PDA

View Full Version : An Alternate Magic System



Ninjadeadbeard
2011-11-08, 07:59 PM
Okay, so I've been having a problem. As anyone who knows me might tell you, I have no ability to write crunch. But I had a fluff idea for a Worldbuilder project, and I wanted to see if any of the wonderful people of the Playground had suggestions for crunch.

I'd like to run the 2d6 system developed by GiantITP's own lothofkalroth (correct me if wrong), but if anyone wants to figure out a D&D variant, be my guest.

Long version spoilered.
In the setting I'm working on, I had the idea to reverse the age-mechanics for magic. In other words, I wanted to have magical potential reflect how old a wizard was. When a wizard starts out, he becomes very powerful, very quickly. But after some time, through aging and/or overuse of their power, the wizard loses much of his power. The balance would be that as he loses raw magical talent (spell slots?), he gains experience and skills. I wanted to try this because it would be a great incentive for wizards to go adventuring. If they don't find more knowledge, their growth is stunted and they are less powerful later on.

Example: A wizard in her early 30's doesn't need finesse as she can just bulldoze anything that stands before her (fatigue being the major limit to her potential). But another wizard nearing 80 can't do that. His life-force has grown weaker with time, reflecting his physical degeneration following middle-age. However, the older wizard has skills. In a fight between the two, the younger wizard might be able to overpower the older, but the older has far greater control over his own power. He could, for example, block or dispell many of her attacks, and counterattack with more finesse-based spells. She is a hammer, and he is a crossbow bolt.

Short Version: How would a magic system look if younger wizards had more power (spell slots/spell variety, etc) but older wizards had more skills (spell-like abilities, instant-death spells, etc) and would anybody play such a system?

What we have so far:

Magic is essentially a combination of power and knowledge. For our purposes, we follow this simple premise of life: Nothing is permanent, and Old does not naturally equal Powerful. Quite the opposite. Just as a warrior cannot rely upon the strength of his youth forever, so must a wizard come to rely on his training and ingenuity as he ages. People's capabilities wane over time while their knowledge and experience (hopefully) rise.

Thus, the following has been established:

All Magic-Users require Mana Points to cast spells. This is gained by the equation: (Con Mod +5) * (100-[Age Rounded Down]) /10).

Thus, a 40 year old Mage with +3 CON will have 48 MP to spend on spells. MP renews after an 8 hour rest.

In order to cast a spell, a Mage must make or exceed the spells DC using a roll of 2d6. He adds whatever modifiers he possesses from magic items and his Caster Skill The Caster Skill is split into several subskills split thus by Yitzi:



1. Protection: All abjurations.
2. Creation: Conjuration (Creation), Illusion (Figment) and Evocation.
3. Planar: All other Conjuration subschools, as well as Illusion (Shadow) and negative energy spells (from the Necromancy school; anything that affects undead differently (other than just not working) is probably a negative energy spell). (Note that summoning is planar in nature.)
4. Divination: All divinations.
5. Mind: All Enchantment spells, as well as Illusion (Pattern) and Illusion (Phantasm) spells.
6. Change: Should include Transmutation, all Necromancy other than negative energy spells, and Illusion (Glamer).

There are five ranks to each skill, each costing more skill points in order to level up. For example: Rank 1 in Protection is 1 Skill Point, allowing virtually anyone to “get a foot in the door”. Rank 2 would cost 2 Skill Points, Rank 3 costs 3 Skill Points and so on. Each rank adds an additional modifier to the Caster's DC for the initial casting of a spell, up to a maximum of +5.

Note:
Whenever the GM announces a "Level Up" (normal 2d6 does this for certain circumstances such as completing certain objectives and whatnot) Skill Points are awarded for every Odd Numbered Level. When Skill Points are awarded, they follow the Formula: INT Mod +3 (for a minimum of +1 Skill Point if you play a particularly thick character).

If the Caster matches or exceeds his/her chosen spell DC, then the spell's cost in MP is subtracted from the Caster's total Mana Pool. Finally, the Caster may cast their spell by making a 2d6 Attack roll, modified by their Skill Rank, INT Modifier, and any modifiers added by items. If the target of the spell is aware of the spell and an enemy, he may make an appropriate Defensive roll.

Example:
Sylas the Mage is fighting an Orc named Mazog. It is Sylas' turn, and so he wishes to attack. He chooses to cast Fireball. He rolls a 2d6 (Result: 9) and adds his Creation Skill Rank to that (+3) as well as an additional modifier from his Magic Staff (+1). His Caster DC is thus, 13. Fireball's DC is 9 (subject to change). Sylas thus successfully Cast Fireball.

Sylas subtracts 15MP from his Mana (also subject to change), and then selects Mazog as his target. Sylas rolls an attack roll, 2d6 (result:7) +3 (Creation) +1 (Staff) +3 (INT mod). He rolls a total of 14.

Mazog cannot Resist or Shrug off a Fireball and must instead dodge it. He rolls 2d6 (result:11) +1 (Evasive Skill) +1 (Boots of Leaping) +1 (DEX mod). He rolls 14 as well. As the Defender wins ties, the spell misses and Mazog is free to attack Sylas on the next turn.


A Spell List for this system is forthcoming.

Howler Dagger
2011-11-08, 08:57 PM
First you would implement a spell slot system. If you want them to be based of life-force, you could have a number of spell points equal to your woundsxM, where M is a variable defined by age. In addition, have what spells that could be accessed based on how many ranks in cast you have. Have the less powerful spells require 1 or 2 ranks, but the more powerful ones require 4 or 5.

That is just a start. You could have it where you have a pool of virtual wounds, which you spend on spells. If those are out, you could spend real wounds. You could have the virtual wounds based of age, say (100-age)/10. So if you were 30, you would have 7 virtual wounds, where if you were 60 you would have 4.

Ninjadeadbeard
2011-11-08, 11:42 PM
First you would implement a spell slot system. If you want them to be based of life-force, you could have a number of spell points equal to your woundsxM, where M is a variable defined by age.

So, if a wizard in a party is down to 1 spell slot open near the end of a long encounter/day of encounters, and he gets hit and loses a Wound, he would lose said spell slot? I don't know if that's fair (though I suppose more hardcore “let the dice fall where they may” players would approve).


In addition, have what spells that could be accessed based on how many ranks in cast you have. Have the less powerful spells require 1 or 2 ranks, but the more powerful ones require 4 or 5.

Hmmm... that could work. Makes sense since only older characters would have earned enough skill points to raise their cast skill.


That is just a start. You could have it where you have a pool of virtual wounds, which you spend on spells. If those are out, you could spend real wounds. You could have the virtual wounds based of age, say (100-age)/10. So if you were 30, you would have 7 virtual wounds, where if you were 60 you would have 4.

Okay, I liked that last part. Assuming these virtual wounds are based off Wisdom or Intelligence (as Wounds are based off Con) I have a thought:


Number of Spell Uses = {Wisdom/Intelligence modifier * (100 – [Age Rounded Down])/10} + 3

So a 30 yr old wizard with +3 Wis will have 24 spell uses per day ({3 x [100-30]/10} + 3). The 2d6 rules prevent (unless you decide to hang the rules) stats from getting higher than +4, so if I'm doing the math right, 35 Spell Slots is the usual max with a 20yr old character (any younger than that is too young to adventure, mostly). I feel like that's a lot, but 2d6 doesn't have a limit on spells (that I can see in the pdf) and they'll be relatively weak spells, so I don't know.

I think the least amount of slots one can have is 10, if only so that there can still be 80+ year old masters wandering around who are viable at all.

A question though: What if a character's age isn't divisible by 10? Like 15, or 45? Do we round up, or down?

Thoughts? I like where this is going, and thank you for the help so far.

Howler Dagger
2011-11-09, 08:48 AM
A question though: What if a character's age isn't divisible by 10? Like 15, or 45? Do we round up, or down?
We use normal rounding rules, and anything that has there last digit 5 or higher is rounded up. So, 45 would be rounded to 50, but 44 is rounded to 40.

For the woundsxM thing, I forget to say that it was maximum wounds, though I knd of like the idea of losing magic when you get hurt

Ninjadeadbeard
2011-11-10, 01:37 AM
We use normal rounding rules, and anything that has there last digit 5 or higher is rounded up. So, 45 would be rounded to 50, but 44 is rounded to 40.

For the woundsxM thing, I forget to say that it was maximum wounds, though I knd of like the idea of losing magic when you get hurt

Hmmm. Okay then. I'm warming up to the constitution-based spellcaster model.

So...


Spell Uses = {Constitution modifier * (100 – [Age Rounded Down])/10} + 3.

Does that sound right? Are these numbers too big?

Howler Dagger
2011-11-10, 10:01 PM
While I dont like the +3 part, I think its good. You might want to add TOU Mod. (minimum 1)*blahblahblah, so somebody with a toughnes of 0 wont be screwed.

Yitzi
2011-11-10, 10:25 PM
I'd say that the way you probably want to do it is rather than having spell levels per se, have a spell cost (either in spell slots or a more mana-like system; the latter probably works better) as well as a spellcraft (or whatever equivalent you use) DC to cast the spell successfully. More blasty spells would have a high cost but low spellcraft DC, while subtler spells would be the other way around. Then make the available spell slots/mana (as well as save DCs, which also represent power) be higher for younger wizards.

And I suspect it'd be interesting to play, although you will need to place a cap on level at each age, at least starting out.

Also, note that the way you broke up power as opposed to skill really isn't that good. Variety is more likely to represent skills than power, and death effects and SLAs would represent either. I'd say a better approach is that power is the raw energy behind the spell, while skill is its complexity.

The resulting trade-off between Batman Wizard/God Wizard and blastiness/endurance/DCs should also help keep wizards away from the "solve everything" phenomenon.

Ninjadeadbeard
2011-11-11, 01:40 PM
While I dont like the +3 part, I think its good. You might want to add TOU Mod. (minimum 1)*blahblahblah, so somebody with a toughnes of 0 wont be screwed.

I added the plus three basically for the same reason that 2d6 has a +3 for getting Wounds. A slight bit of padding. If someone is trying to build a mage with this system, why would they hamper themselves by putting so little points into the main attribute?


I'd say that the way you probably want to do it is rather than having spell levels per se, have a spell cost (either in spell slots or a more mana-like system; the latter probably works better) as well as a spellcraft (or whatever equivalent you use) DC to cast the spell successfully. More blasty spells would have a high cost but low spellcraft DC, while subtler spells would be the other way around. Then make the available spell slots/mana (as well as save DCs, which also represent power) be higher for younger wizards.

I like spell costs, and I was going to keep the DC aspect as it was already in 2d6 (and I was mostly making this magic system for a homebrew version of that). You just put it much better. :smallsmile:

I rather like the idea of spell slots, but if you think Mana is better then how should mana be calculated? The 2d6 Wound system doesn't go very high (like, 7 Wounds on a maxed Con), so I was thinking to follow a similar scale, or at least similarly calculated.


And I suspect it'd be interesting to play, although you will need to place a cap on level at each age, at least starting out.

As I said, I'm very bad at guessing what would be appropriate numbers for something like this (still love the concept!), so what would you suggest as caps?


Also, note that the way you broke up power as opposed to skill really isn't that good. Variety is more likely to represent skills than power, and death effects and SLAs would represent either. I'd say a better approach is that power is the raw energy behind the spell, while skill is its complexity.

The resulting trade-off between Batman Wizard/God Wizard and blastiness/endurance/DCs should also help keep wizards away from the "solve everything" phenomenon.

Hmmm....interesting. Again, you put it better than I tried to. Yes, I am looking for something like The Bruiser Wizard with very low saves Versus the Subtle Wizard with high saves and more varied abilities. I partly thought of this system because I wanted to justify the idea (in a World builder I'm working on) of Wizard Apprenticeships. Older wizards instruct younger ones, and gain a powerful (if cruder) ally. One has the knowledge, the other has the power.

Yitzi
2011-11-11, 02:23 PM
I like spell costs, and I was going to keep the DC aspect as it was already in 2d6 (and I was mostly making this magic system for a homebrew version of that). You just put it much better. :smallsmile:

I don't even know 2d6. But I do know how I'd split up power and skill, so there it is.


I rather like the idea of spell slots, but if you think Mana is better

The advantage of mana is that that way you get a natural trade-off between spell power and endurance, so the older wizards can make up for their lack of endurance by casting low-mana spells, and then picking high-spellcraft-DC ones to make up the difference. With spell slots, the only similar effect is that after a point the younger wizards have to switch to weaker spells, which simply isn't as much of an effect.

To put it another way: Is there ever a time that a younger wizard would be "out" and unable to cast powerful spells, but still be able to cast a large number of weaker spells? If yes, you want a spell slot system similar to D&D (although probably with spontaneous rather than Vancian spellcasting); if no, you want a mana system.


then how should mana be calculated? The 2d6 Wound system doesn't go very high (like, 7 Wounds on a maxed Con), so I was thinking to follow a similar scale, or at least similarly calculated.

I don't know how much a "Wound" is worth, but take your expected rounds of combat per day (if you're not sure, take the average damage per round and multiply by average health and subtract a bit), multiply by the mana cost of a spell a wizard of that age will be casting (so for younger wizards use the lower-DC spells, for an older wizard use the higher-DC spells), and then add a bit for noncombat and tough days.


Hmmm....interesting. Again, you put it better than I tried to. Yes, I am looking for something like The Bruiser Wizard with very low saves Versus the Subtle Wizard with high saves and more varied abilities.

Except that I'd say the Bruiser wizard should have higher saves at least for Fort saves. Probably also for Will saves against anything but Charm effects and illusions. Effectively, the spells by the Bruiser wizard are harder to resist, but the spells by the Subtle Wizard are harder to wriggle out of or evade. (Note that the Bruiser Wizard should still be better at blasting despite the lower DC, due to all the blast spells taking high mana if you want to do heavy damage. You probably also want a mana cap per spell, higher for younger wizards.)


I partly thought of this system because I wanted to justify the idea (in a World builder I'm working on) of Wizard Apprenticeships. Older wizards instruct younger ones, and gain a powerful (if cruder) ally. One has the knowledge, the other has the power.

Interesting idea. If so, you might want to create a more complex way to use Aid Another on skill checks, so that the older wizard can help the younger wizard with his Spellcraft check in a meaningful way (and then make extremely powerful spells that can only be successfully cast by such a combo.)

Ninjadeadbeard
2011-11-11, 11:00 PM
I don't even know 2d6. But I do know how I'd split up power and skill, so there it is.

Constitution Mod + 3 = Wounds. Every attacks that lands takes away a Wound point until you die at 0. Short version. It's a nice system because it makes combat tense, and it very closely follows your attributes, so it's easy to calculate. I see what you mean about power and skill, and I was thinking along those lines as well.


The advantage of mana is that that way you get a natural trade-off between spell power and endurance, so the older wizards can make up for their lack of endurance by casting low-mana spells, and then picking high-spellcraft-DC ones to make up the difference. With spell slots, the only similar effect is that after a point the younger wizards have to switch to weaker spells, which simply isn't as much of an effect.

To put it another way: Is there ever a time that a younger wizard would be "out" and unable to cast powerful spells, but still be able to cast a large number of weaker spells? If yes, you want a spell slot system similar to D&D (although probably with spontaneous rather than Vancian spellcasting); if no, you want a mana system.

You've sold me on the Mana system. I do see this working better with spontaneous casting. A younger wizard who's "out" isn't just out of powerful spells, but rather is now incapable of using magic at all as he would have run out of Mana.


I don't know how much a "Wound" is worth, but take your expected rounds of combat per day (if you're not sure, take the average damage per round and multiply by average health and subtract a bit), multiply by the mana cost of a spell a wizard of that age will be casting (so for younger wizards use the lower-DC spells, for an older wizard use the higher-DC spells), and then add a bit for noncombat and tough days.

As I said earlier, this doesn't help too much. 2d6 is really simple, and the Wounds system doesn't really allow for multiple wounds per round unless your attack roll doubles the defender's defense roll. In that case, you might Wound them twice or cut off or damage a limb, or just knock them out. Most Enemy NPCs should have 4 to 5 Wounds (Con 1 or 2, and then +3). Every successful attack does 1 Wound. It's a very different system. The pdf for the system is in one lothofkalroth's posts, Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=219263).


Except that I'd say the Bruiser wizard should have higher saves at least for Fort saves. Probably also for Will saves against anything but Charm effects and illusions. Effectively, the spells by the Bruiser wizard are harder to resist, but the spells by the Subtle Wizard are harder to wriggle out of or evade. (Note that the Bruiser Wizard should still be better at blasting despite the lower DC, due to all the blast spells taking high mana if you want to do heavy damage. You probably also want a mana cap per spell, higher for younger wizards.)

Alright, I'll work on a cap, but until I determine a definitive scale for Mana I won't really know what that should be.


Interesting idea. If so, you might want to create a more complex way to use Aid Another on skill checks, so that the older wizard can help the younger wizard with his Spellcraft check in a meaningful way (and then make extremely powerful spells that can only be successfully cast by such a combo.)

I really like this idea! Maybe an older wizard could add his high Cast check to the younger wizard's, effectively allowing the young wizard to use spells higher up on the scale that he couldn't cast before? Or the older one could apply some sort of meta-magic feat to the young one's spell, like changing a strong single-target blast spell into a Mass-Blast attack?

Yitzi
2011-11-12, 11:33 PM
Constitution Mod + 3 = Wounds. Every attacks that lands takes away a Wound point until you die at 0. Short version. It's a nice system because it makes combat tense, and it very closely follows your attributes, so it's easy to calculate.

And what's healing, particularly out-of-combat healing, look like? (In other words, how does that 3+mod Wounds translate into fights/day?)


As I said earlier, this doesn't help too much. 2d6 is really simple, and the Wounds system doesn't really allow for multiple wounds per round unless your attack roll doubles the defender's defense roll. In that case, you might Wound them twice or cut off or damage a limb, or just knock them out. Most Enemy NPCs should have 4 to 5 Wounds (Con 1 or 2, and then +3). Every successful attack does 1 Wound. It's a very different system. The pdf for the system is in one lothofkalroth's posts, Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=219263).

In that case, the best way to represent more powerful attacks would probably be just making it more likely to be effective.

[quote]Alright, I'll work on a cap, but until I determine a definitive scale for Mana I won't really know what that should be.

As you said, it needs a definitive scale. Scaling questions are one of those things that can be whatever you want, as long as you're consistent.


I really like this idea! Maybe an older wizard could add his high Cast check to the younger wizard's, effectively allowing the young wizard to use spells higher up on the scale that he couldn't cast before? Or the older one could apply some sort of meta-magic feat to the young one's spell, like changing a strong single-target blast spell into a Mass-Blast attack?

Even if he adds a meta-magic feat, the extra cost of the feat would come from the young one's reserve, since he's actually casting the spell; the older one is just advising.

motionmatrix
2011-11-13, 08:21 PM
Okie, so I love the idea. I have always thought that magic should be more fluid in d&d. Even the sorcerer isn't really there.

What I see shaping at the moment is interesting and makes me want to give you my two cents:

Keep the mana/spell charge/whatever Constitution based: it perfectly represents how youth would be able to channel more raw magic, their bodies being healthier.

Add some abilities that are gained based on Intelligence and Wisdom: that is what age usually brings, especially to those that spend their life studying. So grants some bonuses that the caster can choose to add to whatever casting they choose. They get more of those as they get older, Int and Wis growing. Perhaps you must have X int and wis to unlock Y ability.

Take the skill thing to a new place: I would write up new skills altogether. Perhaps each spellschool is a skill now. Or instead by ability. Destruction skill (use it for anything from elemental damage, to eventually save or dies), and the Lifeforce skill (all the cures, restorations, positive and negative energy), etc. Maybe you need certain amount of ranks in one of those skills before you can even understand those types of spells of X level and above. You get the idea.

I would be glad to hash out a list with you, if you like the idea.

Ninjadeadbeard
2011-11-15, 03:52 AM
And what's healing, particularly out-of-combat healing, look like? (In other words, how does that 3+mod Wounds translate into fights/day?)

You heal 1 Wound per day if you rest 8 hours, or 2 per day if you or someone else uses a successful Heal Check (must have Heal Trade Skill). Magic healing doubles this again, but a high DC (determined by GM) can instantly replenish someone's health. I suppose that would mean, what, 5 fights per day? I'm just guess-timating. More? Less?


In that case, the best way to represent more powerful attacks would probably be just making it more likely to be effective.

So, younger wizards would have lower DC's to successfully cast their spells? Or do you mean, young wizard's blast spells could do more than 1 Wound per hit?


As you said, it needs a definitive scale. Scaling questions are one of those things that can be whatever you want, as long as you're consistent.

How about: Con Modifier + 5 * (100 – [Age Rounded Down])/10} ?

Example: A 30 yr old mage (+3 Con) you get a total of 56 Mana Points. A 20 yr old (+3 Con) would also have 64. The only problem here is what happens when a character gets older. How should this system handle Age Categories and their various modifiers?


Even if he adds a meta-magic feat, the extra cost of the feat would come from the young one's reserve, since he's actually casting the spell; the older one is just advising.

Well, yes. But the young one couldn't cast the spell normally without the Older one's help. How should the older one help then?


Okie, so I love the idea. I have always thought that magic should be more fluid in d&d. Even the sorcerer isn't really there.

Thank you. :smallsmile:


Keep the mana/spell charge/whatever Constitution based: it perfectly represents how youth would be able to channel more raw magic, their bodies being healthier.

Alright. I was seriously considering going back to that (closer to the original concept, ya know?).


Add some abilities that are gained based on Intelligence and Wisdom: that is what age usually brings, especially to those that spend their life studying. So grants some bonuses that the caster can choose to add to whatever casting they choose. They get more of those as they get older, Int and Wis growing. Perhaps you must have X int and wis to unlock Y ability.

So, maybe Mana Pool is determined by Constitution, but the Spell List is increased and expanded with Int and Wis.


Take the skill thing to a new place: I would write up new skills altogether. Perhaps each spellschool is a skill now. Or instead by ability. Destruction skill (use it for anything from elemental damage, to eventually save or dies), and the Lifeforce skill (all the cures, restorations, positive and negative energy), etc. Maybe you need certain amount of ranks in one of those skills before you can even understand those types of spells of X level and above. You get the idea.

I like this idea, but I'm not sure. I want to keep fairly close to the normal 2d6 ruleset (though it is highly customizable, so...). The trouble is, in the 2d6 rules, Skills go up exponentially. Example: It takes 1 skill point to go up to Skill Level 1. It takes 2 additional points to reach Level 2. Then 3 additional. Then 4. And finally 5. Skill points are awarded one at a time, for various conditions. It seems like it would take a long time to level so many magic skills enough to be a powerful wizard.

Although... I could say that instead whenever you “level up” (ie, the GM thinks you earned it), you get 1 skill point + your Int Modifier. A smart mage would up their Skill Levels faster that way. An old mage could master several magic skills like how you thought to split them up (like the Knowledge skill, if I read you correctly).

Which idea sounds better? Slower or quicker skill advancement?


I would be glad to hash out a list with you, if you like the idea.

If you get any ideas, just post them. I'll post some spells from the 2d6 rules, and maybe some from D&D that might be fun. Thank you for the ideas!

YouLostMe
2011-11-15, 05:01 AM
The 2d6 "system" is really "take 2d6, add your skill".

The first thing I want to address is--do you plan on having characters get better over time? Because as it appears, you want a wizard who has trained for 40 years to be as strong as a wizard who just started his training. People generally want weather veteran badasses, so that idea in a system probably won't fly. Perhaps over advancement, the power gain could slow down, and the skill gain could increase, but losing power won't attract people to a system.

In other news, magical "finesse" needs some definition. When I hear finesse, I think of "ignoring resistances", and when I hear "power", I think of "larger numbers". In actuality, both of those concepts are basically the same, since a penalty to defense provides the same benefit as a bonus to hit (if they are the same magnitude). So what are you going for here? Are magic battles summed up the way they are in 2d6, with a resistance test against a defensive DC? Or do you want magic battles to be multiple rolls?

Yitzi
2011-11-15, 09:59 AM
You heal 1 Wound per day if you rest 8 hours, or 2 per day if you or someone else uses a successful Heal Check (must have Heal Trade Skill). Magic healing doubles this again, but a high DC (determined by GM) can instantly replenish someone's health. I suppose that would mean, what, 5 fights per day? I'm just guess-timating. More? Less?

Sounds like most of the time you're going the whole day on a single set of hit points...next question, how likely is a hit between evenly matched opponents?


So, younger wizards would have lower DC's to successfully cast their spells? Or do you mean, young wizard's blast spells could do more than 1 Wound per hit?

Neither; I meant that after successfully casting there's a chance (dependent on the caster and target) that it'll do no damage (much like for a weapon attack), and the younger wizards' spells would have a better chance of passing that.

Maybe if you could link something with the bare bones of the 2d6 system (i.e. the basic mechanics that don't depend on class) I'd have a better idea of what's going on.


How about: Con Modifier + 5 * (100 – [Age Rounded Down])/10} ?

That'd depend on spell costs.


Example: A 30 yr old mage (+3 Con) you get a total of 56 Mana Points. A 20 yr old (+3 Con) would also have 64. The only problem here is what happens when a character gets older. How should this system handle Age Categories and their various modifiers?

Having it change automatically with CON should do that well.


Well, yes. But the young one couldn't cast the spell normally without the Older one's help. How should the older one help then?

He'd roll the check against the spellcasting DC (gaining the benefit of his greater skill ranks), and apply any relevant metamagic feats.

The idea is that each spell has three things restricting it: The spellcasting DC (which increases with INT and skill ranks, and is low for blasting spells and high for subtle spells), the mana cost (which comes from a pool based on CON and low age, and is high for blasting spells and low for subtle spells), and the resistence test (which has a higher modifier for "harder" spells, and has its DC dependent on the target.)


Which idea sounds better? Slower or quicker skill advancement?

That really depends on how hard it should be to be an "archmage" (top ranks in all skills).


but losing power won't attract people to a system.

They wouldn't be losing power, though, more changing style. An older wizard should still be superior to a younger one at charms, illusions, etc.


In other news, magical "finesse" needs some definition. When I hear finesse, I think of "ignoring resistances", and when I hear "power", I think of "larger numbers". In actuality, both of those concepts are basically the same, since a penalty to defense provides the same benefit as a bonus to hit (if they are the same magnitude).

I'd say the main difference between "finesse" and "power" isn't what features it affects, but rather what spells it affects. Breaking it up by D&D schools, abjuration, conjuration, evocation, and necromancy as well as Enchantment(Compulsion) spells, rely on "power", while divination, illusion, and Enchantment(Charm) spells rely on "finesse". Transmutation relies on both.

motionmatrix
2011-11-16, 12:24 AM
The only problem here is what happens when a character gets older. How should this system handle Age Categories and their various modifiers?

Age category becomes much more important. In fact I would probably tie age to level. Make sure the story moves in large sweeps, because a level takes maybe 6 months at first, but by the time you head towards 11+, those take more time. You get older, and it gives a great feel to the game, making the decision to be a caster that much more important.



So, maybe Mana Pool is determined by Constitution, but the Spell List is increased and expanded with Int and Wis.

Thats not bad. Age brings more tricks up your sleeve, you just don't have as many uses. I like that. I would probably really restrict the amount of spells known at early levels, and really boost as they climb up.


I like this idea, but I'm not sure. I want to keep fairly close to the normal 2d6 ruleset (though it is highly customizable, so...). The trouble is, in the 2d6 rules, Skills go up exponentially. Example: It takes 1 skill point to go up to Skill Level 1. It takes 2 additional points to reach Level 2. Then 3 additional. Then 4. And finally 5. Skill points are awarded one at a time, for various conditions. It seems like it would take a long time to level so many magic skills enough to be a powerful wizard.

Although... I could say that instead whenever you “level up” (ie, the GM thinks you earned it), you get 1 skill point + your Int Modifier. A smart mage would up their Skill Levels faster that way. An old mage could master several magic skills like how you thought to split them up (like the Knowledge skill, if I read you correctly).

This ties in pretty well into (level + age).

You are the DM, if you are not going to give experience, instead simply say you level up, you don't need to mess with the skill point system, simply give the casters more skills points when they level, since they will be making up with skills later on in old age. And grant them an ability that lets them choose X amount of skills as class skills as they progress. That will simulate well how skill takes over magic.

It is up to you to decide how many magical skills this would be (which in turn, will determine how much you need to change the amount of skill points they gain each level)

If you don't want to let it get to crazy, lets try to sum it up to 5 magical skills.

Create: anything that actually brings something into reality. e.g. mage armor, summon monster I, minor creation, storm of vengeance (this may be both create and energy).

Change: most transmutations, soften earth and stone, poison, polymorph, make whole. also restoration, remove paralysis, regenerate, etc. but not direct cure spells.

Energy: most things with an energy descriptor, disintegrate, flaming sphere, flame blade, also all cure and inflict effects. If its instantaneous and deals damage, it most likely belongs here. probably most save or die.

Mental: most divinations, enchantments and illusions.

Planar: any teleportation spells, anything that deals with other planes (not summons). any movement that is not mechanical (e.g. wings), including shadow walk, dimension door, blink, etc.

Some spells belong in more than one of these. They should have skill requirements in more than one to gain access to that particular spell.

Obviously I am using the d20 system for these examples.

Your casters will be much more specialized, at least at first. That's assuming a wizard is still a wizard and will never have access to CLW regardless of how many ranks in energy he has. Unless he goes multiclass, of course. Maybe you will just have one casting class with everything available, that may work as well.


Which idea sounds better? Slower or quicker skill advancement?

that depends on how often they level, how many skills you ultimately decide to give them, and I guess whatever system you come up with here. I would start out slow for a session or two of playtesting. then ramp it up a few levels to see if the jump is too crazy.

Remember the skills I just wrote were off the top of my head, but I think I covered all the basics.

Ninjadeadbeard
2011-11-16, 03:15 AM
Sounds like most of the time you're going the whole day on a single set of hit points...next question, how likely is a hit between evenly matched opponents?

It's 50/50. Every time you attack, you roll against the defender's roll. Whoever rolls highest (after counting modifiers) hits. Defender wins ties, but can counterattack with the Vicious Parry Talent if the defending roll doubles the attacker's. So, it's just under 50/50 chance to hit.


Neither; I meant that after successfully casting there's a chance (dependent on the caster and target) that it'll do no damage (much like for a weapon attack), and the younger wizards' spells would have a better chance of passing that.

Maybe if you could link something with the bare bones of the 2d6 system (i.e. the basic mechanics that don't depend on class) I'd have a better idea of what's going on.

Oh, like you make the Caster Check, but you fail to hit. I think I see. It's the same system to hit with magic as it is a ranged weapon (or any weapon for that manner). The Caster rolls an attack against a defender's roll, same as usual.

I remember posting the thread with the 2d6 rules earlier, but in case no one noticed: Here is the post made by lothofkalroth (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=219263 ), and Here is a site to download the pdf for 2d6 Gamma, the same I am using presently. (http://2d6game.wordpress.com/)


That'd depend on spell costs.

I'm considering that [CON + 5 * ((100-Age)/10)] formula for generating a given character's Mana Pool, and when a spell list finally appears in something similar to a complete form, the spell costs would be adjusted to fit in a similar scale.


Having it change automatically with CON should do that well.

Alright, so just keep Age Categories. I suppose it's the player's own fault for not putting enough points into CON to avoid losing all their Mana at once. Actually, should their be a minimum amount of Mana, regardless of how low the CON is? (Not that it should be low, but you know.)


He'd roll the check against the spellcasting DC (gaining the benefit of his greater skill ranks), and apply any relevant metamagic feats.

The idea is that each spell has three things restricting it: The spellcasting DC (which increases with INT and skill ranks, and is low for blasting spells and high for subtle spells), the mana cost (which comes from a pool based on CON and low age, and is high for blasting spells and low for subtle spells), and the resistence test (which has a higher modifier for "harder" spells, and has its DC dependent on the target.)

Okay, I see what you mean there. The DC for generating the spell, the Mana required, and then the ability to overcome the enemy saves. That's a great way to put it actually.


That really depends on how hard it should be to be an "archmage" (top ranks in all skills).

I think I want it to be harder to max all ranks. That way it's more of an accomplishment. Besides, as motionmatrix said:


a level takes maybe 6 months at first, but by the time you head towards 11+, those take more time. You get older, and it gives a great feel to the game, making the decision to be a caster that much more important.

It's a thematic decision.


I'd say the main difference between "finesse" and "power" isn't what features it affects, but rather what spells it affects. Breaking it up by D&D schools, abjuration, conjuration, evocation, and necromancy as well as Enchantment(Compulsion) spells, rely on "power", while divination, illusion, and Enchantment(Charm) spells rely on "finesse". Transmutation relies on both.

I'll try to find time soon to break down a spell list following this idea. I really like how you split up the schools.


Age category becomes much more important. In fact I would probably tie age to level. Make sure the story moves in large sweeps, because a level takes maybe 6 months at first, but by the time you head towards 11+, those take more time. You get older, and it gives a great feel to the game, making the decision to be a caster that much more important.

Done and done. I really like this.



Thats not bad. Age brings more tricks up your sleeve, you just don't have as many uses. I like that. I would probably really restrict the amount of spells known at early levels, and really boost as they climb up.

I think what spells one knows or can learn should be tied into INT (or WIS, if that might work better). So, yeah, like you said. More spells open up over time as the mage learns them (or gets smart enough to cast them).


This ties in pretty well into (level + age).

You are the DM, if you are not going to give experience, instead simply say you level up, you don't need to mess with the skill point system, simply give the casters more skills points when they level, since they will be making up with skills later on in old age. And grant them an ability that lets them choose X amount of skills as class skills as they progress. That will simulate well how skill takes over magic.

Hmm. Alright. I think 1 Skill Point + INT modifier (minimum +1 per level) works well for my purposes. There are no Class Skills in 2d6, but it will still take a while to max a single skill if we only award skill points for every other level. If they throw all their points into a single Skill (read: Caster type), they'll be 9th lvl before they master a particular school.

Spoilered the next quote because of length.


If you don't want to let it get to crazy, lets try to sum it up to 5 magical skills.

Create: anything that actually brings something into reality. e.g. mage armor, summon monster I, minor creation, storm of vengeance (this may be both create and energy).

Change: most transmutations, soften earth and stone, poison, polymorph, make whole. also restoration, remove paralysis, regenerate, etc. but not direct cure spells.

Energy: most things with an energy descriptor, disintegrate, flaming sphere, flame blade, also all cure and inflict effects. If its instantaneous and deals damage, it most likely belongs here. probably most save or die.

Mental: most divinations, enchantments and illusions.

Planar: any teleportation spells, anything that deals with other planes (not summons). any movement that is not mechanical (e.g. wings), including shadow walk, dimension door, blink, etc.

Some spells belong in more than one of these. They should have skill requirements in more than one to gain access to that particular spell.

I can't decide whether to use your means of splitting up the Cast Skill, or Yitzi's. Yours is a little more vague, but it could allow for more play in the system. Yitzi's is simple in that it's just a separation by the D&D Magic Schools (something I think most will recognize when they see it). I just don't know yet.


Your casters will be much more specialized, at least at first. That's assuming a wizard is still a wizard and will never have access to CLW regardless of how many ranks in energy he has. Unless he goes multiclass, of course. Maybe you will just have one casting class with everything available, that may work as well.

Yeah, basically. I was just going with one spellcaster class.


that depends on how often they level, how many skills you ultimately decide to give them, and I guess whatever system you come up with here. I would start out slow for a session or two of playtesting. then ramp it up a few levels to see if the jump is too crazy.

I'll try to get my players together sometime and do a test once we sort out the finer points of this system. Thank you for the input.

Yitzi
2011-11-16, 09:45 AM
It's 50/50. Every time you attack, you roll against the defender's roll. Whoever rolls highest (after counting modifiers) hits. Defender wins ties, but can counterattack with the Vicious Parry Talent if the defending roll doubles the attacker's. So, it's just under 50/50 chance to hit.

Just under 50/50 assuming modifiers are the same.


Oh, like you make the Caster Check, but you fail to hit. I think I see. It's the same system to hit with magic as it is a ranged weapon (or any weapon for that manner). The Caster rolls an attack against a defender's roll, same as usual.

Exactly. And higher-mana spells (for blasting/"powerful" spells) or higher-cast-DC spells (for subtle spells) would have a better modifier for the caster's attack roll.


I'm considering that [CON + 5 * ((100-Age)/10)] formula for generating a given character's Mana Pool, and when a spell list finally appears in something similar to a complete form, the spell costs would be adjusted to fit in a similar scale.

Ok...just so you know, that means that one point of CON modifier compensates for exactly 2 years of age, so age is by far the most important feature.


Actually, should their be a minimum amount of Mana, regardless of how low the CON is? (Not that it should be low, but you know.)

That makes sense; it should probably be something like 5 times the cost of the cheapest spells (which could very well be pretty low; the whole idea is that some spells are extremely cheap, just have a high DC to cast.)


I think I want it to be harder to max all ranks. That way it's more of an accomplishment

Then you probably want a slower skill advancement.


I'll try to find time soon to break down a spell list following this idea. I really like how you split up the schools.

Keep in mind, that wasn't how to split up the schools for cast skills (for those, I'd probably use something more like what motionmatrix said), just how to determine what should have high DC and low cost, and what should have high cost and low DC.


I think what spells one knows or can learn should be tied into INT (or WIS, if that might work better). So, yeah, like you said.

With quadratic cost (it's not exponential) to skill ranks and a maximum of 5, spells will naturally be tied pretty closely to INT simply by making the casting check skill-based. Then harder spells to learn or cast would simply have a higher DC (and yes, that does mean a not-very-bright wizard could cast the high-cost low-DC spells; blasting isn't really all that intellectually difficult, it just involves moving/creating a lot of energy.)


Yitzi's is simple in that it's just a separation by the D&D Magic Schools (something I think most will recognize when they see it). I just don't know yet.

On the other hand, what I said doesn't really work that well for a skill division, so here's a different idea that separates mostly by D&D schools and subschools but incorporates some good ideas from motionmatrix:

1. Protection: All abjurations. They should all have moderate cost and casting DC, except that those that form absolute defenses (e.g. Death Ward, Mind Blank) probably should have a high DC.
2. Creation: Conjuration (Creation), Illusion (Figment) and Evocation. Figments should have high casting DC and low cost, Conjuration (Creation) and Evocation should have low DC and high cost.
3. Planar: All other Conjuration subschools, as well as Illusion (Shadow) and negative energy spells (from the Necromancy school; anything that affects undead differently (other than just not working) is probably a negative energy spell). (Note that summoning is planar in nature.) Should have low DC and medium cost for conjuration and for negative energy spells (or high cost in the case of spells that bestow negative levels), and medium DC and high cost for Shadow.
4. Divination: All divinations. Should have very low cost, but very high DC. (This, by the way, means that the best diviners are the really old wizards, who also probably have the skill points to spend on the school. Sort of makes sense; you want knowledge, you go to the old guys.)
5. Mind: All Enchantment spells, as well as Illusion (Pattern) and Illusion (Phantasm) spells. Should have high DC and low cost for illusions and Enchantment (Charm) spells, and low DC and high cost for Enchantment (Compulsion) spells.
6. Change: Should include Transmutation, all Necromancy other than negative energy spells, and Illusion (Glamer). Should have low cost and high DC for illuson, medium cost and high DC for Transmuatation, and high cost and medium DC for Necromancy.

That's 6 rather than 5 schools, but one of them (divination) is really designed for those who are high-INT and high level (and thus have the points to spend.)

motionmatrix
2011-11-16, 12:16 PM
On the other hand, what I said doesn't really work that well for a skill division, so here's a different idea that separates mostly by D&D schools and subschools but incorporates some good ideas from motionmatrix:

1. Protection: All abjurations. They should all have moderate cost and casting DC, except that those that form absolute defenses (e.g. Death Ward, Mind Blank) probably should have a high DC.
2. Creation: Conjuration (Creation), Illusion (Figment) and Evocation. Figments should have high casting DC and low cost, Conjuration (Creation) and Evocation should have low DC and high cost.
3. Planar: All other Conjuration subschools, as well as Illusion (Shadow) and negative energy spells (from the Necromancy school; anything that affects undead differently (other than just not working) is probably a negative energy spell). (Note that summoning is planar in nature.) Should have low DC and medium cost for conjuration and for negative energy spells (or high cost in the case of spells that bestow negative levels), and medium DC and high cost for Shadow.
4. Divination: All divinations. Should have very low cost, but very high DC. (This, by the way, means that the best diviners are the really old wizards, who also probably have the skill points to spend on the school. Sort of makes sense; you want knowledge, you go to the old guys.)
5. Mind: All Enchantment spells, as well as Illusion (Pattern) and Illusion (Phantasm) spells. Should have high DC and low cost for illusions and Enchantment (Charm) spells, and low DC and high cost for Enchantment (Compulsion) spells.
6. Change: Should include Transmutation, all Necromancy other than negative energy spells, and Illusion (Glamer). Should have low cost and high DC for illuson, medium cost and high DC for Transmuatation, and high cost and medium DC for Necromancy.

That's 6 rather than 5 schools, but one of them (divination) is really designed for those who are high-INT and high level (and thus have the points to spend.)

I like it, although protection seems more like an extension of creation, with mental protections (e.g. mind blank) that belong in Mind or Divination.

By the same token, you can roll Divination into Mind. However, you do want to split up enough skills to make sense of the younger/older caster relationship you want.

So this works well, I would probably fuse Mind and divination, keeping the high divining DC so the old ones are still the masters. :smallbiggrin:

Yitzi
2011-11-16, 04:10 PM
I like it, although protection seems more like an extension of creation, with mental protections (e.g. mind blank) that belong in Mind or Divination.

I'd say mental protections would go in Mind, Force effects and abjuration barriers in Creation, and physical protections (e.g. stoneskin) and Dispel Magic in Change.


By the same token, you can roll Divination into Mind.

Not really. Mind is that you know how you want to change their mind, and then you do it. Divination is that you're trying to get information.

YouLostMe
2011-11-16, 04:23 PM
In all reality, you make a system with whatever justifications you want (even one's like "It's Magic. It just works that way."), and people who like the system will be enticed to use it.

Yitzi
2011-11-16, 05:52 PM
In all reality, you make a system with whatever justifications you want (even one's like "It's Magic. It just works that way."), and people who like the system will be enticed to use it.

But if the system is badly designed, it won't model a sensible world. And if you want to model a world with certain features (as the OP does), then things can get tricky.

YouLostMe
2011-11-16, 08:03 PM
But if the system is badly designed, it won't model a sensible world. And if you want to model a world with certain features (as the OP does), then things can get tricky.

The point of that post was to say that you can wrap divination in with just about anything and say "old people have brains that do this better", and if the system (aging v. power and versatility, or whatever it is) works well, then your flavor and reasoning behind the abilities will not matter.

In fact, that almost appears to be what you're saying. Thus, I do proclaim, that you shouldn't worry about where divination belongs thematically, but whether it is strong or weak in your game, and divide up your schools as such.

Ninjadeadbeard
2011-11-16, 09:36 PM
Ok...just so you know, that means that one point of CON modifier compensates for exactly 2 years of age, so age is by far the most important feature.

Oh, is that bad?


That makes sense; it should probably be something like 5 times the cost of the cheapest spells (which could very well be pretty low; the whole idea is that some spells are extremely cheap, just have a high DC to cast.)

I think 15 is a good minimum, with perhaps the lowest cost spell being a Divination spell worth 3 Mana.


With quadratic cost (it's not exponential) to skill ranks and a maximum of 5, spells will naturally be tied pretty closely to INT simply by making the casting check skill-based. Then harder spells to learn or cast would simply have a higher DC (and yes, that does mean a not-very-bright wizard could cast the high-cost low-DC spells; blasting isn't really all that intellectually difficult, it just involves moving/creating a lot of energy.)

Lol, exactly. Not-very-bright-wizards is a great term. :smallsmile:


On the other hand, what I said doesn't really work that well for a skill division, so here's a different idea that separates mostly by D&D schools and subschools but incorporates some good ideas from motionmatrix:

1. Protection: All abjurations. They should all have moderate cost and casting DC, except that those that form absolute defenses (e.g. Death Ward, Mind Blank) probably should have a high DC.
2. Creation: Conjuration (Creation), Illusion (Figment) and Evocation. Figments should have high casting DC and low cost, Conjuration (Creation) and Evocation should have low DC and high cost.
3. Planar: All other Conjuration subschools, as well as Illusion (Shadow) and negative energy spells (from the Necromancy school; anything that affects undead differently (other than just not working) is probably a negative energy spell). (Note that summoning is planar in nature.) Should have low DC and medium cost for conjuration and for negative energy spells (or high cost in the case of spells that bestow negative levels), and medium DC and high cost for Shadow.
4. Divination: All divinations. Should have very low cost, but very high DC. (This, by the way, means that the best diviners are the really old wizards, who also probably have the skill points to spend on the school. Sort of makes sense; you want knowledge, you go to the old guys.)
5. Mind: All Enchantment spells, as well as Illusion (Pattern) and Illusion (Phantasm) spells. Should have high DC and low cost for illusions and Enchantment (Charm) spells, and low DC and high cost for Enchantment (Compulsion) spells.
6. Change: Should include Transmutation, all Necromancy other than negative energy spells, and Illusion (Glamer). Should have low cost and high DC for illuson, medium cost and high DC for Transmuatation, and high cost and medium DC for Necromancy.

That's 6 rather than 5 schools, but one of them (divination) is really designed for those who are high-INT and high level (and thus have the points to spend.)

Hmmm. I like these. Just going thru the list:
1. No problems with this. I can imagine a master of Protection would be a favorite among a decadent, backstabbing Court-style setting just for Mind Blank and anti-thievery spells.
2. I tend to think that all Illusion should be under Mind, but I can see why Ill(Figment) would be in creation, so never mind.
3. I was going to complain about Summoning needing a low DC but I guess tearing through dimensional boundaries is a more “blunt force” thing.
4. Love this. Absolutely love this.
5. Also love this. I especially like how Compulsion is a Low DC, sort of like a shorthand for how straightforward, but unsubtle it is.
6. Okay. Yeah, I can see this.

This is a great way to divide the Caster Skills, I think. Very few of the spells in these schools can be directly transposed due to the differences between D&D and 2d6, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. Really, thank you.

I'll get something posted on my first post, just so we can have a single spot where things are laid out concretely.



The point of that post was to say that you can wrap divination in with just about anything and say "old people have brains that do this better", and if the system (aging v. power and versatility, or whatever it is) works well, then your flavor and reasoning behind the abilities will not matter.

In fact, that almost appears to be what you're saying. Thus, I do proclaim, that you shouldn't worry about where divination belongs thematically, but whether it is strong or weak in your game, and divide up your schools as such.

I don't think you can use Divination in combat (I could be wrong), so I doubt a young wizard would be able to use it.

Yitzi
2011-11-16, 10:35 PM
The point of that post was to say that you can wrap divination in with just about anything and say "old people have brains that do this better", and if the system (aging v. power and versatility, or whatever it is) works well, then your flavor and reasoning behind the abilities will not matter.

Of course the flavor and reasoning behind the abilities will matter. The flavor and reasoning behind the abilities is what makes it a world to role-play in rather than just a set of arbitrary rules to some game. Of course, some people focus just on it as a game, but many don't (and I find that the far more interesting and enjoyable way to play; to tell the truth, none of these systems are mechanically good enough to be enjoyable without RP except as an optimization challenge.)


but whether it is strong or weak in your game, and divide up your schools as such.

If anything, schools should go across the power/finesse line whenever possible, as otherwise those that focus on power are far less important (since they have easy DCs anyway.)


Oh, is that bad?

That is a decision about how magic should work, which is up to the DM. I was just telling you the consequences; whether you like them is up to you.


I think 15 is a good minimum, with perhaps the lowest cost spell being a Divination spell worth 3 Mana.

I'd say divination should be outside that calculation, as it's not going to be used in combat and the idea for that minimum was to make the character relevant in combat for 5 rounds. So you probably want the 3-mana spells to be illusions and/or charms, and put the weakest divination spells at 1 mana. (After all, all you're moving is information, and that is notoriously lightweight.)


Hmmm. I like these. Just going thru the list:
1. No problems with this. I can imagine a master of Protection would be a favorite among a decadent, backstabbing Court-style setting just for Mind Blank and anti-thievery spells.

True. He's also absolutely essential if you're getting into a fight with other wizards.


2. I tend to think that all Illusion should be under Mind, but I can see why Ill(Figment) would be in creation, so never mind.

Exactly; shadow draws from another plane, figment creates something, glamer changes something's properties, and the other two are mind-affecting, hence my placement.


3. I was going to complain about Summoning needing a low DC but I guess tearing through dimensional boundaries is a more “blunt force” thing.

Indeed. Of course, if you think it also requires finesse, you can raise the DC, or you can say some spells need more finesse (and thus have a higher DC) than others.


5. Also love this. I especially like how Compulsion is a Low DC, sort of like a shorthand for how straightforward, but unsubtle it is.

Yep; charm is subtle, compulsion is not.


This is a great way to divide the Caster Skills, I think. Very few of the spells in these schools can be directly transposed due to the differences between D&D and 2d6

Part of the advantage of doing it thematically rather than straight by school is that you can take a spell and figure out directly which skill it goes to. (Or if you prefer you can try to figure out its school in D&D and then from that its skill, but direct will probably work better for new spells.)


I don't think you can use Divination in combat (I could be wrong), so I doubt a young wizard would be able to use it.

Young/old isn't combat/noncombat. It mostly works out that way, but illusions (and, to a lesser extent, transmutations and abjurations) are definitely of use in combat and are for older wizards, while compulsions can sometimes be of noncombat use.

YouLostMe
2011-11-17, 03:55 AM
Oi, don't jump topics. I say, if the system is good, your flavorful reasoning can be just about anything mildly sensible, and players won't put down your idea. They will put down your idea if it functions poorly, so do not think about where some aspect of magic "belongs", because that will consume days without resolution and will prevent you from working on important things like mechanics.

Yitzi
2011-11-17, 09:58 AM
I say, if the system is good, your flavorful reasoning can be just about anything mildly sensible, and players won't put down your idea.

The danger isn't the players putting it down, the danger is it leading to the wrong concept of magic.


They will put down your idea if it functions poorly, so do not think about where some aspect of magic "belongs", because that will consume days without resolution

Nah; so long as DM fiat goes on such matters, they can be solved relatively quickly.


important things like mechanics.

Once you get past the "unplayable" and "unbalanced" range, mechanics are only the fourth most important feature I can think of (and that's because I can only think of three others: Setting, characterization, and plot.)

motionmatrix
2011-11-18, 12:32 AM
I don't think you can use Divination in combat (I could be wrong), so I doubt a young wizard would be able to use it.

OMG, divination in combat is a must: mind reading (I think of this as partial divination/mind, since its information gathering), seeing whats happening a few seconds ahead of time (giving you the ability to react supernaturally), uncanny dodge or evasion effects through, act in surprise rounds, increases to initiative, AC, attacks, negate other's actions, rerolls; premonition bonuses if you will. All of those effects can easily be flavored directly into divination. A lot of it would be quick and dirty, what the younger ones would use.

YouLostMe
2011-11-18, 02:22 AM
Yitzi, you just agreed with me that 'unbalanced' means that game mechanics are a top priority. Therefore you are agreeing with me in my assertion that crap like setting and plot and whatever you like are lower-priority. Therefore, you must be agreeing with me that one must work on game balance FIRST over flavor.

Which makes me wonder why you take the time to refute me, if the entire refute is you agreeing with me and then saying I'm wrong.

In other news, I think a big thing to do would be to focus on the tactics of older/younger people. I can imagine that most people who want to play a wizened old man want to be gandalf, which seems to me to be varied combat (not just magic) skills, auras for buffs, high diplomacy, and then perhaps barriers of some kind.

When I think of young people, stuff like Teen Titans come to mind, so I think of high speed and high damage, but low defenses.

So young people are glass cannons and old people are tanks (actually, that fits in well with themes. There are usually very few old casters in fantasy fiction, which can be attributed to the fact that most young casters die due to recklessness and not enough defenses).

So if you just take those tactics and use them, ignoring D&D magic like the terms "Divination", you'll have a better direction for where the age-to-magic relationship is going. I recommend a few paths like Warlock, Priest, Druid, etc. with two trees (old and young) that the players can pick off of.

Yitzi
2011-11-18, 07:39 AM
Yitzi, you just agreed with me that 'unbalanced' means that game mechanics are a top priority. Therefore you are agreeing with me in my assertion that crap like setting and plot and whatever you like are lower-priority. Therefore, you must be agreeing with me that one must work on game balance FIRST over flavor.

{{scrubbed}}

One must first work on making the mechanics somewhat playable (well, unless ditching mechanics entirely, which can also work). Once you've done that, setting, plot, and characterization are far more important than mechanics.


In other news, I think a big thing to do would be to focus on the tactics of older/younger people. I can imagine that most people who want to play a wizened old man want to be gandalf, which seems to me to be varied combat (not just magic) skills, auras for buffs, high diplomacy, and then perhaps barriers of some kind.

I'd say their tactics should be determined by their abilities, not the other way around.
Remember, Gandalf isn't human, so he's not really a good model.

Ninjadeadbeard
2011-11-21, 07:41 PM
My schoolwork's been hectic lately, so I haven't had a chance to get back to this. I have updated the First Post with what I believe we've so far determined to work for this magic system. If I got something wrong, please correct me. I'm working on a Spell list at the moment.

Extra Special Thanks to anyone who got involved, on any level. You guys are the best.:smallsmile:

Yitzi
2011-11-21, 08:24 PM
You shouldn't have the caster always add their skill ranks to the attack roll, or else the older wizards will have the most powerful spells. Instead, some spells (charms and any non-shadow illusions or divinations that require an attack roll, i.e. the low-mana ones) should add the skill ranks to the attack roll, and all other spells should instead allow the caster to spend extra mana points (above the basic cost, up to a total cost equal to the caster's max mana/spell) to add to the attack roll. So for fireball you wouldn't add skill ranks, and maybe not even INT, but rather a bonus depending on how much extra mana you spent.

Also, I'm not so sure that it shouldn't be possible to resist a fireball. Maybe allow it to be resisted, but at a substantial penalty (so only those with a big bonus to resist will choose that approach.)

Ninjadeadbeard
2011-11-21, 08:49 PM
You shouldn't have the caster always add their skill ranks to the attack roll, or else the older wizards will have the most powerful spells. Instead, some spells (charms and any non-shadow illusions or divinations that require an attack roll, i.e. the low-mana ones) should add the skill ranks to the attack roll, and all other spells should instead allow the caster to spend extra mana points (above the basic cost, up to a total cost equal to the caster's max mana/spell) to add to the attack roll. So for fireball you wouldn't add skill ranks, and maybe not even INT, but rather a bonus depending on how much extra mana you spent.

So: 2d6 +1 (Magic Item) + X (additional Mana) = Attack Roll.

What sort of scale are we talking about for these additional MP? If I understand you correctly (and I don't :smalltongue:) it sounds like for select spells (read: the big flashy ones) additional MP put into the spell (above the Original Cost, up to the caster's Max MP) add modifiers to an attack roll. If we assign +1 for every doubling of the original cost, then a Mage with 48 MP could only add +2 (Assuming Fireball costs 15 MP) to their attack roll.

Although...if we work with a 5 MP per +1 scale, then that same Mage with 48 MP could add anywhere up to +6 to his attack roll. Any lower scale, and we're looking at someone who can add +33 to an attack roll (albeit their last one).

So, what do you think about 5 MP = +1 Attack Roll Modifier for Casting (when allowed by Spell Description)? Or should it be lower, with a cap? Or, to give an illusion of power to a reckless wizard, should we allow a 1 MP = +1 Modifier?


Also, I'm not so sure that it shouldn't be possible to resist a fireball. Maybe allow it to be resisted, but at a substantial penalty (so only those with a big bonus to resist will choose that approach.)

It was just an example, and I did add
(Changes Pending) to the Fireball in the OP. I rather like your idea. I'll be sure to add that sort of thing when I'm writing up the spell list. Thanks again.

Zale
2011-11-21, 09:02 PM
And once again, you show your inability to understand anything remotely complex.


Now, Now, Yitzi. You really shouldn't insult people. :smallconfused:

I like this idea. It does make sense, in a certain way.

Yitzi
2011-11-21, 09:51 PM
So: 2d6 +1 (Magic Item) + X (additional Mana) = Attack Roll.

Something like that.


What sort of scale are we talking about for these additional MP? If I understand you correctly (and I don't :smalltongue:) it sounds like for select spells (read: the big flashy ones) additional MP put into the spell (above the Original Cost, up to the caster's Max MP) add modifiers to an attack roll.


If we assign +1 for every doubling of the original cost, then a Mage with 48 MP could only add +2 (Assuming Fireball costs 15 MP) to their attack roll.

That's a bit much; I'd say you probably want +1 to the roll to cost roughly 1/3 of the original cost, or less if an unboosted roll is expected to be substantially less than 50% likely to hit. So in this case that'd be +5 MP/bonus.

Also, even a 20-year-old mage with +3 CON mod would have only 64 MP, so a "standard" spell for him should be 13 MP. So if Fireball costs 15 MP, then that means it's just a tiny bit too expensive "standard" attack spell. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; it might have a splash radius in which it attacks targets with a -3 penalty, and thus costs a bit extra and has a somewhat high DC for an evocation spell.

I'd also suggest that there be a cap on how much you can spend on each spell besides how much MP you have remaining; maybe no more than 40% of your maximum MP per spell. So in this case, that'd mean our 48 MP mage can only spend 19 MP on the spell, so he can't boost it at all. Maybe a 40 year old mage shouldn't have been trying to blast.


So, what do you think about 5 MP = +1 Attack Roll Modifier for Casting (when allowed by Spell Description)? Or should it be lower, with a cap? Or, to give an illusion of power to a reckless wizard, should we allow a 1 MP = +1 Modifier?

I'd say it should depend on the original cost, with 1/3 extra per bonus (or less if you need substantial boosting to get an even chance of hitting). That way, low-powered spells are more efficient in terms of cost, but less efficient in terms of damage/time.


It was just an example

Even so, using examples that wouldn't actually work is a bad idea. It leads to confusion.


Now, Now, Yitzi. You really shouldn't insult people. :smallconfused:

Normally I don't. But when someone says things like "if horrible mechanics wreck the game even worse than a bad plot, that means that mechanics are in general more important than plot", and similar oversimplifying arguments (as he did in another thread), then I can only take so much before I get fed up.

YouLostMe
2011-11-21, 10:35 PM
And once again, you show your inability to understand anything remotely complex.

One must first work on making the mechanics somewhat playable (well, unless ditching mechanics entirely, which can also work). Once you've done that, setting, plot, and characterization are far more important than mechanics.Which means that making the mechanics is more important than all of that other stuff. This is what I'm doing Yitzi, and I'll spell it out for you: I think that you should get the mechanics down before you get the flavor down, rearranging flavor to whatever works better so the game doesn't break.

Which means I am correct. You've done it again, but this time you decided to add an insult. I assume you just like calling me wrong, so I'll let you have your fun, but please be civil.


I'd say their tactics should be determined by their abilities, not the other way around.
Remember, Gandalf isn't human, so he's not really a good model.. . . All right. So I disagree with you. And the fact that Gandalf is "not human" in the classic sense doesn't mean he's not the desired stereotype.

IN OTHER NEWS: Having lots of mana and spending it means a lot of bookkeeping. If you want players to play and enjoy a system, it's better if you don't have all that bookkeeping. I recommend an alternative system very much--like mana never going into double digits, or not very far.

EDIT:

So, thinking about this, I have a spleergable alternative idea, with the goal that mana should be low (I want to have a stack of payable poker chips for my mana, not a sheet of graph paper with subtraction equations all over it).

Something that would make this easy to do is mana regenerating with each encounter, which means you can balance abilities per-encounter. +2 to +4 AC as an immediate action would be fine if it drained a portion of your combat resources. So say you get 2 mana + 1 per 2 levels, 1 passive, 1 at-will, and 1-3 active abilities through levels 1 through 3 (passive and at-will at level 1, maybe 2 actives at level 2, and then one more active at level 3 and perhaps a boost to your abilities. Assuming this is D&D-ish, you'd also get a feat so you'd be happy anyways).

The importance of this is that it eliminates balance concerns due to a 15-minute workday--if one age gains more power for less resources, then they will adventure less per day to compensate, and be more overpowered. That's something you want to stop.

So I recommend equal mana, but give old people full access to trees of magic (like in Skyrim!) along the lines of "Barriers", "Aura", "Telekinesis", and "Mental Perfection", with cross-class access to "Awe", "Destruction", "Agility", and "Rage" (or something), and do vice-versa for the young. You could have each one kick in at different ages (You gain aura and lose rage at 30, gain telekinesis and lose Destruction at 45, gain barriers and lose awe at 60, or however you please), with retraining along the way. If you really want the flavor of flexibility, you can allow the old to not retrain abilities if they don't want to.

Yitzi
2011-11-22, 09:25 AM
Which means that making the mechanics is more important than all of that other stuff. This is what I'm doing Yitzi, and I'll spell it out for you: I think that you should get the mechanics down before you get the flavor down, rearranging flavor to whatever works better so the game doesn't break.

And if you do that, you'll end up with a very playable game but mediocre role-play. Whereas if you get the flavor down first, you'll end up with excellent role-play, but possibly mediocre gameplay.

When it's a question of which will be good and which will be terrible, it's better to have good gameplay and terrible roleplay than the other way around. But when it's a question of which will be very good and which will be only mediocre, it's better to have excellent roleplay and mediocre gameplay than the other way around, at least if you're into it as a roleplaying game rather than just a game (as most people, and in particular the OP and his intended players) are.


. . . All right. So I disagree with you. And the fact that Gandalf is "not human" in the classic sense doesn't mean he's not the desired stereotype.

Indeed, it does not mean he's definitely not the desired stereotype, but it does mean that he can't be used to prove anything.


IN OTHER NEWS: Having lots of mana and spending it means a lot of bookkeeping.

Not really. It's a single stat to be kept track of, much like HP is. It's not that big.


If you want players to play and enjoy a system, it's better if you don't have all that bookkeeping. I recommend an alternative system very much--like mana never going into double digits, or not very far.

That doesn't really make much difference; it's not substantially more bookkeeping to keep track of large numbers (assuming it's still only a few digits) than small numbers.


So, thinking about this, I have a spleergable alternative idea, with the goal that mana should be low (I want to have a stack of payable poker chips for my mana, not a sheet of graph paper with subtraction equations all over it).

With different-colored chips, you can easily handle 2- or low 3-digit numbers, with no problem.

Or do you think that actual poker players always bet in increments no less than 20 times what they start out with?


Something that would make this easy to do is mana regenerating with each encounter, which means you can balance abilities per-encounter. +2 to +4 AC as an immediate action would be fine if it drained a portion of your combat resources.

From what I understand, the lack of easy and fast magical healing means that there aren't as many encounters/day in 2d6 as there are in D&D, so that likely wouldn't be such a big help.


Assuming this is D&D-ish

It isn't.


The importance of this is that it eliminates balance concerns due to a 15-minute workday--if one age gains more power for less resources, then they will adventure less per day to compensate, and be more overpowered. That's something you want to stop.

Firstly, that's why I suggested a cap on mana/spell dependent on total mana (so that older wizards don't have more power than younger ones, since they can't spend the same mana even if they are willing to go nova), and secondly, in 2d6 the limitation on adventures/day tends to be hit points anyway.


but give old people full access to trees of magic (like in Skyrim!) along the lines of "Barriers", "Aura", "Telekinesis", and "Mental Perfection", with cross-class access to "Awe", "Destruction", "Agility", and "Rage" (or something), and do vice-versa for the young.

Sounds overly complicated as compared to what I suggested, plus it doesn't allow for the "old person advising young person=really powerful" concept that's the whole point of this.

Deepbluediver
2011-11-22, 10:35 AM
Short Version: How would a magic system look if younger wizards had more power (spell slots/spell variety, etc) but older wizards had more skills (spell-like abilities, instant-death spells, etc) and would anybody play such a system?

This actually sounds very similar to the laws of magic used in Diane Duane's Young Wizards book series. Younger wizards are more powerful because they don't know what they CAN'T do, and also magical-blardy-blah (i.e. because we said so). Older wizards on the other hand, have had far longer to study the magical language of the universe, and tend to specialize in one area or another.
She even uses some similar language, such as the phrase "like a rifle instead of a fire hose".
If you took insperation from that, then more power to you, I was just curious.

Ninjadeadbeard
2011-11-22, 01:41 PM
That's a bit much; I'd say you probably want +1 to the roll to cost roughly 1/3 of the original cost, or less if an unboosted roll is expected to be substantially less than 50% likely to hit. So in this case that'd be +5 MP/bonus.

Hmm. I know that you're most likely to roll a 7 with a 2d6, so an unboosted roll will usually fail to hit unless the other guy is incredibly unlucky and caught by surprise (flatfooted). +5MP/bonus sounds good, but I see a young mage missing a lot more than he hits, and running out of magic if he tries to boost his spells. I'm almost tempted to say that maybe +1MP/bonus is better, with a cap equal to the character's Caster Skill that the spell is governed by. Sure, we end up with kinda just adding the Caster Skill to the attack roll, but it costs a bit of mana as well. Thoughts?


Also, even a 20-year-old mage with +3 CON mod would have only 64 MP, so a "standard" spell for him should be 13 MP. So if Fireball costs 15 MP, then that means it's just a tiny bit too expensive "standard" attack spell. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; it might have a splash radius in which it attacks targets with a -3 penalty, and thus costs a bit extra and has a somewhat high DC for an evocation spell.

Well, I see that my English Major is showing (cause it can't count).:smallsmile: Okay, so then this 15MP Fireball should be something more akin to Magma, and be basically a Medium DC, High Mana Cost AOE spell (splash damage), available when a Master Wizard adds his Skill Check to his younger partner to clear a room or something.

I suppose it does make the mage in my example look like an idiot for using such an OP attack. Live and Learn. Unless you're then mage. Who probably died. :)


I'd also suggest that there be a cap on how much you can spend on each spell besides how much MP you have remaining; maybe no more than 40% of your maximum MP per spell. So in this case, that'd mean our 48 MP mage can only spend 19 MP on the spell, so he can't boost it at all. Maybe a 40 year old mage shouldn't have been trying to blast.

True. Going with that rule, a 64MP mage could only boost twice (25 cap, I think).


I'd say it should depend on the original cost, with 1/3 extra per bonus (or less if you need substantial boosting to get an even chance of hitting). That way, low-powered spells are more efficient in terms of cost, but less efficient in terms of damage/time.

Okay. So a 64MP Mage casts a spell worth 12MP. In order to stay under the 40% cap, he can't spend more than 13MP further. So, going by the 1/3 Spell Cost per +1 Bonus idea, he'd be able to gain a +3 Bonus to hit. That sound like enough?


Even so, using examples that wouldn't actually work is a bad idea. It leads to confusion.

I'll be more mindful of my examples in the future. Barring the ones I already put in this post that are also unworkable examples. :smalltongue:



So, thinking about this, I have a spleergable alternative idea, with the goal that mana should be low (I want to have a stack of payable poker chips for my mana, not a sheet of graph paper with subtraction equations all over it).

Or you could have a calculator on hand. Anyway, if someone would rather count mana with poker chips, I'll not gainsay it. I actually think that sounds cool. If people have chips, go for it.


This actually sounds very similar to the laws of magic used in Diane Duane's Young Wizards book series. Younger wizards are more powerful because they don't know what they CAN'T do, and also magical-blardy-blah (i.e. because we said so). Older wizards on the other hand, have had far longer to study the magical language of the universe, and tend to specialize in one area or another.
She even uses some similar language, such as the phrase "like a rifle instead of a fire hose".
If you took insperation from that, then more power to you, I was just curious.

Never read the books, but I have heard about them. Different fluff, same concept I suppose. I honestly think I came up with my idea alone (barring cultural osmosis or subliminal such 'n stuff).

Yitzi
2011-11-22, 02:53 PM
I changed my mind in the middle of the post. The old stuff is in the spoiler:


Hmm. I know that you're most likely to roll a 7 with a 2d6, so an unboosted roll will usually fail to hit unless the other guy is incredibly unlucky and caught by surprise (flatfooted).

On the flip side, you might get other boosts (from items or the like), just like he might.


+5MP/bonus sounds good, but I see a young mage missing a lot more than he hits, and running out of magic if he tries to boost his spells.

Then you probably should give the spell itself an automatic bonus so that he hits roughly half the time.


I'm almost tempted to say that maybe +1MP/bonus is better, with a cap equal to the character's Caster Skill that the spell is governed by. Sure, we end up with kinda just adding the Caster Skill to the attack roll, but it costs a bit of mana as well. Thoughts?

That's a bad idea for the same reason just adding the skill is: It means that an old blaster has more powerful blasts than a young one. You want a young wizard with only 1 rank in the casting skill to get a higher bonus (assuming the same relative resource expenditure) than an old wizard with 5 ranks, when it comes to brute-force spells.


Well, I see that my English Major is showing (cause it can't count).:smallsmile: Okay, so then this 15MP Fireball should be something more akin to Magma, and be basically a Medium DC, High Mana Cost AOE spell (splash damage), available when a Master Wizard adds his Skill Check to his younger partner to clear a room or something.

Somewhat, although that's more due to the DC 9. (In general, you probably want a DC about 5 higher than the bonus for the intended caster so that he succeeds most but not almost all the time, so you don't really need a Master Wizard; in fact, even a young wizard could probably do it if he's bright.) It's also a bit more expensive than would be normal for even a younger wizard (unless he's really young, like under-20), so it's not so much a teamwork spell (those tend to be necromancy or transmutation, or some powerful abjuration spells, rather than blasting), more simply a slightly high-powered young-wizard spell.

It's not like it's twice the cost and DC of a "standard" blasting spell, just a couple points extra in each. Less "clear the room" and more "do a bit of splash damage on top of the main damage."


True. Going with that rule, a 64MP mage could only boost twice (25 cap, I think).

And anyone could only boost 3 times. Which makes sense; if an unboosted one has the other bonuses more or less cancel out (if they don't, you should add a bonus directly into the spell description to make it cancel out, and possibly lower the cost (but not the augmentation cost) by 33% (replacing one point of bonus) or 66% (replacing 2 points of bonus)), a +3 boost will push it over 75%, which is pretty good. Of course, he's spending 2 spells' worth of mana on it in that case, so he's paying for that high hit chance.


Okay. So a 64MP Mage casts a spell worth 12MP. In order to stay under the 40% cap, he can't spend more than 13MP further. So, going by the 1/3 Spell Cost per +1 Bonus idea, he'd be able to gain a +3 Bonus to hit. That sound like enough?

It should. Assuming an unboosted one has the modifiers equal on both sides, a +3 bonus means a 75% chance of hitting. (2d6 has far more effect from small bonuses than d20 does.)



Actually, now that I think of it, instead of what's been discussed, it probably makes more sense, instead of the above, to make even the blast spells be relatively cheap (5 mana or so), and then boost it for mana (2 mana per point of boost seems good), while the "finesse" spells are boosted by skill ranks instead, with a maximum cost/spell equal to 20% of the caster's max mana. That way, a typical spell will get a roughly +4 boost for mana or ranks, and then you can balance resistances and other bonuses and penalties against that.

For a sense of the probabilities inherent in a 2d6 opposed roll, go here (http://anydice.com/), put in "output 4d6-14", and hit calculate. This is the probabilities of the defender's roll minus the attacker's roll; if it's above or equal to the difference of the modifiers (attacker's modifier minus defender's modifier), the defender wins. Hit the "at least" button in order to get the total chance of the defender winning for each value of the modifier difference.

Ninjadeadbeard
2011-11-23, 11:57 PM
Actually, now that I think of it, instead of what's been discussed, it probably makes more sense, instead of the above, to make even the blast spells be relatively cheap (5 mana or so), and then boost it for mana (2 mana per point of boost seems good), while the "finesse" spells are boosted by skill ranks instead, with a maximum cost/spell equal to 20% of the caster's max mana. That way, a typical spell will get a roughly +4 boost for mana or ranks, and then you can balance resistances and other bonuses and penalties against that.

Yes, that's a lot simpler. A 64MP mage could waste ~17MP to cast a spell (initial cost 5 with +6 to hit) and always hit, but it's a huge waste unless he absolutely must hit this turn or die. I like it. It forces the mage to think about every spell cast so long as they have to declare how much they pay before they cast.


For a sense of the probabilities inherent in a 2d6 opposed roll, go here (http://anydice.com/), put in "output 4d6-14", and hit calculate. This is the probabilities of the defender's roll minus the attacker's roll; if it's above or equal to the difference of the modifiers (attacker's modifier minus defender's modifier), the defender wins. Hit the "at least" button in order to get the total chance of the defender winning for each value of the modifier difference.

Gotta be honest. I had to get my little sister (math major) to help me understand this. I kinda get it. Maybe. Probably not.

Yitzi
2011-11-24, 08:32 AM
Yes, that's a lot simpler. A 64MP mage could waste ~17MP to cast a spell (initial cost 5 with +6 to hit) and always hit, but it's a huge waste unless he absolutely must hit this turn or die. I like it. It forces the mage to think about every spell cast so long as they have to declare how much they pay before they cast.

Actually, that would be over 20%, although now that you mention it maybe it should be possible up to 40%. Not 100%, though; that would make the "single super-attack" option way too potentially abusable, especially in a hit-and-run.

Ninjadeadbeard
2011-11-24, 10:36 PM
Actually, that would be over 20%, although now that you mention it maybe it should be possible up to 40%. Not 100%, though; that would make the "single super-attack" option way too potentially abusable, especially in a hit-and-run.

I thought you meant that the boost could only be 20%. Missed that. Well, if we go 40% then a 64MP mage could attack for +10 to hit. I mean, damn. The right spell could end a game. I guess 20% works best.

But it would make the GM's job easier, say if a TPK was in order? (I kid! I kid!) :smalltongue:

Yitzi
2011-11-24, 11:31 PM
I thought you meant that the boost could only be 20%. Missed that. Well, if we go 40% then a 64MP mage could attack for +10 to hit. I mean, damn.

Yes, but it still does only one damage (2 if he gets really lucky), which won't kill someone unless they're badly injured. But 20% probably does work better.


But it would make the GM's job easier, say if a TPK was in order? (I kid! I kid!) :smalltongue:

Third rule of GM'ing: There is no rule banning "Rocks fall, everyone dies", but it's rarely worth forcing a TPK. (The second half is actually a corollary to the first rule of DMing: What happens OOC, stays OOC.)

PEACH
2011-11-25, 03:32 AM
The major problem I see with this is simply that in most systems, age is basically a meaningless stat, and even when it's implemented (such as in D&D) it's implemented in a way that is really poorly done. Making it so that your best option is to be excessively young isn't really better than casters always being excessively old.

The equation for how much magic you get is also poorly formatted; there's one more closing bracket than opening bracket, and you appear to be dividing your "age rounded down" (I assume to the nearest year, but possibly to the nearest ten years) by 10, not the whole term. The equation should look like, assuming I don't make any mistakes:

(5+Con Mod)*(100-[Age in years])/10

Yitzi
2011-11-25, 12:42 PM
The major problem I see with this is simply that in most systems, age is basically a meaningless stat, and even when it's implemented (such as in D&D) it's implemented in a way that is really poorly done. Making it so that your best option is to be excessively young isn't really better than casters always being excessively old.

The key to that would be that at character creation, a high level would require a higher age, so low age and high level are opposed.

PEACH
2011-11-25, 03:12 PM
The key to that would be that at character creation, a high level would require a higher age, so low age and high level are opposed.

Doing this has three main problems:


You have turned what was primarily a flavor stat into something mechanically relevant
You have limited character progression; if levels increase with age, certain party members will always be higher level.
You've added a new dimension of balance; you have to balance not just around keeping all people of the same level at the same strength, but also balancing mana pool vs. level (ex: a level 2 character with a huge mana pool is "equal" not just to a different level 2 character, but also a level 5 character with a medium mana pool.)


That seems like a *lot* of problems for, essentially, just taking a fluff stat and making it into a mechanic. Trying to balance around not just level, but also age and level seems like a huge headache.

Yitzi
2011-11-26, 06:45 PM
Doing this has three main problems:


You have turned what was primarily a flavor stat into something mechanically relevant

Why is that a problem? This is essentially a whole new system anyway, so...

Also, it's fundamental to the whole idea behind this thread, so there's no way to not have that and still be relevant to this thread.


You have limited character progression; if levels increase with age, certain party members will always be higher level.

Firstly, the starting level would be linked to starting age; having them disassociated later would be possible. Secondly, so what if they're a higher level, if they're less powerful in other ways (namely lower physical ability scores and mana capacity)?


You've added a new dimension of balance; you have to balance not just around keeping all people of the same level at the same strength, but also balancing mana pool vs. level (ex: a level 2 character with a huge mana pool is "equal" not just to a different level 2 character, but also a level 5 character with a medium mana pool.)


Yes, there is that, but that's also not really something that can be avoided without throwing out the whole idea. Fortunately, the link between starting level and starting age can be made campaign-specific, allowing for easier balancing.


That seems like a *lot* of problems for, essentially, just taking a fluff stat and making it into a mechanic.

Not when doing that is necessary for the desired fluff for the campaign world. Ultimately, (for many people, at least) the mechanics are a way of making the fluff playable, so the mechanics are subject to the fluff rather than the other way around.