Elements of Magic: Questions for the Designer

Psion

Adventurer
One thing I really like about Mongoose books is that they have a page of designer notes that describes why they did what they did. In a way, I guess I would have like to have seen this for EoM revised.

So, I put to you, RangerWickett, this burning question:

What was the reason for going from one action as a baseline to cast spells to two full rounds and then requiring signature spells to bring it down? Not saying this doesn't work, but it definitely seems like a major shift in the flavor of the mage. I'm curious what motivated this change.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You're right. For a project that has this much new stuff, I probably should have included an explanation. I guess my subconscious thought I'd already typed one up, because I've explained it to playtesters and folks here on the ENBoard several times. So, I'll put up an official compilation of explanations, and make sure to include it in the sequel book.

As to your question, it was part flavor, part balance, and a lot of ease-of-play.

For the flavor, I knew the spell lists give you a lot of flexibility, and in combat, when time is tight, you might be tempted to min-max and use just the right spell for the situation, with precisely the right area, range, and so on. But because combat is where a lot of cool, dramatic stuff happens, it tends to become a big part of the history of your characters. I like it when spellcasting characters have spells that they use over and over; it gives them personality. So by encouraging people to use signature spells, it makes your magical 'fighting style' more distinctive.

Also, with signature spells, you'd feel less pressure to have tons of options available in combat, because you'd be content with a few well-designed spells you prepare in advance. This frees up characters to devote more spell lists to a particular motif, and less to the 'sorcerer syndrome.' I'm sure you've seen a couple threads where people bandy about what the 'optimal' list of spells known is for a sorcerer.

For the balance, it's again much the same problem -- too much flexibility making Mages with a good spell selection very effective. You can still take your time and have flexibility when you're not in danger, but in combat you've got less time to think of what's the best thing to do. I hoped this would be a happy medium between 'utility wizards' and 'blaster sorcerers.' Because Mages do still have a bit more flexibility even with the signature spell restriction, you'll notice their spells are slightly less powerful than what's available at the same level for core spellcasters.

Also, this emulates the sorcerer restriction that metamagicking a spell takes a full round.

Finally, and most importantly, for ease of play. . . . In one playtest, where a 20th level mage and a 20th level fighter faced off against an array of random monsters (including a tarrasque), the fighter's turn, even with four attacks and some number crunching to finagle out an effective power attack, took about a minute and a half. The Mage's turn, after he used Create Time to spend a few bonus rounds buffing himself and the fighter, then summoning monsters, then casting a weaker quickened create time to get one spare round then transmuted the floor under the tarrasque to mud, and ended with a 20-MP Evoke spell touch attack cast through an unorthodox usage of Move Space, took about 10 minutes.

Without the signature spell rules, spellcasters can take a long time creating spells on the fly. Even with a one full round casting time (the original time when casting a spell on the fly), it didn't deter many people, particularly when they had meat shields to keep them safe as they cast. A two-round casting time means concocting a spell mid-combat will keep the player busy for a while, during which time the rest of the group can continue on with combat.

Also, signature spells make NPCs easier for GMs to come up with. That's actually the biggest hurdle with adopting this sytem, because GMs usually won't want to slow down the action to come up with a complete spell for a mage villain on the fly. Players at least can think when it's not their turn, but GMs are always busy, so signature spells encourage a bit of advanced planning. And ... *cough* if you ever sort of stuck for ideas, you can just 'double check' the rules and make up a spell on the fly, but assure your players it was a signature spell.

Actually, I was hoping people would be interested in coming up with a bunch of example spells, so we could have a web compilation of possible signature spells. I think it'd be a nice resource for GMs, and it could impress players by showing them what kinds of nifty things are possible with this system.

Now, the logical result of the signature spell rules is that your signature spells will end up being your 'combat spells,' or rather 'action spells.' I don't really see a problem with that. You can still have a nice variety of 'action spells' that aren't all evocations -- one mage has been getting a kick out of creating tons of weird wall spells that let him change the battleground.

Any other questions?
 

mroberon1972

First Post
Effects of dispel against permanent items

On page 48 (second column), in the section on duration. It advises that the supression of magic is detailed below.

I found nothing.

Also, how does dispel effect permanent spells, such as a perm'ed version of "Man to Frog".

Are permanent spells treated as magic items that can only be supressed, or are they treated like using the permanency spell and can be dispelled?

How would you permanently add a spell effect to a person anyway? Things such as transform, charm or compel are common in fiction...


On a side note, I think this is a wonderful design, and can see where 4ctf influenced it in areas. Overall, it looks flexable enough to be useful, and simple enough to be used in regular play without killing a game.

My use of it will truly tell the tale, though. We will see.....

Ok, compliments are over. Back to work, mister!!!

<sound of whip cracking>
 

torem13

First Post
Question about detect magic

I have a question about detect magic on page 76. It states a cost of 0 mp and DC 10. Does this mean that a mage can detect magic at any time as long as he/she has a minute to spare?
 

mroberon1972 said:
On page 48 (second column), in the section on duration. It advises that the supression of magic is detailed below.

I found nothing.

Also, how does dispel effect permanent spells, such as a perm'ed version of "Man to Frog".

Are permanent spells treated as magic items that can only be supressed, or are they treated like using the permanency spell and can be dispelled?

Ah, it's not the most obvious connection, but on page 50, left column, "Dispel: A slightly more complicated use of Dispel Magic is to end an ongoing magical effect. If you attempt to dispel an effect that is permanent, instead you merely suppress it for the skill’s duration."

So you only suppress permanent spells, not negate them. On the whole, a permanent spell will cost more than an equivalent spell affected by Permanency would in the core rules, so we treat them like permanent magic items.

How would you permanently add a spell effect to a person anyway? Things such as transform, charm or compel are common in fiction...

The simplest way to make a permanent effect is to just use the permanent spell feat. If your opponent fails his save and you feel like spending a few hundred XP, you can make the spell permanent. Lyceian Arcana is also going to have an optional rule about specialized curses that don't cost XP, but that can be ended if you fulfill some sort of condition, like "must be kissed by a princess."

I'm glad you like the book so far. We're still working on getting stuff set up for people to post their own spells.
 

torem13

First Post
Creating objects

Also, How would you create a flaming sword. I know you use Infuse force/gen to create a wonderous item but it specifically states that invoke is not suppose to be use with wonderous item. So do you need both create charged and create wonderous item and then infuse the sword with force and the add invoke fire to it? How much would a sword +1 with 1d6 fire damage cost?

Thanks
 

torem13

First Post
torem13 said:
Also, How would you create a flaming sword. I know you use Infuse force/gen to create a wonderous item but it specifically states that invoke is not suppose to be use with wonderous item. So do you need both create charged and create wonderous item and then infuse the sword with force and the add invoke fire to it? How much would a sword +1 with 1d6 fire damage cost?

Thanks
Sorry, missed it the first read through. Infuse Force 1/Create Fire 1/Gen 1
Total price: 9000 gp.
 

torem13 said:
I have a question about detect magic on page 76. It states a cost of 0 mp and DC 10. Does this mean that a mage can detect magic at any time as long as he/she has a minute to spare?

Also, How would you create a flaming sword. I know you use Infuse force/gen to create a wonderous item but it specifically states that invoke is not suppose to be use with wonderous item. So do you need both create charged and create wonderous item and then infuse the sword with force and the add invoke fire to it? How much would a sword +1 with 1d6 fire damage cost?

Thanks

For Detect Magic, that's not quite right. First, you have a limit to how many 'free cantrips' you get each day, so you can detect magic whenever you want, as long as you have free cantrips to spare (or you want to spend 1 MP after your 'free' cantrips run out). Also, it would only take 2 rounds to use detect magic, not a minute, but of course you might've been using 'minute' in a more colloquial sense.

As for a flaming sword, under Create [Element] there's the option for an elemental weapon enhancement, so you can use Infuse Force 1/Create Fire 1/Gen 1 to create a +1 sword that does +1d6 points of fire damage. Since it's a total of a 3-MP effect, the cost to create a permanent enhancement of this type would be 9,000gp. I know, it's not exactly the same as the 8,000 for a core rulebook +1 flaming sword, but it fits into the standardized cost system of the rest of the magic items in the book, and isn't a huge change, so hopefully its benefits outweigh its drawbacks.
 

anondragon

First Post
Permanent spells: spell lists

First off great work on the revision, it has come a long way.

For the permanent spell, if I want to grant spellcasting ability (using a spell list) to a non spell casting creature I would need to grant the spell list and a mana battery. This counts as two spell effects on a creature. What would the cost be if I wanted to combine this into one effect?

Thanks
 

anondragon said:
First off great work on the revision, it has come a long way.

For the permanent spell, if I want to grant spellcasting ability (using a spell list) to a non spell casting creature I would need to grant the spell list and a mana battery. This counts as two spell effects on a creature. What would the cost be if I wanted to combine this into one effect?

Thanks

Hmm. You know, I'd never actually considered the costs of combining a permanent charged effect and a permanent non-charged effect in the same permanent spell. I'd suggest going the same route as the core rules, which says that dissimilar abilities put onto one item that fills a single 'body slot' cost 100% for the first one, and 150% for the second.

So, take the cost of the one more expensive of the two (charged or enduring), and use its base cost. Then add 150% of the cost of the cheaper of the two.
 

Remove ads

Top