It's not a 'magic missile'!

[logan9a]

Joe has the spell 'shoot fire out of his hand'. It's a little fire thing, good for single targets.

Roll spell - success!

Shouldn't he make a 'to hit' roll? I mean, it could miss - right?

And making the fire go and actually hitting with it - they aren't really the same skill are they?

[matchstickman]

Jan 22, 2017 1:36:59 GMT logan9a said:

they aren't really the same skill are they?

They are in a lot of systems.
Requiring 2 rolls drastically reduces the odds of things happening; With a 60% in both (is that professional grade still?) that's only a 36% of actually having it go where you aim it, is that what you want?

[logan9a]

You have a point. I am going to think about it some more.

I might have something like this:

Richard: Combat time? OK. For my action, I power up my Earth magic! And shoot!

(Next round)

Richard: Earth is still powered up (no roll required) And shoot!

Or something like that.

Now, if someone wanted to change elements every round, yeah. Fucked.

[Fantômas]

Multiple rolls draw out combat as well, meaning less time for the more interesting roleplaying stuff.

I think it would be better to have the character can always successfully cast shot fire out of hand & rolls to see if they hit or the roll to shot fire out of the hand encompasses it working and going where they want to go. I think the second option would work better. fumble - fire shots out of their hand and those curtains become ablaze etc.

[logan9a]

I'm thinking one extra roll to get the element started (stoke the boiler) which may end up taking a round or being a full action is not going to significantly rob the characters of the opportunity to role play - do you? Really?

I'd also like to point out three other things:


Magic learned in one 'place' may not work in another.

The rules of magic may be totally different in each different place.

NPC's follow the same rules. (So if you see some wizard start his 'cold' boiler, all the PC's can suddenly give him the "KBC Kiss". And down he goes.

[bentpaperclip]

I think Pete's point (correct me if I'm wrong, Pete) is that more rolls slows down combat and breaks dramatic flow (not that you can't still roleplay, but every time you make a roll, it disrupts the narrative just a bit - enough rolls = boring).

So, the "charge up" means that characters spends a minimum of a round doing nothing before contributing to combat? That's like entering combat with an unloaded gun - "my turn? I pull out some bullets". Is magic meant to be combat effective in this game? Or is it more of a "non-combat tool" (Logan's new nickname!)?

I'm not a fan of multiple rolls to perform one action (agree with Richard and Pete's points). I'm not a fan of multiple rounds dedicated to a single ("shitty") action. So IF magic is meant to be combat effective, AND it takes multiple rounds to perform, THEN make it less shitty than you have stated you intend to. Otherwise, just don't have combat spells.

[bentpaperclip]

Jan 22, 2017 13:55:05 GMT logan9a said:

NPC's follow the same rules. (So if you see some wizard start his 'cold' boiler, all the PC's can suddenly give him the "KBC Kiss". And down he goes.

This would be a boring, anti-climatic fight. I hope it never happens.

[logan9a]

First - remember this is just for one area we are talking about. The good and bad thing is that magic works differently (with different skills presumably that need to be learned separately) in different 'areas'.

Second - what if the 'power up' could be done as a multi-action? I want to cast a fire spell this round but don't have 'fire power up' done. So I am going to multi-action. Take my power up at full and fire wildly at -30%?

[bentpaperclip]

First - remember this is just for one area we are talking about. The good and bad thing is that magic works differently (with different skills presumably that need to be learned separately) in different 'areas'.

Good point. I'm concerned about having multiple sub-systems of magic. You've expressed (at length) that you prefer a simple game system. While I can understand the cool factor of each world "feeling" different, do you really want to go through the design process of magic for each world? Do you really want multiple lists of spells, each of which may or may not work, or work differently on each planet? Is that simple or easy to remember/GM? This puts a huge burden on the GM.

Second - what if the 'power up' could be done as a multi-action? I want to cast a fire spell this round but don't have 'fire power up' done. So I am going to multi-action. Take my power up at full and fire wildly at -30%?

It's better than not being able to do anything at all that round, but it doesn't address Richard or Pete's points. It actually exacerbates Richard's (now a Profession with 60% in both skills only has an 18% chance of success due to the multiaction penalty).

[logan9a]

Jan 23, 2017 16:41:20 GMT bentpaperclip said:

First - remember this is just for one area we are talking about. The good and bad thing is that magic works differently (with different skills presumably that need to be learned separately) in different 'areas'.

Good point. I'm concerned about having multiple sub-systems of magic. You've expressed (at length) that you prefer a simple game system. While I can understand the cool factor of each world "feeling" different, do you really want to go through the design process of magic for each world? Do you really want multiple lists of spells, each of which may or may not work, or work differently on each planet? Is that simple or easy to remember/GM? This puts a huge burden on the GM.

Quite possibly - I will consider it as I go.

Jan 23, 2017 16:41:20 GMT bentpaperclip said:

Second - what if the 'power up' could be done as a multi-action? I want to cast a fire spell this round but don't have 'fire power up' done. So I am going to multi-action. Take my power up at full and fire wildly at -30%?

It's better than not being able to do anything at all that round, but it doesn't address Richard or Pete's points. It actually exacerbates Richard's (now a Profession with 60% in both skills only has an 18% chance of success due to the multiaction penalty).

Pete's point - one more roll will interfere with roleplay?
Richard's point - pulling off multiple rolls gives a very small chance of magic working. That is true - for that point, I'd refer to my quote you quoted on this section.

But yeah. If someone was able to do say d6 damage with flame, spending one round (because their skill isn't probably high enough to go for the multi-action penalty) of 'getting it going' would not make sense if it wasn't going to do efficient damage. I understand that even with writing this. But magic is always more powerful in the end. Imagine if (for some reason which yes, is possible) you could do 3d6 damage per round with magic? The one round spent 'getting it fired up' (pun!) is not a problem. You're going to be laying out the smack down - even if other people were using 9mm (d10) pistols!

[bentpaperclip]

Pete's point - one more roll will interfere with roleplay?
Richard's point - pulling off multiple rolls gives a very small chance of magic working. That is true - for that point, I'd refer to my quote you quoted on this section.

Rolls interfere with dramatic flow so it's typically a good idea to keep them to a minimum if you want fast, engaging combat. Will one more roll make or break a combat? Probably not. But each one chips away at it. Your quoted text seems to indicate that it's all good for a professional to have an 18% change of success... Maybe I'm not looking where you want me to.

But yeah. If someone was able to do say d6 damage with flame, spending one round (because their skill isn't probably high enough to go for the multi-action penalty) of 'getting it going' would not make sense if it wasn't going to do efficient damage. I understand that even with writing this. But magic is always more powerful in the end. Imagine if (for some reason which yes, is possible) you could do 3d6 damage per round with magic? The one round spent 'getting it fired up' (pun!) is not a problem. You're going to be laying out the smack down - even if other people were using 9mm (d10) pistols!

Agreed. If the magic is effective enough, it is balanced by having it take more resources (time, MP, etc). But if magic is equivalent to a handgun, then it doesn't make sense from a game design standpoint to make it take additional resources.

[logan9a]

I'm thinking that magic always ends up getting out of control in the end and one more roll may chip but not destroy. Plus, I've already thought of a way around it. I offer this cartoon.

(Note - since I can't draw, you'll have to imagine the scenes.)


Panel 1: Two adventurers outside of a door marked "Ultimate Evil"

Adventurer 1: "Hold up before you open that - I'm going to get my ICE magic ready!"
Adventurer 2: "Shouldn't you pick the lock first? I mean, while you've got both hands free..."
Adventurer 1: "That's what I meant."

Panel 2: Shows huge demon on stack of treasure looking expectantly at the door which has a loud 'boom' emanating from the top and smoke out the bottom.

Panel 3: Close up of the demon's face. "Sounds like another spell fumble." "I'm so lonely."

[Fantômas]

In a land where tech level is black powder weaponry, will people have to make two rolls - one to correctly load the weapon and another to shot it?

[logan9a]

If it's a cannon (which often blew up upon loading or just because it felt like it) I could see that.

However, being able to channel energy could have other uses. Just channeling cold to your hand (ready for the casting if it happens) could be used to cool drinks - or punch someone with 'cold hand' for punch + cold damage. Fire hand could light a camp fire or punch someone with 'hot hand' for punch plus flame. Or, if the caster gets some 'ups' or 'add ons', if they are channeling something I could see them good enough to get that into their weapon. Enter possible fire/ice/stone/etc sword/etc.

It could be used for more than just an 'I'm ready to fight now' thing.

In addition, it would lend well to the rise of 'sneaky casters'.

If you pulled up to a group and some of them had glowing hands - anyone with a brain would say "Perhaps we should kill the shit out of them first". However, sneaky spell casters could leave their stuff unchanneled going for 'make fire go @ -30%' and 'fire fire' boom! Then unchannel it (free action to drop it) and there might be a question of 'who did that'.

Hence, you're not an automatic target.

What think ye?

[bentpaperclip]

So augmenting damage (fire punch, fire sword) or performing Utility spells requires only the Channeling roll, but Projecting damage takes a Channeling & Projection roll? Is that what you are saying?

Are casters going to glow like Dragon Ball Z characters when they are channeling? I had imagined it more subtle than that. If that's the case, do spells project from you? Or are you saying that you glow when you channel, but can cause spells to detonate without a clear trail to you (You glow when you cast fireball but the fireball itself doesn't originate from you). I'm trying to figure out what you're describing with "sneaky casters." You seem to indicate that magic is obvious when you're channeling but not when you're casting.