[GRIM TALES] How much do you customize spell lists in your campaign?

[Azgulor]

Ok, couple of baselines you should know:

I hate the standard D&D spell system. I have, however, recently been seduced by OGL and Grim Tales material.

I like low magic and traditional swords-n-sorcery style fantasy: Thieves' World, Conan, etc.

The only exception to my hatred of as-written D&D spell mechanics is the concept of cleric domains. I like being able to differentiate priests/religions based on their abilities as well as their beliefs.

I'm planning on using the Grim Tales spellcasting system for the campaign.​

Per Grim Tales, it's suggested that spell availability be determined by the GM. I've already decided that spells such as Teleport, Dimension Door, Haste, Raise Dead, Resurrection and alignment-based spells are history (since allegiances will be used instead). My plan for divine adepts was to tweak the domain lists as needed to create a list of eligible "teachings" that the religion could impart to its priests.

However, there still seem to be a lot of spells that kill the "low magic" feel - Plant Growth and Continual Flame being two prime examples. I like the spell level system but I'm suspecting that striking a few spells may not go far enough in preserving the low magic feel. I particularly dislike the spells that work differently based on target's hit die or provide permanent affects as 2nd, 3rd, or 4th level spells.

For those Grim Tales fans out there, do you take a hatchet or a scalpel to the standard list of spells? Or are the spellcasting rules in Grim Tales enough to do the trick? Or do you look at alternative spell lists/spell creation rules? It's taken a lot of convincing to get my players to look at d20/OGL games (we abandoned AD&D years ago) and I want this experience to be successful.

Azgulor

 

[Hjorimir]

I know Wulf may shoot me for this (or at least shoot my character in his PbP game here on ENWorld), but I think the term low-magic is something of a misnomer for Grim Tales. Really, casters can do some amazing things and do them much, much sooner than they can in traditional D&D. Granted, they can kill themselves trying as well.

I think of Grim Tales magic more in the scarce or rare category really. I'm not sure you need to worry too much about certain spells killing the "low-magic" feel as the casters will face full burn (without resistance) 1-in-20 castings. Remember that any drain over and above your Str score rolls into Con.

 

[Turanil]

For those Grim Tales fans out there, do you take a hatchet or a scalpel to the standard list of spells? Or are the spellcasting rules in Grim Tales enough to do the trick?

When I will run a GT campaign, I will ask my players who cast spells, what spells they wish to have. Then, I will have their PCs find those among such spells that are okay for my campaign. Since the PCs must find their spells and cannot get them automatically due to some game mechanics, it's easy to implement. On the other hand, I won't bother to do spell lists.

 

[Azgulor]

Thanks for the feedback, Hjorimir & Turanil.

...but no one else? Bueller? Anyone? Bueller?

I have to think I'm not the only one out there that thinks that many of the D&D spells hurt the swords-n-sorcery feel as depicted in literature and film.

Does everyone really stop with just implementing different spellcasting mechanics? No one modifies the spells available in their campaigns?

Azgulor

(some more feedback, please! Otherwise, I might have to post another unnecessary 4e speculation thread just to teach you a lesson ! I think we've gone 4 or 5 days now without one...)

 

[The_Universe]

Ok, couple of baselines you should know:

I hate the standard D&D spell system. I have, however, recently been seduced by OGL and Grim Tales material.

I like low magic and traditional swords-n-sorcery style fantasy: Thieves' World, Conan, etc.

The only exception to my hatred of as-written D&D spell mechanics is the concept of cleric domains. I like being able to differentiate priests/religions based on their abilities as well as their beliefs.

I'm planning on using the Grim Tales spellcasting system for the campaign.​

Per Grim Tales, it's suggested that spell availability be determined by the GM. I've already decided that spells such as Teleport, Dimension Door, Haste, Raise Dead, Resurrection and alignment-based spells are history (since allegiances will be used instead). My plan for divine adepts was to tweak the domain lists as needed to create a list of eligible "teachings" that the religion could impart to its priests.

However, there still seem to be a lot of spells that kill the "low magic" feel - Plant Growth and Continual Flame being two prime examples. I like the spell level system but I'm suspecting that striking a few spells may not go far enough in preserving the low magic feel. I particularly dislike the spells that work differently based on target's hit die or provide permanent affects as 2nd, 3rd, or 4th level spells.

For those Grim Tales fans out there, do you take a hatchet or a scalpel to the standard list of spells? Or are the spellcasting rules in Grim Tales enough to do the trick? Or do you look at alternative spell lists/spell creation rules? It's taken a lot of convincing to get my players to look at d20/OGL games (we abandoned AD&D years ago) and I want this experience to be successful.

Azgulor

To extend your analogy, I cut down the tree, take it to the mill, and distribute the resulting lumber as I see fit.

Basically, the only spells that exist are the ones carefully placed in the campaign. Imagine someone treating a scroll of Locate Object like it was an artifact worth more than the life of a hundred men - that's the kind of rarity control I'm talking about.

 

[Henry]

Thanks for the feedback, Hjorimir & Turanil.

...but no one else? Bueller? Anyone? Bueller?

I have to think I'm not the only one out there that thinks that many of the D&D spells hurt the swords-n-sorcery feel as depicted in literature and film.

Does everyone really stop with just implementing different spellcasting mechanics? No one modifies the spells available in their campaigns?

I don't play a lot of GT, but I've seen multiple meagic systems used because it's so modular. One of my favorite has to be the Black Company Campaign Setting's magic system, which has been implemented this year by HeapThaumaturgist, and Old One in their respective campaigns. It works well, and does not overpower the game with its effects from what I've seen. For myself, I might not implement many teleportation or divination magics, but I can't think of too many that would harm the campaign. One thing to remember is that in GT's base magic system, spells KICK THE SNOT out of their casters, even if proficient in it, so there's no (A) buying magic-casters for hire, and (B) your PCs aren't going to be using it regularly, because no one wants their PC to be so vulnerable all the time.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I've said it before but I am sure this won't be the last time.

Don't start with a "baseline" of "All Spells" and then try to take a scalpel to it.

Start with a baseline of "NO SPELLS" and then, one by one, decide which spells you want in your campaign.

It sounds like you have a good framework to start from: Start with a few gods/traditions and build domains with exactly what spells you want.

I just recently started up a GT play-by-post, and one of the players started with an Arcane Adept. I emailed him a list of 4 spells that his character knows: three 0-level spells and a higher level spell. That's it. As far as he knows, those are the only 4 spells available in the entire campaign. At such a time as I feel like my campaign needs another spell-- a decision based solely on my needs as the GM, not his needs as a spellcaster-- then I may make that new spell available for discovery.


Wulf

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I'll nod towards Wulf on this.

Take them all out, and add in ONLY the things you think will be most excellent and cool in your particular campaign. Don't try to decide if Magic Missile is necessary or not, just cut it out and add it later if YOU think you'd like it.

I think one thing that GT lacks that might be helpful is a collection of spell lists for different flavors of campaign. And I think alot of people don't have that information at hand because we "wing it" so much with the spell system ... we decide somewhere along the way that Flaming Hands would be a nice spell and include Flaming Hands.

I'll provide a secret I've used many many times in my home games: Call of Cthulhu d20 spells. ALOT of those spells have great flavor for a S&S style game, while having pretty nice opportunity costs.

Red Sign of Shudd'mel is a wonderful Fireball replacement, for instance. It can do damage to multiple targets ... but does that damage over time, and continually saps the caster's strength score, meaning it gets brought out only when it's needed.

Same with Deflect Harm ... that spell is better than ice-cream, or Mage Armor, in that it totally negates a certain number of incoming attacks ... but the cost is concentration on the spell and 2 Int damage per attack deflected.

Drive Out Demon, etc. Cage of Kind.

At the back of the book they have a "CoC spells to D&D spells" level conversion, which puts most of them pretty high in level ... because many of the spells are powerful, and in the CoC game have corresponding deep opportunity costs in Sanity and Ability Damage. I tend to drop the level of the spell by 1-2 and KEEP the ability damage components of the spell.

I've made the CoC spells an entire spell system in and of themselves before, for GT games, by taking the sanity damage and doubling it, then making it a nonlethal damage roll, and keeping the ability score costs. I had a player with Red Sign who played an entire campaign and used it ONCE ... he had it, he knew he could use it, and it was fun to watch him bite his lip and decide if it was worth getting so heavily hurt for it, then deciding NOT to ... gotta love it.

--fje

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I had a player with Red Sign who played an entire campaign and used it ONCE ... he had it, he knew he could use it, and it was fun to watch him bite his lip and decide if it was worth getting so heavily hurt for it, then deciding NOT to ... gotta love it.

This is as close to the perfect result as I could envision. This is the delineating difference between a proper GT spellcasting setup and regular D&D.

 

[Old One]

I've said it before but I am sure this won't be the last time.

Don't start with a "baseline" of "All Spells" and then try to take a scalpel to it.

Start with a baseline of "NO SPELLS" and then, one by one, decide which spells you want in your campaign.

It sounds like you have a good framework to start from: Start with a few gods/traditions and build domains with exactly what spells you want.

I just recently started up a GT play-by-post, and one of the players started with an Arcane Adept. I emailed him a list of 4 spells that his character knows: three 0-level spells and a higher level spell. That's it. As far as he knows, those are the only 4 spells available in the entire campaign. At such a time as I feel like my campaign needs another spell-- a decision based solely on my needs as the GM, not his needs as a spellcaster-- then I may make that new spell available for discovery.


Wulf

As player of the PC referenced above...the spells provided really fit the "flavor" of what we are trying to accomplish. I actually did get several higher level spells to choose from...but only got one...which made the decision very difficult. I don't know if this is a foreshadowing of the GT Magic book...but Wulf also gave me an "enhanced" effect for each spell...attainable if I submitted to a GT Horror Check !

The effects are relatively powerful (particularly for the higher level spell), but failing a horror check is bad. Add to that the chance of my PC failing one is pretty high...she only has a 10 CHA...so I will need to carefull weigh the temptation of the significant powerboost with the very real chance of a bad result!

Good stuff!

~ OO