Topic: Feedback on Scalable Spells for RMSS/RMFRP

[Ecthelion]

Hi,

if you have feedback on the Scalable Spells for RMSS/RMFRP article in the January issue of The Guild Companion, then please post it here. It like to hear whether people liked the article or what the criticism might be.

Thanks

[ironmaul]

This brings back memories. I was working on something simular but a little more generic. I'll come back to this when I have a little time to spare.

[markc]

 I was thinking that scalable spells would keep more of the RM feel of spell list and less of the HARP scalable spells style.


MDC

[Ecthelion]

Where do you think the "feel" of the spell lists gets lost? I mean the spell lists are still the basis of the system, and the scalable spells simply replace the spell slots for the higher level spell versions. So I had thought that it would be a good combination that keeps spell lists and smoothly adds some scaling on top.

[ironmaul]

Could a general formula for increasing the area of effect, range and/or duration be devised, so that it would not be necessary to create scaling options for changes to these spell parameters for every spell list?...

I believe it can. I spoke about this with Tim D way back here. But to illiterate, you have a number of spell values to think about such as:
Size,
Distance,
Radius,
Area of Effect,
Duration,
Critical,
Velocity,
Weight,
Resistance Roll.

Not all spells will have these values but if can work some sort of PP cost for a certain size effect/affect then your half way there. I have notes on this somewhere but is finding them worth the effort.

Something else you might want to read, it's about cantrips.
This was my thought on it.

Unfortunatly, RM's current spell system has put itself in a situation where it can't have 0lvl/0PP spells/cantrips. What would have been prudent in it's creation is not to conform to the 1PP = 1st level spell mechanic. If they would have thought about making first level spells start at 4-5PP then they could have made 1-3PP spells as cantrips. Nothing can be done about it which is a shame...perhaps next version they might take heed...

Overall I think your article is worth merit but the RM spell system is the let down for any efforts of any balanced scaleability.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

It's another option.. however IMHO not strictly necessary IF the spell mastery rules (which achieve the same thing albeit by increasing difficulty and cost in DP rather than PP usage) are used to thier full potiental.

I'm not sure whether the presentation of listing the scalable options for each seperate spell list is better than spell mastery (which is limited to one page of modifiers) either.

However, I liked the idea of trimming the spells that simply are, in effect, a scaled repetition of a lower level spell.

[Ecthelion]

Personally, I would rather get rid of the Spell Mastery skill. IMO with scalable spells we could:
a) Trim the spells that are scaled repetitions, just as you mentioned.
b) Remove the Spell Mastery skill by adding scaling options that are now covered by Spell Mastery. And perhaps, as Ironmaul suggested, this could even be done (at least in partial) with some general scaling options and not with a bunch of scaling options per list.

Noticably the HARP system, which uses scalable spells, does not need a Spell Mastery skill and I have not been a single thread where people complained about the lack of such a skill. So I think scalable spells can replace this skill, and in a good way.

YMMV

[Grinnen Baeritt]

Not everybody likes Harp's method of scalable spells... so don't play the system, let alone comment on it.

I'm not 100% against some element of PP scaling being involved but think there should be an alternative that uses skill rather than simply increased PP useage. For what I've experienced of Harp as a player, spell casters lack variety compared with RM, this mainly due to the costs of purchasing spells with that system preventing it. Obviously not so much of a problem with RM because Spell lists intrisically are more generalised in their effects.

If this sort of thing were to be adopted by me then I'd also have to seriously consider boosting the PP available to spell-casters.

[Ecthelion]

If this sort of thing were to be adopted by me then I'd also have to seriously consider boosting the PP available to spell-casters.

With "sort of thing" you mean the proposed scalable spells for RM? Because that basically does not affect PP usage at all. Or do you mean a replacement of Spell Mastery by scalable spells? That might have an effect of PP usage, considering that the current rules don't mention additional PP requirements for spells modified by Spell Mastery.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I think that's why I would increase the number of PP. As you rightly said, currently, there are no pp increases when modifying a spells effects with Spell Mastery.

The scaling element, when used to replace a "duplicate, naturally scalable" spell.. is a good idea, and, as you mentioned makes no real difference PP-wise.

However, the addition of other parameters than those simply that increase between levels of duplicate spell (i.e. modifying a spell in a manner only currently available when using spell mastery) do quite substantially increase the cost in PP over what spell mastery allows for no addition in pp cost.

Does this scaling come with a limit (other than pp available to cast it with), if you scale a 1st level spell by adding +3pp does that make it a 4th level spell to cast, learn, both or just can be cast if you have sufficent PP?

 

[Ecthelion]

However, the addition of other parameters than those simply that increase between levels of duplicate spell (i.e. modifying a spell in a manner only currently available when using spell mastery) do quite substantially increase the cost in PP over what spell mastery allows for no addition in pp cost.

OK, understood. Thanks.

Does this scaling come with a limit (other than pp available to cast it with), if you scale a 1st level spell by adding +3pp does that make it a 4th level spell to cast, learn, both or just can be cast if you have sufficent PP?

In the article scaling a 1st level spell by adding +3PP makes it a 4th level spell in all respects. That way spell casters have access to exactly the same spells (except for a few more options) as with the current lists and the power balance remains untouched. But the article does not yet cover simulating Spell Mastery via scaling (it only touches the topic in the "More options" section).

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I am firm believer in there being options in which a basic magic spell can be boosted so I'm not completely adverse to the scaling of spells.

I myself allow a caster to pump extra PP into low-level elemental spells (Bolts and Balls) to apply a multiplier to the concussion damage of a spell (can't remember which version of Spell Law an option allowed this) which I consider to be the "sledgehammer" approach and/or Spell Mastery which I consider to be the "finesse or the less is more" approach.

I suppose my retisence on this type of solution is that, having seen Harp-type formating of spells, which as IronMaul pointed out meant a lot of repetition which could be better handed in a unified table. What I don't want to see is a few spells being over-analysed with differing restrictions upon what they can and can't have done to them as to make them too mechanical in nature. 

Freedom to use spells in unusual and intelligent ways is what I want from a system, for the moment Spell Mastery allows the greatest diversity for players with the least amount of rulebook, true in places it has faults (which I feel are more about a Gm's interpretation than anything else).

What would probably be more acceptable to me would be restricting scaling to things where the power behind the spell affects certain mechanical aspects... Range, Radius, Duration, Concussion Damage, RR modifiers whilst others such as number of targets and other manipulation effects would be the realm of Spell Mastery... however, I also believe, that certain aspects can enhanced with efficency and skill which comes with a risk.   

[Mordenkainen]

Let me chime in in favour of the status quo. There is already a for a player to think about in a game of RMFRP. At least with the current approach he largely just has to choose a spell from a list and cast it, rather than worry about tweaking its parameters. It's easy and it works.

[Moriarty]

I think the proposal for scalable spells is well thought out and executed, considering scalable spells in RMSS/FRP is the goal of the article.

However, I also have to agree with Mordenkainen and others that Rolemaster doesn't need scalable spells. It is true that scalable spells give players more options, but at the cost of greater complexity. The simple presentation of spells in complete and ordered lists works very well in Rolemaster, and is one of the things that doesn't need fixing.

It is true that there is a great deal of repetition in some of the spell lists. I don't consider this problem critical, because often there isn't pure repetition, e.g. instead of 'As Fire Armor except grants +20', there might be 'As Fire Armor except grants +20 and reduces Fire criticals by one level'.
I believe the issue of pure repetition on spell lists could be adressed by removing some of the repetitions, adding more unique spell effects, and working some of the scalable options into the individual spell descriptions where appropiate.

[Ecthelion]

I think the proposal for scalable spells is well thought out and executed, considering scalable spells in RMSS/FRP is the goal of the article.

Thanks 

However, I also have to agree with Mordenkainen and others that Rolemaster doesn't need scalable spells.

True, it certainly does not need scalable spells.

It is true that scalable spells give players more options, but at the cost of greater complexity. The simple presentation of spells in complete and ordered lists works very well in Rolemaster, and is one of the things that doesn't need fixing.

Yes, if it works don't fix it is most often the right choice. I only created the implementation of scalable spells presented in the article because I have seen the request for scalable spells in RM quite often in the forums, e.g. see
- http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=9401
- http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=319
- http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=10036.msg128605#msg128605
- http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=5174.msg124725#msg124725
(there's many more)
So even if, admittedly, RM does not need scalable spells, there might be some demand from players. I agree that there is no point in making RM's spell system overly complex by introducing scalable spells. But if scalable spells get done right they might offer a lot of flexibility and only increase complexity a small bit - at least I hope that this will be possible.

[rdanhenry]

Here's one more vote for it being a serviceable job of doing something I see no need to do in the first place. I don't allow changing spell parameters with Spell Mastery, either. You want to scale your magic up? That's what Ritual Magic is for.

[ironmaul]

But if scalable spells get done right they might offer a lot of flexibility and only increase complexity a small bit - at least I hope that this will be possible.

I think this is possible and would like to find the answer too. If others don't want scaleable spells as some of you guys here have indicated, then that's fine by me. But there are some of us who would, so what harm is there of us talking about it amongst ourselves?

[rdanhenry]

I don't think anybody said "BAD BAD SPELL-SCALERS! DON'T DO THAT!!!" and I hope nobody will, but "It's not broken, but I won't use it" is legitimate feedback, too. There would also probably be less of it if there weren't "revision" threads going on at the same time, but an "it's look okay to me, even though I'm not interested in it myself" is actually a positive comment. Actually, my last article in Guild Companion was about the Arcane Lich, which I submitted because I thought it was a pretty cool idea, even though I would never use it myself, because I don't use Arcane magic.

[Ecthelion]

The simple presentation of spells in complete and ordered lists works very well in Rolemaster, and is one of the things that doesn't need fixing.

What about the following idea to mitigate the problem you mentioned:
Scalable spells are presented as an option only, with a separate page in Spell Law explaining how to use the option. In addition to the few spell slots filled in my article we again fill as many as possible of the removed slots with scaled versions of the spells on the list. The scalable spells (i.e. not the scaled versions) get marked in some way in the spell lists (could be italic font, a § or other character after the spell name etc.). The result would be spell lists in a very similar way as in the current Spell Law, where the player can simply pick a spell from the list without bothering about any scaling options, but with the option to use spell scaling, if he likes.

Would that help?

[Moriarty]

Interesting idea. To be honest, I think I would prefer to have the scaling options, if I were to have them, integrated into the spell descriptions like I suggested, not separated from them.

One possible way to do this: The lowest level version of a spell would be the most basic with no scaling options, and as level goes up, so would the available scaling options, and/or the number of scaling options that may be chosen when casting the spell.

This would give game designers maximum freedom when making spells with scaling options. Are we certain that darkness scales the same way light does, for example?

This might also open up for characters choosing between a number of scaling options as 'picks' when improving their level with a spell list, but I haven't thought that one through yet.