[Iron Heroes] Magic oddities.

[MacMathan]

As I understand it that would only happen on a 1 (DC20 on a d20+10 roll so max failure is 9). Otherwise it just fails to come into being or you have a 30hd dragon on your side.

For conjuration I am thinking about a DC increase. Alternatively many of the potential issues, like a basilisk being summoned at mid-levels, can be eliminated if the PC and DM work together to come up with a reasonable summon monster style list of creatures before hand. IMC this would be necessary also as the summoner is required to have the monster stats printed out and on hand, not from the DM's MM, to use the creature.

 

[Kaos]

Yeah but that backfiring can be a counter to that. I mean, I can conjure a dragon, but it might turn on me!

The DC and spell mastery requirements mean there's only a 1 in 20 chance of that happening, and even that is only because of an exception made for rolling a 1.
At level 20 (when you get ultimate mastery,) you don't even risk that anymore.
Compared to the risks and effects for other methods, it's out of scale.

(Which is my problem. Weak spellcasters wouldn't really bother me; too-strong spellcasters would only be a minor irritant. Even unbalanced schools wouldn't bug me too much, if an arcanist got equal access to all schools. But when he gets a tiered access, and one or two schools clearly overpower the rest...)

As a sidenote: if your group has very weak numbercrunchy elements, it's possible they'll overlook the issues and things will be fine (from a fun perspective, at least.)

 

[HeinorNY]

thread

There is a nice thread in Monte Cook's forum. I believe the guys there are making some good progress analysing and fixing the magic system.

thread

 

[Particle_Man]

I was doing some number stuff. Is this right?

Assuming the primary discipline is conjuration, then a 17th-19th conjurer can create up to 4 dragons per day of 30 HD (before needing to make fort saves to gather mana and avoid ability drain). However, there is a 50% chance of channelling failure, and a 5% chance of the dragon attacking the arcanist. The arcanist has a 1x/week ability to make one of those dragon creations only have a 5% chance of failure and no chance of turning on the arcanist.

At 20th level the arcanist conjurer gains a huge leap of power, and now can create up to 4 dragons per day of 30 HD (and likely can squeeze out one more than his 17th-19th conjurer rival, given that he has more points and his fort save after "going into the negatives" is higher). Now he has only a 5% chance of failure and no chance of the dragon turning on him. Kinda like a Gate spell, except the Gate spell would get a tougher monster, but cost xp.

However, a knowledgable 20th level Thief can use the Lord of Lies power to kill that Arcanist. Bluff: "Quick! Summon 8 Old Red dragons right now to save the city from certain doom in 6 seconds! I'll help you succeed with this ancient artifact!". Arcanist doesn't get a Sense Motive check in the first round, so casts the spell, and has enough of a mana pool to do it if fresh. But the channeling roll will certainly be a major disaster. And then the Arcanist will be almost out of mana and dealing with 8 Old Red dragons that want to do nothing in the next 100 minutes but kill the acanist.

 

[Kaos]

Assuming the primary discipline is conjuration, then a 17th-19th conjurer can create up to 4 dragons per day of 30 HD (before needing to make fort saves to gather mana and avoid ability drain). However, there is a 50% chance of channelling failure, and a 5% chance of the dragon attacking the arcanist.

Yes.

The arcanist has a 1x/week ability to make one of those dragon creations only have a 5% chance of failure and no chance of turning on the arcanist.

Not entirely sure on that; the rules for the pact say that you can get a total bonus up to your level, but in other spots say only up to +10. AIUI, it means you can get up to your level as an available "bonus pool," but can only spend up to 10 points of it at a time. This would mean the 17th level arcanist can get a +10 bonus and a +7, or a +9 and a +8, or various combinations adding up to +17 (but no individual bonus being over +10.)

However, a knowledgable 20th level Thief can use the Lord of Lies power to kill that Arcanist. Bluff: "Quick! Summon 8 Old Red dragons right now to save the city from certain doom in 6 seconds! I'll help you succeed with this ancient artifact!". Arcanist doesn't get a Sense Motive check in the first round, so casts the spell, and has enough of a mana pool to do it if fresh. But the channeling roll will certainly be a major disaster. And then the Arcanist will be almost out of mana and dealing with 8 Old Red dragons that want to do nothing in the next 100 minutes but kill the acanist.

Huh.
That seems to work. Nasty.

 

[MacMathan]

For purposes of modification I have been somewhat ignoring the 20th level abilities IH classes get. They seem to be oriented to provide epic level power without having to actually go there.

 

[swrushing]

Interesting discussion.

I have been eyeing Ih as the source for my next campaign, along with BCCS and others, and had onyl done preliminary scans of the system so these points are well recieved.

My initial thoughts, coming off a 2 year midnight game, lean differently.

I don't see "evoker is weaker than the other shcools of mage" as necessarily a problem rather than a bit of setting nature. Certainly in midnight there are road blocks set to put the evokers down a notch or so and thats worked fine. our mage hasn't done by any means the best he could but the play has shown just fine the value of mages who are "blasting challenged."

So, my initial instincts were "don't change it and either let the players know "this is not an evoker balanced campaign" or "disallow evokers altogether and let the other schools carry the magic burden." I am leaning towards the latter since it will even further differentiate the campaign from the more usual fantasy realm.

Now, i get that the autor isn't as happy as he could be with the magic system, which is a far cry I think from the "its broken" notions, but does the magic system work fine EXCEPT for evoking? I can easily see a game where evoking isn't possible being fun and different so if the rest works OK, even still keeping the mages a little below par is fine imo, then i think i can quite possibly avoid any significant magic system overhaul to bring that one element up to parity.

So, does it work fine EXCEPT for evokers being weak?

Edit for clarity: if it matters for answering the question, consider character levels of 5-15. Thats where 90% of my games "playtime" occurs so i don't mind if "2nd level mages are fragged" or what starts happening at 19+ levels.

 

[Kaos]

Interesting discussion.

So, does it work fine EXCEPT for evokers being weak?

Depends on what you mean by 'fine.'
Conjuration needs DM supervision, not a huge deal unless the DM is lazy (or you want a base system that limits the necessity of GM fiat.)
Necromancy is arguably a bit too easy for healing, but not brokenly so IMO. The animate method is irksome, in that the DC scales beyond practical capability faster than the utility of the undead you can animate.

Abjuration, Divination and Transmutation seem more or less fine. Illusion is... complex.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Depends on what you mean by 'fine.'
Conjuration needs DM supervision, not a huge deal unless the DM is lazy (or you want a base system that limits the necessity of GM fiat.)

not a problem for me.

Necromancy is arguably a bit too easy for healing, but not brokenly so IMO.

hmmm... marked for closer inspection.
this is the one most worrisome.

The animate method is irksome, in that the DC scales beyond practical capability faster than the utility of the undead you can animate.

hmm... i always did not get why the various undead making spells did not emulate the conjure model, with an adjustment for long term control where needed?

Abjuration, Divination and Transmutation seem more or less fine. Illusion is... complex.

expected.

thanks!

 

[Particle_Man]

Not entirely sure on that; the rules for the pact say that you can get a total bonus up to your level, but in other spots say only up to +10. AIUI, it means you can get up to your level as an available "bonus pool," but can only spend up to 10 points of it at a time. This would mean the 17th level arcanist can get a +10 bonus and a +7, or a +9 and a +8, or various combinations adding up to +17 (but no individual bonus being over +10.)

I interpreted that differently. Since the ability was gained at level 9, I assumed that it meant that the bonus (your total for the week) could be no higher than +9 when you are level 9, and no higher than +10 when you are level 10-20. I don't know which interpretation is right.