Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 3750706" data-attributes="member: 32740">That would be a BAD way to go about designing it, IMO.&nbsp; If you're trying to simplify a system and you want to encourage use of more utility spells you're not doing yourself any favors by building in &quot;conversion&quot; mechanics.&nbsp; What you do is build in mechanics where casting ANY general utility spell simply DOES NOT AFFECT your ability to cast combat spells.You make combat spells a constant, repeatable ability with little or no limit on the number of times it can be cast.&nbsp; Like shooting arrows or swinging a sword you cast your combat spells and simply DO DAMAGE.&nbsp;&nbsp; But then you've got a list of spells you can cast once in every encounter - maybe certain buff spells, debuff spells (reducing enemy ability to hit or reduced enemy damage) or standard useful combat NON-damage effects like slow, sleep, hold, and of course some of your utility spells would likely fall into this category.&nbsp; Using them won't cut into your basic combat spells at all.&nbsp; Then you've got a list of per-DAY spells which are much more powerful and which you'll only get to use a few of them in a given day.&nbsp; Those would probably be the Vancian spells so as you increase in level you get more slots but still have a very limited number of them available so you need to be more selective about when you use them and what you want them to do.&nbsp; Some utility spells would fall into this category.THAT is the kind of system I think they're talking about.&nbsp; People seem to locked into thinking of things in terms of how they are done NOW and trying to apply the same principles.&nbsp; Probelm is those principles are being thrown OUT for new and better methods.&nbsp; Spell CONVERSION, is what you do to an all-Vancian system to get around it or make it act more flexibly.&nbsp; We're talking now about the system being more flexible in how the spells are actually USED (or not used) in the game and not NEEDING to do stupid, clunky things like conversions.At least I hope so...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Man in the Funny Hat, post: 3750706, member: 32740"] That would be a BAD way to go about designing it, IMO. If you're trying to simplify a system and you want to encourage use of more utility spells you're not doing yourself any favors by building in "conversion" mechanics. What you do is build in mechanics where casting ANY general utility spell simply DOES NOT AFFECT your ability to cast combat spells. You make combat spells a constant, repeatable ability with little or no limit on the number of times it can be cast. Like shooting arrows or swinging a sword you cast your combat spells and simply DO DAMAGE. But then you've got a list of spells you can cast once in every encounter - maybe certain buff spells, debuff spells (reducing enemy ability to hit or reduced enemy damage) or standard useful combat NON-damage effects like slow, sleep, hold, and of course some of your utility spells would likely fall into this category. Using them won't cut into your basic combat spells at all. Then you've got a list of per-DAY spells which are much more powerful and which you'll only get to use a few of them in a given day. Those would probably be the Vancian spells so as you increase in level you get more slots but still have a very limited number of them available so you need to be more selective about when you use them and what you want them to do. Some utility spells would fall into this category. THAT is the kind of system I think they're talking about. People seem to locked into thinking of things in terms of how they are done NOW and trying to apply the same principles. Probelm is those principles are being thrown OUT for new and better methods. Spell CONVERSION, is what you do to an all-Vancian system to get around it or make it act more flexibly. We're talking now about the system being more flexible in how the spells are actually USED (or not used) in the game and not NEEDING to do stupid, clunky things like conversions. At least I hope so... [/QUOTE]

Verification