Topic: Spell Casting Difficulty > Casting Actions

[janpmueller]

In the thread "Spells that need fixing??", Kenstrel mentioned a rule that someone from the french HARP forums came up with:

Some weeks ago, we talk about this on the French HARP Forum, and i like what Mando said about this sort of spell :
Give a spell casting difficulty to the spell user when the target is active or non active, exemple : cast a sleep spell on a guard who do nothing and is drunk is Very Easy, but the same spell on a War Troll who is charging you is Very Hard or Sheer Folly (GM's choice).

Kenstrel mentioned this in regard to the sleep spell, but actually this may be a very nice feature for the whole spell system, because it so nicely blends in with other kinds of maneuver, like in combat. Boni or Mali to combat make things very exciting, and you can even play around with these modifications in the combat actions.
So, I'm almost sure I will use "casting difficulties" on a regular basis.

Considering this further, I thought if something like Casting Actions would make sense.
Actually, several parts of the magic system could already be represented as Casting Actions:

• Scale Spell - Pay the appropriate additional PPs and recalculate casting time.
• Hurry - For each round you want to reduce the casting time by, take -10 to your roll.

Thinking along those lines, several other possibilities come to mind, especially when working with the guidelines in CoM (whenever additonal PPs are mentioned, this also means more casting time and -5 for each PP). Think of all these options as "Okay, this may be harder, but I'll try - what's the price", a kind of generic scaling option. Here are some examples (from the top of my head).

• Move and Cast - For every hex you move, invest +2 PP. For every pace above a run, invest additional +2 PP.
• Patience - For each round you additionally invest in a spell, negate a -10 penalty. You can only do this up to a negated penalty of -50 (might be too powerful)
• Focus (attack spells) - For each time you "re-pay" the total PP for a spell, target's RR is modified by -10 (maximally -50).
• Blood Magic - Pay a spell with Endurance Points instead of PPs. Make a RR (stamina) with -5 for each EP you lost. If you fail that RR, the spell goes off, but you suffer an appropriate critical.
• Hold back (elemental spells) - For +4 PP you can set an upper limit for the critical (cf. subdual).

I briefly thought about "casting styles", like "blindcasting" or "dual spell style", but maybe that is too much of a stretch. Still, extending the "casting difficulty" idea to casting options seems feasible to me. What do you think?

[Dr_Sage]

I think have great potential.

Have you guys noticed that noone ever cast a combat spell in more than 1 round? Its simpli not "tactically effective".

For a long time i have considered switched the "-10 penalty" for fast cast for "+2 PP". Basicaly the "-10" would be caused by the 2 extra PPs but at least the low level castar would NOT be able to do it.

We should work on these ideas...

[munchy]

@Dr_Sage: interesting idea, this would actually prevent those low level casters from quick-casting scaled spells.

[jurasketu]

Dr_Sage has an excellent idea. Its the same penalty - but it makes it consistent with casting penalties for armor.

Robin

[munchy]

The problem with that is that a spell needs one round of casting per 5 PPs or portion thereof in it. So, if you have a spell that requires 10 PPs and you want to cast it in just one round you would by the new idea need an extra 2 PPs which would result in a total of 12 PPS and therefore 3 rounds of casting, reduced to one with the scaling PPs, ending up with the initial 2 rounds of casting it would have needed before the attempt to shorten the casting time was made. AND you paid an extra 2 PPs, loss in all aspects.

[janpmueller]

Hi,
okay, so the combination of PPs and casting time is a bit of a problem. I want to take a closer look at that: We have the following ingredients to mess around with concerning spell casting.

• Pay more PPs
• Pay less PPs
• Take more time
• Take less time
• Accept a Malus
• Get a bonus

Blue entries are beneficial, and should be paid with something "that hurts" (the red entries).
I made the following table to get some clarity into matters:
[tabular type=4 caption="Different Benefits and how you could pay for them (Other Benefit: e.g. Scaling Options)"]
[row]
[data]Pay with:[/data]
[data]Less PPs[/data]
[data]Less Rounds[/data]
[data]Get a Bonus[/data]
[data]Other Benefit[/data]
[/row]
[row]
[data]PPs[/data]
[data] - [/data]
[data]more PPs[/data]
[data]more PPs[/data]
[data]more PPs[/data]
[/row]
[row]
[data]Rounds[/data]
[data]more rounds[/data]
[data] - [/data]
[data]more rounds[/data]
[data]more rounds[/data]
[/row]
[row]
[data]Bonus[/data]
[data]Take Malus[/data]
[data]Take Malus[/data]
[data] - [/data]
[data]Take Malus[/data]
[/row]
[row]
[data]Other[/data]
[data]?[/data]
[data]?[/data]
[data]?[/data]
[data] - [/data]
[/row]
[/tabular]



As Munchy pointed out, the combo "I want Less Rounds, so I pay more PPs" is not working, because of the intrinsic connection of additional PPs with BOTH malus and time. This may be the reason why "fast cast" was instead built to be paid with a Malus.

I see 2 remedies:
(a) We declare uses for PPs that DON'T mean more rounds/ automatic malus, but are in themselves the cost you pay for a certain effect. Could be done if you only allow these PPs to negate maneuver penalties, NOT affect other penalties (like Scaling). We could also have a limit (e.g., can't pump in more than the base cost of a spell).
(b) We can't use PPs to pay for anything related to Rounds and Bonus, because they're already connected. We can, though, use PPs for other benefits (as is done with Scaling Options all the while).

I'll go with (b). This means that 2 options fall away in the table (that's why they're greyed out already).

Consequence
We could now choose different "payment methods" for different combat actions. Of course, we need to price them consistently. If we go by what we have in the books, we know that 1 PP = -5 malus.
Likewise, 1 round = -10 malus (because you must take -10 to reduce casting time by 1 round).
So we end up with:
1 round = +/-10 = 2PP
(altough we also have the information that 5PPs take 1 round... this might be conflicting, see next post)

This way, we could even exchange payment for different casting actions. Example:
Hold back (elemental spells) - Set an upper limit for the critical (cf. subdual).
Payment: (a) Accept a -20 malus. (b) Take 2 more rounds to cast. (c) Pay 4 PPs.

I'm still not sure wether version C would work (because it automatically means a -20 malus, anyway, and it might also trigger a longer casting time), but maybe these thoughts trigger some insights in you to go further.


PS: The "Other"-row could mean some interesting stuff. For example. you could allow a spellcaster to reduce the duration of a spell to get a bonus (or rather negate a malus) or reduce casting time ("I'll seal the door quickly, but it won't stand long!"). Very conceivable, flavorwise...

[janpmueller]

Quick note: Keep in mind that the whole thing span off in my head when thinking about maneuver difficulties for spells. As in the last example, accepting or negating these penalties might already be a sufficient environment for casting actions, and the stuff above just experimentally extends it.
Still, the whole "wizards locks the door under great stress" is a very good example of how these rules could enhance the feeling of spellcasting.
GM: "The orcs are nearing. You can hear their drums."
Wiz: "I want to Mage Seal the door before we flee."
GM: "Allright, but you just failed a Will roll and are frightened. Take a -30 on the spell."
Wiz: "Okay, I pump in 6 more PPs to negate that penalty. I must succeed!"
GM: "Good. Sheer force of magic compensates for your fear. Base Cost 11+6 = 17 [By the formula above, these 6 "extra-PP" might also count as 3 additional rounds. Here, I go by the usual calculation]; You will need 4 rounds, now."
Wiz: "Hm. Okay, but I also want to hurry before they come!"
GM: "Okay, instead of 4 rounds, you can do it in one for another -30" (core rules).
Wiz: "Well. I accept that any "Dispel Magic" against the spell will be modified by +40. I don't want to make it a very strong seal"
GM: "Granted. You malus is lifted by half of that (+20), you're at -10"

It's a little nitty gritty, and I even used a PP payment (which I said above might not be possible, see below), but it really feels like a thing Gandalf would consider in Moria, doesn't it?

The problems with PPs might, as in the example, be compensated by a certain order of things. Not sure of that, though, I might fall into the trap that Munchy pointed out.

[Dax]

...
As Munchy pointed out, the combo "I want Less Rounds, so I pay more PPs" is not working, because of the intrinsic connection of additional PPs with BOTH malus and time. This may be the reason why "fast cast" was instead built to be paid with a Malus.
...
The PP expenditure for fast-casting might not count for casting duration.
...

Yes, those PPs simply do not count for casting duration.

It might be like filling a glas with water while running: Shurly you will loose some, but you compensate with more water than needed.
The casting time mean you weave the energy into a spell effect. So PP may be spend to reduce casting duration, you just spend more PPs (mostly leaking to the surrounding) to meet the energy requirements faster.

[Dr_Sage]

Thanks munchy,

for the compliment AND for pointing the flaw.

janpmuelle,

I believe the simplest is just put the extra PPs in the end. Unlike armor penalty for example, they would not enter the calculations.

I am just trying to make it simple and playable.

PS: I loved your table.

[choc]

The "pay more less malus" system is disappointing.

I suspect this will knock the entire casting balance on the head.

ie Fireball large critical scaling instant cast (one round)

1. normal rules
6PP (base) + 6PP (tiny to large) = 12PP ~ -20(casting rounds) - 30 (PP scaling) = -50 OB/Maneuver // 12 ranks required

2. janpmueller rules
6PP (base) + 6PP (tiny to large) = 12PP ~ -20(casting rounds) - 30 (PP scaling) = -50 OB/Maneuver ~ +10PP ~ +/-0 Maneuver // 22ranks required

This means the spell just gets more expensive (base 8ranks, scaling 4-5ranks per crit increase).

Same is CP for armor. With more ranks the armor penalty becomes an ole fairy tale.

I don't believe the adventurers will be appleased. Foes always have more powerpoints and are challangeng. By this way they become instakillers.

[janpmueller]

Hey choc,

but you only need 22 ranks to negate the penalty. So, a caster with some ranks can do it, but it's quite hard (-50), and if you really know your fireball and have enough "power", it becomes easier (no penalty).
I find that quite fitting, actually. Same with CP for armor. Say, Saruman, shouldn't become Simon the Sorcerer, just because he's in armor, should he?

On a side note: The different "payment methods" could be talents, too. A "power mage" pays with more PPs, a "patient mage" accepts a longer casting time, and a... erm... "challenge mage" pays with penalties. That way there aren't too many options in each situation, and each talent could have a limitation (e.g., can't "power up" more than base cost/ total spell cost; can't go over double normal casting time; can't take a penalty over -50). Could make things easier for everyone.

The "other" options are probably too diverse to be put in a general rule. This may work in casting actions, though, e.g.
Superficial spell - Reduce the duration of a spell (in steps as in CoM). For each step, you may (a) save 2 rounds on casting or (b) get a +20 modifier (negate a -20 penalty).

I think we're getting somewhere!

PS: Thanks, Dr! All that html must have stuck

PPS: I just reread my post and realized: Having a lot of ranks in this example would benefit you twice: (a) better skill bonus, and (b) you negate the penalty. This might indeed be unbalancing.

[janpmueller]

Hey Dr Sage,

so you're saying the extra PPs are neither affecting penalty, nor casting time? They are just additional power?
That might indeed be easiest. Would you say the extra PPs count against you rank, as in choc's example, or would you leave that out, too?

If that's what you meant, I'd advise some limitation, e.g. these extra PPs can ONLY reduce situational modifiers, not modifiers through armor, scaling or hurrying.


Also, I had another idea: This "I put in more power" could be realized with Endurance Points. That way, we wouldn't have to worry about messing with the PP calculation. So, we's get a new version of the casting action "Blood Magic"

Sheer Force - For every 5 Endurance Points you pay in addition to the cost of any one spell, reduce any situational modifier by 5.

[choc]

but you only need 22 ranks to negate the penalty. So, a caster with some ranks can do it, but it's quite hard (-50), and if you really know your fireball and have enough "power", it becomes easier (no penalty).

No, this is not balanced:
12 ranks for a regular large fireball and -50 penalty for one round (instant) cast
22 ranks for the same, but no -50 penalty
-> rank 13 to 22 gives an advantage of +68 to the maneuver (and 10 more PP, but with an OB +68 you only need one ball - and with a multiplier or spelladder no problem).
THIS ISN'T BALANCED ANYWHERE!
**

Sheer Force - For every 5 Endurance Points you pay in addition to the cost of any one spell, reduce any situational modifier by 5.

Perhaps as a spell focus style - if you spend less than 10 endourance points you get a -20 on your maneuver. If you spend no endourance points you get a -50 penalty.

**edit
idea: increase fumble range x5 per PP by the same amount you invest more PP to decrase malus.
but this is unbalanced too.

[Dr_Sage]

Hey Dr Sage,

so you're saying the extra PPs are neither affecting penalty, nor casting time? They are just additional power?
That might indeed be easiest. Would you say the extra PPs count against you rank, as in choc's example, or would you leave that out, too?

Clarifying: I meant for those extra PPs specifically for manouvers like "fast cast" do not count when determining the amount of rounds needed (that 5PP=1 round calculation).
You still must have the ranks and have the PPs avaible.
Otherwise would have been a short circuit as pointed by munchy.