Topic: Friday's Question of the day..... Spell List, Scaling and Going Over the Top

[Thom @ ICE]

Again, thanks to everyone for the open discussion on these topics.  It's greatly appreciated to hear everyone's thoughts and points of view.   Feel free to continue the previous discussions.


Today, I wanted to talk about spells... yes, those wonderful things that let characters do what the players can't.


When it comes to spells the ICE systems are either -
Spell Lists - where you develop skill in the list and gain related spells as your abilities in that list grow
Spell Scaling - where you learn spells independently but the power of those spells can be boosted by scaling them up


I'll freely admit that I like spell scaling and the freedom it gives the caster.
I'll also admit that I much prefer RM's lists over the widespread options in HARP.
I'll also say that I want to see a mix of the concepts, and also go over the top with spellcasting....


Here's the concept, so feel free to blast away at it. 
* All spells are assigned into Lists (same spell can be in multiple lists)
* Each spellcasting profession has a group of lists that they can access (in some case they have options - pick 1 of these 3 kind of thing) - this part of the profession's abilities (Ability to cast spells - channeling, essence, mentalism) and then Access to X number of lists
* Spells are learned individually from accessible lists (HARP style)
*No such thing as Universal Spells, if you want to cast spells without being a spellcaster buy a spellcasting ability and then buy access to the spell list
* No Rank Requirement on Scaling.  If you have at least 1 rank in the spell you can try to scale it to the max (this is going over the top).  Every PP spent on the spell has a spellcasting penalty of -5.
ex: A 5PP spell is always cast at -25, regardless of your number of ranks in it.  Your casting roll adds in your skill bonus, so if you want to be good at casting the spell you are best to develop it otherwise expect a lot of failures.
* A failure in casting a spell always has a potential of negative results.   (Fumbles are even worse)


In the end, the concept is to better focus the spellcaster onto specific lists of spells.  The concept is also to allow players to decide their risk/reward without limitation if they have some degree of knowledge regarding the spell.


If my apprentice magician was taught how to create a small fire intended to light candles or campfires, and the tower is being assaulted by an army of soldiers wanting to kill him for using magic, if he wants to try to scale that up and make a giant bonfire manifest itself in front of the door as he looks out one of the windows, then let him try it.   Magic is a dangerous thing though, and if he doesn't get a really lucky roll he could end up burning the tower door, or starting a fire in his own chambers, or simply spontaneously combust himself (worst case scenario)....   But if he has incredibly high stats perhaps his natural affinity is good enough, along with fate helping his roll, and he may be successful.   


Current rules just say that he doesn't yet have that knowledge (not enough ranks) and therefore he can't do it.


Thoughts???
(Not just on the "over the top" part, but the whole spell list, scaling, etc. concept)
Thanks!

[jdale]

Considering how much overcasting my players are willing to do already, I'd be pretty hesitant to remove rank limits.

I have not actually played HARP. I have played with a magic system with individual spells and a tree structure (X spell is a prereq for Y spell), and with improvisation (which works out a lot like scaling). I found it... unmagical. Personal preference I suppose. Spell Lists end up giving you a lot of options that you would not have thought to purchase, but which you find ways to use on the fly. It seems like you end up more versatile through that serendipity.

With regard to combining RM lists and HARP scaling...  perhaps you could replace the spell at a certain level on the list with a scaling option. E.g. instead of having Fire Bolt I and Fire Bolt III with greater range, you would have Fire Bolt and Increased Range. Increased Range would allow you to increase the range of any spell on the list. There are currently spells that work like that but are cast separately (e.g. after casting this spell, the next spell you cast will have its duration extend to X). There could be a scaling mechanic for enhancement spells that make the combined effect a single casting attempt. Restricting the scaling options to those actually found on the list would eliminate a lot of the places where the authors did not foresee X and Y being used together and breaking things.

[Cory Magel]

I have thought about this only a little over the years.

I love the idea of scaling in HARP, but I really hate the generic feel of spells in it.  While I would like to implement scaling into my RM games, I just don't see it being worth the trouble.  Why?  Because the RM spell lists effectively simulate the same thing, especially when you factor in spell mastery or manipulation type skills.  Buying 10 ranks of a spell in HARP and buying 10 ranks of a spell list in RM generally accomplish the same thing in the end.  When you look at what you spend on the various skills from a higher viewpoint they have similar end results... which shouldn't really be surprising.  Each give the illusion of a different level of control on what you're learning.  Yes, the HARP way gives you more detail with one spell, but the RM way provides a small range of other options.

I do wonder if having shorter spell lists (say ten unique, non-duplicated spells) in RM that could then each be scaled would work well.  However you'd really have to detail out the various power levels of scaling to match the RM spells.  I'm not talking about the small increase in scaling, but more like... it would be difficult to have that 50th level spell which has a much broader impact than just a really scaled up individual spell.  Also, similar to jdales comment, you end up with much less variation when concentrating on an individual spell rather than a broader list.  This has a broader reaching impact than is immediately obvious as all those side spells start to reveal options you didn't think of at first.  Our group is sometimes good at finding very creative ways to use spells that we 'just happened' to develop while trying to reach others on a given spell list.

[Warl]

Some times the Spell lists, for me, get in the way. I haven't ever used Harps system, but it also seems to have it's issues from the threads I have read on it.

That being said, I would Like a system with Base "Effects" that can be altered and Increased for effect, (Kind of Like the Heroes/Champions Power system ) where the Effect, target/Area of effect, Duration, and range can be altered.

I have my own world where there is General Magic, and then there is another more specific type of magic that people might have talents in. (Like Telepathy, Telekinesis, Teleportation) Some one might have several of these more specialized abilities. But I would like them to work in a manner very much like scaling instead of having "Spells".

For the magic system I would Like it to be a bit more freeform, but there are those who work by ritual spells, especially those of lesser "strength/power" that makes them easier. (In my world, there are 3 basic levels of "Magical talent" that determine the Strength of the user as well as the Ease they have in "working" the power )

[Thom @ ICE]

Some times the Spell lists, for me, get in the way. I haven't ever used Harps system, but it also seems to have it's issues from the threads I have read on it.

That being said, I would Like a system with Base "Effects" that can be altered and Increased for effect, (Kind of Like the Heroes/Champions Power system ) where the Effect, target/Area of effect, Duration, and range can be altered.

I have my own world where there is General Magic, and then there is another more specific type of magic that people might have talents in. (Like Telepathy, Telekinesis, Teleportation) Some one might have several of these more specialized abilities. But I would like them to work in a manner very much like scaling instead of having "Spells".

For the magic system I would Like it to be a bit more freeform, but there are those who work by ritual spells, especially those of lesser "strength/power" that makes them easier. (In my world, there are 3 basic levels of "Magical talent" that determine the Strength of the user as well as the Ease they have in "working" the power )

For the most part you are describing HARP's spellcasting with scaling. A definite strongpoint of HARP.
The weakness is that the Mage Spell Sphere includes 50+ spells that the player gets to choose from.  I want them to select 3-5 lists which give them 25-50 spells to choose from, but the spells are all tied together in concept. (or at least in those 3-5 groups)

[Justin]

I haven't ever played HARP. I have very little issue with RM(2)/C spell organizing.

I find the entire concept of lists and learning by list portions unique and interesting. However, I felt like it was too slow for semi-casters. That's most likely a setting desire, but RM up to RMC III or IV have a ton of semi-casting professions compared to pure arms. This eventually drove me to using the option for purchasing spells one at a time.

I was also disappointed in some higher lvl spells (like Landing I vs Landing V or something,) where both spells did something X per level. Why spend more PP for the same effect? Earlier spells should have a limit or higher spells have a better ratio (Y/lvl where Y>X.)

[tbigness]

This is a hot topic for me as I keep crossing back and forth between Harp and RM spell list for my campaigns. I have recently switched to the Harp system of spells and find it does not give you the depth of spell variation due to maxing out individual spells as a list does with its variety of effects. On the other hand most of the RM list are nothing but scaling of the lower level spells. What I would like to see is a combination of these.

Fire Mastery

Self emulation: Minimum 1 rank. (3-6" projection of fire from finger scaled to whole body with crit scaling)
Environmental Manipulation: Minimum 2. ranks (Area tempature control for heat from 32-270 degrees scaling area and temp with scaling heat crit)
Object Heat Manipulation: Minimum 3 ranks Increase heat on the surface area of objects up to 300 degrees (scaling on 5 degree increments and surface area with concentration)
Fire Projection: Minimum 4 ranks. Flames burst from hands (scaling on cone distance per 5' and crit severity)
Fire Bolt: Minimum 4 ranks. Normal as per rule (with scaling of x damage and distance as scalable)
Fire Area of Effect: Minimum 5 ranks. As in call fire affects 10x10 area (scaling effects in area, distance and crit severity)
Fire Shield: Minimum 3 ranks. Brings up a shield of flame that gives DB and morale attack (DB, Crit Severity is scalable but limited) (morale attack is fear vs fire + damage received by shield)
Fire Wall: Minimum 5 ranks. Creates a !0' high x 10' wide x 5' deep (dimensions are scalable per 5' increment and crit severity)
Elemental Summoning: Minimum 6 Ranks. Summons a Tiny elemental of fire !' tall that is controlled by concentration (scalable for height, control (concentration, command))
Fire Ball: Minimum 10 ranks As per rules (Area of Effect, Distance, Damage multiplier is scalable)
Fire Storm: Minimum 40 ranks. Creates multiple fireballs in an Area of Effect (Area of Effect, amount of fireballs, Distance and Damage multiplier is scalable.)
Volcanic Eruption: Minimum  60 ranks. Creates an Area of Effect Multiple rock throw damage with Heat crits at same level as Crush crit (Area of Effect, distance, Environment heat and Damage mulitplier are scalable)
Meteor Swarm: Minimum 100 Ranks. Creates a metal fire storm in an Area of Effect multiple Heavy crossbow attacks with (Environmental crit, and Fire Ball crit of 2 lesser levels)


My concept would be to use a rank minimum for casting these spells but not skilling ranks in each spell but the list in general. Scaling options cannot exceed the ranks in the list developed for casting unless done as a ritual.

[Thom @ ICE]

Now take that concept - add scaling - require the min # of ranks to cast the spell, but then allow scaling without extra ranks, but understand that there is a significant casting penalty for all scaling.
That's my proposal.

[tbigness]

that is online with what I was thinking about. +1

I do like the development of cantrips and universal spells in all Realms though. Cantrips can be learned by others and universal spells can be accessed like open spell list but by any realm. Harp had a great list of these which I allowed a purchase of 2 cantrips per rank invested. I also divided these up into realms like open list. These were minor spells that added flavor but did not portray any major unbalance due to the Harmlessness of most of the spells.

[Thom @ ICE]

While I acknowledge that some settings use magic so widely that Universal spells are needed - for me, I hate them. There was nothing worse for me than having that tank of a warrior hit 7th level after having reached that magic 20th rank (when ROI is not worth it to continue developing the skill) and they suddenly use those extra DP to start adding spells.  It was the smart thing to do from a min/max standpoint, but from a roleplaying concept it was horrible.


I required a Mana Access talent and spellcasting talent (given free as professional abilities to all spellcasting professions) before anyone could cast a Universal spell.  I think it was Grumpy who gave me the idea, or maybe MarcR.
After that no one ever bothered.


Cantrips I would also require the Mana access in order to learn them, though spellcasting talent would be required in order to go beyond cantrips.


I have always loved cantrips for spellcasters though.....

[Witchking20k]

Am I reading correctly that all spells  would be considered as Skills.  Would it be a Static Maneuver like in RMFRP?
Each PP would incur a -5 Penalty.  So, a level 3 Spell would incur a -15 Penalty; but if you used 2 Extra PPs it would be a -25?

One of the aspects I didn't like about HARP was that more difficult spells became easier to cast.  The PP penalty was only applied to Scaling PPs.  So a spell that only required 2 PPs had a +10 Skill Bonus; and scaling it to 4 PPs was -10.  Meanwhile, a 4 PP spell had a +20 Skill Bonus and scaling it to 6 PPs was -10. (if I have interpreted this incorrectly somebody pelase correct me!)

Using a pure -5/PP balances the spell scaling much better. 

So, you could learn would learn Projected Light as a 1PP Spell Skill.  Casting the spell would require a successfull spell casting Static Maneuver- of Skill + Stat -5 (for 1 PP) vs. a to be determined TM (I recall 75+ being where "Partial Success" began in RMFRP).  Now, if you wanted to say try to use that spell as a blinding attack you would scale it up to 5th level (where Sudden Light is on Light Law) and it would then be a -25 to your spell casting roll. 

I like the premise.  But, there would have to be some penalty for changing a spell from being a Utility Spell to an Attack Spell for example...otherwise what would be the benefit of learning Sudden Light?

[Thom @ ICE]

I agree with your comment about spell casting difficulty. 100%
As far as use of the spell - I don't agree with costing/casting them differently if they are utility or attack.  They are what they are. 


All spells should be at -5/PP
Base cost is min # of ranks to cast at all
If you cover base, you can cast any scaling you want, but the PP cost increases and the PP penalties are there.
You then run into high risk of spell failure if your ranks don't provide sufficient skill bonus.

[Witchking20k]

I understand that perspective- but, why have spell types if there is not advantage to it?  So, if for example you created a little triad of Utility to Attack to Elemental Attack and assigned a -10/+10 (-10 moving one way and +10 the other way?) for skipping in between them there would be a mechanics benefit to learning a spell in the same class as you intend to use it.

So, using my previous example : Projected Light as an Attack Spell would be -20 + -10 = -35 to cast.

[VladD]

Lists and scalable spells sound like a good idea. If casters could be less penalized by the Realms (who plays a mentalist and is pleased with the choices in his realm?) and by the casting system AND put them on par with the arms users, it sounds like a godsend.

Using lists is just a way of organization. Scaling the spells is the same as increasing ranges or areas by level, except with more choice and consequence. Still it could be the gem RM users might be looking for.

In my opinion the system should have no waiting rounds (preparation) or double or triple rolls to perform the spell to appeal to a large audience. It would be great if it ties in directly with the skill system.

[Thom @ ICE]

Done, Done, Done and Done...
My thoughts should provide all of what you are asking for....
As for rolls...   1 casting roll to ensure you cast the spell correctly.
If cast on someone, and your roll is successful, they then get a resistance roll
If cast at someone, and your roll is successful, they then get a defense roll (see my other topic)
If case in general, or on yourself, or on someone who wilingly accepts the casting - and your roll is successful - no further roll is required.

[Cory Magel]

So that's...
1. Roll to cast.
2. Roll to 'attack'.
3. Defender rolls either an Defensive roll or a RR.
4. Possibly roll a Crit.

I would rather...
1. Roll to cast/attack (attack and crit roll combined).
2. Roll for the critical (combined charts) on the attackers part if one was achieved or Roll RR on the defenders part.

I suspect a way could be figured out, but I don't know as if the Casting Roll, Attack Result and Crit Result can realistically be combined well however.  Right now RM is kinda between those.

I love RM and I love the detail, but there's a line where added steps/complexity do not increase the realism enough to be worth it.  Granted that line moves a bit depending on who you talk to, so YMMV.  RMU is moving more towards the added steps/complexity and it feels like a lot micro-managing without much payoff.  This is moving in that direction for me.

[Thom @ ICE]

No, it's Roll to Cast/Attack
Roll to Defend/Resist
Net = Damage/Crit


On the casting, it's not a matter of a penalty (subtraction) - it's a matter of increasing the target.
Standard casting requires a certain value per PP as the target.
Your final value is then compared to the Resistance/Defense roll.
The net final determines the damage - both attack/critical.


2 rolls covers everything about casting the spell.

[Cory Magel]

Ah ok, I was thinking the casting roll and attack were separated.

[VladD]

Done, Done, Done and Done...
My thoughts should provide all of what you are asking for....
As for rolls...   1 casting roll to ensure you cast the spell correctly.
If cast on someone, and your roll is successful, they then get a resistance roll
If cast at someone, and your roll is successful, they then get a defense roll (see my other topic)
If case in general, or on yourself, or on someone who wilingly accepts the casting - and your roll is successful - no further roll is required.

Then this gets a thumbs up from me!

[Witchking20k]

So, basically the way MERP handled it?  Penalties/Bonuses for prep time.  All spells no-matter what level required 2 Rounds to prep 1 Round to Cast.  You could cast with no prep at a -30 penalty.  This penalty would apply to the BAR or Directed Spells Roll or Basic Spell Casting roll- as long as you didn't fail then the spell was cast- whether managed to affect the target was what was penalized.