A couple rhetorical questions about spellcasting

[Sniperfox47]

I have two questions about spellcasting in O.L.D., one is to do with the mp limits on target-agnostic spells, and the other has to do with writing spells into spellbooks. I understand that these sections are incomplete thus far; I understand I may not get answers to them right now, but thought I should mention them anyways.

Currently, with the way spellcasting is set up you need to take multiple spell lists with a given effect to be able to invest over 5 mp in that effect. How does this work for scrying, divination, and spellcrafting? I see three possibilities (my initial assumption was option B, but the rules aren't explicit):
A) you can only invest 5 mp into each of those (doesn't seem to be the case based on the enhancements and sample spells)
B) because there's only one target for the spells there's no mp limit on them other than your magic stat.
C) you can only invest 5 mp into them, but can take the spell list multiple times to get a higher limit. For example, if you purchase scrying as a spell list three times you can invest up to 15 magic points into a scrying spell

My second question is about the limitations for writing spell books. Judging from the fact that a lot of parts in the playtest make reference to crafting, but there's not actually a section with the mechanics of it, I'll assume that's to come at a later date. I'll also assume that info about crafting spellbooks will likely fall under those rules since they seem to be mundane items from their description. There are some things that come up with the magic side of writing spellbooks though, rather than the mundane.
What does a spellcaster actually need to have to write a spellbook, besides the book? Do they have to have the spell as one of their signature spells to scribe it, and, if not, do they even need to be able to cast the spell?

Again, while these are questions I have, I don't need or expect an answer right away.

 

[Morrus]

Scrying, divination, and spellcraft work a bit different; it would be option (b) on your list.

However, these actions won't be spell lists for long. They're going to be included in the section on chases, interrogations, and other things, and be more attribute/skill-based. Especially spellcraft, which isn't really using magic at all; it's more just about understanding it.

Your second question - if I understand it - is no, a spell doesn't need to be a signature spell. You can only have a certain number of signature spells in your head at one time, and you can change those out, and your spellbook is a record of all the ones you've developed. There's no intention for there to be anything particularly special about a spellbook. The page on spellbooks is a little more complex than I'd like, and that'll likely get shortened down to something much simpler.

 

[Sniperfox47]

If the target-agnostic spells are being removed as spell lists than my first question is pointless. I'll just make a comment with regards to the second one.

The reason I was asking was specifically from the aspect of finding or buying someone else's spellbook to cast spells out of. For example, a human wizard's apprentice/loremasterII/mageII would have 8 magic and 10 intellect. If I understand the system as it stands, it could be highly worth it for them to contact a cleric and get a spellpage of lesser revivify (a Heal Life or Animal IV spell can can revive a touched person who's been dead for less than 10 minutes), and one of moderate revivify (Heal Life or Animal VIII spell for if they've been dead less than a day). Even if they may scoff at the religious notations on the spellpages, and likely wouldn't learn the spell lists on their own, a mage would be hard pressed to deny the spell's effectiveness.

Your second question - if I understand it - is no, a spell doesn't need to be a signature spell. You can only have a certain number of signature spells in your head at one time, and you can change those out, and your spellbook is a record of all the ones you've developed. There's no intention for there to be anything particularly special about a spellbook. The page on spellbooks is a little more complex than I'd like, and that'll likely get shortened down to something much simpler.

So correct me if I'm wrong but then can anyone with a high enough intellect (A.K.A. not dumb as a post) and enough knowledge to conceptualize a spell write it into a spellbook, even if they couldn't normally memorize/cast it? With the human mage above for example, could he write those spells himself if he got a book that explained how heal spells work, even though he may not have the ability to cast a heal spell list?

Additionally, if you're casting it from a spellbook, rather than via the magic attribute would it still have the 20mp hard-cap then?

I could see playing a "spellbook wizard" with a low amount of magic ability, who gains versatility from her intellect and book-smarts, rather than her magic potential, as an interesting idea. It seems like a primary loremaster would even be a good fit for such a caster. It would, however, benefit from more structured rules on spellbooks, as opposed to simplifying them.

 

[Morrus]

This may sound silly, but I've always liked the idea of what you call the "spellbook wizard" ever since I used to watch Buffy, years ago. I remember a scene where, I think, Giles was casting a spell from a book, following the instructions over a period of an hour or so, and everyone else was sitting in a circle lending something to the process. That's something I've wanted to include in a game for years.

 

[Sniperfox47]

It doesn't seem silly at all; I feel the same way. As much as I like spontaneous mages who cast spells using their raw magical ability, I also love the idea of mages who can use their knowledge and the knowledge of others to cast spells. While both might not fit in a given setting, I appreciate that you built in rules for both.

With regards to the "sitting in a circle lending something to the process" aspect, I've actually been thinking about how interesting circle magic/co-operative magic would be with a spell-system like this. If there isn't anything to that aspect in the full release I plan to to write up a rule variant for it. I spent all day at work thinking about all the nifty things that could be added, and how to balance them against their benefits. I'll obviously wait for the full release -no sense making supplements for a playtest document anyways- but I hope, if you don't include it yourself, I could get your blessing

 

[Khaalis]

This may sound silly, but I've always liked the idea of what you call the "spellbook wizard" ever since I used to watch Buffy, years ago. I remember a scene where, I think, Giles was casting a spell from a book, following the instructions over a period of an hour or so, and everyone else was sitting in a circle lending something to the process. That's something I've wanted to include in a game for years.

^^^
^^^
THIS! All I can say is YES PLEASE!

I've made up houserules for pretty much every game system I've ever used that had wizards for allowing them to cast spells from their spellbooks. Really, its THE classic image of the mage in his tower filled with a Library full of spell books.

 

[Khaalis]

With regards to the "sitting in a circle lending something to the process" aspect, I've actually been thinking about how interesting circle magic/co-operative magic would be with a spell-system like this. If there isn't anything to that aspect in the full release I plan to to write up a rule variant for it. I spent all day at work thinking about all the nifty things that could be added, and how to balance them against their benefits. I'll obviously wait for the full release -no sense making supplements for a playtest document anyways- but I hope, if you don't include it yourself, I could get your blessing

^^^
^^^
Again, THIS!

This, more than your typical d20/Vancian magic screams for actually having decent rules for Cooperative magic. Not to mention Traditions that Specialize in it. Witch coven, Mage Guild, Churches, Druid Circles, etc.? A resounding Yes. Personally, I'd rather it not be an "add on" and have the basic structure for it in the core rules, then maybe support an expansion using those base rules, including say the new traditions, examples of cooperative spells, "cooperative only" spell lists, etc.

 

[dekrass]

I would really like to see spellbook casting more fleshed out, and cooperative magic. Both are classics in fiction and woefully neglected in games.

 

[Morrus]

I would really like to see spellbook casting more fleshed out, and cooperative magic. Both are classics in fiction and woefully neglected in games.

This is the current draft. The difficulty values may be too low, though.

[h=3]Casting from a Spellbook[/h]
If you have access a spellbook, you can cast directly from it even if you have no magical ability. You simply need to follow the instructions exactly. This requires an INT check based on the total MP of the spell in question. The time taken to cast the spell is also significantly longer.

The difficulty benchmark to cast the spell is based on its total MP. You can never cast a spell with a higher MP value than your own INT attribute - it is simply too complex for you to understand. However, if the spell's total MP is equal to or lower than your INT attribute, you may make the attempt. Determine the target difficulty in the same way that you would determine a target's DEFENSE value, using MP in place of AGI.

A spell cast in this manner takes one minute per MP to cast. Additionally, the caster takes non-permanent HEALTH damage equal to the MP of the spell.

Co-operative Casting: Additional helpers can increase your maximum MP limit for the purposes of determining whether or not you can attempt to cast the spell. Each additional participant who remains actively present and helping for the entire duration of the spell (up to your INT attribute; so if your INT is 7, you can coordinate and instruct 7 helpers at most) can make a Challenging [13] INT check to add 1MP to the maximum MP value of the spell you can attempt to cast. Helpers take half the non-permanent HEALTH damage (round up) that the primary caster takes.

Extended Rituals: By extending the ritual from minutes to hours (so a 3MP spell would take 3 hours, and a 12MP spell would take all night) you can apply a +2 die bonus to the casting attempt.

 

[Sniperfox47]

To be perfectly honest with you I like the current system better, and if this replaces it in the full book I'd have to do some serious humming and hawing with my players to see if we should homerule it back.

It doesn't sit right with me for a few reasons that I've listed below. Keep in mind these are just my personal opinion on the topic; I don't pretend to speak for any of the other players.

A) By removing the requirement for a MAGIC stat of at least 1 to cast spells you're essentially saying that there's no special spark to magic. It's not a special essence that gives it power, but rather the actions you do. That bugs me on a personal level primarily because it doesn't fit well with my primary setting, although to be fair I'm sure there are some settings that it suits much better than the current system does.

B) You're essentially splintering your spellcaster rules. Instead of having all of your casters (mages, clerics, loremasters, druids, ect.) based off the same rules with each specializing in different areas, you're basically saying "People who have magic and want to use it do A. People who don't have magic but want to use it anyways do B." If you added a tradition focused around it then that's one thing , but if you start splintering the mechanics that opens up a whole 'nother can of worms. I could easily see a tradition for these new rules. Have them use the same rules as any spellcaster and just give them an effective magic attribute for the purposes of casting spells from spellbooks, and let them take HEALTH damage in place of MP "damage" if they don't have an MP pool.

C) You're essentially taking a spellcasting option, taking it away from spellcasting people, and giving it to non-spellcasting people... That just seems off to me. I like the versatility spellcasters have in the current version of the playtest where they can use memorization or casting from a spellbook to let them cast more powerful spells and spells they wouldn't normally know.


Like I said these are just my opinions on the new system after discussing it with my players, I don't mean to say it's bad or wrong or anything like that, simply that it strays from my tastes.