Anyone picked up True Sorcery?

[dalfen]

+5 DC per +1 to saves

Hmm.. thanks for the advise. When I playtested, I will post the results.

Thanks for your quick answer.

 

[ValhallaGH]

I had a thought that a caster be able to cast any spell, even the unknown, though at a hefty penalty. Something along the lines of -(10 * Manitude of Spell + 10) to the Spellcraft check. So -10 for dabbler spells, -20 for first magnitude, to -40 for third magnitude. Big enough to be daunting but not so big that it can't be attempted by a caster with enough time and resources.
Having the spell chosen by one of your Talents would mean that you know it, so you wouldn't take the unknown spell penalty on your spellcraft check.

Any thoughts from you folks? I'm particularly interested in input from those who've used the BCCS system a lot.

(( Yes, this is a cross-post from another forum. I felt the need to expand my audience. ))

 

[Nebulous]

I had a thought that a caster be able to cast any spell, even the unknown, though at a hefty penalty. Something along the lines of -(10 * Manitude of Spell + 10) to the Spellcraft check. So -10 for dabbler spells, -20 for first magnitude, to -40 for third magnitude. Big enough to be daunting but not so big that it can't be attempted by a caster with enough time and resources.
Having the spell chosen by one of your Talents would mean that you know it, so you wouldn't take the unknown spell penalty on your spellcraft check.

Any thoughts from you folks? I'm particularly interested in input from those who've used the BCCS system a lot.

(( Yes, this is a cross-post from another forum. I felt the need to expand my audience. ))

Last year i adapted Ars Magica 4th edition to d20 rules. It had a mechanic where you could try to cast spells beyond your capability, but it took time, and you needed to expend resources to accomplish it. So yes, i think that such a mechanic is possible in TS. Incidentally, i was thinking about bundling Air/Earth/Fire/Water into a single Elemental Lore talent. Would that still be balanced? I mean, you're still limited by all the subdamage they deal.

 

[iwatt]

Last year i adapted Ars Magica 4th edition to d20 rules. It had a mechanic where you could try to cast spells beyond your capability, but it took time, and you needed to expend resources to accomplish it. So yes, i think that such a mechanic is possible in TS. Incidentally, i was thinking about bundling Air/Earth/Fire/Water into a single Elemental Lore talent. Would that still be balanced? I mean, you're still limited by all the subdamage they deal.

If you keep it limited to the Lore spells (and not the create energy), it shouldn't be too unbalancing. You could give casters all 4 lore spells, but he must choose one elemnt as main. The opposing elemnts takes a -10 penalty to Spellcraft. The other 2 elements would take a -5 penalty. If you want a more powerful (and symetrical) alternative you could go with +5,0,0,-5 instead.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Last year i adapted Ars Magica 4th edition to d20 rules. It had a mechanic where you could try to cast spells beyond your capability, but it took time, and you needed to expend resources to accomplish it. So yes, i think that such a mechanic is possible in TS.

Thanks. I realize it would drastically alter the tone of magic in the game but I also think that it would be a cool thing to see and do, and I've become increasingly engrossed by doing cool things in game. Now, my question is, is my proposal balanced or do I need to make it even more difficult?

Incidentally, i was thinking about bundling Air/Earth/Fire/Water into a single Elemental Lore talent. Would that still be balanced? I mean, you're still limited by all the subdamage they deal.

It all depends on how you percieve elemental casters in your setting. As is, the system is perfectly arranged for an element-based magic system such as most oriental traditions, including Shugenja, where each caster specializes in a specific element and there are some common overlapping areas. If you prefer that everyone who messes with elements to be equally capable with all elements then it shouldn't be too much of an issue to lump them all together. I don't think you should give all four of the persistant bonuses, though.

 

[Nebulous]

Thanks. I realize it would drastically alter the tone of magic in the game but I also think that it would be a cool thing to see and do, and I've become increasingly engrossed by doing cool things in game. Now, my question is, is my proposal balanced or do I need to make it even more difficult?

without actually playtesting, i 'd say it sounds balanced. It wouldn't happen very often as those high DC's would discourage most people from even trying, except for Dabbling a little. This system is great for incorporating magic items and synergistic material components that boost you when you need it. I recall the apprentice from Dragonslayer who could recreate all of his master's magical tricks, but only when he held his master's magic necklace. Otherwise, he couldn't even pull off parlor tricks.

 

[Nebulous]

I had a thought about failing to cast a spell. In D&D, it is often discouraging to try and do something, and still fail and actually be useless for a round. I thought that highly lessened spell effects, after a check failure, could still produce something at least interesting. A Fire Lore spell could spurt sparks that deal 1hp damage, or a failed Water Lore could dump fog in a huge wet puddle. It would be totally up to DM fiat. Come to think of it, that would be a neat addition to the spell block, consequences of failed castings.

 

[ValhallaGH]

I had a thought about failing to cast a spell. In D&D, it is often discouraging to try and do something, and still fail and actually be useless for a round.

How is rolling a 1 on a casting check any different from rolling ones on attack rolls? The combat class that rolls a bunch of ones 'wastes' its action just as surely as the caster who's spell fails to cast. I've heard many complaints about the caster but I've never heard complaints about the combat class (away from the game table); I wonder why that is?

 

[Nebulous]

How is rolling a 1 on a casting check any different from rolling ones on attack rolls? The combat class that rolls a bunch of ones 'wastes' its action just as surely as the caster who's spell fails to cast. I've heard many complaints about the caster but I've never heard complaints about the combat class (away from the game table); I wonder why that is?

It's not. You're right, it happens all the time. But when a PC rolls a 1 on a combat roll, i always embellish it with a description of what actually happened, even though they were still "useless" for that round. I was just thinking along the same lines with a spellcaster, to maintain a consistent feel that you are meddling with vast and often uncontrollable powers.

 

[ValhallaGH]

It's not. You're right, it happens all the time. But when a PC rolls a 1 on a combat roll, i always embellish it with a description of what actually happened, even though they were still "useless" for that round.

That arguement point worked! *happy dance*
I shall have to remember it for future debates.

In seriousness, I don't actually have anything to add to that part.

I was just thinking along the same lines with a spellcaster, to maintain a consistent feel that you are meddling with vast and often uncontrollable powers.

I see a couple of options, then. First is to come up with some flavorful descriptors for your mages, just as you do for your warriors ("You speak the final words and a column of flame briefly surrounds the armored warrior. He steps forward and it disappears into a cloud of ash, flaking off of his cloak.") Second, you could come up with some sort of minimal mechanical benefits which would do almost exactly the same thing, flavor wise, but introduces the possiblity of destroying a foe with a failed spell. Third, you could follow one of Mike Mearls's magic systems and have the spell randomly affect a nearby target in the way least beneficial to the caster; so the bull's strength affects the minotaur rather than the barbarian, or gives a -4 penalty to the barbarian's strength, or makes one of the paladin's arms fall off or some other horrible thing.

The third option is one I can't agree with, since it's like having fumble tables again and I've always hated fumble tables, even before I had to roll on one.
The second option would be okay except I don't want a failed casting, that still deals 1 point of damage, to actually drop anyone, not even a sickly peasant. It's a failed casting and, like a failed attack, that should leave the target unaffected.
The first option is the one I'd like to see more of but most GMs lack either the time or the imagination to do it properly. Assuming that I'm typical for GMs, probably not valid but I'll assume it for this arguement's sake, it's mostly a matter of not having the time in or out of game to come up with cool descriptors for failed actions.