Elements of Magic - nifty!

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I just got Elements of Magic a few days ago from RPGNow.com (I want to
> replace the Iron Heroes magic system):
>
> http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=2699...
>
> There is a "Spell List" grid in this thread:
>
> www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=37778

[bigsnip]

> Please forgive my waxing enthusiastic on the subject; I just bought
> the book and am *really* impressed with the subject matter.

I've had a copy for quite a while. It treats magic like HERO powers, in
a way. I was never *quite* satisfied with it -- it didn't set quite
right with me -- but haven't done the work to identify where and why.

Black Company's magic system does something kind of similar. Each
Talent has a base effect, which you can augment and improve. Did you
see the summary I did here a few days ago?


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> I just got Elements of Magic a few days ago from RPGNow.com (I want to
> replace the Iron Heroes magic system):
>
> http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=2699...
>
> There is a "Spell List" grid in this thread:
>
> www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=37778
>
> There are far too many "Spell Lists" to list. Essentially, you have Action
> Types, like Abjure, Evoke, Create, or Transform, and Effect Categories, like
> Fire (Element), Aberrations (Creature), or Evil (Alignment, which you could
> scrap for Iron Heroes, but would work just fine for D&D). Not all Action
> Types can go with each Effect Categories (for example, you cannot Compel
> Elements, or Create Creatures). There are 11 Action Types (two are "reverse"
> types, meaning you can do the reverse as well), and 42 Effect Categories (5
> Alignments, 15 Creatures, and 22 Elements). A Spell List is a single
> combination of one Action Type and one Effect Category. A 1st level Mage
> knows 6, whereas a 20th level mage knows 45 [the formula after 1st level
> seems to be (Level x 2) +5]. You obviously must specialize, as a 20th level
> mage only knows about 1/5 of the available Spell Lists. A spell is simply a
> combination of one or more spell lists, and (optionally) one or more General
> Enhancements. The General Enhancements are Range, Area of Effect, Duration,
> and Contingency.
>
> The beauty of this system is the flexibility. For example, a basic Evoke
> Fire spell is a 1D6 touch attack whose charge lasts for 1 minute (or until
> discharged), and which costs 0 mana. However, you could put 9 MP (Mana
> Points) into an extra 9D6 damage, 1 MP into Range, and 1 MP into Area,
> Targetted and have a short (30') ranged, 10' diameter 10D6 fireball. You can
> also choose whether to make this a Save-based effect (Reflex for half), or
> an Attack-based effect (requires a successful ranged touch attack on each
> target to be affected). Every element has an Elemental Side Effect as well,
> ranging from Ambient (0 MP) to Extreme (8 MP). Fire's is "sets things on
> fire". The Ambient effect provides torchlike illumination, and sets alight
> things like exposed oil or sheets of paper. The Extreme effect sets
> *anything* on fire for a minimum of 1 minute unless put out, and ignores the
> Hardness rating of objects!
>
> Another interesting thing is that the Alignment Effect Categories only
> affect those creatures with an Alignment subtype, or who otherwise get their
> powers from an aligned source (such as Clerics and Paladins).
>
> Please forgive my waxing enthusiastic on the subject; I just bought the book
> and am *really* impressed with the subject matter.

How munchkinable is it? Will there be certain spell builds that will be
unexpectedly powerful for, say, 5th level casters? Will there be any
reason NOT to use them over and over and over? Any REAL reason?

- Ron ^*^

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:04:11 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
<capt_malachias@hotmail.com> dared speak in front of ME:

>I just got Elements of Magic a few days ago from RPGNow.com (I want to
>replace the Iron Heroes magic system):
>
>http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=2699...

Had just enough money left in paypal to order this, so I figured why
not. Perhaps it will be the solution, if not then it should at least
tide me over until a solution is crafted.

(Then, in a fit of stupidity at least partially caused by nicotine
withdrawal, I ordered the 'sequel' by accident. Which I have no funds
available for. That may cause problems.)

>Please forgive my waxing enthusiastic on the subject; I just bought the book
>and am *really* impressed with the subject matter.

Will need to be analyzed. I like flexibility in magic, and am
encouraged by their words that a EoM mage won't overshadow a
traditional one. I just hope he doesn't overshadow the fighter either
(though that's part of why I went to IH, and why I was disappointed:
one type of arcanist can fairly easily overshadow the combat-classes,
whilst another type can't really do much of anything with his magic.)

I suppose the main question, given the reasons we both picked it up,
is thus: will using this in place of the IH system require reworking
the arcanist in any way?
--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrndfk7kc.634.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
> Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I just got Elements of Magic a few days ago from RPGNow.com (I want to
>> replace the Iron Heroes magic system):
>>
>> http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=2699...
>>
>> There is a "Spell List" grid in this thread:
>>
>> www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=37778
>
> [bigsnip]
>
>> Please forgive my waxing enthusiastic on the subject; I just bought
>> the book and am *really* impressed with the subject matter.
>
> I've had a copy for quite a while. It treats magic like HERO powers, in
> a way. I was never *quite* satisfied with it -- it didn't set quite
> right with me -- but haven't done the work to identify where and why.

I am working on that right now. For one, two rounds for an "on-the-fly"
spell is often too much. I am therefore balancing a "Quicken Spell"-type
effect that can be used to reduce this to a standard action, the cost of
which will be the same as that of Quickening a Signature Spell, but higher
level casters have a reduced cost. Also, when learning new Spell Lists, I
require casters to have at least *one* of the two elements involved (i.e. to
learn Evoke Fire, you must already have Evoke or Fire). Every couple of
levels, you will be able to break this mold, (or else it would not work),
but it will encourage specialization. I am also going to have a Spellcraft
roll for casting spells (probably DC 15+MP, with a -1 to the DC for every 5
full Caster Levels). I want something for going over your "mana limit,"
too. Sorry for the stream of consciousness, but this is still in the
brainstorming stages. By the way, didn't you think the "special effects"
for the different elements would be *great* for dragon breath?

> Black Company's magic system does something kind of similar. Each
> Talent has a base effect, which you can augment and improve. Did you
> see the summary I did here a few days ago?

Yes. I also just purchased the book last night. At first glance, it is far
more unwieldy than Elements of Magic, but I am going to check it out
further. Unfortunately, I am working on contract for a company that has no
UseNet access ;-(

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
news KvKe.37$5U2.34@lakeread07...
>
>
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> I just got Elements of Magic a few days ago from RPGNow.com (I want to
>> replace the Iron Heroes magic system):
>>
>> http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=2699...
>>
>> There is a "Spell List" grid in this thread:
>>
>> www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=37778
>>
>> There are far too many "Spell Lists" to list. Essentially, you have
>> Action Types, like Abjure, Evoke, Create, or Transform, and Effect
>> Categories, like Fire (Element), Aberrations (Creature), or Evil
>> (Alignment, which you could scrap for Iron Heroes, but would work just
>> fine for D&D). Not all Action Types can go with each Effect Categories
>> (for example, you cannot Compel Elements, or Create Creatures). There are
>> 11 Action Types (two are "reverse" types, meaning you can do the reverse
>> as well), and 42 Effect Categories (5 Alignments, 15 Creatures, and 22
>> Elements). A Spell List is a single combination of one Action Type and
>> one Effect Category. A 1st level Mage knows 6, whereas a 20th level mage
>> knows 45 [the formula after 1st level seems to be (Level x 2) +5]. You
>> obviously must specialize, as a 20th level mage only knows about 1/5 of
>> the available Spell Lists. A spell is simply a combination of one or more
>> spell lists, and (optionally) one or more General Enhancements. The
>> General Enhancements are Range, Area of Effect, Duration, and
>> Contingency.
>>
>> The beauty of this system is the flexibility. For example, a basic Evoke
>> Fire spell is a 1D6 touch attack whose charge lasts for 1 minute (or
>> until discharged), and which costs 0 mana. However, you could put 9 MP
>> (Mana Points) into an extra 9D6 damage, 1 MP into Range, and 1 MP into
>> Area, Targetted and have a short (30') ranged, 10' diameter 10D6
>> fireball. You can also choose whether to make this a Save-based effect
>> (Reflex for half), or an Attack-based effect (requires a successful
>> ranged touch attack on each target to be affected). Every element has an
>> Elemental Side Effect as well, ranging from Ambient (0 MP) to Extreme (8
>> MP). Fire's is "sets things on fire". The Ambient effect provides
>> torchlike illumination, and sets alight things like exposed oil or sheets
>> of paper. The Extreme effect sets *anything* on fire for a minimum of 1
>> minute unless put out, and ignores the Hardness rating of objects!
>>
>> Another interesting thing is that the Alignment Effect Categories only
>> affect those creatures with an Alignment subtype, or who otherwise get
>> their powers from an aligned source (such as Clerics and Paladins).
>>
>> Please forgive my waxing enthusiastic on the subject; I just bought the
>> book and am *really* impressed with the subject matter.
>
> How munchkinable is it?

Not very, from the look of it. Munchkin stuff would cost too much in MP.

> Will there be certain spell builds that will be unexpectedly powerful for,
> say, 5th level casters?

Not at all. You are limited in the amount of MP you can spend on a spell
(this number equals your Caster Level), so *something* has to give. You
could have a nice 6D6 Fire touch attack, or a 5d6 Fire 30' ranged touch, or
a 4D6 10' radius Fireball with the same range, or a 3D6 30' Fire Cone. Of
course, at 20th, you could have an 8D6 800' Fire cone...

> Will there be any reason NOT to use them over and over and over? Any REAL
> reason?

I am still looking for any potential fixes, but so far, nothing blatantly
abuseable.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Kaos" <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in message
news:3fslf1pcfoparsnkedpmkq5v88or0ol563@4ax.com...

> I suppose the main question, given the reasons we both picked it up,
> is thus: will using this in place of the IH system require reworking
> the arcanist in any way?

The way I am reworking it, only a little. The Mastery ratings will have to
be scrapped, and the Aspects of Power will likely be swapped out. I need to
work out a good mechanic for skill-based casting, based upon Spellcraft. I
will be posting some stuff on the boards later on today (no UseNet at the
office I am using for this contract).

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:04:39 -0400, Werebat wrote:

> How munchkinable is it? Will there be certain spell builds that will be
> unexpectedly powerful for, say, 5th level casters? Will there be any
> reason NOT to use them over and over and over? Any REAL reason?
>
> - Ron ^*^

Well, it's weaker than the standard magic system for one. 5th level Wizard
gets a fireball with a range of what? 150 feet? radius of 20' and 5d
damage. While a 5th level Mage has to spend 2 points for the range and 2
points for the area, leaving only 1 point for the damage, so the spell
would deal 2d6 damage... but you could do it with any Evoke list you
had... so instead of Fire you could use Life (to damage the undead and
other things of negative energy), Force (to also damage the incorporeal),
or Law (to damage chaotic creatures... notice that Chaotic Human is not
chaotic creature as he does not have Chaotic descriptor... *grin*).

But it is also thousand times more interesting, as you're not limited by
spells, and you can describe your spells as whatever you like.

And for magic item creation you only need 3 feats... craft charged items
(staffs, wands, scrolls, potions, etc) and craft wondrous items (anything
with permanent effects) and Craft Permanent Spells (traps, permanent spell
effects... wanna turn somebody into an animal... permanently?)

I like the system more than I like the standard magic rules. I've played a
character in Eberron setting from 3rd level to 6th with those magic rules,
but in the next session we're changing to Heroquest rules to get more
cinematic action, and I like the idea of that  

--
Taneli

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
> news:slrndfk7kc.634.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
>>
>> I've had a copy [of Elements of Magic] for quite a while. It treats
>> magic like HERO powers, in a way. I was never *quite* satisfied with
>> it -- it didn't set quite right with me -- but haven't done the work
>> to identify where and why.
>
> I am working on that right now. For one, two rounds for an
> "on-the-fly" spell is often too much. I am therefore balancing a
> "Quicken Spell"-type effect that can be used to reduce this to a
> standard action, the cost of which will be the same as that of
> Quickening a Signature Spell, but higher level casters have a reduced
> cost.

I don't remember enough to know if two rounds is too long. This is an
amazingly flexible idea compared to normal. I think that if casting a
'known' ('prepared' or 'standard' (for you)) spell takes a standard
action, two rounds may be appropriate for being able to *spontaneously
cast anything you have the capability of casting*.

> Also, when learning new Spell Lists, I require casters to have at
> least *one* of the two elements involved (i.e. to learn Evoke Fire,
> you must already have Evoke or Fire). Every couple of levels, you
> will be able to break this mold, (or else it would not work), but it
> will encourage specialization.

I like this idea.

> I am also going to have a Spellcraft roll for casting spells (probably
> DC 15+MP, with a -1 to the DC for every 5 full Caster Levels).

So at 20th level you get a +4 to the roll? I don't think I'd bother.

OTOH, feats like 'Elemental Focus' (+2 to magic rolls involving that
elements, stacks for all elements in a spell) makes a fair amount of
sense.

> I want something for going over your "mana limit," too.

Overcasting rules, of course.

> Sorry for the stream of consciousness, but this is still in the
> brainstorming stages.

No worries, I do much the same thing when I find something cool.

> By the way, didn't you think the "special effects" for the different
> elements would be *great* for dragon breath?

I hadn't considered doing that, but it sounds reasonable.

>> Black Company's magic system does something kind of similar. Each
>> Talent has a base effect, which you can augment and improve. Did you
>> see the summary I did here a few days ago?
>
> Yes. I also just purchased the book last night. At first glance, it
> is far more unwieldy than Elements of Magic, but I am going to check
> it out further. Unfortunately, I am working on contract for a company
> that has no UseNet access ;-(

My reading suggested something of the opposite.

It's perhaps not as *flexible*, in that you don't have the sheer range
of options to play with. However, I suspect it's more easily playable
as a result.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Taneli Pirinen <taneli.pirinen@REMOVEMEgmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:04:39 -0400, Werebat wrote:
>
>> How munchkinable is it? Will there be certain spell builds that will be
>> unexpectedly powerful for, say, 5th level casters? Will there be any
>> reason NOT to use them over and over and over? Any REAL reason?
>
> Well, it's weaker than the standard magic system for one. 5th level
> Wizard gets a fireball with a range of what? 150 feet? radius of 20'
> and 5d damage.

400 + 40/level, so 600' range.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:03:37 GMT, Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org>
scribed into the ether:

>Taneli Pirinen <taneli.pirinen@REMOVEMEgmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:04:39 -0400, Werebat wrote:
>>
>>> How munchkinable is it? Will there be certain spell builds that will be
>>> unexpectedly powerful for, say, 5th level casters? Will there be any
>>> reason NOT to use them over and over and over? Any REAL reason?
>>
>> Well, it's weaker than the standard magic system for one. 5th level
>> Wizard gets a fireball with a range of what? 150 feet? radius of 20'
>> and 5d damage.
>
>400 + 40/level, so 600' range.

Which to me is really not a huge thing to lose. 99% of fireballs IME barely
get past 1/10th their max range.

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:20:19 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
<capt_malachias@hotmail.com> dared speak in front of ME:

>"Kaos" <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in message
>news:3fslf1pcfoparsnkedpmkq5v88or0ol563@4ax.com...
>
>> I suppose the main question, given the reasons we both picked it up,
>> is thus: will using this in place of the IH system require reworking
>> the arcanist in any way?
>
>The way I am reworking it, only a little. The Mastery ratings will have to
>be scrapped, and the Aspects of Power will likely be swapped out. I need to
>work out a good mechanic for skill-based casting, based upon Spellcraft.

I'm shying away from spellcraft for the moment, until I can figure out
how to avoid the "every spellcaster takes skill focus + skill affinity
+ Shadowborn" effect.

OTOH, looking at converting the EOM mage in might not be too bad
either. Up saves to IH mechanic, *maybe* up the BAB, tone down some
of the Boons (make them comparable to the Aspects) and come up with a
skill-check for casting.
--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Kaos" <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in message
news:j3qof15dk38g0f023bubn8ag9n583bpg55@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:20:19 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
> <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> dared speak in front of ME:
>
>>"Kaos" <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in message
>>news:3fslf1pcfoparsnkedpmkq5v88or0ol563@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I suppose the main question, given the reasons we both picked it up,
>>> is thus: will using this in place of the IH system require reworking
>>> the arcanist in any way?
>>
>>The way I am reworking it, only a little. The Mastery ratings will have
>>to
>>be scrapped, and the Aspects of Power will likely be swapped out. I need
>>to
>>work out a good mechanic for skill-based casting, based upon Spellcraft.
>
> I'm shying away from spellcraft for the moment, until I can figure out
> how to avoid the "every spellcaster takes skill focus + skill affinity
> + Shadowborn" effect.

That *does* seem to be the crux of the problem. Of course, as it stands,
*every* Arcanist is going to take Shadow Born anyway. For one, I am going
to not let it stack with Skill Affinity. That way, we only need to worry
about Skill Focus (which is going to be taken by every caster for whatever
casting skill is made available, unless we create a "skill that isn't a
skill" kludge). Another option is to create enough Arcanist-desirable
traits that have equal "weight" so that Shadow Born is not a no-brainer like
it is now. I am also likely to either include Skill Focus: Spellcraft as a
class feature (so it is always factored in), or include it as part of the
Spell Expertise/Mastery system.

At the moment, the mechanic I am looking at is 15+MP for the skill roll,
with an amount of strain on a *successful* roll, lessened strain on a roll
that beats the DC by 5, and no strain if you beat the DC by 10. Failures
increase the strain. Each MP spent above the Caster Level adds 2 to the DC,
and extra strain as well. You can go up to 150% of CL in MP this way. For
base strain, I am thinking non-lethal damage for now, with lethal damage or
even Constitution damage for worse failures. Remember that the Arcanist
will have to divide his stats up quite a bit: Intelligence for Spellcraft
and Signature Spells, Charisma for save DCs and Dispel Magic, Wisdom for
Scry and Divination, and Constitution for Concentration and hit points to
take strain.

> OTOH, looking at converting the EOM mage in might not be too bad
> either. Up saves to IH mechanic, *maybe* up the BAB, tone down some
> of the Boons (make them comparable to the Aspects) and come up with a
> skill-check for casting.

I am going to stick with the Arcanist, and use Boons instead of Aspects of
Power. The EOM Mage assumes magic item use, and all that rot. I really
*like* the Arcanist. We still need more Lore powers as well.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrndfmq28.634.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
> Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
>> news:slrndfk7kc.634.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
>>>
>>> I've had a copy [of Elements of Magic] for quite a while. It treats
>>> magic like HERO powers, in a way. I was never *quite* satisfied with
>>> it -- it didn't set quite right with me -- but haven't done the work
>>> to identify where and why.
>>
>> I am working on that right now. For one, two rounds for an
>> "on-the-fly" spell is often too much. I am therefore balancing a
>> "Quicken Spell"-type effect that can be used to reduce this to a
>> standard action, the cost of which will be the same as that of
>> Quickening a Signature Spell, but higher level casters have a reduced
>> cost.
>
> I don't remember enough to know if two rounds is too long.

There needs to be a way to cast faster. That is certain.

> This is an amazingly flexible idea compared to normal. I think that if
> casting a
> 'known' ('prepared' or 'standard' (for you)) spell takes a standard
> action, two rounds may be appropriate for being able to *spontaneously
> cast anything you have the capability of casting*.

Perhaps, but you will get chewed up into hamburger in many cases before you
can crack off a spell. My current incarnation is going to charge half the
cost of a Quicken: 1 point for a cantrip, 2 for a 1-2 MP spell, and 5 for
anything else. I am going to reduce this penalty a bit at higher levels,
though.

>> I am also going to have a Spellcraft roll for casting spells (probably
>> DC 15+MP, with a -1 to the DC for every 5 full Caster Levels).
>
> So at 20th level you get a +4 to the roll? I don't think I'd bother.

Agreed. I scrapped this idea.

> OTOH, feats like 'Elemental Focus' (+2 to magic rolls involving that
> elements, stacks for all elements in a spell) makes a fair amount of
> sense.

Yes. I am using this in its stead.

>> I want something for going over your "mana limit," too.
>
> Overcasting rules, of course.

This is hard to balance, though. Working on it. Do I want "normal"
spellcasting to be relatively safe, and only overcasting to be relatively
dangerous to a skilled spellcaster? At this point, I think so. Then again,
I might just eliminate Signature Spells and make *all* spells spontaneous,
which would *require* the Quicken option for standard action casting.

>>> Black Company's magic system does something kind of similar. Each
>>> Talent has a base effect, which you can augment and improve. Did you
>>> see the summary I did here a few days ago?
>>
>> Yes. I also just purchased the book last night. At first glance, it
>> is far more unwieldy than Elements of Magic, but I am going to check
>> it out further. Unfortunately, I am working on contract for a company
>> that has no UseNet access ;-(
>
> My reading suggested something of the opposite.
>
> It's perhaps not as *flexible*, in that you don't have the sheer range
> of options to play with. However, I suspect it's more easily playable
> as a result.

I am still reading. I did not give it much of a chance yet.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:th8nf1p2n4a46bci6c7f2soccnj2fktop4@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:03:37 GMT, Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org>
> scribed into the ether:
>
>>Taneli Pirinen <taneli.pirinen@REMOVEMEgmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:04:39 -0400, Werebat wrote:
>>>
>>>> How munchkinable is it? Will there be certain spell builds that will
>>>> be
>>>> unexpectedly powerful for, say, 5th level casters? Will there be any
>>>> reason NOT to use them over and over and over? Any REAL reason?
>>>
>>> Well, it's weaker than the standard magic system for one. 5th level
>>> Wizard gets a fireball with a range of what? 150 feet? radius of 20'
>>> and 5d damage.
>>
>>400 + 40/level, so 600' range.
>
> Which to me is really not a huge thing to lose. 99% of fireballs IME
> barely
> get past 1/10th their max range.

Being able to inflict massive amounts of damage quickly at range is
something Iron Heroes has available to Archers, though, so range will likely
be a factor more so than in D&D. Heavy armor slows you a bit more in that
system as well.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 07:15:41 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
<capt_malachias@hotmail.com> dared speak in front of ME:

>"Kaos" <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in message
>news:j3qof15dk38g0f023bubn8ag9n583bpg55@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:20:19 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
>> <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> dared speak in front of ME:
>>
>>>"Kaos" <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3fslf1pcfoparsnkedpmkq5v88or0ol563@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> I suppose the main question, given the reasons we both picked it up,
>>>> is thus: will using this in place of the IH system require reworking
>>>> the arcanist in any way?
>>>
>>>The way I am reworking it, only a little. The Mastery ratings will have
>>>to
>>>be scrapped, and the Aspects of Power will likely be swapped out. I need
>>>to
>>>work out a good mechanic for skill-based casting, based upon Spellcraft.
>>
>> I'm shying away from spellcraft for the moment, until I can figure out
>> how to avoid the "every spellcaster takes skill focus + skill affinity
>> + Shadowborn" effect.
>
>That *does* seem to be the crux of the problem. Of course, as it stands,
>*every* Arcanist is going to take Shadow Born anyway.

As it stands, neither spellcraft nor knowledge (arcana) help your
magic, and the +2 to mana isn't worth much past first level. The
other two options (intimidate or limited precognition) are better, but
overall it's not really a must-have.

Child of Faith is arguably better for the Arcanist, from a mechanical
PoV.

>For one, I am going
>to not let it stack with Skill Affinity. That way, we only need to worry
>about Skill Focus (which is going to be taken by every caster for whatever
>casting skill is made available, unless we create a "skill that isn't a
>skill" kludge).

Or make it many skills, so that Skill Focus doesn't give an
all-inclusive bonus to your spellcasting.
But that still leaves Spellcraft sitting around being nearly useless.

>> OTOH, looking at converting the EOM mage in might not be too bad
>> either. Up saves to IH mechanic, *maybe* up the BAB, tone down some
>> of the Boons (make them comparable to the Aspects) and come up with a
>> skill-check for casting.
>
>I am going to stick with the Arcanist, and use Boons instead of Aspects of
>Power. The EOM Mage assumes magic item use, and all that rot. I really
>*like* the Arcanist. We still need more Lore powers as well.

I like the Aspects that are there (except Ultimate, which would need
to be reworked if one's dumping the Mastery concepts, and Bounding
Step which seems... paltry compared to the rest.) Some of the boons
might serve as decent additional fodder.

As for the EOM assumptions... that's why I was upping the saves.
--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
> news:slrndfmq28.634.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
>> Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
>>> news:slrndfk7kc.634.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
>>>>
>>>> I've had a copy [of Elements of Magic] for quite a while. It treats
>>>> magic like HERO powers, in a way. I was never *quite* satisfied with
>>>> it -- it didn't set quite right with me -- but haven't done the work
>>>> to identify where and why.
>>>
>>> I am working on that right now. For one, two rounds for an
>>> "on-the-fly" spell is often too much. I am therefore balancing a
>>> "Quicken Spell"-type effect that can be used to reduce this to a
>>> standard action, the cost of which will be the same as that of
>>> Quickening a Signature Spell, but higher level casters have a reduced
>>> cost.
>>
>> I don't remember enough to know if two rounds is too long.
>
> There needs to be a way to cast faster. That is certain.

There is (I skimmed it yesterday): signature spells.

You don't get to cast a *lot* of them faster, but the ones you use most
often -- which are probably the ones you need to go fast, probably --
you can.

>> Overcasting rules, of course.
>
> This is hard to balance, though. Working on it. Do I want "normal"
> spellcasting to be relatively safe, and only overcasting to be
> relatively dangerous to a skilled spellcaster? At this point, I think
> so. Then again, I might just eliminate Signature Spells and make
> *all* spells spontaneous, which would *require* the Quicken option for
> standard action casting.

Well... all spells are spontaneous, are they not? Signature spells --
and you can change them fairly quickly, IIRC, you don't need to wait for
a new level or anything -- mean you can have a (relatively) small number
of configured magics good to go at any time.

I think it's a smaller number than a comparable-level wizard in core,
and I think actually even smaller number of spells than a sorcerer
knows. OTOH, you can have a *huge* range of utility stuff where it just
doesn't matter.

Where do the fast spells matter? Some defenses, some offenses, maybe a
few special-purpose spells for special occasions (or targets). Frankly,
I expect that keeping a certain core of spells for these purposes, and
changing some out when you're expecting a special situation (much as a
wizard does now) is an appropriate thing to do. Remember, however, that
were a sorcerer knows more spells and can cast them as he will, those
are *all* the spells he knows and he (generally) can't change them at
all -- EoM, you can change your signature spells (daily, IIRC).
Similarly, while a wizard knows many more spells (but not as many as an
EoM mage does) and can prepare more different spells than an EoM mage
has signature spells, the wizard only gets to use each once and the
preparation's lost, while the EoM mage gets to cast his signature spells
again and again. Given the number of wizards I've seen who prepare
multiples of the same spells because they expect to need them (and rely
on *scrolls*, expensive stealable and breakable objects for their
utility stuff), I suspect that an EoM mage's signature spells may
approach a wizard's immediate castable flexibility, and greatly exceed
(at lower cost) his out of combat flexibility. Assuming a reasonable
range of spell lists, of course; if he's taken all similar lists, he's
not going to see that flexibility.


Still, if you think EoM mages get screwed on spellcasting times, perhaps
a simpler solution than messing with the timing on a global scale might
be to just give more signature spell slots. (Watch the magic ass! It's
full of numbers!) Perhaps give spellcasters three signature spells per
caster level, plus Int bonus. Having fifteen signature spells at fifth
level means you can have a lot of flexibility in your fast casting, and
keep the *massive* flexibility for when you're not in a hurry (or got
sandbagged, *oops*).


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrndfpf78.rl4.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
> full of numbers!) Perhaps give spellcasters three signature spells per
> caster level, plus Int bonus. Having fifteen signature spells at fifth
> level means you can have a lot of flexibility in your fast casting, and
> keep the *massive* flexibility for when you're not in a hurry (or got
> sandbagged, *oops*).

Waaaay too many.

-Michael

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news -adnZ2dnZ3DAjCCnZ2dnZMyYd-dnZ2dRVn-> to not let it stack with Skill
Affinity. That way, we only need to worry
> about Skill Focus (which is going to be taken by every caster for whatever
> casting skill is made available, unless we create a "skill that isn't a
> skill" kludge).

There's nothing wrong with some career paths using the same feats. There
isn't a fighter in the game who hasn't specialized in something ...

-Michael

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
> news:slrndfpf78.rl4.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
>> full of numbers!) Perhaps give spellcasters three signature spells per
>> caster level, plus Int bonus. Having fifteen signature spells at fifth
>> level means you can have a lot of flexibility in your fast casting, and
>> keep the *massive* flexibility for when you're not in a hurry (or got
>> sandbagged, *oops*).
>
> Waaaay too many.

'Number pulled from ass' -- it wasn't recommended as a solution, but as
an approach. I don't know offhand how many you get (skimmed the book).

I think signature spells handle the fast casting requirements. You get
*massive* flexibility within the range of spell lists you know, and you
can combine them on top of that. HUGE number of 'spells known',
functionally more than wizards, and you always cast spontaneously (no
preparation required). There has to be some kind of balance to it; time
seems like a reasonable one. Spell failure chance is another (I don't
recall if you make skill checks to cast, even), but I find it irksome in
play.


My recommendation is to rely on the signature spell mechanism to take
care of fast casting; the time requirement for nonsignature spells is
appropriate. If you want, combine them:

.. skill check to cast nonsignature spells (you're making them up as you
go, after all);
. no Take 10 under normal circumstances to speed things because if
time matters, you're under pressure;
. allow Take 10 if you spend two rounds at it -- deliberately forcing
yourself to be slow and calm you can't screw it up, but it takes
longer;
. allow Take 10 if you have achieved some level of mastery (dunno what
offhand -- base Will save, Wisdom score, high enough Concentration,
whatever);

.... etc. Signature spells avoid all of this because they're prepackaged
so you can get them off easily and without error. If the system doesn't
allow *enough* signature spells, change to grant more, or take a feat to
get more, whatever.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 16:35:04 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:

>"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news -adnZ2dnZ3DAjCCnZ2dnZMyYd-dnZ2dRVn-> to not let it stack with Skill
>Affinity. That way, we only need to worry
>> about Skill Focus (which is going to be taken by every caster for whatever
>> casting skill is made available, unless we create a "skill that isn't a
>> skill" kludge).
>
> There's nothing wrong with some career paths using the same feats. There
>isn't a fighter in the game who hasn't specialized in something ...

Yes, but there is at least the possibility that they have specialized in
different things. Weapon Spec: Longsword and Weapon Spec: Greataxe while
greatly similar, are not identical in the way that all casters would be.

A better example would be all fighters taking Cleave & Power Attack...sure
not *ALL* of them do so, but a huge majority.

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrndfpqhr.rl4.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
> Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
>> news:slrndfpf78.rl4.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
>>> full of numbers!) Perhaps give spellcasters three signature spells per
>>> caster level, plus Int bonus. Having fifteen signature spells at fifth
>>> level means you can have a lot of flexibility in your fast casting, and
>>> keep the *massive* flexibility for when you're not in a hurry (or got
>>> sandbagged, *oops*).
>>
>> Waaaay too many.
>
> 'Number pulled from ass' -- it wasn't recommended as a solution, but as
> an approach. I don't know offhand how many you get (skimmed the book).

You get 1/Caster Level, plus Intelligence bonus. You can get 4 more for a
feat.

> I think signature spells handle the fast casting requirements.

They do, but I wanted to eliminate them, and move to a skill check
mechanism. I have found what appears to be a workable solution, though: for
a -5 to your skill check (which will be a Spellcraft DC of 15+Mana Cost),
you can "Fast Cast" as a full round action rather than 2 full rounds. This
mimics the time reduction skill challenge scheme of Iron Heroes. I am going
to give Arcanists the ability to change this to a standard action if they
have Spell Mastery in that Spell List starting at 5th level or so, and if
they have Spell Expertise at around 10th. Of course, another factor is
strain. Under the system I am proposing, you take non-lethal damage equal
to the Mana Points spent if you don't make the DC by 5 or more. If you miss
the roll by 5 or less, you take the strain and lose control of the spell.
If you miss the roll by 6 or more, you take the strain as lethal damage and
lose control of the spell in a worse way.

Those are the rudiments, anyway. Still working out the kinks.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Another thought on the long casting times of the system - I have been
long wishing to crack D&D rounds into half-pint versions where each
character only does *one* thing. Something smart about how full attacking
would be replaced is needed to create harmony and balance.

-Michael

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:14:48 GMT, Keith Davies
<keith.davies@kjdavies.org> dared speak in front of ME:

>Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
>> news:slrndfmq28.634.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
>>> Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:slrndfk7kc.634.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
>>>>>
>>>>> I've had a copy [of Elements of Magic] for quite a while. It treats
>>>>> magic like HERO powers, in a way. I was never *quite* satisfied with
>>>>> it -- it didn't set quite right with me -- but haven't done the work
>>>>> to identify where and why.
>>>>
>>>> I am working on that right now. For one, two rounds for an
>>>> "on-the-fly" spell is often too much. I am therefore balancing a
>>>> "Quicken Spell"-type effect that can be used to reduce this to a
>>>> standard action, the cost of which will be the same as that of
>>>> Quickening a Signature Spell, but higher level casters have a reduced
>>>> cost.
>>>
>>> I don't remember enough to know if two rounds is too long.
>>
>> There needs to be a way to cast faster. That is certain.
>
>There is (I skimmed it yesterday): signature spells.

Or prepared spells, but I suspect Malachias considered both of those.

>> This is hard to balance, though. Working on it. Do I want "normal"
>> spellcasting to be relatively safe, and only overcasting to be
>> relatively dangerous to a skilled spellcaster? At this point, I think
>> so. Then again, I might just eliminate Signature Spells and make
>> *all* spells spontaneous, which would *require* the Quicken option for
>> standard action casting.
>
>Well... all spells are spontaneous, are they not? Signature spells --
>and you can change them fairly quickly,

It takes 8 hours. And IIRC, in context they're pseudo-spontaneous.
There's no slot mechanics, but your signature spells do have to have
their parameters pre-built.

>Still, if you think EoM mages get screwed on spellcasting times,

I think it's not so much that they get screwed, as it is they don't
quite do what he's looking for either.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access