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.

 

[Yahuna]

@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?

Hi, I have been away for a while.

My players only raised a mild concern that for them it felt unfair or strange to the least that the Mystic is the only character that can consistently act every round, as I discussed in my original post.

We have not taken action so far on the topic because for the moment it does not seem that the mages (I have two in the group) are taking too much the spot light during combat.

 

[Yahuna]

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.

That is the thing precisely, the Mystic is the only character that can act once per round.

If you are a melee character, some rounds you will act, some rounds you won't because you will have to defend. And this can be very nasty, you may not even act for two rounds in a row or similar.

If you have a character who is specialized in ranged weapons, and you get engaged in melee, you directly cannot act in the ranged phase and you are forced to act in the melee phase. On the contrary, the Mystic can be engaged in melee, but still act every round in the mystic phase.

Regarding your question of the armour, the mages in my group wear armour as any other player character. There is nothing in Eon penalizing the mage for wearing armour, so they do. Also, they have some decent defense skills since during character creation you can distribute points freely.

A normal combat round for my mages go as follows. They suffer 1 Exhaustion to defend out of their phase from any melee attacks they may be involved in, typically with a skill value ranging from 4d6+2 - 5d6 (Dodge or some weapon skill). Then in the mystic phase they act normally casting a spell.

As I said it seem unfair to me, specially when compared to a character that specializes in ranged combat.

Indeed, in general, weapons tend to be more deadly than spells, but is the spells that inflict "debuffs", that affect the enemy skills and the like that really turn the tides of combats.

 

[Swedish Chef]

No, theres no direct penalty. But to create a combat mage you need to spend points in harmonisera, aspekt, förvränga, förnimma and dodge. Also to learn a spell you normally need to spend points on languages. A warrior need one skill Sword, to do his thing.

À mage also have to spend background choises to get armour at all, points that could be spent getting more spells. In E5 er made it event harder for mages to get skillpoints in respons b

Also failure with a spell has negative conseqenses i form dissipation, a missed attack just misses. Spells are also somewhat regulated by ”alstringsmodifikationer”, which is one way to make it harder for Mages.

So anyway rekommendations: If you feel you need to nerf your mage
1: you can never win the initiativ in melee if your not active during the melee fase. Which means a close combat mage will have to choose to act there or be attacked every round.
2: give a penalty for spell casting if you are involved in melee -1T6 sounds reasonable.

Ps. If i remeber correctly you nerfed Grundrustning which is a warrior nerf, so it might be a good idea to skip that.

Writing on my phone without spell check so sorry if the language is weird

 

[Zeedox]

No, theres no direct penalty. But to create a combat mage you need to spend points in harmonisera, aspekt, förvränga, förnimma and dodge. Also to learn a spell you normally need to spend points on languages. A warrior need one skill Sword, to do his thing.

À mage also have to spend background choises to get armour at all, points that could be spent getting more spells. In E5 er made it event harder for mages to get skillpoints in respons b

Also failure with a spell has negative conseqenses i form dissipation, a missed attack just misses. Spells are also somewhat regulated by ”alstringsmodifikationer”, which is one way to make it harder for Mages.

So anyway rekommendations: If you feel you need to nerf your mage
1: you can never win the initiativ in melee if your not active during the melee fase. Which means a close combat mage will have to choose to act there or be attacked every round.
2: give a penalty for spell casting if you are involved in melee -1T6 sounds reasonable.

Ps. If i remeber correctly you nerfed Grundrustning which is a warrior nerf, so it might be a good idea to skip that.

Writing on my phone without spell check so sorry if the language is weird

Well, no, to create a strong combat mage you only need two skills: the aspect and some weapon skill. It's one additional skill, yes, but that's easily within the points budget of a new character.

Förvränga, Harmonisera and Förnimma can be useful skills in their own right, but far from all mages pick them in my experience over multiple player groups.

Edit: Depending on the GM, to be effective you might need to pick an aspect that doesn't have harsh environment penalties, and make sure you buy the right mysteries. But most aspects only have 2-8 strong combat spells anyway, so that's easily within "budget".

 

[Swedish Chef]

Alltså om du inte har harmonisera innebär misslyckande en varje dissipation på i snitt 17, du kan inte använda mer än en besvärjelse åt gången. Så du kan enbart kasta momentana besvärjelser.

Utan förvränga kan du inte försvara dig mot besvärjelser, att säga att man inte behöver dem är typ som att säga att en krigare inte behöver rustning.

Jag håller helt enkelt inte med dig.

 

[Zeedox]

Alltså om du inte har harmonisera innebär misslyckande en varje dissipation på i snitt 17, du kan inte använda mer än en besvärjelse åt gången. Så du kan enbart kasta momentana besvärjelser.

Utan förvränga kan du inte försvara dig mot besvärjelser, att säga att man inte behöver dem är typ som att säga att en krigare inte behöver rustning.

Jag håller helt enkelt inte med dig.

Många magiker jag sett från andra spelare har inte haft speciellt höga värden i Harmonisera - de flesta satsar istället på att pumpa in fokus och lyckas med färdighetsslaget. Hur många dissipationer ser du i dina kampanjer? I min egen erfarenhet är de inte vanliga.

Men visst, det går att höja den lite om man inte gillar att använda borttoning (men då går man miste om mycket av charmen med Eons magi, enligt mitt tycke!)

Förvränga behöver du ju enbart om du stöter på andra magiker, så den har jag sett ännu mindre av i praktiken. Med det argumentet skulle ju krigaren också behöva Förvränga?

 

[Swedish Chef]

Jag har också spelat flertalet kampanjer, jag har inte samma upplevelse som dig, men visst jag skriver magiböcker till Eon så jag är kanske partisk.

Enligt min mening behöver du harmonisera för att kunna ha mer än en besvärjelse igång och fr att dämpa dissipationer., men visst kastar du bara momentana besvärjelser och bränner fokus så absolut.Fokus kan för övrigt alla använda inte bara magiker, ett Kraftigt hugg med ett tvåhandsvärd med spenderade Fokus är också farligt. Vi har rätt många dissipationer och en del borttoning som leder till fältstörningar. Borttoning och fältstörningar är en rätt stor nackdel i alla fall i mina kampanjer.

Återigen det är få besvärjelser som är lika farliga som ett svärd.
Gällande dina exempel besvärjelser ovan:
vittrande vävnadsdöd: Nekro 14 (Mellan 0 och -1T6 normalt på att alstra Nekro), skada 4T6+2 dock eldskada, håller med farlig besvärjelse, Typ som ett tvåhandsvärd.
Khamox outhärdliga plåga :Kosmotropi 12 (dagtid i princip alltid -2T6 på att alstra Kosmotropi) En försvarare behöver klara ett själv kontroll mot 16 för att inte bryta ihop efter scen och 11 för att bryta ihop i scenen. Inte farligare än ett svärd IMO
Avenhars etermoln Kosmotropi 12 (dagtid i princip alltid -2T6 på att alstra Kosmotropi) : Effekt med ett övertag -1T6 i fyra rundor, inte farligare än ett svärd.

Vi har inte samma upplevelse om magikers effektivitet, tänker jag lämnar diskussionen här om du tycker du behöver göra magiker mindre effektiva i strid för all del kör. Förutom förslagen ovan kan man ge minus om man inte har plats att utföra en distinkt evokation

 

[Zeedox]

Jag har inte sagt något om att mystiker behöver nerfas, om jag antydde det uttryckte jag mig otydligt! Mer att jag förstår var Yahunas spelgrupps intryck kommer ifrån.

Min poäng är det i Eon går utmärkt att spela en svärd-och-magi magiker a la Gandalf och att det inte är antingen eller, som i vissa andra spel. Visst finns det försvårande element och risker med att utföra magi, men de finns ju oavsett om du är i strid eller ej! Och att kunna slänga iväg en besvärjelse i en nödsituation är ju en enorm fördel jämför med att inte ha det valet. Både rent effektivitetsmässigt, och för mer intressanta val för spelaren.

Vissa andra rollspel satsar ju tex hårt på att försöka hålla en effektivitetsbalans, så att alla rollpersoner ska vara ungefär lika användbara i spelets nyckelsituationer (strid, oftast). Men i Eon är det upp till spelaren att välja, och medan någon i gruppen skapar en målare som inte har en enda stridsfärdighet, kanske någon annan skapar en riddare med helrustning, ting beväpning och stridskonster. Magi läggs sedan på det separat.

 

[Svarte Faraonen]

Förvränga behöver du ju enbart om du stöter på andra magiker, så den har jag sett ännu mindre av i praktiken. Med det argumentet skulle ju krigaren också behöva Förvränga?

Det här är något jag funderar på ifall det kan kopplas till att Eon IV var rätt orienterat mot Jargien och i viss mån Damarien i det material som släpptes. De hade kanske sett annorlunda ut med mer frekvent förekommande fientliga magiker i andra delar av Mundana?

 

[Zeedox]

Det här är något jag funderar på ifall det kan kopplas till att Eon IV var rätt orienterat mot Jargien och i viss mån Damarien i det material som släpptes. De hade kanske sett annorlunda ut med mer frekvent förekommande fientliga magiker i andra delar av Mundana?

Kanske det! Samtidigt är jag van att gamla Inkvisitionsmystiker nästan alltid hade Förvränga, just för att spelarna föreställde sig att stöta på hemska svartkonstnärer. (Även om det i våra kampanjer egentligen aldrig hände, men enstaka förbannelser blev förvrängda.)

Det är mer efter aspektböckerna och nu i Eon 5 betan jag sett spelare hoppa över det. Kanske för att man inte föreställer sig hamna i så mycket magikerdueller? Eller för att spelarna inte satt sig in i hur de reglerna fungerar.