fault of the sword, but the fault of the other guy for not running away. The job of the guy with the sword is to make sure that the unarmed bloke cannot run away, assuming he can first find him, and to make sure that he corners the correct unarmed bloke, and that the ramifications of killing him aren't worse than letting him live.
This is why multi-cast seems munchkin to some, including me. It's essentially a trick that makes the in-the-know Magus far more powerful than a plain old Magus who spends all his time learning PeVi. It raises the question of how to set Might levels for NPC entities. Is Might 50 strong or not so strong? Without multicast, I wonder if Marko could have set the Giant's Might to 35 and told the exact same story.
It's also hyperspecialized. Taking more than one or two mastery levels of Multicast on a single spell means years of concentrating on one game effect. That's not how I imagine a magus wanting to live. Specializing in Pe and Vi is one thing. Obsessively developing a superpower spell is another.
