A couple rhetorical questions about spellcasting
Sniperfox47
First Post
I just don't understand the problem with a knight having to spend XP on 1 point of magic if he wants to be able to cast magic...
There's no problem with that, if that's what you want in your game. Generally, when some people want an option and some don't, it's better to present the option than to withhold it. For some, they've enjoyed stories which have non-magical people reading spells from books; for others, maybe not. One thing these games strive for is a toolkitesque aspect - they're not trying to replicate a specific setting, but give you the tools to create your own setting. That then leaves it up to you as the setting creator what magic options are available.
Sniperfox47
First Post
Which is precisely why I don't understand it. Why would you strip away an option that gives spellcasters some versatility, even if to give that versatility to someone else...
[Edit] I'm sorry. I guess this probably comes off as whiny. I don't have a problem with you using the new system in place of the old one. It just confuses me.
[Edit] I'm sorry. I guess this probably comes off as whiny. I don't have a problem with you using the new system in place of the old one. It just confuses me.
It's not stipping away anything. I think you may have misunderstood. It's an additional option for those who like the idea. It doesn't replace anything.
Sniperfox47
First Post
My apologies . I read the header and assumed it was replacing the current rules for dealing with spellbooks. I should have asked that instead of jumping to conclusions.
[edit] Just got back into town. I had thought the header matched with the section from the playtest document, but now that I have my copy in front of me I noticed that it only roughly matches one small portion of the spellbook section.
Do you mind if I ask whether it will be replacing the section for casting directly out of a spellbook (labled "CASTING SPELLS FROM SPELLBOOKS" on page 116, the section I mistook it with) or would it be in addition to them? I know you said it wouldn't be removing anything, but I want to make sure I've got the full story this time. Now that I can read through them together and compare them I realize there's only a few changes:
1) Use INT to determine max mp instead of it not being capped.
2) Much easier INT checks
3) Longer casting time
4) Always a health cost in place of MP (and Health if you fail badly).
Now that I've taken the time to read it I don't think it would be a *huge* loss even if it did replace "CASTING SPELLS FROM SPELLBOOKS", as long as the section on prepared spells sticks around. I like the current rules, but I can see why they might get dropped in favor of a simpler system.
The way I see it though follows (correct me if I'm wrong):
1) If it replaces the current "CASTING SPELLS FROM SPELLBOOKS" section and preparing spells remains there'd be very little point in primary casters using the system (any spells they could cast with this they could just prepare anyways), assuming their magic stat is higher than or equal to their INT. It would be significantly cheaper than this option, and although it pre-allocates some MP it would be much more viable at a moment of need. I could see them using this is for low-mp out of combat spells, but I haven't had too much of that come up in the couple playtests we ran.
2) If it augments the current system the above applies, so primary casters likely wouldn't use it, but they have the other method to go by which would be of great use when trying to cast a powerful spell they normally couldn't.
1 & 2) It introduces an interesting new system for secondary casters and non-casters who have little or no MAGIC stat but a lot of INT.
I apologize again for my confusion earlier. If it's not removing options elsewhere I can never object to adding in more options xD
[edit] Just got back into town. I had thought the header matched with the section from the playtest document, but now that I have my copy in front of me I noticed that it only roughly matches one small portion of the spellbook section.
Do you mind if I ask whether it will be replacing the section for casting directly out of a spellbook (labled "CASTING SPELLS FROM SPELLBOOKS" on page 116, the section I mistook it with) or would it be in addition to them? I know you said it wouldn't be removing anything, but I want to make sure I've got the full story this time. Now that I can read through them together and compare them I realize there's only a few changes:
1) Use INT to determine max mp instead of it not being capped.
2) Much easier INT checks
3) Longer casting time
4) Always a health cost in place of MP (and Health if you fail badly).
Now that I've taken the time to read it I don't think it would be a *huge* loss even if it did replace "CASTING SPELLS FROM SPELLBOOKS", as long as the section on prepared spells sticks around. I like the current rules, but I can see why they might get dropped in favor of a simpler system.
The way I see it though follows (correct me if I'm wrong):
1) If it replaces the current "CASTING SPELLS FROM SPELLBOOKS" section and preparing spells remains there'd be very little point in primary casters using the system (any spells they could cast with this they could just prepare anyways), assuming their magic stat is higher than or equal to their INT. It would be significantly cheaper than this option, and although it pre-allocates some MP it would be much more viable at a moment of need. I could see them using this is for low-mp out of combat spells, but I haven't had too much of that come up in the couple playtests we ran.
2) If it augments the current system the above applies, so primary casters likely wouldn't use it, but they have the other method to go by which would be of great use when trying to cast a powerful spell they normally couldn't.
1 & 2) It introduces an interesting new system for secondary casters and non-casters who have little or no MAGIC stat but a lot of INT.
I apologize again for my confusion earlier. If it's not removing options elsewhere I can never object to adding in more options xD
Last edited:
I agree with this line of thought. I like that any character can learn magic, but I like it in the context that the career system is somewhat akin to multiclassing on steroids. The peasant boy isn't casting magic because he happened to come across an old, dusty spellbook, but because he has a natural talent that he never new he possessed until he came across that old, dusty spellbook and got himself into a bit of trouble. He may not want to devout the time and effort to develop the skill further, but he knows that if something should come up, he has a source that may prove helpful.
Some people may like for everyone to simply be able to pick up an spellbook and use it, but as a storyteller, I would prefer that the player invest something for the privilege by either being born to the right race, selecting an appropriate career or spending XP. I don't object to a sidebar stating an option to ignore the requirement for MAG 1 to cast from a spellbook, but I feel that the core rules should include the requirement.
Ok, a few thoughts...
p107 of the current play-test Doc "Anybody Can Cast Spells" should remain in tact. I think that the only way someone without at least MAG 1 should only be able to cast a spell using something that has the necessary magic already imbued into it (scroll, wand, etc.). Otherwise you simply don't have the mojo to just pick up a spellbook and start weaving spells. The "Optional Rule" should be that for a more magical world where anyone can read a spell and make it work, you can Remove the MAG 1 restriction.
HOWEVER...
I do think that "Ritual Casting" can open this restriction as part of the rules if...
Someone without any magic talent needs to harness the power for the spell from somewhere. There should be some form of rule for how to attain this power, whether sacrificing something magical or by accumulating a set of ritual components or a "place of power" and combined with time and Health sacrifice, etc. It should also retain the restriction of the spell being a "signature spell" and the effects are only as they were written in the spell, not an open ended ritual.
On another note, I think that a spellcaster should have it easier and get more benefit from casting from a spellbook than a non-spellcaster, but currently (assuming I read this correctly)...
- Spellcasters = INT [13+MP] check
- Non-Spellcaster = as defense so... INT [(MP-1)*1.75] check
So a caster casting an MP 5 spell needs an INT [18] check while the non-caster needs an INT [8] check?
Am I reading that correctly or did I miss something (I just came off a 14 hr shift so its likely I read it wrong)?
p107 of the current play-test Doc "Anybody Can Cast Spells" should remain in tact. I think that the only way someone without at least MAG 1 should only be able to cast a spell using something that has the necessary magic already imbued into it (scroll, wand, etc.). Otherwise you simply don't have the mojo to just pick up a spellbook and start weaving spells. The "Optional Rule" should be that for a more magical world where anyone can read a spell and make it work, you can Remove the MAG 1 restriction.
HOWEVER...
I do think that "Ritual Casting" can open this restriction as part of the rules if...
Someone without any magic talent needs to harness the power for the spell from somewhere. There should be some form of rule for how to attain this power, whether sacrificing something magical or by accumulating a set of ritual components or a "place of power" and combined with time and Health sacrifice, etc. It should also retain the restriction of the spell being a "signature spell" and the effects are only as they were written in the spell, not an open ended ritual.
On another note, I think that a spellcaster should have it easier and get more benefit from casting from a spellbook than a non-spellcaster, but currently (assuming I read this correctly)...
- Spellcasters = INT [13+MP] check
- Non-Spellcaster = as defense so... INT [(MP-1)*1.75] check
So a caster casting an MP 5 spell needs an INT [18] check while the non-caster needs an INT [8] check?
Am I reading that correctly or did I miss something (I just came off a 14 hr shift so its likely I read it wrong)?
Sniperfox47
First Post
You're reading that correctly, however a noncaster needs an INT 5 to cast that spell (into equal to MP) which gives him 3 dice with an average 10.5 roll anyways.
A spellcaster just needs a Magic stat of 1 and the ability to make that check (possibly by using skills and high quality tools).
It still seems very "off" to me. Even assuming that a caster "may" have more dice to make the check it still seems very imbalanced toward the non-caster. I may have to do some sample math to check this.
Similar Threads
