Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After some experimenting with some spells I discovered, that it is laboriuos to develop spells, because one needs to look at least at two spell lists: the effect spell list and the general list. Switching between the required lists is time-consuming. I think that EoM is the first magic system which needs computer power for easy developing, too - a nice computer program comes into my mind...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not a normal poster, just a lurker.

However, I'm going to throw my 2 cents worth in on this one...
I find it quite interesting that you almost need a computer program to help you out with the spell system. I know what you mean....
About 15 years ago (ack, that's scary to think about ::wry smile:

, I worked on developing a new magic system. I called it the Spell-Weaver magic system. Why? Because they "wove" spells as they went along. They didn't have spells they had to memorize out of a book like Mages (as they were called then) did. My Spell-Weavers were slightly less powerful (under normal circumstances) than Mages, but MUCH, MUCH more versatile.
Enter EoM... As soon as I saw the first version, I bought it. It was somewhat like my original system, but much easier to work with because of the spell lists.
Enter EoM 2... This is probably what the Spell-Weaver magic system would have turned out like, had I decided to keep going. I did do some play-testing and such with them, but quite frankly, I got bogged down in all the details of making spells.
Spell-Weavers had Bases and Advantages. EoM2 has spell lists and the General area. (My Advantages were pretty much the General area, but broken up.) I called it mana, EoM2 calls it MPs. I called mine Book Spells, EoM2 calls them Signature Spells.
One of my failures was that I put some randomness in things. Every spell you cast required you to roll 2d10 + caster level + Int bonus to determine if you successfully cast the spell. This meant that you had "safe" spells (or safER spells), but could also throw some bigger stuff that might possibly blow up on you. I also had penalties for casting non-Book Spells (negatives to your roll).
Between having to roll for every spell, figuring out Book Spells, calculating what you had to roll for every spell, recalcing Book Spells when you went up a level, and coming up with spontaneous spells on the fly, things were just too tedious. Quite frankly, I decided that, in order to run a Spell-Weaver, I needed a computer program. At the time, I didn't have a computer, so it wasn't too terribly feasible.
The moral of the story? Don't try to outsmart yourself like I did. I had a WONDERFUL, diverse method of casting spells. I could do tiny effects with no range, tiny effects with a MASSIVE range (or area, etc.). I could emulate the low-level mage trying to cast a spell a little too powerful for himself, or an arch-mage casting a REALLY big spell as a, "I may be going down, but I can certainly take you and the surrounding area with me." type of thing. But... the simple truth of it was, the Spell-Weaver magic system was just too complex.
After buying and reading the first EoM, I had been toying with resurrecting the Spell-Weaver magic system and finishing it up, with a long, hard look at simplifying the system. But, after reading what RangerWicket had posted about EoM2, I have changed my mind.
I am very excited about EoM2 and the implications. I just want to stress that you need to make sure that you keep things playable. I created a system that was the most diverse system I had ever seen. It was also unplayable. Please make sure you don't follow the same path. ::wry smile::
And here ends my 2 cents. (With inflation, I think it turned out to be about $100. ::chuckle:: )
Michael