Eon Mystikfasen & Happy new year

[Yahuna]

Me and my players haven been already playing Eon IV for several months on a bi-monthly base and we are enjoying it a lot.

It also means that we start to see somethings that we like more and others not so much.

Recently my players have bring to my attention that the Mystikfasen seems unfair to them. Let me try to explain their (and my point of view).

In the Melee phase you can only act if you are the attacker, otherwise your only option is to defend. Similarly, in the Ranged phase you cannot act if you are engaged in melee with enemies, that is you cannot use your ranged weapons until you disengage from the melee, for which you have to first become the attacker to be able to chose the action that allows you to disengage from melee . Contrary, in the Mystic phase, characters can cast spells even if they are engaged in melee and defending against melee attacks. So a spellcaster can defend and cast a spell in the same turn with no penalties (according to the rules) but gaining 1 Exhaustion (from defending outside of his phase).

To give you an example of how things go in my table, the mage suffers one fatigue to defend from any melee attacks, uses Dodge which he has maximize at 5d6 during character creation, and then at the mystic phase he cast his spell.

Before I start house ruling things, I want to bring this to this forum where there are many veterans of the game to hear your opinions, or, if someone has already house rule this, how it has been done.

Cheers

 

[Eleas]

Before I start house ruling things, I want to bring this to this forum where there are many veterans of the game to hear your opinions, or, if someone has already house rule this, how it has been done.

Having not played Eon for a long time, I'm most familiar with Eon 2 and 3. In both those editions, choosing to employ magic in place of the sword or the bow was often a losing proposition. If you wanted to kill someone, you'd stab, bludgeon or pierce them in order to inflict those tasty Extraskador (I honestly don't have a good translation for those -- "critical hits," maybe?).

I used to play a practitioner back then, and from what I recall, putting someone down reliably, even for an expert wizard, was no sure thing. You'd inflict something like Ob2d6 or Ob3d6 Trauma, or maybe force them to make an Ob2d6 Death roll, and the process itself was cumbersome and fraught (at least a 1 in 4 chance of failure, maybe a 1 in 6 chance of uncontrolled dissipation). I understand the rationale behind that, and I hope it's not turned on its head in this edition; I think magery should be aimed more at being magical than being a combat multiplier.

So my counter-question, then, would be this: are you sure the extraneous costs and dangers of magic use -- such as dissipation, time to cast, et cetera -- don't outweigh the benefits?

 

[Zeedox]

@Yahuna I've started to houserule Eon's combat quite a bit in general, because I want to speed it up a lot. But mages can be quite powerful in Eon indeed, if the player knows what they are doing.

Interesting that you pointed out that as a mage, you technically don't have to worry about being attacker or defender any more - you can always do your magic action, every round!

What has been your players' general concern? Is it that there are non-mages that feel they are not as effective as the mage? What's the common strategy your mage players use in combat?

 

[Swedish Chef]

Me and my players haven been already playing Eon IV for several months on a bi-monthly base and we are enjoying it a lot.

It also means that we start to see somethings that we like more and others not so much.

Recently my players have bring to my attention that the Mystikfasen seems unfair to them. Let me try to explain their (and my point of view).

In the Melee phase you can only act if you are the attacker, otherwise your only option is to defend. Similarly, in the Ranged phase you cannot act if you are engaged in melee with enemies, that is you cannot use your ranged weapons until you disengage from the melee, for which you have to first become the attacker to be able to chose the action that allows you to disengage from melee . Contrary, in the Mystic phase, characters can cast spells even if they are engaged in melee and defending against melee attacks. So a spellcaster can defend and cast a spell in the same turn with no penalties (according to the rules) but gaining 1 Exhaustion (from defending outside of his phase).

To give you an example of how things go in my table, the mage suffers one fatigue to defend from any melee attacks, uses Dodge which he has maximize at 5d6 during character creation, and then at the mystic phase he cast his spell.

Before I start house ruling things, I want to bring this to this forum where there are many veterans of the game to hear your opinions, or, if someone has already house rule this, how it has been done.

Cheers

Hmm Im not sure I follow, the Mystic gets to throw one spell per round its not like a spell Is much more dangerous than sword (usually less actually), and every spell risks a dissipation. You really don't need to nerf mystics to be honest,

And also Im guessing he is not armoured? Then all opponents should do Quick attacks against him if you want to hurt him.

 

[Zeedox]

Hmm Im not sure I follow, the Mystic gets to throw one spell per round its not like a spell Is much more dangerous than sword (usually less actually), and every spell risks a dissipation. You really don't need to nerf mystics to be honest,

And also Im guessing he is not armoured? Then all opponents should do Quick attacks against him if you want to hurt him.

Some spells are really quite dangerous though.
e.g. Formeln för vittrande vävnadsdöd, Khamox outhärdliga plåga, Avenhars etermoln, Sorazmans vitriol…

And nothing stops a mage from wearing armor and defending themselves, aside from the tiny bit of extra exhaustion from acting outside your phase. When I’ve seen mystics in play, they’ve often been good at fighting as well as their chosen aspect.