Magic System Crunch

[Cantriped]

Alright, Here I am again, putting up a magic system. This time though I'm not looking for praise or use or anything similer. Basicly I need some critique and help balancing it. Any Feedback is welcome though.

At the moment all I have are the mechanics for basic spellcasting, but it's based loosly on Killer Shrikes Spellweaving system. Anyway heres what I got in as simple and readable a format as I can make it.

Basic Spellcasting

• No Framworks (except to define specific spells)
  
• Power Construct for spells may only take SFX Limitations. No Procedural Limitations (Gestures, Incantations, etc)
  
• Spells must take minimum of 1 Half-Phase to Activate. Powers which normally take a 0-phase to activate get a -1/4 limitation for this. (It is considered an SFX Limitation)
  
• Powers Must Cost END, either inherently or because they are purchased with the appropiate limitation.
  
• Powers Must be Visible, or at least have their Source be visible.
  
• Spells which are constant should almost never cost END to maintain, and have the Uncontroled modifier. It not only helps conserve the mages strength, but it is also more in line with the desired feel of the system.
  
• As a rule of thumb, when using the Uncontroled modifier, powers which require a set duration (like ones that don't cost END to maintain) should be set to 20 Minutes + one level down the time chart per 40 AP after the first. 1-40=20 minutes, 41-80=1 Hour, 81-120 = 6 Hours, etc.
  
• Spells Automaticly recieve the RSR: "Eldritch Control" Limitation at -1/5 AP. This Limitation is a system ground rule and has no limitation value. (See "Casting Procedure Rules" for more information)
  
• Skill Roll Failure does not indicate power failure, but rather suffer Backlash, Multiplying the END Cost by 1 + [Amount Roll is Failed By]/2. Constant powers may still deactivate if the user is knocked out or stunned as a result of exaustion of END, Also, for powers which cost END to maintain the increased cost only applies when the power is first activated.
  
• Eldritch Control Skill is an INT based skill costing 3 points. Characters do not purchase Skills levels in the normal fasion (See below).
  
• Characters may not define spells as drawing from END reserves
  
• Spells recieve Cost Multiplier of 0.1 (or 1/10 of the Spells Real Point Cost)
  

Casting Procedure Rules

• Characters apply a given Procedure (represented as a limitation or group of limitations), or several procedures, to his spells in order to make them easier to cast (represented as a bonus to the skill roll. These are considered a special kind of skill level.
  
• Characters must apply at least one procedural limitation to all spells cast. Additionally, This 'Procedure' must be a Diagram by SFX, whether it is Drawn right there, crafted as a Foci, or even Tattooed is irrelevent to this caveat.
  
• Each "Procedure" grants +1 to the Eldritch Control Skill roll for every -1/4 in limitations it applies to the spell the roll is being made for.
  
• Rarely, procedures involve the use of modifiers which are not actually procedural limitations. Most often these are the Delayed Effect Advantage (and storing lims) or modifiers representing SFX limitations for that specific procedure. Storing Limitations and these SFX lims still acumalate levels of the spell they are used with, but at half the rate (+1 per -1/2 rather then +1 per -1/4). Advantages, such as Delayed Effect, are ignored to the purposes of determining number of levels granted.
  
• Each Procedure known by the caster must be approved by the GM; As must which of those procedures a caster can combine in the same casting (naturally).
  
• Optionally, the GM can choose to represent the characters knowledge of differing way of casting (procedures) through a knowledge skill. KS: [Nation/culture] Spellcasting, aside from effecivly acting as a familarity for that cultures Spell Procedures character would be allowed to make rolls to remember other information about that culture or groups magical tradition.
  
• The Benefits (and Limitations) of each procedure are treated seperately regardless of the exact mechanics used, although some procedures may not be used together if the limitations representing them conflict.
  

Misc. Rules Considerations

• Once a caster has begun a spell, he may not abort it regardless of the results of the skill roll. (Basicly he can't abort the spell if he failed the roll)
  
• The sucess or failure of each spell is determined seperately, thusly multiple spells cast in the same phase make seperate Skill Rolls, and any END cost from failure is determined seperately for each spell.
  
• Learning magic represents a serious carreer path, the learning of which takes many years of discipline and conditioning. As such, character may not purchase less then 20 character points worth of spells when designing a spellcasting character.
  
• In some incredibly rare cases, it would be thematicly appropiate for a spell to truely require a specific procedure to opperate ("song"-based spells would inherently require Incantations for example). In such cases the power may be purchased with a procedural limitation. However to keep the system consistant such spells are also purchased with a number of Skill levels in Eldritch Control appropiate to the limitation linked to that power. These would basicly be built in exactly the same fashion as a procedure, only linked to the power.
  

SFX Considerations

Healing: Healing under this form of magic is extraordinarily limited, following the stereo type held in most forms of arcane magic. The best even the most capable of healers can do it's expidite the healing process, though the increase is literally exponential, some recovering from near fatal injuries in days or less.

Mechanics: Healing Effects should nigh universally be purshased with the Gradual Effect, and Decreased (or increased) Reuse Duration modifiers, and must be set to the same level on the Time Chart. Suchs spells should also never restore more then 2d6/6 hours. Though exceptions, such as Healing: Flash, Exist.

Equipment As 'Spell-Foci':

A spellfoci would essentially be a piece of equipment, jewlery or clothing which has had a "diagram" already drawn/etched/stitched into it. These would simply be handled as "Equipment", and built with skills the character possesses.

Mechanicly they would be skill-levels purchased with the apropiate level of Foci, and an SFX limitation for how narrowly they can be applied (-1 for only a specific spell, -3/4 for a narrow group, -1/2 for a medium group, -1/4 for a large group). Naturally the number of levels given would still be limited by the value in limitations applied to them as normal procedures would be, but are otherwise handeled as equipment, and could in-fact be weapons or armor. Thus having other non-related powers attached. However only limitations on the actual levels would be counted when determining the bonus granted, and are counted normally (1:1 for 'Procedures' like the Foci itself, 1:1/2 for SFX like how broadly it can be applied).

Tattoos As 'Spell Foci':

There is no reason to believe that if it works on item it won't work on living flesh, As such character may purchase actual levels (with points of course, since it can't be taken away) defined as a Diagram they have tattooed upon their bodies. The Same SFX lim for Spell-Foci applies to these 'tattoo-foci'. In place of the Focus Limitation the Tattoo gets to take a 'sfx' limitation based on how much of his body the Tattoo takes up, Basicly it's -1/2 per Location (or -1/4 if only 'half' the location is used). These are counted as SFX because they don't make the spell any harded to cast, only limiting how many you can have. Note, to make up the cost of the Tattoo, if the GM permits it the player may take a Distinctive Features with it, the value generally dependant upon how expansive the tattoos are. (though he only gets one DF, regardless of how many Tattoos it represents).

a Character with a Tattoo running from his Left Shoulder all the way to his left hand, with a smaller tattoo on his right hand, would get -1&1/4 in sfx lims, if the tatto could only be used for a specific spell that -2&1/4 in sfx lims, for a total of +4.5 (rounded up to 5 levels) to that spell and.

Additional Fluff Information

Transmutation:

This field of magic deals with the reconstruction of matter under specific physical laws. Transmutation requires little maintence to produce long lasting effects, and is highly prone to colateral damage. Because Transmutation is fettered by physical laws, it is often viewed as little more then a science by those who practice it. Practicioners of Transmutation frequently go under the name of Transmuter, though Wizard isn't entirely unheard of either, and in some cultures they are known under the misnomer of "Alchemist"

Ensorclement:

This field of magic deals with the creation of metaphysical constructions that are not fettered by physical laws. Ensorclement usually creates effects of a metaphycial nature, but because they do not follow natural, physical laws, they require neigh constant maintence to remain effective. As such ensorclement does not seem to effect the ensorcled objects actual physical nature. The upshot is that because spells of ensorclement do not follow natural, physical laws, they can bend these laws in accordance with the metaphysical laws that do bind them. Practicioners of Ensorclement are known by many names depending upon the country of origin and specific variations in that country's magical traditions, but Sorcerer and Enchanter are the most common names.

 

The Eldtritch Theory:

The Eldritch theory states the existance of an environmental force called "Eldritch" which when coaxed into the correct pattern, creates a magical effect. Naturally if the proper measures are not taken to coax the energy properly then with the seal is activated it will tear the necessary energy from the closest available source, the caster.

The Gate Theory:

The Gate theory holds that magic is performed by creating "gates" which connect primal acrhetypes, deities, or spirits (variations exist depending on culture) with the material plane. These archetypes or spirits or what have you, can then be channaled through the gate to create a magical effect. However if the proper preparations are not taken the caster is punished for thier impudence.

The Resonence Theory:

The resonence Theory states that the entire universe, both physical and spectoral, is composed of countless invisible strings vibrating against eachother at a different frequency, and that the diagram (seal) used in spellcasting, combined with specific procedures, can modify the resonsnece of the strings near the caster, creating a "magical" effect. Of course any change in resonsonence requires energy to produce, and the less adquete the procedures taken to change to resonence are, the more physical energy the caster must expend in creating the effect.

[Cantriped]

Examples

 

Attack Spells:

Ensnaring Fetters: Entangle 4d6, 4 DEF, Trigger (Spell Must be Recast For Trigger to Reset; Entering Hex In Which Fetters Were Set; +1/4) (50 Active Points); No Range (-1/2), Restricted Duration: 1 Hour (-1/2), Spell (-1/2), Cannot Form Barriers (-1/4). Skill Roll: -10. RP/AC: 18/2.

Fireball: Energy Blast 6d6, Penetrating (+1/2), Area Of Effect (5" Radius; +1) (75 Active Points); Spell (-1/2). Skill Roll: -15. RP/AC 50/5.

Warfetter: (Total: 82 Active Cost, 37 Real Cost) Darkness to Sight, Touch, Radio, Hearing and Smell/Taste Groups 1" radius, MegaScale (1" = 1 km; +1/4), Costs END Only To Activate (+1/4), Invisible Power Effects, SFX Only (Fully Invisible; +1/2) (60 Active Points); Only Effects Targets In the Area when the Power initially Activated (-1/2), Spell (-1/2) (Real Cost: 30) plus Naked Modifier: MegaScale (1" = 100 km; +1/2) for up to 30 Active Points, Invisible Power Effects, SFX Only (Fully Invisible; +1/2) (22 Active Points); Only To Keep Targets From Regaining Senses by Leaving Warfetters Initial Area (-1), Linked (Darkness; -1/2), Spell (-1/2) (Real Cost: 7). Skill Roll -16 RP/AC: 37/4

Defencive Spells

Mage Armor: Armor (4 PD/4 ED) (12 Active Points); Costs Endurance (Only Costs END to Activate; -1/4), Visible (-1/4). Skill Roll: -2. RP/AC: 8/1.

Passive Spells

Accelerated Healing: Simplified Healing 2d6, Decreased Re-use Duration (6 Hours; +1/4) (25 Active Points); Gradual Effect (6 Hours; -1 1/2), Side Effects, Side Effect occurs automatically whenever Power is used (Side Effect only affects the recipient of the benefits of the Power; 1 LTE/5 AP; -1/2). Skill Roll: -5. RC/AC: 8/1.

Celerity of Light: Flight 20", combat acceleration/deceleration (+1/4) (50 Active Points); Only In Straight Lines (-1/2), Instant (-1/2), no Noncombat movement (-1/4). Skill Roll: -10. RC/AC: 22/2.

 

[Example Character Comming Soon]

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

Alright, Here I am again, putting up a magic system. This time though I'm not looking for praise or use or anything similer. Basicly I need some critique and help balancing it. Any Feedback is welcome though.

At the moment all I have are the mechanics for basic spellcasting, but it's based loosly on Killer Shrikes Spellweaving system. Anyway heres what I got in as simple and readable a format as I can make it.

Basic Spellcasting

• No Framworks (except to define specific spells)
  
• Power Construct for spells may only take SFX Limitations. No Procedural Limitations (Gestures, Incantations, etc)

 
Defining SFX limitations and procedural limitations will be important, but likely is best done case by case.
 
 

Spells must take minimum of 1 Half-Phase to Activate. Powers which normally take a 0-phase to activate get a -1/4 limitation for this. (It is considered an SFX Limitation)
Powers Must Cost END, either inherently or because they are purchased with the appropiate limitation.

 
Is costing END essential? One could simply proceed on the basis that even a spell that costs no END is subject to END loss by the caster if the skill roll fails. Does Costs END to Activate qualify as "costing END"? [Apparently from the examples.]
 

Spells Automaticly recieve the RSR: "Eldritch Control" Limitation at -1/5AP. This Limitation is a system ground rule and has no limitation value. (See "Casting Procedure Rules" for information on how to bypass these limitations)
Skill Roll Failure does not indicate power failure, but rather suffer Backlash (Increased END cost = to 1 + [Amount Roll is Failed By]. Constant powers may still deactivate if the user is knocked out or stunned as a result of exaustion of END

 
I don't get the formula. If the Lightning spell you set out as an example is cast, and the roll succeeds, it costs 7 END. If the roll fails by 1, your formula says END cost is 1 + 1 = 2, so I saved 5 END by missing the roll. Perhaps the END cost should simply be INCREASED by the number of points the roll is missed by, so the END cost would be 8 in the above example.
 
Is that a one-time END usage, or will it also increase the cost of maintaining a constant power?
 
If the roll is missed, does the wizard have the option of aborting the spell rather than paying the END, or is he committed once he rolls the dice? I'd go with the latter.
 
Hmmm...if he's KO'd by END usage, does the spell still activate, or does it fail? Again, I'd go with the latter (ie no "Retributive Strike - 200d6 1 hex radius, Megascale, affects desolid, 1 km, personal immunity, no range" - sure, I'll be KO'd, but no one else will survive!")
 

Eldritch Control Skill is an INT based skill costing 3 points. Characters do not purchase Skills levels in the normal fasion (See below).
Spells recieve Cost Multiplier of 0.1 (or 1/10 of the Spells Real Point Cost)

 

Paying that NCM cost for INT is seeming potentially worthwhile...as is the Age disadvantage. Both seem reasonable.

 

[*]Characters may Apply a given Procedure (represented as a limitation or group of limitations) to his spells in order to make them easier to cast (represented as a bonus to the skill roll. These are considered a special kind of skill level.

[*]Each "Procedure" grants +1 to the Eldritch Control Skill roll for every -1/4 in limitations it applies to the spell the roll is being made for.

[*]Each Procedure known by the caster must be approved by the GM. (naturally).

[*]The Benefits (and Limitations) of each procedure are treated seperately regardless of the exact mechanics used, although some procedures may not be used together if the limitations representing them conflict.

 

I'd explicitly state that END reserves are, or are not, permitted (probably "not", but if they are, any changes that makes to the ground rules).

 

Presumably a spell can be used at reduced power to reduce the skill roll (eg. you could use only 10d6 of that 14d6 lightning bolt to reduce the risk and cost of failure).

 

Watch out for spells with big skill penalties and long-lasting effects. For example, 6d6 INT Aid, Fades per hour, costs END. Anything that only costs END to activate and can then be maintained indefinitely carries this risk.

 

A spell takes 1/2 phase to cast, minimum. What if I want to cast two spells in a phase (eg. activate a force field and attack)? Do I get a separate roll for each one, or roll once with the combined penalties?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

PS: nitpicky details can be ironed out or changed as the campaign progresses. I like the overall feel of the magic system.

[Cantriped]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

Is costing END essential? One could simply proceed on the basis that even a spell that costs no END is subject to END loss by the caster if the skill roll fails. Does Costs END to Activate qualify as "costing END"? [Apparently from the examples.][/Quote] I've always felt that Costs End (Only to Activate) counts as costing end, thus it would also make the power Constant (rather then persistant if it was)

I don't get the formula. If the Lightning spell you set out as an example is cast, and the roll succeeds, it costs 7 END. If the roll fails by 1, your formula says END cost is 1 + 1 = 2, so I saved 5 END by missing the roll. Perhaps the END cost should simply be INCREASED by the number of points the roll is missed by, so the END cost would be 8 in the above example.[/Quote] Opps, My bad on that one, I should clairify, I was referencing the Limitation Increased END cost, so is Multiplies the END cost by 1+the amount you fail by, so failing by 1 would be fireball now costs 14 END, failing by 2 it's 21, etc. As I crunch numbers I may need to scale back the END Penalty to make it playable, major spells should have the potential to knock you out, but I don't think Fireball level spells qualify. Basicly I'm trying to make it worthy of the Limitation while avoiding the oft overused "The spell just fails" cuz I hate that.

Is that a one-time END usage, or will it also increase the cost of maintaining a constant power?[/Quote] I haddn't thought about that aspect, but I'd likely rule that it only increased Activation cost

If the roll is missed, does the wizard have the option of aborting the spell rather than paying the END, or is he committed once he rolls the dice? I'd go with the latter.[/Quote] The latter, SFX being that once you've set the "pattern" of a spell in motion it's going to happen, the procedures are taken to coax the magical energy into the mold so to speak, if they arn't sufficient the necessary energy for the effect is simply ripped from the mage (thus backlash)

Hmmm...if he's KO'd by END usage, does the spell still activate, or does it fail? Again, I'd go with the latter (ie no "Retributive Strike - 200d6 1 hex radius, Megascale, affects desolid, 1 km, personal immunity, no range" - sure, I'll be KO'd, but no one else will survive!")[/Quote] Hmm, well based on what I said above it would be the former. Which poses a balance problem. I would likely rule either not to allow powers of that magnitude, but if I did, failing by enough to KO yourself would probably entail such a high Cost that you may simply not wake back up.

Or I could rule that there simply wasn't enough ambiant energy to power the full effect and lower the DCs and AoE until the END Cost merely puts him in a coma for a few weeks. it would still be pretty impressive I'm sure.

But I think thats something of a Case by Case issue.

Paying that NCM cost for INT is seeming potentially worthwhile...as is the Age disadvantage. Both seem reasonable.[/Quote] Thats kinda the idea, Mages are suposed to be very intelligent since it's partially how well they can remember and properly visualize the proper pattern for the desired spell effect that in SFX will decide their level of sucess

I'd explicitly state that END reserves are, or are not, permitted (probably "not", but if they are, any changes that makes to the ground rules).[/Quote] That would be a not.

Presumably a spell can be used at reduced power to reduce the skill roll (eg. you could use only 10d6 of that 14d6 lightning bolt to reduce the risk and cost of failure).[/Quote] Of course, when possible that seems like a valid way to keep from killing yourself.

 

Watch out for spells with big skill penalties and long-lasting effects. For example, 6d6 INT Aid, Fades per hour, costs END. Anything that only costs END to activate and can then be maintained indefinitely carries this risk.[/Quote] Hmm, I'd considered requiring Constant and Lingering effects (such as AID) to require their Durations be limited, but I'll have to do some crunching on that. thanks for pointing it out.

 

A spell takes 1/2 phase to cast, minimum. What if I want to cast two spells in a phase (eg. activate a force field and attack)? Do I get a separate roll for each one, or roll once with the combined penalties?

You would make seperate rolls for each spell, with differing Bonuses based on what procedures you used to reduce the penalties.

[Cantriped]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

Now off to make corrections and revisions, I'll be making them to the Initial post for ease of reference

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

Opps' date=' My bad on that one, I should clairify, I was referencing the Limitation Increased END cost, so is Multiplies the END cost by 1+the amount you fail by, so failing by 1 would be fireball now costs 14 END, failing by 2 it's 21, etc. As I crunch numbers I may need to scale back the END Penalty to make it playable, major spells should have the potential to knock you out, but I don't think Fireball level spells qualify. Basicly I'm trying to make it worthy of the Limitation while avoiding the oft overused "The spell just fails" cuz I hate that.[/quote']

 

Whether the limitation should be knocked back depends on taste, I suppose. The inability to raise the skill roll by normal means caps the skills to a good extent, so you will see some failures. Even a 20 AP spell will need a 9- for the typical caster. Tack on -2 in limitations, and it's 17-. What AP do you want to be pretty straightforward?

 

Can I put 2x END on the spell as a normal limitation and get a +2 to my skill roll? Perhaps you might try that approach, with the failed skill roll applying sufficient limitation as Increased END to get to the roll required.

 

I hadn't thought about that aspect' date=' but I'd likely rule that it only increased Activation cost[/quote']

 

Seems fair.

 

Hmm, well based on what I said above it would be the former. Which poses a balance problem. I would likely rule either not to allow powers of that magnitude, but if I did, failing by enough to KO yourself would probably entail such a high Cost that you may simply not wake back up.

Or I could rule that there simply wasn't enough ambiant energy to power the full effect and lower the DCs and AoE until the END Cost merely puts him in a coma for a few weeks. it would still be pretty impressive I'm sure.

But I think thats something of a Case by Case issue.

 

The retributive strike still has value under this approach. "I'm dead either way, so I'll take you down with me". Not allowing powers of that magnitude is easy to say, but your Fireball spell with no procedures requires rolling a -2 on 3d6 to succeed, so the best the character can hope for is failure by 5, and spending 42 END under the present model. That will KO a lot of characters who were fully rested at the outset.

 

Perhaps one answer is that the mage, once committed, cannot voluntarily cease to act, but that the END cost accumulates throughout the casting, such that he can be KO'd before he completes the spell. In that case, the magical energies don't get forced into the mold, and they just dissipate.

 

Hmm' date=' I'd considered requiring Constant and Lingering effects (such as AID) to require their Durations be limited, but I'll have to do some crunching on that. thanks for pointing it out.[/quote']

 

Another aspect to consider is Triggers. If my spell is Triggered by, say, a command word, I'll use lots of extra time this morning, and have most of my spells ready to go when needed.

 

You would make seperate rolls for each spell' date=' with differing Bonuses based on what procedures you used to reduce the penalties.[/quote']

 

Given the requirement ecery spell take at least 1/2 phase, this is probably workable - you can't activate half a dozen defensive powers in a phase anyway.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

Now off to make corrections and revisions' date=' I'll be making them to the Initial post for ease of reference[/quote']

 

If you follow this approach, please copy the most recent version down if thread length increases. It's a pain going back to the 1st post of a 7 page thread.

[Cantriped]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

Whether the limitation should be knocked back depends on taste, I suppose. The inability to raise the skill roll by normal means caps the skills to a good extent, so you will see some failures. Even a 20 AP spell will need a 9- for the typical caster. Tack on -2 in limitations, and it's 17-. What AP do you want to be pretty straightforward?

 

Can I put 2x END on the spell as a normal limitation and get a +2 to my skill roll? Perhaps you might try that approach, with the failed skill roll applying sufficient limitation as Increased END to get to the roll required.[/Quote]

Well overall the penalty seems fine, Bacisly I want to encourage the use of lots of limitations. So the idea that the high AP penalty "forces" casters to use many limitations even for smaller spells to ensure sucess is right up the alley I was going for. As for the End Cost, under the curent modle I think I would allow it, but it would be like purposly failing "a little bit" to keep from failing big time. If I do what I'm considering doing and reducing the END Penalty to 1+1/2 Amount failed by. (allowing for x1.2 END). Then taking Increased END would have no value at all and in fact be quite the foolish idea as the relative values are the same. (either Fail by 2 more and add 1 do the END multiplier, or Fail by 2 less and Still add 1 to the multiplier. As such I'd likely disallow it under those circumstances.

 

The retributive strike still has value under this approach. "I'm dead either way, so I'll take you down with me". Not allowing powers of that magnitude is easy to say, but your Fireball spell with no procedures requires rolling a -2 on 3d6 to succeed, so the best the character can hope for is failure by 5, and spending 42 END under the present model. That will KO a lot of characters who were fully rested at the outset.

 

Perhaps one answer is that the mage, once committed, cannot voluntarily cease to act, but that the END cost accumulates throughout the casting, such that he can be KO'd before he completes the spell. In that case, the magical energies don't get forced into the mold, and they just dissipate.[/Quote] Well, again, this is partially my intent, the system is suposed to give a somewhat gritty Heroic and maybe even "Swords and Sorcery" feel, so just up and hurling a Fireball should be practicly impossible. or at the very least very stupid

Actually I am thinking about setting a level that if you fail your roll by it will cause your power to outright fail, maybe 10, but I'll have to think about it... maybe once I get that example character finished I'll have a better idea of what needs changing.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

If the character's spell fails if the extra END use converts into enough STUN damage to KO him, you get a spell failure at that point, plus the character is unconscious. Seems to fit nicely with your model.

 

I think I'd go with an extra 1/2 END for each point the roll is failed by and see how that works out.

[Eosin]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

Interesting system.

[Cantriped]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

Thanks Eosin!

Anyway, We're now up to revision #2. I've reduced the Skill Roll Failure Penalty to a multiplier of 1+[Amount Failed]/2. Even with the reduction though Mages are likely to drop like flies if they cast over extended periods without rest. Like Combat...

Also Hugh, I understand the concept for spellfailure, but I'm not entirely sure it fits, or is really necessary. (plus I've never liked it much)

I'm not so worried about retributive strikes as you've outlined them in that they seems like the perfect thing for the evil villian to do, bringing down curses with their final breath. And in the case of PCs if they are desperate enough to throw their characters life away, or know their dead anyway, it might give them an (albeit) minor sense of acomplishment to know that they took the ******* with em.

Though I may change it if I feel it's being abused in a Meta-gaming sense.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

Thanks Eosin!

Anyway, We're now up to revision #2. I've reduced the Skill Roll Failure Penalty to a multiplier of 1+[Amount Failed]/2. Even with the reduction though Mages are likely to drop like flies if they cast over extended periods without rest. Like Combat...

 

I suspect this means spellcasters will focus on spells useful out of combat. Augmentation, healing, divination and transport all spring to mind. Triggers could be very useful.

 

The benefit offsetting this is the low cost of individual spells. Mages can have a very wide repertoire, so they can be pretty versatile. They can take a few combat spells of relatively low AP to have some confidence in making the rolls (at least with a few limitations applied). Alternatively, they can afford to spend some points on normal combat skills for use in combat and cast spells exclusively out of combat.

 

Let us know how it works out in practice.

 

Also Hugh' date=' I understand the concept for spellfailure, but I'm not entirely sure it fits, or is really necessary. (plus I've never liked it much). I'm not so worried about retributive strikes as you've outlined them in that they seems like the perfect thing for the evil villian to do, bringing down curses with their final breath. And in the case of PCs if they are desperate enough to throw their characters life away, or know their dead anyway, it might give them an (albeit) minor sense of acomplishment to know that they took the ******* with em. [/quote']

 

As long as everyone plays within reasonable parameters, it's not a big issue. Easy enough to make changes on the fly. As well, I find a lot of abuses can be resolved with a simple discussion of the "sauce for the goose" rule. If you can have a retributive strike spell, so can your opponents. That puts a definite limit on your PC's lifespans. Similarly, if you can work a way to boost everyone's stats up by 30 CP each, so can your opposition. Generally, a group consensus on reasonable limits isn't too tough to reach.

[Lucius]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

I like this idea so much, I may even use it if I ever run a game again.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary reminds me that nowadays I don't even have time to get online. So what am I doing here?

[Cantriped]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

rev # 3

 

Also, one problem I want to avoid is that without at least some "default" procedure, or something that it required across the board, it would become essentially impossible to "keep a good wizard down" as they would apply only those procedures not restircted by their curent situation, or simply take the risk of KOing themselves and apply none at all when they used their Teleport to get someplace safe.

While partially thats simply good stratagy, I don't like to think of mages as omnipotent in any stretch. So for mortal mages I was thinking along the lines of the following.

since it fits the SFX nicely I was thinking of requireing that the caster present some physical representation of the pattern for the spell he's casting. this could be a Diagram he draws as a Spellcasting Procedure (Ala Full Metal Alchemist), or a spellfoci, and item encised(or stitched/carved/painted etc) with the correct seals and sigils to describe that particular spell (or perhaps even a narrow SFX). The creation of Spellfoci would probably be handled though normal skillrolls appropiate to particular item, and thereafter treated as equipment in the normal fasion.

For pricing I'd likely price them as Combat Skill Levels and simply rename them. This gives me a better variation in price (effective or otherwise) of the level for differing levels of applicability. The fact that they are linked to Limitations equivalent to 1/4th per +1 I would just handwave since the levels arn't likely to be large enough for limitations to be applicable anyway

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

Also' date=' one problem I want to avoid is that without at least some "default" procedure, or something that it required across the board, it would become essentially impossible to "keep a good wizard down" as they would apply only those procedures not restircted by their curent situation, or simply take the risk of KOing themselves and apply none at all when they used their Teleport to get someplace safe. [/quote']

 

Spell failure if KO'd would mitigate this to some extent. If I can teleport somewhere safe, and I know, regardless of success or failure of the skill roll, that makes it pretty easy to decide to Teleport without aqny procedures.

 

I like the theory that the wizard can activate very simplistic spells with no real limitations (eg. 10 AP with a 14- skill feels pretty safe), and can mix and match to pull the spells off. Requiring every spell use, say, gestures to be controlled seems to remove some of the flavour of the system. Similarly, requiring every spell be drawn, or focused, in some way seems to detract from the original structure that the wizard summons up magical energy at will, then shapes it with a variety of aids, which need not be the same aids every time.

 

I suppose one approach would be to set a minimum level of procedures which must be applied if the spell is to have any chance of success. For example, you must take a minimum -1/2 in procedures (and a +2 skill roll bonus) for the spell to be able to succeed.

 

For me, I'd rather allow the desparation ploy of trying to cast the spell with no procedures, but have a level of failure at which point the spell simply doesn't work.

[Cantriped]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

Well Those are certainly options I'd also considered, I'm not particularly hell bent on the idea of requiring specific types of limitations, but it would add a level of differenciation between mortal magic and say, Otherwordly magic.

For humans it's more about "mimicry", like an amateur just repeating what they've seen real masters doing. while for the otherwordly races, ones who retain their strong connection to the Spectral realm, magic is just a matter of will, thouhg it's a bit slower the mortals haphazzrd castings.

Mechanicly it'd be equivalent to requiring "mortal races" use at least one Foci or Gestures based procedure, while more "Spiritual" races require Concentration or Extra-Time based procedures.

I'd also been toying with the idea of the "point" of no return, If I use it I'd probably set it at -19 to 20, because at that range the END Cost of a spell would automaticlly exceed the AP of the spell. (1+(18/2)=10) (10* 1/10AP = 10/10 AP) but even at that highly unlikely level of failure I'd rather not deny them their desperation ploy unless, again I see it being abused.

At the very least I think I'll add in the caveat that the character has to apply SOME procedure (besides Extra-time), it could be as simple as a -1/4 gesture for all I care, as long at it's something to indicate some actual effort to coax the magic energy involved. Some declarion of intent.

[Cantriped]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

rev #4

Next Rev I plan on adding some sections on Spell construction considerations, that should help flesh out the conception considerably.

[JohnTaber]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

Hi Katal: I would also decide if a certain amount of real point expenditure is required to get spells. For example, spellcasters have at least 20 points spent on spells. This prevents what my group calls, "The Mystically Enhanced Fighter Syndrome". PC will get Str, Force Field, and IR spells only. They spend a bit of points and end up with a really effective fighter. If you don't care that's fine...just a heads up.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

Well Those are certainly options I'd also considered, I'm not particularly hell bent on the idea of requiring specific types of limitations, but it would add a level of differenciation between mortal magic and say, Otherwordly magic.

For humans it's more about "mimicry", like an amateur just repeating what they've seen real masters doing. while for the otherwordly races, ones who retain their strong connection to the Spectral realm, magic is just a matter of will, thouhg it's a bit slower the mortals haphazzrd castings.

Mechanicly it'd be equivalent to requiring "mortal races" use at least one Foci or Gestures based procedure, while more "Spiritual" races require Concentration or Extra-Time based procedures.

 

I like your present requirement of at least one Procedure other than Extra Time to show the character is actually doing something to summon the magic, not just standing there.

 

I'd also been toying with the idea of the "point" of no return' date=' If I use it I'd probably set it at -19 to 20, because at that range the END Cost of a spell would automaticlly exceed the AP of the spell. (1+(18/2)=10) (10* 1/10AP = 10/10 AP) but even at that highly unlikely level of failure I'd rather not deny them their desperation ploy unless, again I see it being abused.[/quote']

 

At 10x END, anything with any significant AP will wipe the caster out. "Worse than -18" seems to allow a lot of leeway for desparation plays. Given a typical Wizard should have a 13- skill, failing by 18 means needing to roll a zero (65 AP, so -13 to the skill, and no limitations) and rolling an 18. That means you just spent 60 END. Assuming the wizard had 40 END (a lot), he just took 35 STUN on average. I'd probably keep it to "if you knock yourself out to below -10 STUN, you can't focus enough on the spell to complete it, and the magic dissipates". Meaner would be to apply side effects instead of multiple END at that point, but I've never liked the self-destructing wizards effect that most systems with mandatory side effects tend to create.

 

Another possibility would be to set some level where, in addition to END cost, the backlash actually impairs your ability to work magic, so if you fail by (say) 10 or more, each added point reduces your magic skill by 1, with a recovery of 1 per day. That would likely help keep desparation plays to truly desparate situations.

[Cantriped]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

Hmm, I'd never run into that so it's never even crossed my mind. I started in DnD so the idea of a Warrior type cherry-picking magic is somewhat forign

[Cantriped]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

At 10x END' date=' anything with any significant AP will wipe the caster out. "Worse than -18" seems to allow a lot of leeway for desparation plays. Given a typical Wizard should have a 13- skill, failing by 18 means needing to roll a zero (65 AP, so -13 to the skill, and no limitations) and rolling an 18. That means you just spent 60 END. Assuming the wizard had 40 END (a lot), he just took 35 STUN on average. I'd probably keep it to "if you knock yourself out to below -10 STUN, you can't focus enough on the spell to complete it, and the magic dissipates". Meaner would be to apply side effects instead of multiple END at that point, but I've never liked the self-destructing wizards effect that most systems with mandatory side effects tend to create.[/Quote'] Well lets crunch the numbers then, assuming a 13- roll (14 with minimum procedures) a 75 AP spell (fireball to use a past example) we've got -15 penalty. End result of or "-1"- to the roll, the highest you can roll is 18, so you would have to roll an 18+ [(-1)-18=19] to fail by enough to cause automatic spell failure. given that a 3d6 roll produces a 3-18 range, roughly 6.6% of landing on any given result within the range. So with minimum Procedures all spells have an auto cancel rate of 6.6%/5AP over 70

 

As such a "High End" spell (the HERO Equivalent to a nuke) generally runs a minimum of 120 AP, or 66.6% Auto-Cancle chance. a sizable deturent to large scale Self Destruct spells.

 

Each point by which we lower the level from 18 reduces the safty zone of spells quick-cast (minium lims) by 5, so at say, 14- the safty zone is up to 50AP for quickcast, at 10 it becomes 30AP, and at 8 anything above 20AP would incur a cance for autofailure.

 

Another possibility would be to set some level where, in addition to END cost, the backlash actually impairs your ability to work magic, so if you fail by (say) 10 or more, each added point reduces your magic skill by 1, with a recovery of 1 per day. That would likely help keep desparation plays to truly desparate situations.

This seems much more appropite to me, but again, I'll have to work more with the SFX to decide how appropite additional conditions of this nature are, already the system penelizes spell failure rather harshly.

[Cantriped]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

rev #6 up (I did 5 earlier)

[Markdoc]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

Hmm' date=' I'd never run into that so it's never even crossed my mind. I started in DnD so the idea of a Warrior type cherry-picking magic is somewhat forign[/quote']

 

Trust me, it won't be to your players...

 

Having said that, however, you have built your system in a way where I don't see it as likely to be a problem. It really only crops up when magic is easy and cheap to use.

 

cheers, Mark

[Cantriped]

Re: Magic System Crunch

 

Yeah I squasted that possibility in one of the revisions.

Rev # 7 is now up, I added anouther rule to the procedures that came to me while working on the sample character.