Anyone picked up True Sorcery?

[JohnSnow]

While we are on that subject. Can anyone see a reason NOT to have a focus for every spell/talent you know?

In Jim Butcher's Dresden Files, Harry Dresden has the following "focus items."

His ring.
His blasting rod.
His shield bracelet.
The silver pentacle he inherited from his mother.

I believe that's it. Each item is keyed to particular spells. Harry can cast without them, it's just a WHOLE lot easier if he has them. He also has his wizard's staff, which we're never quite sure about. He can only use one focus per spell, except maybe his staff. The staff may just be a really obtrusive piece of equipment that's keyed to several spells, giving Harry more of an edge. However, I don't believe he can use it to replace his blasting rod when that item gets broken. But I may be mistaken. I haven't read that particular story in a while.

He refers to it as the "magical equivalent of carrying a howitzer." Take that as you will. The rest of his gear is less obtrusive. Come to think of it, he has some spells that are tied to his duster too.

 

[rjs]

<brief thread hijack, nothing to see here move along>

rjs, your icon is the crazy baby mask the torturors wore in 'Brazil' correct?

Yes. Yes it is.

 

[Nebulous]

In Jim Butcher's Dresden Files, Harry Dresden has the following "focus items."

His ring.
His blasting rod.
His shield bracelet.
The silver pentacle he inherited from his mother.

I believe that's it. Each item is keyed to particular spells. Harry can cast without them, it's just a WHOLE lot easier if he has them. He also has his wizard's staff, which we're never quite sure about. He can only use one focus per spell, except maybe his staff. The staff may just be a really obtrusive piece of equipment that's keyed to several spells, giving Harry more of an edge. However, I don't believe he can use it to replace his blasting rod when that item gets broken. But I may be mistaken. I haven't read that particular story in a while.

He refers to it as the "magical equivalent of carrying a howitzer." Take that as you will. The rest of his gear is less obtrusive. Come to think of it, he has some spells that are tied to his duster too.

cool. I haven't read those stories, although i like the gist of it. I think that is exactly how i would implement Foci in TS. And staffs (and other items) would give you Spell Energy bonuses, to expend when you need to.

 

[ValhallaGH]

1) Create undead says it has a duration of one minute in the spell block, but in the description it says that animated creatures remain so until destroyed.

Later in the description it does mention that the spell can be used to command undead for the duration, so I assumed that is what the duration is used for (though it should be more clear), but then under the sample spells, ‘Call Wraith’ has its duration extended to an hour.

If the Wraith is permanent, why extend the duration?

From my reading I've concluded that created undead last forever, and are almost always in your charge; the duration is for controlling undead that you did not create. The spell is used for both effects and in the description duration is only mentioned during the section on controlling others.

 

[zaffudo]

Yeah, that’s what I figured was the intention when reading the spell text, but then the examples caused me to question that interpretation.

I’m wondering, from an IH standpoint (and I post it here cus the thread there seems alittle dead) if it isn’t better to keep the duration. Under RAW IH you can’t create more than a skeleton or a zombie, and it can’t have more then 8 HD.

While I think those limitation are too harsh, even for IH, I’m alittle leery of Arcanists with permanent Wraiths & Shadows in an IH setting. With the fact that the spell no longer has a minute casting time and can be used in combat to immediately animate a fallen foe, what do you think about an IH house rule that keeps the duration?

Also, it seems as if there’s no difference in animating a 20HD corpse as opposed to a 1HD corpse. From what I can tell that means that, regardless of the corpse, you get a standard 1HD skellie or 2 HD Zombie with this spell.

I think it would have been nice to have the option of animating more powerful skeletons/zombies based on HD if I didn’t feel like a mummy or what-not.

 

[ValhallaGH]

I’m alittle leery of Arcanists with permanent Wraiths & Shadows in an IH setting.

This is why all those commoners keep their torches handy and their pitch forks sharp.
"Go away or I'll eat your souls!"
"Kill the filthy mage!" Fifty commoners with pitchforks, torches, and starting the fight in melee range can kill any arcanist, even a level 20 one.

Man, I do love IH.

Also, it seems as if there’s no difference in animating a 20HD corpse as opposed to a 1HD corpse. From what I can tell that means that, regardless of the corpse, you get a standard 1HD skellie or 2 HD Zombie with this spell.

Look at the skeletons and zombies of non-human corpses. You want more impressive basic undead? Raise the corpses of more impressive creatures.

Though a mummy red dragon would be a sight to behold.

 

[zaffudo]

But there’s no cost associated with animating a more powerful creature. The DC for animating the skeleton of a 1 HD commoner is apparently the same as animating the skeleton of a 20 HD dragon.

It just says that you create a skeleton & that’s it.

You can either interpret that to mean that, regardless of the creature type, bones=bones and a single HD skellie is created. Either that, or it means that for the exact same drain and at the exact same DC you could animate the remains of a Gray Render/Dire Bear/Insert big scary monster here.

Now I don’t like the boring aspect of the first interpretation, and I really don’t like the potential unbalance in the second.

 

[Miln]

what about Grim Tales

What does everyone think about integrating True Sorcery with Grim Tales? Months back there was a lot of discussion about converting BCCS to Grim Tales so it seems that True Sorcery should make that an easier process.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Zaff: Good points. I suspect that Create Undead will have a host of errata coming for it soon.

I hope they catch some more of those pesky typos before it hits the printer. I always feel like a book is second rate when I pick it up and find lots of typos, even when I know it's not. (Most of them are in the various spell descriptions, such as Enhance Object.)

Miln: It will dramatically alter the feeling of magic in your GT games, but it should convert over pretty easily. Replace the Magical Adept talent with the Dabbler or Student of Wizardry ability, then either resign yourself to introducing Advanced / Prestige classes to Grim Tales or figure out how to adapt the magnitude progressions and the Talent feat into a normal Grim Tales progression.
It's going to be a bit of work but the basic mechanics are very transferable. The real question is how you choose to implement it into Grim Tales's class system, which is based upon how common and powerful you want your magic to be.

 

[JohnSnow]

Now I don’t like the boring aspect of the first interpretation, and I really don’t like the potential unbalance in the second.

Which just means that we need to expand the True Sorcery rules to take into account the difference between a humanoid skeleton and a giant/dragon/bugbear one.

How about a cost per HD? Doesn't really sound too unbalancing. Especially if you're not getting hosed on duration.

What? Don't look at me like that...

This is why all those commoners keep their torches handy and their pitch forks sharp.
"Go away or I'll eat your souls!"
"Kill the filthy mage!" Fifty commoners with pitchforks, torches, and starting the fight in melee range can kill any arcanist, even a level 20 one.

Man, I do love IH.

Me too Val, me too. Although I sometimes look at all the hate for campaigns like that and just shake my head...

We're such freaks. All of us.

*chuckle* I just realized. Combining Iron Heroes with True Sorcery, making the Grey Mouser is a cake walk. That's just cool.

I’m wondering, from an IH standpoint (and I post it here cus the thread there seems alittle dead) if it isn’t better to keep the duration. Under RAW IH you can’t create more than a skeleton or a zombie, and it can’t have more then 8 HD.

While I think those limitation are too harsh, even for IH, I’m alittle leery of Arcanists with permanent Wraiths & Shadows in an IH setting. With the fact that the spell no longer has a minute casting time and can be used in combat to immediately animate a fallen foe, what do you think about an IH house rule that keeps the duration?

First, the way to get that thread going again is to post in it.

I check it on a regular basis, but nobody ever raises anything for discussion over there. Maybe we just all feel that the whole Enworld community needs to hear the gospel of Iron Heroes? Or maybe not... :\

Getting back to your question, I could see a situation where the default duration in IH was permanent. You could require specific circumstances or sacrifices to create permanent wraiths and shadows. To me, those fall into the "dark and scary" undead category. I've thought about making a lot of the True Sorcery spells "Duration: Concentration." For instance, rather than making the character cast "Fly" to last for an hour, it should last as long as he can concentrate on it. That lowers the DC for doing it, but makes it harder to keep it up. Not exactly bad.

Of course, I've got a whole list of campaign-specific tweaks planned for this spell system. I'm looking at a setting that's kind of Birthright-esque. Which I think will fit REALLY well with Iron Heroes and True Sorcery magic.

Basically, classic sword & sorcery stuff. Maybe I'll rewatch The Sword & The Sorceror for inspiration.