Spellz

Ok, I am putting up version 5.1. It has a table of contents. No page numbers yet, but things are getting more orderly.

Rob, there are two sections that could concern spell-making rules. It is directly addressed in: "A Treatment of Proficiency Skills" in the GM section, under Hedge or Hermetic Dweomercraft. Indirectly, it will likely be mentioned in: "Spellbooks and Spell Aquisition", which is also in the GM section.

Read what I have for Dweomercraft in the "A Treatment of Proficiency Skills" section. If you like, copy it to a word doc, and modify it as you see fit. Also, if you want to start in on "Spellbooks and Spell Aquisition", be my guest. I agree that these things should ultimately be left up to the GM. Let's provide a middle-of-the-road system, and then state our philosophy explicitly.

Also, as mentioned, any work on magic items or an example of gameplay would be great. -Just give me a heads-up on what you are doing so we don't get redundant.

Mark

Agreed. I'll provide some more GM coaching and advice for dweomercraft. Also.I am going to write up a section about spellbooks in general.

Trinkets are great. BTW, look at the list of artifacts I have already. Anything in blue hasn't been described. Add new ones too, of course.

I also haven't made a relic list (priest magic items). -That's wide open.

BTW, I am adding a 'thrown weapons damage modifier' to the STR chart. -Simple enough.

More

EDIT: Here's the benchmark.

Every level, mages should gain 1-3 spells depending on their usefulness (1 great spell, 2 good spells, 3 eh spells). Likewise, equipment and magic items should be slowly ramped up so that characters are always getting a little better. It'd be optimal to keep these things out-of-phase with leveling, so that occasionally, the PCs level and get better, and then at the mid-point to next level, craft a new spell and get some better armor.

...

More on spellcraft.

Dude, I think we should just spell out the difficulties with this skill for DMs. You were planning on writing a 'DM's guide' or something, yes? Let me just write an essay for it on what I've learned from years of GMing.

Basically, no matter what system we offer for Spellcraft, we won't get it just right for every world. The spellbook of a mage is the number one thing in that character's life. Herm/Hedge-primary characters are defined by what's in the book, and the DM has absolute control over that, i.e., control over the character's usefulness. Directly, by providing or not providing spells in the course of a campaign, and indirectly by limiting time and money for spell creation costs.

DMs should feel free to make some spells easier, more difficult, or even impossible to make.

This is because a single spell has the potential to drive the campaign. Not only drive the PCs personal quest to make it, but a single casting of a given spell can be the climax of the entire saga. Sarpagal II, it was Anti-Magic Shell. Subquests in the campaign are the same, usually trying to find someone to cast Resurrection or Wish to bring back a dead PC.

(There are analogues of this campaign driving: Narbohring II it was the quest to find the Blackstaff, used once only to destroy itself and take out all of Barrowsreich. Melee-primary types also have character-driven quests, limited by the DM, to get better magic weapons, and also in that way determine the climax of the campaign.)

Also, while priests just have to pray, and fighters can go find weapons on any dead town guard, if a mage loses the book, it's basically a weeks-long Hold Person spell. Which can be interesting the first time it happens, if the story works, but otherwise sucks.

Anyway, the point is that we should just tell DMs to take a heavy hand in crafting the progression of the Hermetic spellbook (Hedge magic is less important for this, which is why spells can be cheaper- the highest circle Hedge spells aren't really going to alter destiny, but 8th circle Herm spells certainly should be able to do that). In parallel, they should be sensitive to the mage's usefulness, relative to priests and fighters, whose effectiveness should also be subject to top-down control.

(But these changes to the system we'll offer should be spelled out early, so that the players don't get discouraged. It's fine to say in the beginning, these spells are 'known at the Guild', and 'these spells are lost to Legend', but to suddenly say 'oh Fireball actually is twice as expensive' when they try to make it is unfair.)

Something to that effect.

...

Also, monster design bores me. But when I've got a moment, I'll write up a mini-campaign by way of example, based on our table top experiences, and design some magic trinkets too. I want to encourage Hedge and Ritual mages, and encourage the use of CHA skills. Think those two things can go together with some magic trinkets.

Mark

5.0 isn't up yet because I've been responding.

I think we are on a similar page with dweomercraft.

Extra time should definitely make it easier. However, money is trickier, as campaigns differ. A maximum bonus could fix that. I do like the remake bonus. Spending time and/or money will make it less harsh, and trying again is easier.

I think dweomercraft is enough, however. You wanted the prof to be cheaper, adding other profs makes it more expensive in a way. I don't like 'pre-game' checks.

As for the organization, yes much needs to be done.

I'll shoot another version of Dweomercraft up soon.

Spellcraft

More suggestions. Haven't looked at 5.0 yet.

EDIT: Didn't read your reply below when I made this, I know you want Math-lite, but here's some suggestions for how to incorporate spellmaking history into spellcraft.

Formatting of text. Very important.

You'll want page breaks for chapter sections. 1: Introduction, 2: Char Creation, 3: Equipment, 4: Spell Lists, etc. Break down into subsections... 2.1 Stats, 2.2 Races, 2.3 Abilities, 2.4 Profs, 2.5 Starting Funds, etc.

You'll want headers or footers on each page saying 'Hermetic Spells' or 'Proficiencies' or something.

You'll want an Index at the back. Of course, wait to add real page numbers until the absolute, final end.

...

Lots of examples. Example characters and skillpoint spending. Example prof and ability usage.

...

Spellcraft.

Okay, how's this.

For spell creation, you 'pre-game', by rolling up to three different non-Spellcraft skills. Arcane Knowledge and Contacts are the first two, and the third is by GM approval (Engineering, Herbalism, etc... not Magic Acuity in most cases).

The base cost of a Hermetic Magic spell is:
(circle^2) * 100 silver in cash, and
(circle ^2) + 5 in days.

The base cost of a Hedge Magic spell is 25% of the cash and 50% of the time of the same circle Hermetic spell.

For example, to make a 3rd circle Hermetic spell is 900 silver and 14 days, while a 3rd Circle Hedge spell is 225 silver and 7 days.

Cash is all spent in advance. Spellcraft check made at very end of time.

Here's where it gets more interesting.

1) You can trade days for money and vice-versa, down to 50% of cash and time, at a 2:1 exchange rate. In other words, if you want to make that 3rd circle Hermetic spell for cheap, you can pay 450 silver and take 28 days to do it instead (base 14, plus 50% which = 7, but with 2:1 exchange is 2*7 = +14 total). Or any amount in-between 900-45o silver.

Alternatively, if you're in a rush, you can make it in 7 days minimum, but pay 1800 (base 900, plus 50% which = 450, but at 2:1 exchange is +900 total).

2) Every failed attempt at making the same spell gives you a cumulative +3 bonus to the next attempt. (I don't know what this number should be, but failing to make the spell is super harsh.)

3) The check is at a -1 penalty per circle, as in the current system. This is super harsh, so, this is why the initial costs seem so low...

4) For each +10% to both cost and time, you get a +1 bonus to the check, maximum of +5. (Maybe that should be +20% to costs?)

5) And, each successful pre-game check (up to three) gives you +1 bonus to this current check or 10% off the monetary cost, PCs choice.

6) Every spell you know of the same School gives you a discount of (circle of known spell - circle to make + 2)% to cost (minimum 0% per spell of course). For example, if I'm making a 4th circle Summoning spell, and I know a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th circle Summoning already, I get a bonus of 0% from the first, 0% from the 2nd, 1% from the 3rd, 2% from the 4th, and 3% from the 5th for a total of 6%. Max discount from known spells of 20%.

Example:

So, Greg Vrill tries to make a 3rd circle Hedge spell. It's 225 silver and 7 days, at a -3 penalty to his check. His skill is 7 (say), so he needs to roll a 1-4 on a d20 to make it. All the time and money is spent in any case. That sucks.

He rolls Herbalism, Arcane, and Contacts, and makes two outta three, and take +2 to his check (now he needs a 1-6). He'll also bump costs by 50% to get a full +5 (1-11 on a d20, or 55% chance), but costs are now (let's say +20%/+1) 450 silver and 14 days. That's a lot of money, so he'll trade off time for cost, to pay 225 silver and 28 days to have a 55% chance of making the spell. He fails.

Another 225 silver and 28 days, for a total of 2 months and 45 gold to have a 70% chance of making it, assuming he makes two checks again. That's pretty fair I think.

The *time* adds up, as does the cash, which will keep mages in check and prevent them from making all but one spell each time they're in town.

This could be offset by an optional rule for the 'GM's handbook': training time for profs and abilities. One day per skillpoint spent is training time (you could add fees too if you wanted).

...

I just made those numbers up: the 50% limit and 2:1 exchange rate. There definitely should be some limited swap mechanism, but I dunno if those numbers are perfect.

I also just made up the initial cost. Definitely, cost should be a quadratic function of spell circle. But the constants in the equations (times 2 and plus 5) are arbitrary. Flavor to taste.

The key thing is really the ability to customize spellcraft to the particular game a GM's running: is time or cash more valuable? Plus, to make it cumulatively easier on the PC.

...

EDIT: REPLY TO BELOW.

Also, humans get 5 extra ability points in part because they don't have initial attribute modifiers. -Letting them buy up shafts nonhumans a little bit.

So, the thing about human bonus is that these 5 skillpoints are enough only to raise up your LOW stats, not your prime HIGH stats (e.g., CHA for priest, IQ for mage), whereas if you're a non-human, chances are your race will boost your prime stats. Playing a non-human is a mild form of min-maxing, if you think about it... "I'm a fighter, so I'm an orc, so my CHA is lower and my STR is higher" (or whatever).


Both yes, but skill with the sword is most about striking your opponent. I did add a new grade however. Weapon mastery is cheap too.

What about something more simple:
Weapon Mastery I: +1 to hit, +0 to damage
Weapon Mastery II: +2 to hit, +1 to damage
Weapon Mastery III: +3 to hit, +1 to damage
Weapon Mastery IV: +4 to hit, +2 to damage
Weapon Mastery V: +5 to hit, +2 to damage
Weapon Mastery VI: +6 to hit, +3 to damage

That level VI is pricey but maybe worth it?


Ed and I talked about this. I was thinking about half. However as Ed said, a dagger doesn't hurt much more when thrown by a stronger guy. Also, spears are thrown with arc, and soon lose any momentum but the weight of the shaft. Bows are debatable, not too much difference, unless it's a big bow. Full damage doesn't make sense. Half is ok, but then you must round up or down, and separate your STR bonuses from weapon mastery, magic etc. -No, lets keep it simple.

But a handaxe thrown by a really weak guy won't do any damage at all. STR matters, *especially* for archery. Check the damn internet on that one too.

On movement. The big problem here is initiative. I win init, so I spend my whole movement running up to some guy, but I moved full, so I can't attack. Then it's his init, and there I am, so he gets to attack me. How do you systematize this fairly? Charge attacks? Mounted combat?

Other things, like untrained healing, okay. I'd add somewhere in the GM's guide, to encourage GMs to give out the occasional free prof point here and there, to make it easier for PCs to buy those profs.

Ok.

I'll kinda do a response thing:

I don't think that ability scores were a problem.

I certainly don't agree with the decision to not let beginning characters raise scores by one pt. Something to do with the invariable extra 1 or 2 skillpoints, and because of it, Vrill didn't begin with a 4/4 STR/CHA, but a 5/6. Slapping an extra rule on- in particular, a limitation- is bad and the sign of a broken system Mark. But I don't think this was a problem.

Basically, I think the question is: If you play a mundane, would you most often do what Dave did? If the answer is yes, I think it's uninteresting. Also, I don't see the fix as a patch. -It's akin to the 'one-grade-per-level' rule. I did consider allowing only one attribute to be raised, but that seemed too patchy. Also, humans get 5 extra ability points in part because they don't have initial attribute modifiers. -Letting them buy up shafts nonhumans a little bit. Maybe it helped Vrill Min/Max, or not have to buy a prof point instead, but I don't think buying up attributes on creation adds too much. Dave raised a serious issue created by the attribute-buying ability. I don't think it's a critical system issue, however.

I think that exponential scaling, as opposed to linear scaling, is generally a good mechanism. In particular, for spell creation costs and starting money.

I know you love random rolling, but take out random initial cash. Just make it CHA squared in silver. That's fine, and really sets apart the 4 CHA guys from the 14 CHA guys. Especially if you've minmaxed and made a great warrior... who can only afford a wooden shield and a dagger. 16 silver (4 CHA) vs. 100 or 144 silver is a big initial starting difference.

Yeah, you win. No random money. -Good point. Also, I will make the spell creation costs less linear.

Also or instead, CHA can influence initial starting costs. 5* (CHA - 10)% bonus, so if your CHA is 5, you pay 25% more, and if your CHA is 15, you get 25% off.

Too much like taxes.

Hedge spellcraft should be 1 for 1, not 3 for 2. 3 for 2 is a lame cost for any skill, really. The cost to make a Hedge spell should be 25% to 50% of Hermetic (25% cash, 50% time). What would be spectacular is a base cost and time, modified by rolls on Contacts, Spellcraft, Arcane Knowledge, and a trade skill such as Herbalism or Engineering, depending on the spell. Maybe when I'm bored I'll come up with an equation. Also, if you already know spells of a given type (Necro, Summoning, whatever), it should be mildly easier to make a similar spell.

Ok, ok, 1 for 1. You got it. I knew you would slam it when I wrote 3 for 2. I did decrease hedge costs already, but I'll adjust it to a non-linear system. Let's not get too crazy with those equations though.

Spellcraft as is, is totally broken. You basically have to master it (40 skillpoints) before it becomes worth it at all. REDO.

That's harsh. But, you are right it's too expensive. 1 for 1 for hedge. But, 2 for 1 for hermetic. -That's the cross they bear. How about this?: I will add modifiers for extra time spent. that way, you can take your time to improve your chances of success.

I agree with the move of Feint and Last Stand into abilities.

Thanks. It's much better.

Weapon Mastery was fine at +1, +2, +3, etc. Combat is supposed to hurt in this system, and next time we play, somebody will make a Faith healer, and I'm sure it'll totally change the dynamic.

Ed and I worked out damage levels. -They got pretty silly. Also, we think weapon mastery would be more about accuracy than damage done. Both yes, but skill with the sword is most about striking your opponent. I did add a new grade however. Weapon mastery is cheap too. As for faith healers, most healing is non-combat.

Untrained Healing is fine. Why remove? It's only 1 or 2 hp.

It's not just untrained healing. Some skills, like hypnotism can't be done unless you have some training. The profs say it when it's the case. I think it would be lame for every person in a party to try to hypnotize the goblin captive, even though no one has the skill. Same goes for after any combat. Everyone tries to heal everyone else and themselves? 5 people, 25 checks? Bleh. That would get old fast.

STR modifiers need to apply to thrown weapons and bows, in some capacity.

Ed and I talked about this. I was thinking about half. However as Ed said, a dagger doesn't hurt much more when thrown by a stronger guy. Also, spears are thrown with arc, and soon lose any momentum but the weight of the shaft. Bows are debatable, not too much difference, unless it's a big bow. Full damage doesn't make sense. Half is ok, but then you must round up or down, and separate your STR bonuses from weapon mastery, magic etc. -No, lets keep it simple.

Movement in combat is a big challenge here. More on that later too, but the problem ain't yet solved. Tricky players don't need rules to smack them down, they need a DM who can be just as tricky, no offense. What we had in the beginning was almost fine, but not quite.

Yeah. We need to talk this one out. However, I don't think moving post-action should be allowed. -It's oxymoronic. You acted. You are done. If you want to attack the goblin, then you are up in his face. If he isn't moving, you need to stay with him to fight him. Preinitiative movement can get paradoxical too, however. I touch heal you at 9, you run half your movement away and attack at 8? What if the guy next to me wants to touch heal you at 8 too?

Don't forget to change missile weapon ranges. Just check the damn internet.

Naw, maybe I'll just change the races to Smurfs. -Yeah. My bad.

I believe it, about the better Hedge Mage. I just wanted to crank out lots of spells to test the system, not make a well-rounded dude. SRSLY.

Well, our dude would have well-roundhoused Vrill's ass.
...

Next time, I'll DM, and we'll pick up right where Mark left off. Same world, same scenario, few tweaks, new chars if you want at level 3. That'll be, uh, September in Portland, maybe?

Actually, here's what I'm thinking for DiD Factory Round 3...

Sounds pretty damned good. Makes me feel like my adventure was pretty sophisticated. Damn, that tomb was so cool.

Rob

Thoughts:

I don't think that ability scores were a problem.

I certainly don't agree with the decision to not let beginning characters raise scores by one pt. Something to do with the invariable extra 1 or 2 skillpoints, and because of it, Vrill didn't begin with a 4/4 STR/CHA, but a 5/6. Slapping an extra rule on- in particular, a limitation- is bad and the sign of a broken system Mark. But I don't think this was a problem.

I think that exponential scaling, as opposed to linear scaling, is generally a good mechanism. In particular, for spell creation costs and starting money.

I know you love random rolling, but take out random initial cash. Just make it CHA squared in silver. That's fine, and really sets apart the 4 CHA guys from the 14 CHA guys. Especially if you've minmaxed and made a great warrior... who can only afford a wooden shield and a dagger. 16 silver (4 CHA) vs. 100 or 144 silver is a big initial starting difference.

Also or instead, CHA can influence initial starting costs. 5* (CHA - 10)% bonus, so if your CHA is 5, you pay 25% more, and if your CHA is 15, you get 25% off.

Hedge spellcraft should be 1 for 1, not 3 for 2. 3 for 2 is a lame cost for any skill, really. The cost to make a Hedge spell should be 25% to 50% of Hermetic (25% cash, 50% time). What would be spectacular is a base cost and time, modified by rolls on Contacts, Spellcraft, Arcane Knowledge, and a trade skill such as Herbalism or Engineering, depending on the spell. Maybe when I'm bored I'll come up with an equation. Also, if you already know spells of a given type (Necro, Summoning, whatever), it should be mildly easier to make a similar spell.

Spellcraft as is, is totally broken. You basically have to master it (40 skillpoints) before it becomes worth it at all. REDO.

I agree with the move of Feint and Last Stand into abilities.

Weapon Mastery was fine at +1, +2, +3, etc. Combat is supposed to hurt in this system, and next time we play, somebody will make a Faith healer, and I'm sure it'll totally change the dynamic.

Untrained Healing is fine. Why remove? It's only 1 or 2 hp.

STR modifiers need to apply to thrown weapons and bows, in some capacity.

Movement in combat is a big challenge here. More on that later too, but the problem ain't yet solved. Tricky players don't need rules to smack them down, they need a DM who can be just as tricky, no offense. What we had in the beginning was almost fine, but not quite.

Don't forget to change missile weapon ranges. Just check the damn internet.

I believe it, about the better Hedge Mage. I just wanted to crank out lots of spells to test the system, not make a well-rounded dude. SRSLY.

...

Next time, I'll DM, and we'll pick up right where Mark left off. Same world, same scenario, few tweaks, new chars if you want at level 3. That'll be, uh, September in Portland, maybe?

Actually, here's what I'm thinking for DiD Factory Round 3.

1) Okay, we all got paid from the black rods, but honestly our guys have no interest in some weird Straussbourg plot. We take our money and go home, paying off the Holy Knights.
2) In our excitement, we forgot about the one year of service though, and now everyone- Armech and Trent- is interested in the black metal.
3) Trent (whatever our home town was) builds a fortress at the black metal mine where the goblins were, beating Armech to presence in the no-man's-land. Armech is testy, and skirmishes begin.
4) Our guys get stationed in the black metal fortress, as Trent furiously tries to find where the metal rods came from, with no success. Complicating the search are Armechian scouts and the occasional dust demon.
5) Finally, negotiations between Trent and Armech are opened, when it becomes clear that no more black metal is forthcoming. That's 11 months into the service, and Armech is about to show up to sign a peace treaty at the fort...

Test results.

The play test Saturday was very helpful.

These adjustments, following some discussion, were a result:

1) Agility was toned down a bit. 'To-hit' modifiers were pulled out. Off-hand modifiers were increased a step. (Dave wasn't playing with a -1 on-hand modifier that he should have).

2) Strength damage was toned down one step.

3) Attributes cannot be bought up upon creation. Dave showed a potential problem here. However, his attribute spending was inflated by a point.

4) Hedge dweomercraft is cheaper, both in skill points (now 3 for 2) and in time-to-make spells. -It makes good sense.

5) Feint and Last stand have been converted to abilities. -They don't make sense as profs, and break the spirit of the separation.

6) Movement while casting/attacking is now clarified. You cannot move away after a spell or attack. You can move 1/10 your move before casting/attacking, however. Goddamn tricky players....

7) Weapon Mastery now goes: (+1, +1); (+2, +1); (+3, +2); (+4, +2); (+5, +3).

8) A few Hedge spells were buffed. True strike has been altered.

9) No non-proficient healing checks.

10) Ambidextrous is now +0, -1.

11) Strength damage modifiers apply to melee attacks only.


Thanks for the testing: Rob, Dave and Ed. DMing is hard. I like playing more.

Rob, Ed and I made a Hedge Mage after you left. We gave him quickdraw, armor use I, and an extra spell. He had 3 spells, leather and a bastard sword, and could kick Vrill's ass. -We think a hedge mage is best when he augments his own fighting ability. Cast double on himself, and/or klutz on your opponent, and go to work.

Dave, thanks for pointing out the creation ability-attribute trick.

Ed and I also realized that taking 'to-hit' out of agility is a good thing. Weapon mastery can get you to +4, and calculated strike, and pause and study can get you even farther. -This gives an avenue for mundanes to excel with their extra points. Also, we reduced the weapon mastery damage some as strength can make up the difference. (You can get up to +7 dam with 20 STR and WM V, -not to mention magic weapons). -We also think it makes sense.

I need advice about the whole moving thing ( no. 6), however. I think it should be very simple. I hate yo-yoing combats.

Thoughts?

Ich bien puttin on my studded leather...

I realized armor modifiers could be simplified A LOT.

I am doing so. Also, it makes armor use a lot more easy to explain.

logo

Yeah, maybe that eagle attacking the castle. That would roc!

Char sheet

Fuck yeah.

That is all.

(Although if it were an editable form, with like a sweet DiD logo or something at the top that'd be super.)

Record sheet.

Handy record sheet now at the didfactory gmail account.

Armor adjustments can be a pain to keep track of. It makes it easier.

Yeah, it's going to be the whole enchilada.