Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMSS/FRP => Topic started by: Arioch on May 11, 2008, 03:40:31 PM
-
I'm thinking of adding an extra cost in PPs for spell modified with the Spell Mastery skill, like a +X PPs for each -10 taken on the skill. This mainly to avoid having characters who use the skill to replicate higher level effects paying less PPs (like casting Firebolt with double range instead of Firebolt II), but also because IMHO it makes sense, as you are putting more power in the spell you're casting when you use this skill.
Any idea?
-
I disagree. Mainly because of the extra investment in DP that the character has made in purchasing the skill but also because the extra risks of gaining those benefits.
I suppose that a better rationale is that, by using spell mastery, the caster is simply being more efficent with the use of the power used achieving better results.
An anology is by shutting the windows and turning off the air conditioning you improve the fuel consumption of a car... though as with real life.. you might get hot, uncomfortable or even burned.. ;).
I seem to remember a rule somewhere (perhaps RM2) where additional PP could be expended to boost the damage of elemental spells, but I seem to remember that your level had to exceed the spell level by a certain amount..
-
I do like it. Since the caster does not kow the spell and it is of a higher level [knowledge] then it should take more effert and magical power to get the same effect.
I like it a lot. If you get some rules writen up submit them to the GuildCompanion.com for thier monthly newsletter. I think it could easily find a home in many games.
MDC
-
I'm thinking of adding an extra cost in PPs for spell modified with the Spell Mastery skill, like a +X PPs for each -10 taken on the skill. This mainly to avoid having characters who use the skill to replicate higher level effects paying less PPs (like casting Firebolt with double range instead of Firebolt II), but also because IMHO it makes sense, as you are putting more power in the spell you're casting when you use this skill.
Any idea?
1) You should always require increased PP if they are upping the power of the spell. Otherwise, they are essentially doing an end-run around the PP costs.
2) If they are trying to "spell Master" a spell into something like a higher level spell, then they are casting the higher level spell, and treat it as such. Spell Mastery should never (IMO) allow a caster to replicate the effects of higher level spells (the stopping point should be the half-way point between the two).
-
Well, if that is the case then decrease the cost of developing the skill, or widen the parameters (making Spell mastery affect ALL spells used).
I suppose it all depends on what you believe the spell system is in rolemaster.
If it were a simpler system, like AD&D, or another system where specific spells are memorised from a spell book and strictly leveled, I'd agree that what can be achieved is unbalancing...
However, I believe that Rolemaster assumes the use of related spell lists, which to me, means that it is a gradual progression in power, rather than just a collection of discrete spells. Spell Mastery is the ability to "blur the edges" and customise spells by specialisation (being in depth knowledge). This specialisation already comes at a price both in game terms (higher DP expenditure) and risk.
I'd probably just allow any mage to have the option to expend additional PP to boost a spell.... but wait, isn't that exactly what HARP does...?
-
I've gotta fall on the side of additional power points...
More effect means more fuel must be burned... further, IMO the spells on the list are the refined 'near-perfect' version of that spell's casting... it represents years of refinement in the art of casting the spell.. to change a spell, on the fly, should be hard (skill roll), dangerous (failure danger), and less efficient (more PP's). If a PC wants a spell that's anywhere near as safe and efficient as a regular spell then he should spend months or years researching and refining it.
I've one exception to the above... I feel a spell mastery roll could potentially be to reduce the PP cost of a spell, making it more efficient... however due to the inherent inefficiency of tweaking a spell on the fly, this would probably have much more diminished returns then other spell mastery tweaks (-20 for -1 PP or something like that).
As far a how many PP's to make the spell cost.. I'd probably favor 1 extra PP per -10 from spell mastery (though making a single spell effect multiple targets could multiply the cost... logically), and if you want to get really wild, for every 20 the spell mastery roll is made by it could reduce that extra cost by 1. (ie: Spell mastery roll is at -30... +3 PP's, PC rolls his mastery attempt and succeeds with a margin of 55, meaning his spell only costs 1 PP more then normal)
----------------------------
Diverging question... how do you all handle spell mastery rolls?
I'm not sure if this is the norm, but the way I handle it is in 2 steps.
1st the spell mastery skill is rolled with the minuses. This determines whether or not the spell is altered from it's normal state.
2nd Whether or not the spell is altered the spell attempt is still made.. a SCSM is rolled with the same modifiers as the spell mastery roll.
The preparation time is also significantly increased, double the normal prep time the PC chooses (instants become 1 round or prep), plus 1 additional round per major alteration (ie: changing the target number, size of effect and so on...)
I've done it 2 ways... I've had the prep time completed, then the spell mastery and SCSM is rolled, or I've done the Spell mastery on the first round of prep. Doing the spell mastery roll at the beginning can be nice because it allows fantastic rolls to reduce the prep time, or almost rolls to increase it... this can be rolled hidden, or by a PC who can role-play his ignorance... a PC who notices his spell mastery has totally failed (power awareness or another skill) can abort preparation.
-
I disagree. Mainly because of the extra investment in DP that the character has made in purchasing the skill but also because the extra risks of gaining those benefits.
Spell Mastery is already a very powerful skill (probably the most powerful/useful skill in RM), and creative players can do a lot of things with it.
I know it costs a lot, but I think that even adding a little PPs extra cost to it it will still retain all of its benefits and players will not sop buying ranks in it.
2) If they are trying to "spell Master" a spell into something like a higher level spell, then they are casting the higher level spell, and treat it as such. Spell Mastery should never (IMO) allow a caster to replicate the effects of higher level spells (the stopping point should be the half-way point between the two).
That's a good idea, but what if a mage is trying to spell master a spell to emulate the effects of one he still doesn't know? I think he should be able to do it, but not for free
Diverging question... how do you all handle spell mastery rolls?
Firse make the spell casting roll, if the spell is cast you make the spell mastery roll. If you fail this, the spell fails, and all spell mastery mods are added to your fumble roll
-
I sort of treat the use of a spell mastery check as part of the original casting of the spell.
I do it before the other spell is cast, with only the original spell-mastery roll is modified with the modifiers.
Regardless of the result of the Spell mastery check I then adjust the subsequent Spell casting Roll (I always assume one is required if spell mastery is used and 111+ isn't rolled) by the modifiers on the table in addition to any normal modifiers for casting the spell.
Therefore, with simply using Spell Mastery, and NOT attempting to change the nature of the spell, then certain activities can be made easier...for example casting a spell with slightly less preperation time i.e. a result of 111, gives +20 to the subsequent spell casting check.
As I've said before, serious thought needs to be put towards the actual effect on the DP required to purchase the skill before any further penalties are applied to it's use.
-
As I've said before, serious thought needs to be put towards the actual effect on the DP required to purchase the skill before any further penalties are applied to it's use.
Ok, but SM is a skill that basically let you do anything you want with your spells. Think an effect loosely related to the spell you're casting apply the right modifier and roll. IMHO as it's now is too cheap. :)
-
I think is not necessary, there are other things that are limiting the use:
1) You need a SCSM when you use 'spell mastery' instead automatic casting, remember that the subsequent maneuver modifier is used in that SCSM roll.
2) Increase the modifiers, we use a -20 per X instead -10 per X as the original, so double is -20, triple is -40, etc.
-
2) Increase the modifiers, we use a -20 per X instead -10 per X as the original, so double is -20, triple is -40, etc.
I've already done this, standard modifiers are ridiculously low IMHO ;D
I think I'll go for something like +1 PP spent for each "level" of spell mastery use. For example, a Firebolt with double target, double damage will cost 2 extra PPs: +1PP for the extra damage; +1PP for the extra target.
-
There is also a huge difference between base Spell Mastery and SoHK Spell Mastery - the latter being much more powerful.
We made it easy, and I think it is a variant on an RM2 Companion - don't ask which - double the power, double the power points so x2 damage = x2 PP, x2 damage + x2 range = x3 PP cost. We keep the rolls as is.
-
2) Increase the modifiers, we use a -20 per X instead -10 per X as the original, so double is -20, triple is -40, etc.
I've already done this, standard modifiers are ridiculously low IMHO ;D
I think I'll go for something like +1 PP spent for each "level" of spell mastery use. For example, a Firebolt with double target, double damage will cost 2 extra PPs: +1PP for the extra damage; +1PP for the extra target.
As I've said before, serious thought needs to be put towards the actual effect on the DP required to purchase the skill before any further penalties are applied to it's use.
Ok, but SM is a skill that basically let you do anything you want with your spells. Think an effect loosely related to the spell you're casting apply the right modifier and roll. IMHO as it's now is too cheap. :)
If it were an automatic and totally generic effect I would agree..
A GM lettng a player alter the spell "anyway" you want is IMHO a problem for the GM. A good GM will simply reject the request for the spell to be altered, unless it conforms to the general intent of the Spell List. (I.e. if the spell is modified in such a way that it simply isn't concievable that it would be on that list. E.g. Changing a Firebolt to do Cold Criticals)
A 5th Level Magican spends 20DP to get 5 Ranks (doubled because of everyman) = +50 +10 (profession) +15 (stat) = +75. This is restricted to modifying the spells from ONE list.
With an average roll of 50 this is a success = 125. (so you can change the colour of your spell...woohoo!)
Add in the complication of doubling range (-20) that becomes a near success =105 ...you get to try again after another round at +10. (and still have to make the SMSC check!)
Add in additional complcation, like adding another target (-30) makes that a fail = 75....you get to modify your SMSC by -10.
With regard to the wording, adding another target doesn't necessarily mean you deal double damage...a cunning DM will HALVE the damage taken by each target since each bolt carries half the power. (Doubling the damage is an additional -20 modifier making the total modifier -70, so with the example stated an average roll would be a 55. Good Luck with that. ;)).
Now, add into that the fact that the Magican still has to cast the spell...and that isn't guarenteed ::).
And people STILL want to make it MORE restrictive?
My own house rules are that:
1. It is still possible to automatically cast a spell within the normal conditions of automatic casting but if you roll less than 111 on Spell Mastery check then a SMSC is required regardless.
2. Any result less than 111, means that any result from the Power Manipulation table is appled AND a SMSC is required to complete the spell AND any penalty from resulting from the table is used to modify the required SMCS check.
3. I also allow any bonuses from the Spell Mastery check to be used to offset normal penalties of the SMSC check (like the penalty associated with reducing the required rounds of preperation).
-
(I.e. if the spell is modified in such a way that it simply isn't concievable that it would be on that list. E.g. Changing a Firebolt to do Cold Criticals)
Obviously there are impossible task (fortunately), and you cannot change a firebolt to a coldbolt, but a clever player with SM can really do lots of things...
"I cast Waterwall True, and use spell mastery to give it a round shape around me and make it move with me as I walk through the flames.."
With regard to the wording, adding another target doesn't necessarily mean you deal double damage...a cunning DM will HALVE the damage taken by each target since each bolt carries half the power. (Doubling the damage is an additional -20 modifier making the total modifier -70, so with the example stated an average roll would be a 55. Good Luck with that. ;)).
I don't like it, an additional target is an additional target, halving the effect is complicated. For a single firebolt is simple, but what if I want to add another target to my Teleport III?
A 5th Level Magican spends 20DP to get 5 Ranks (doubled because of everyman) = +50 +10 (profession) +15 (stat) = +75. This is restricted to modifying the spells from ONE list.
With an average roll of 50 this is a success = 125. (so you can change the colour of your spell...woohoo!)
Add in the complication of doubling range (-20) that becomes a near success =105 ...you get to try again after another round at +10. (and still have to make the SMSC check!)
Add in additional complcation, like adding another target (-30) makes that a fail = 75....you get to modify your SMSC by -10.
That means that a level 5 mage shouldn't go around spellmastering spells he learned just yesterday... Spell Mastery is for experts! ;D
Seriously, SM isn't that difficult, provided that you don't roll a failure, even if you score a Partial Succes means that you have succeded in 20% of your action, you just have to keep rolling over 75 until you reach 100%...
-
quasi-historical note ---
Spell Mastery is most likely among the top 3 for skills that embody "power creep" in Rolemaster.
Originally, the skill was used for things like changing/determining orientation upon teleporting (otherwise you ended up facing same way and in same position as when you cast the teleport and dis-oriented most likely), or for making any required maneuver rolls required by the spell, or for concentration-based rolls related to the spell being cast. Basically, if a spell had anything that required a skill roll, then you would use Spell Mastery for that particular spell for it...
In short, it was for utilizing/manipulating the spell WITHIN its original parameters (RM2/RMC).
Then Rolemaster Companion II came out and added the sentence "This skill allows user to modify spells beyond basic parameters." and it has been getting more and more powerful ever since. Other companions built on that sentence.
And in RMSS/FRP it was completely altering how a spell was cast by allowing you to make them more and more powerful, changing the very attributes of the spell such as range, or damage multiplier, etc...
-
The basic damage upping stuff is in the last edition of RM2 SL, made it over into RMC.
It's the whole "Effect level based on PP spent" which I suspect also became a pre-cursor to some of the logic in HARP.
The basic rule is "Spell cast at caster level, costs spell level in PP"
So a 4th level spell cast by a 10th level caster costs 4 PP, it RRs and all X/lv effects are based on 10th level.
The option changed it to "Spell cast at level equal to PP spent, minimum of the level of the spell, maximum of caster level" (Going over caster level on PP = overcasting, if allowed)
So a 4th level spell cast by a 10th level caster at 4 PP, it RRs and all x/lv effects are based on 4th level. (If you want to to be based on 10th, you need to spend 10 PP)
This created a hole, in that all those x/lv spells scaled to effect based on PP spent, and even the flat effect RR spells still RRed at the higher level, there was no balance effect for EAR spells on attack tables, or for unresistable utility type spells.
Thus came the "If firebolt is 6th level, if you cast it with 12 PP it did double damage" and "Double PP, double effect"
Then came the broad, fully encompasing rules with the multipliers that Mockingbird referenced in reply #11 above. . .which I also cannot remember which book for the life of me. . . Could it be the SUC?
Essentially, that was the start of Spell Scaling.
I fully agree with Tim that if you're fiddling with a spell to change what it does, that's spell mastery, but just jacking it's power level while otherwise leaving it the same ala more range, targets, damage, AOE, Duration seems more like spell scaling, which even if it is included in spell mastery, should really cost more PP. And I definitely think that if that means the caster is spending more PP than their level, it should be treated as overcasting.
-
With regard to the wording, adding another target doesn't necessarily mean you deal double damage...a cunning DM will HALVE the damage taken by each target since each bolt carries half the power. (Doubling the damage is an additional -20 modifier making the total modifier -70, so with the example stated an average roll would be a 55. Good Luck with that. ;)).
I don't like it, an additional target is an additional target, halving the effect is complicated. For a single firebolt is simple, but what if I want to add another target to my Teleport III? ;)
All in all just a quick example of how it could be applied, I'm necessarily saying that this should be applied to all uses of the skill, just specific ones. In the case of the Fire bolt, I'd say that the Magician would either have to split his Directed Spells OB or half the damage..
With regard to Teleport III, well that, to mind is a cut and dried example, not subject to a great deal of subjective reasoning on the GM's part. It's not a great game-breaking use of the skill.
That means that a level 5 mage shouldn't go around spellmastering spells he learned just yesterday... Spell Mastery is for experts! ;D
Seriously, SM isn't that difficult, provided that you don't roll a failure, even if you score a Partial Succes means that you have succeded in 20% of your action, you just have to keep rolling over 75 until you reach 100%...
Apart from the 10 concussion hits per attempt that it is... ;)
Fair enough. Strictly speaking a 5th level Magician can't cast a Firebolt unless you allow overcasting (so moot point.. :D) and that incurs even greater penalties..
I chose 5th level simply because a Magician gets the skill as everyman, and at 10 ranks that's the most economical bonus/dp ratio. After that the Magician is hit by diminishing returns. A spell-user that doesn't have the skill as everyman needs to be 10th (or spend another 50 DP.. minimum to achieve the same sort of bonus..
The point I am trying to make is that in most cases it is the GM letting the player pull the wool over the eyes of the GM.
In your example,
"I cast Waterwall True, and use spell mastery to give it a round shape around me and make it move with me as I walk through the flames.."
A GM should simply work out the relevent modifiers and apply them, if they aren't clearly defined by the Spell Mastery discrption then make them upon the fly.
Example. Change shape from Wall to 10' Radius -50, allowing it to move -30, caster doesn't need to concentrate to move it -20 = -100.
Now, assume that the magician is now 10th level and has taken the time and effort to concentrate on Spell Mastery (Water Law)...and has 20 Ranks in it, then their bonus is going to be +30 greater than my previous example. So, a grand total of +105. Humm, so an average modified roll is 55 (Fail).
I know that your example was just one pulled out of a hat, but, I quite like my players trying to be inventive and I'm not a great fan of spells a la Canon, so if they come up with an idea then I'm not going to penalise them for being clever and trying to think outside the box. And that is basically exactly what is being suggested by adding an additional PP cost..
and I agree with Rasyr, it has been subject to an element of power creep. The trouble is, make this skill any more restrictive then you end up with a D&D type situation where more and more "ever-so slightly different spells" are printed and are spoon fed to the players (giving the GM's additional headaches of keeping track of them all) rather that letting the players be imaginative with the use of the spells that they have got.
-
So, if you ignore the example I suggested earlier in this thread that the skill Spell Mastery is simply a way of changing spells effect to make them more efficent, then why not instead assume that Spell Mastery has the effect of gathering that additional PP required as part of the check?
That would explain some of the more damaging effects of failure.
-
I agree in terms of the overall logic, and I too like to give my players plenty of
rope room.
I think you get onto unsavory ground when you end up duplicating a higher level spell. . .which then calls into question the overall logic. . .
If you can use spell mastery to turn Fly into Fly II, then you'd think that over time, Fly II would just replace Fly at that level on that list. . . the fact that it requires a higher level (more ranks) to get to Fly II implies that to improve to that level you need to go up levels and cast it the old way. . .
This also calls into question undercasting. . . .which was in companion VI or VII? If you can pull off the Fly II effect as Fly with a dangerous mod, then why not be allowed to cast all spells with less than their level of PP. (Which is the same logic going in the other direction.). . .I think it equated underpowering as the same penalties as overcasting. (So casting a 5th level spell with 1 PP was the same penalty as overcasting 4 levels.)
Especially with the SCSM structure, that would set up a situation where enough bonus would lead to lowballing all the time. . .your 12th level caster would begin to routinely cast 1-5th level spells at 1 PP. . .
Frankly, I have no problem with the common sense concept that for a high level caster, low level spells would become easier, but game balance wise, the SCSM system allows too much parlaying of bonus against penalties, so that it allows casters to game the mechanics way to easily.
Allowing spell mastery to over-power spells seems to me to be the same thing as casting spells with less than the needed PP. . .either way you're discounting the effect level in terms of PP cost. Most GMs won't allow underpowered casting. (Which makes me wonder why they allow overpowered spell mastery without a PP cost.)
-
It's the whole "Effect level based on PP spent" which I suspect also became a pre-cursor to some of the logic in HARP.
Nope. Spell Mastery from RMSS/FRP is the direct pre-cursor to spell scaling in HARP (along with some influences from the Harnmaster system and some from the Hero/Champions system) --- I was originally trying to create a psionics system for RMSS/FRP (before Spacemaster came out) but never actually finished it, and instead adapted it for magic when I started working on HARP).
It is possible that those options were one of the precursors to the RMSS/FRP Spell Mastery though.
I know that your example was just one pulled out of a hat, but, I quite like my players trying to be inventive and I'm not a great fan of spells a la Canon, so if they come up with an idea then I'm not going to penalise them for being clever and trying to think outside the box. And that is basically exactly what is being suggested by adding an additional PP cost..
Charging them extra PP to power effects that are MORE powerful than the normal spell that they are altering is not punishment, it is balancing the increased effect by reducing a resource pool accordingly.
They are already getting a bonus/advantage by being able to alter the spells to begin with...
-
I know that your example was just one pulled out of a hat, but, I quite like my players trying to be inventive and I'm not a great fan of spells a la Canon, so if they come up with an idea then I'm not going to penalise them for being clever and trying to think outside the box. And that is basically exactly what is being suggested by adding an additional PP cost..
Charging them extra PP to power effects that are MORE powerful than the normal spell that they are altering is not punishment, it is balancing the increased effect by reducing a resource pool accordingly.
They are already getting a bonus/advantage by being able to alter the spells to begin with...
And they are already paying through the nose in DP to get that benifit, if there were an economic way to increase the PP that a caster can purchase then I might agree. There isn't, it is strictly based on level, you either buy a rank or you don't. PP useage eventually makes the caster tired and increases the chances that the spell caster fails and in the long run reduces the viability of playing an interesting magic-using profession in the first place, rather than just a battery.
Some systems that use Power Point systems actively reduce expenditure on lower level spells as the character advances in skill. I see Spell mastery as a very similar concept, except rather than decreasing the cost, the caster has the ability to increase the effectiveness with the same amount of PP.
The big difference between say HARP and RM is the risk factor associated with scaling a spell.
What is being proposed is an increase in PP cost with no reduction in risk.
How can this not be penalising a player?
In my eyes part of the reason for the risk in the first place is because an attempt to economise has been made and get more for less. The other is that, I fervently believe that the spell lists are simply scratching the surface and are the simplist (easiest to learn) and most common versions of the spell. Spell mastery, strips away the fat, allows short cuts...and re-directs the surplus to boost the spell but is more risky and difficult to achieve.
-
"I cast Waterwall True, and use spell mastery to give it a round shape around me and make it move with me as I walk through the flames.."
Err, do you realise how hard it is to achieve such effects? A round waterwall would be basically changing it into a radius spell, which is -50, and then a -30 to make it move 10' per round with concentration. Who's insane enough to make a roll at -80? Even with average realm stats of +8 (average of 96 stats...), magician class(+10) and 20 ranks you'd roll at +34 which gives you 40% chance of failure(which can be explosive if you implode), 25% chance of taking 10 concussion hits, 20% chance of taking an extra round to try again, and 15% chance of success. Have fun... Spell Mastery is not for the faint of heart or the inexperienced!
-
I always think that spells in spell lists are the basic form, but you really need 'spell mastery' to use that power correctly.
It is true that increasing the effects (range, ratio, etc.) is not easy as the base modifier is -20.
"I cast Waterwall True, and use spell mastery to give it a round shape around me and make it move with me as I walk through the flames.."
The problem is to assign difficulty to that, but, why not?. I like that idea, if you can use water spells, why not use them for fire protection?. Many times, I am sure, players ask 'why not exists a spells that do something?', with this skill it exists, but you need to create it from a base spell. I don't know why should be limits for manipulating the effects you have learnt (in this case water) if you are enough expertise in it.
I don't like it, an additional target is an additional target, halving the effect is complicated. For a single firebolt is simple, but what if I want to add another target to my Teleport III?
Obviously there are effects than can only be used at 100% (success), and that there are spells that are better for some effects, sleep and teleport are not the best for 'extra target' effect, you have 'teleport IV' :D
Tehre is big change between 'sleep XX' and 'sleep word' with 'extra target. 1st allows to sleep 21 lvls (sleep XXI) and the 2nd allows to sleep 2 targets of any lvl.
Seriously, SM isn't that difficult, provided that you don't roll a failure, even if you score a Partial Succes means that you have succeded in 20% of your action, you just have to keep rolling over 75 until you reach 100%...
Not really, for 76-90 results there is no description about rolling again, yo do only 20% and no more (multiply the parameter by 0,2, so a 10' radius is changed, if try to double it, to (2*0,2)*10' (added) + 10' (original) = 14'). And you lose 10 HPs.
IMO there is no need to change it, if you want to limit it use the 'character law' version (no damage modifier), with -20 penalties steps (-20, -40, -60...). That, added to that you need to roll a SCSM is enough. You are exposed to double failure (skill failure and spell failure in SCSM) and can make you cast spell in more time (SCSM result 1 extra preparation round), that can be deadly in combat situations.
-
IMO there is no need to change it, if you want to limit it use the 'character law' version (no damage modifier), with -20 penalties steps (-20, -40, -60...). That, added to that you need to roll a SCSM is enough. You are exposed to double failure (skill failure and spell failure in SCSM) and can make you cast spell in more time (SCSM result 1 extra preparation round), that can be deadly in combat situations.
And it is the damage modifier that tips the scale to charging more. This gets even more out of whack when the mages have PP multipliers. Up the damage on ball spells, or bolts for that matter, and fighters essentially become porters for the mages.
-
I agree. The example given of the moving waterwall sphere, actually pushing the spell beyond it's normal boundries to do something you can't normally do, seems perfect spell mastery use, but merely up-damaging or up-radiusing the spell seems like you're just casting it as a higher level or casting it multiple times at once. . . the problem of x5 shock bolts and the like gets out of whack really fast.
-
I agree. The example given of the moving waterwall sphere, actually pushing the spell beyond it's normal boundries to do something you can't normally do, seems perfect spell mastery use, but merely up-damaging or up-radiusing the spell seems like you're just casting it as a higher level or casting it multiple times at once. . . the problem of x5 shock bolts and the like gets out of whack really fast.
If you're capable of reliably making a check at -60, I wonder why you're only using Shock Bolts in the first place :P I do agree that upping damage can be powerful, but then again, that only puts the magician on an equal footing with other offensive spell users like Sorcerers, who at high level will instead be using that spell mastery for extra targets, using instant-kill or disable spells. And you really need to be really high level and have a lot invested in a particular list to start making more than x2 or x3 on a reliable basis.
-
Not really - x2 is only a -20 SM roll. x5 would be a bit much (-50) but x3 concussion on a ball spell for only -30 is a lot more common and much easier, especiall if you only take SM in one offensive list.
One of the more creative uses of SM was having a healer move all his self ranges to touch, or farther, eliminating the use of the (very messy and very expensive) wound transfer spell.
-
And one of the popular abuses was reversing the transfer spell. . . .
I feel iffy on Sorcerers stretching a RR vs death spell from 1 to 2 targets the same way. . .that's casting the spell twice in one round. . . .
I've done all the above and worse, but at this point, I'd only allow that kind of fun-n-games in a very high end magic game. . .I can't recall anyone suggesting a skill like "Weapon Mastery" which allows you to double concussion hits, attack two targets at the same time, or anything of the like with weapons. . .even the styles in the MAC and the CC don't offer combat flexability on anything like the scale that unfettered SM offers. . .and I never thought core RM (any version) was biased so much in favor of Arms that the poor spellcasters needed a nice elastic corner of "Bend/break rules here".
-
And it is the damage modifier that tips the scale to charging more. This gets even more out of whack when the mages have PP multipliers. Up the damage on ball spells, or bolts for that matter, and fighters essentially become porters for the mages.
In that case, why not remove those options from the Spell Mastery discription altogether, and re-introduce the optional rules from RM2 where ANY caster can simply expend a multiple of PP to do a multiple of damage without resorting to Spell Mastery to do so.?
And the suggested amendment still makes the fighters porters, because the Mages will simply be exhausted faster...and need to be carried everywhere :D.
The disparity in power levels of the various professions at various levels aside (in which the balance is reversed at mid to low -levels from fighter to spellcaster), I feel that Spell Mastery is the Spell casters equivilent of Combat Manuevers for the Arms classes. It adds interest for the player and encourages imaginative use of spells. Magic is meant to be imaginative after all.
While it is true that the power levels are adjusted upwards it should not be forgotten that the character has sacrificed other safer options in order to effectively specialise. That character will be weaker in some areas, which is the balancing factor.
At lower levels it is an extremely risky proposition (close to suicidal...) to even attempt the simplist things (let alone with any penalties). At mid-levels some of the simpler modifications become managable (but even then no certainty).
At high levels (Lord Level) some of the modifications could threaten to be come easy... but by that level the base damage of Fireballs and Bolts hasn't changed noticably from when the caster could cast them for the first time and by that level the foes tend to ignore such piddling spells.
My earlier suggestion (one that I use myself) is that if the targets/radius is increased then the overall effect (mainly damage) be reduced proportionately does work well. True, it doesn't work with Non-damaging spells quite as well, but they really aren't that much of a problem, at least according to the responses here.
Example: a Magician casting a Fireball at x2 area (-20) does half normal concussion damage. (I also lower the effects of any resulting criticals as well, perhaps a penalty of a step (from B to an A, A to A-25) or more depending upon the magniture (eg x3 would be a 2 step decrease) . If the Magician wants to do the same damage as a normal fireball then he would have to accept a further penalties in order to increase the damage.
The thing to remember is that to achieve this supposedly unbalanced ability that caster would have diverted considerable resources throughout their career in order to reap the rewards at a higher level. If a GM allows a Pro-rated 20th level character this option, then THAT is the problem, since the player simply hasn't suffered for his art. This sort of thing leads to the powergaming munchkinism that gives the Spell Mastery skill a bad name.
-
thing is. . .you buy SM once, for one spell, and can do whatever with it. . .you need to buy each and every maneuver seperately.
i.e. if Spell mastery were "Extend Spell Range" as one skill, then "Extend Duration" as another, then "Alter Area of effect" as another. . .you would then come closer to where you could compare SM to combat maneuvers. . . .
Comparing them to MA styles. . .SM is like buying a MA style that has all possible meneuvers and options included for one cost (one skill.)
-
I can't recall anyone suggesting a skill like "Weapon Mastery" which allows you to double concussion hits, attack two targets at the same time, or anything of the like with weapons. . .even the styles in the MAC and the CC don't offer combat flexability on anything like the scale that unfettered SM offers. . .and I never thought core RM (any version) was biased so much in favor of Arms that the poor spellcasters needed a nice elastic corner of "Bend/break rules here".
Perhaps someone should.. ;) (IIRC think martial artists are allowed to attack multiple opponents)
1. Combat Manuever (Mighty Blow) If a fighter accepts a -20 penalty to thier OB then the concussion damage is doubled from a successful hit.
2. Combat Manuever (Sweep) If you are toe-to-toe with multiple combatants a fighter can accept a penalty of -20 to their OB and divide their remaining OB amongst as many combatants as they wish. (those to the flank/rear are attacked at a penalty equal to the bonus that they would recieve.
Of course, to make this totally fair, the fighter should also take 10 hits from a near success and be sucked into a nearby void on an abyssmal failure.. ;D
-
thing is. . .you buy SM once, for one spell, and can do whatever with it. . .you need to buy each and every maneuver seperately.
i.e. if Spell mastery were "Extend Spell Range" as one skill, then "Extend Duration" as another, then "Alter Area of effect" as another. . .you would then come closer to where you could compare SM to combat maneuvers. . . .
Comparing them to MA styles. . .SM is like buying a MA style that has all possible meneuvers and options included for one cost (one skill.)
However, with the exception of Two-Weapon Fighting (which does allow two attacks in the same round but with specified weapons) all of the combat manuevers can be used with different weapons/mounts/etc... I'd say that makes them equal ;).
I'd say the Martial arts Style with 1 rank get a +5 OB, try any manuever from that style at increasing penalties. No difference. I agree it's similar, but it doesn't exactly prove that Spellmastery is in any way overpowered.
-
And one of the popular abuses was reversing the transfer spell. . . .
Its a utility spell. Utility spell cannot affect a target without their consent. So I wouldn't have a problem with a healer transfering a wound from himself to someone else via spell mastery, but it wouldn't work unless the recipient was willing.
I've done all the above and worse, but at this point, I'd only allow that kind of fun-n-games in a very high end magic game. . .I can't recall anyone suggesting a skill like "Weapon Mastery" which allows you to double concussion hits, attack two targets at the same time, or anything of the like with weapons. . .even the styles in the MAC and the CC don't offer combat flexability on anything like the scale that unfettered SM offers. . .and I never thought core RM (any version) was biased so much in favor of Arms that the poor spellcasters needed a nice elastic corner of "Bend/break rules here".
Stack Tumbling, Swashbuckling, a Weapon Style allowing 2 Weapon attack + defence and Adrenal Strenght, and you've got a potentially more potent combination often capable of being used with multiple weapons, whereas spell mastery has to be developped independently for each list. Not to mention that fighters can benefit from Weapons that do triple concussions and add a critical and allows you to defend yourself at full BO while you're stunned NP, whereas spell users don't benefit much from similar effect. An item that constantly doubles the area effect of your spells is much tougher to enchant than a weapon that doubles your concussion damage and adds a crit at the same time. A fighter can benefit from Haste and Two-Weapon fighting, potentially making 4 attacks at full BO in a round, a spell user can only cast a single spell in a round, no matter if its an instantaneous one.
A semi-spell user or a pure arms has as much capacity to be increasingly nasty at high levels as a pure spell user or hybrid has.
-
If you read complete:
if you want to limit it use the 'character law' version (no damage modifier)
So if you don't have the damage modifier, how can you use it?. We quickly remove it after using some time.
This gets even more out of whack when the mages have PP multipliers.
This is relative to your world, in our world multipliers are very harder to create than adders (special materials and others, more time required, etc.), too the multipliers are not x2, x3...we use 1+0,25s, so they are x1,25, x1,5, x1,75...
We don't have any multipler yet, they are really rare, so having adders +2 or +3 you can't abuse.
Not really - x2 is only a -20 SM roll. x5 would be a bit much (-50) but x3 concussion on a ball spell for only -30 is a lot more common and much easier
Remember, use -20s (so x5 is -80) and remove the damage modifier.
One of the more creative uses of SM was having a healer move all his self ranges to touch, or farther, eliminating the use of the (very messy and very expensive) wound transfer spell.
Yes, but as you need to develop it for any list, you pay many more DPs for those lists. If you pay DPs, I see no problem. I see it interesting, there can be different types of healers, those who want to save PPs and those who want to develop more skills (with DPs used in SM for healing lists), what is the problem?, that enrich the game.
If there is 1 thing that I like in RM, and at any moment more (with new skills, talents, etc.) is that there isn't 2 equal characters.
In a world is very interesting that 2 characters with the same base profession could be very different.
-
They are already getting a bonus/advantage by being able to alter the spells to begin with...
I completely agree, and I think that this is a big advantage, even if you have to pay a few extra PPs to do it, in addition to buying the skill.
"I cast Waterwall True, and use spell mastery to give it a round shape around me and make it move with me as I walk through the flames.."
Err, do you realise how hard it is to achieve such effects? A round waterwall would be basically changing it into a radius spell, which is -50, and then a -30 to make it move 10' per round with concentration. Who's insane enough to make a roll at -80?
The character that has done this is a 20th level Wizard with more or less 150 of Spell Mastery bonus in, let me see... Seven lists. 150-80=70, he just have to roll over 5 not to fail.
Not really, for 76-90 results there is no description about rolling again, yo do only 20% and no more (multiply the parameter by 0,2, so a 10' radius is changed, if try to double it, to (2*0,2)*10' (added) + 10' (original) = 14'). And you lose 10 HPs.
That's another way to do it (from where comes the 10HPs rule?), or you can interpret the result of the static manuever table as: you have completed only the 20% of your manuever, you can stop now or you can continue and accumulate % of success until you reach 100% or fail.
If you're capable of reliably making a check at -60, I wonder why you're only using Shock Bolts in the first place :P
To do up to 90 points of damage spending only 2PPs!
And basically that's what I want to avoid. Not for the damage, nor because I don't like creative use of SM, but because I don't like to see the skill used as a simple way to avoid spending PPs!
-
All in all it's your decision as to whether to include it in your games, assuming the players agree. (Else you won't have any Spell Mastery skill at all...and probably no Magicians either.
A 20th level caster? Humm... economical DP expenditure 40 ranks = 100 +10 (Profession) +30 (stat...highly unlikely) = 140.
Cost = 80 Dp (about a levels worth of DP!) and that is a profession that gets the skill as Everyman. With Seven lists (as per your example) he'd have spent 560 DP....(let that sink in folks...)
To get the same bonus at 20th without everyman you'd need to spend at least another 100 DP for each list!!!
With the SAME mage doing multiple damage or bolts..
Add to the above cost of DS: Shock Bolt to get it to the point where you could near guarentee a hit 100% of the time and you are talking a serious amount of long term investment... 30 ranks in Cat & 40 Ranks in Skill gives +100 +30 (very generous with Stat bonuses again.. ;)) +10 profession = +140 (still not a certainity in my experience).
Cost = 2/5 = 7 pts. (20*7 + 10*2) = 160 points (Category)
Cost = 2/5 = 7 pts. (40*7) = 280 points (Skill)
440 points...
So... assuming he only purchased the Spell Mastery in ONE list, after investing a total of 80 +440 = 520 DP (not including PP development and purchasing Spell Lists), which is about SIX levels worth of DP, the 20th level Mage in question gets to cast a spell that has the capacity to do a multiple of damage (the damage of which isn't also guarenteed) which hits with reasonable certainity with a minimum of PP. Gee, I should hope so! ::)
If you are allowing your players with getting away with making multiple rolls without suffering the penalties on the Power Manipulation Table then I'm hoping you are at least making them delay a round for each partial they get.
-
A 20th level caster? Humm... economical DP expenditure 40 ranks = 100 +10 (Profession) +30 (stat...highly unlikely) = 140.
30 ranks = 95 + 55 of category bonus.
So... assuming he only purchased the Spell Mastery in ONE list, after investing a total of 80 +440 = 520 DP (not including PP development and purchasing Spell Lists), which is about SIX levels worth of DP, the 20th level Mage in question gets to cast a spell that has the capacity to do a multiple of damage (the damage of which isn't also guarenteed) which hits with reasonable certainity with a minimum of PP. Gee, I should hope so! ::)
Yes, he spent a lot of DPs, and that gave him the capability of changing how spells works, which IMHO is not something to understimate, as it greatly increase the flexibility of the character.
-
An item that constantly doubles the area effect of your spells is much tougher to enchant than a weapon that doubles your concussion damage and adds a crit at the same time. A fighter can benefit from Haste and Two-Weapon fighting, potentially making 4 attacks at full BO in a round, a spell user can only cast a single spell in a round, no matter if its an instantaneous one.
x2 concussion & crit of equal severity each take a 25th level spell - weapon IV. I don't recall what levels are needed for x2 range or area, or any spell enhancements really, in the treasure companion.
So a fighter has four attacks in a round meaning he can attack two opponents, perhaps four. Meanwhile the mage is taking out dozens with a 20' radius ball, x2 concussion for a SM roll of -40. (AC/DC song comes to mind).
But this is digressing to 'in the defense of non-spell casting classes' that has been discussed earlier. In the end mages are definitely more powerful than fighters, spell mastery just makes it much more apparent.
-
A 20th level caster? Humm... economical DP expenditure 40 ranks = 100 +10 (Profession) +30 (stat...highly unlikely) = 140.
30 ranks = 95 + 55 of category bonus.
Oh... take away the profession bonus of +10, and you are saying that the magician has stat bonuses equalling 45, so each of the three stats has a +15 bonus!!
If thats the case, well, its no wonder why there is a problem..... but I honestly don't think its with the use of the skill, rather the character, or at least the example you gave.
-
A 20th level caster? Humm... economical DP expenditure 40 ranks = 100 +10 (Profession) +30 (stat...highly unlikely) = 140.
30 ranks = 95 + 55 of category bonus.
Oh... take away the profession bonus of +10, and you are saying that the magician has stat bonuses equalling 45, so each of the three stats has a +15 bonus!!
If thats the case, well, its no wonder why there is a problem..... but I honestly don't think its with the use of the skill, rather the character, or at least the example you gave.
Wizards get a +15 to Power Manipulation category, other bonuses come from stats and/or background, etc (Having a high power manipulation bonus is not uncommon in arcane users, since Em In and Pr are in their prime requisites...).
But the problem is not really this character, which I took only as an example. It's rather what I see as a possible abuse of the intent of a skill. IMHO spell mastery was not intended to be used to cast spell cheaply (otherwise they would have called it "PPs saving"... ;)), but to give to expert casters the opportunity to modify spells in an unusual and improvised way.
-
The character that has done this is a 20th level Wizard with more or less 150 of Spell Mastery bonus in, let me see... Seven lists. 150-80=70, he just have to roll over 5 not to fail.
Well, what can I say? A 20th lvl wizard pretty much explains it in my eyes. You should be able to level a small regiment without too much of a sweat at that level...
-
But this is digressing to 'in the defense of non-spell casting classes' that has been discussed earlier. In the end mages are definitely more powerful than fighters, spell mastery just makes it much more apparent.
I agree. In a system that is levelled and is based around the concept that players should be of equal power in a party, then it is true that spell casters will, ultimately become the most powerful characters.
However, this problem only really becomes apparent if you short cut the progression and start at higher levels.
At lower levels spell casters suffer heavily from the speed at which they cast thier spells, the amount of spells they can cast without quickly becoming exhausted. The arms characters are able to cause more damage and on a regular basis in low level combats.
It's simply not a level playing field to start with.
-
What if the difficulty of the spell mastery attempt was modified by the spells level in relationship to the character... with the idea that spells that the character has known for a long time (much lower level then he is) are easier to tweak and spells he's just recently learned are much harder.
Use the spell casting difficulty chart at the column for 0 round prep time. This would give a spell of the same level as the PC a nasty modifier, and a spell 10 levels lower a small boost. If you think the negative modifiers are too harsh, move to column 1 or 2.
This will help balance the higher level casters, who won't immediately be able to spell master their new powerful spells, they'll have to take some levels to get completely comfortable with the spell. (in the same way that they get faster at preparing lower level spells)
While it does make life more difficult for the lower level casters, it also gives a small bonus (or higher at 1 or 2) to master attempts for spells that are many levels below them..
-Josh
-
It's an RM2 book reference, but topical to the discussion:
AC=Alchemy Companion
There's a note in the AC on "Spell Mastery" that states that if the GM charges variable PP to reflect modification of spell effects, that the skill be purchased once, applying to all spellcasting in general. learn something new every day.
I'd have no problem with going that route, and/or dumping the entire spell mastery skill and allowing casters to use their ranks in list based bonus in it's place, with the charge of PP for modifying the spells. In the end, your ranks in a list determine your skill in that list. . .why are you buying a second skill to reflect the same thing anyway?
My other problem with the idea in general is that it brings into question all those meta spells like Ranging etc. It seems odd how many mechanisms reach the same route.
Essentially, at root, if you can stretch a teleport I into a Teleport V (Not if it's a good idea in terms of the penalty to the roll, just possible) then why can't you just cast a Teleport V at Teleport I costs.
i.e. if you're allowed to get more of an effect for less PP cost because you can cast more efficiantly, by exchanging PP cost for a Penalty to the roll, you should allow casters to underpower their spells as they get higher bonuses. . .essentially, the "Cast a 10th level spell for 5 PP". . .and that might work, or it might be madness, but it is essentially the exact same logic as allowing up scaling for no PP charge, done in the opposite direction. Would you be OK allowing that?
-
The things that bothers me about this whole discussion is that, to a degree, most lower-level spells are already improving with level in relation to duration and range... but specifically (and notably) not damage.
If the arguement against Spell mastery is that you are getting more for the same PP when using Spell Mastery then could someone please rationalise for me the normal spell improvement with level increases... and where does that additional power come from to achieve this improvement?
If this arguement on getting something more for nothing is logical then ALL the parameters of spells should remain static. I.e. Ranges and durations shouldn't increase etc.
If it is from the ability of the caster through experience (which is what I believe) to more efficently cast the spell (i.e. getting more for less), then isn't using DP to purchase a focused skill (which isn't an automatic success) to further improve the efficency of other parts of the spell exactly the same process since DP represents a learning experience?
Unlike that certain other system that does freely increase damage causing spells with level increases (in addition to most other parameters), Rolemaster is fairly harsh in this respect, especially since the caster is limited to one spell per round.
-
Side Note:
I can say that in the past I have changed the spell system slightly to allow for a caster to buy ranks in a spell to increase there casting chance. Since in RMSS it is 50+1 per rank in spell list+ other bonuses, I used the same scale of 1 rank=+1 but I gave the PC 4spell ranks = 1DP and limited the amount of ranks you could buy in spells based on spell rank, PC level, list types etc. It did work well and added a lot of flavor to the game.
But in the end if you like the rule try it out and see how it goes.
MDC
-
I think the problem is only for ATTACK SPELLS (reading your replies), at the end there is no one that is disagree about using SM with other spell types.
Remember that for attack spells there is few things that we can do for enhance with SM, if you can0t increase its radius, range or other params...what can you do?, maybe changing its colour, changing a 'fire bolt' to dragon form...is any of those usefull in any way?.
Well, we can begin from that only improve params is usefull for attack spells, then the solution is very easy, you only need to limit the params mods as you want.
So, I say it again, we remove the damage modifier, so, for area spells you can improve radius, a good change but not unbalanced for amount DPs you need to pay, the problem are 'bolts', removing the damage modifier limits you to use any other one but range, but if you don't need to improve range, you can't use SM with them.
I am searching for a special modifier for 'bolts', that is adding OB to the attack, I think there is no disagreement with this, as 1st try I am thinking about using the same negative modifier used in SM as positive bonus to 'bolt' attack, so if you roll with a -30 and success, you add +30 OB to your 'bolt' attack roll. See that this modifier can't be used in other attack rolls, as 'bolts' (directed spells in general, as launching and others too) are the only 150 points table based as any other attack in RM. If there is too much, then used half (-30 maneuver = +15 OB bonus), but this needs to be tested in game.
Adding this bonus to BAR or 'ball' attacks is not possible obviously.
All the disagreement I see is about attack spells and the reason is that you use written rules as strict law (and the SOHK, because in CL is different), as if you can't do anything about it, but you can, you can modify them as you like.
-
I think the problem is only for ATTACK SPELLS (reading your replies), at the end there is no one that is disagree about using SM with other spell types.
No, i don't really care about PCs being able to cast lightningbolts at damage x5, or Fireballs with radius x4. That's the purpose of SM, and they paid a lot of DPs to have this ability.
The problem is that I don't want Spell Mastery to become a way to save power points. I think that's not why the skill was made and that using it to cast the equivalent of high level spells in less time and using less PPs is abusing the skill concept.
-
I agree, to a point, that common sence should prevail in cases where this is obviously the intent of the player.
However, why shouldn't it ALSO be a way of getting something for less. Improved and specialised knowledge improves effiecently both in time and energy.
As I mentioned in a previous post, some spells already increase in power with some parameters (like duration and range) at NO additional cost, the energy to power these increases must either come from somewhere (the rules say they don't, since the PP requirement for the spell says the same) OR it is assumed that the expertise of the caster allows extra efficency when casting the spell.
I suppose what you could do, is simply give the caster the choice of whether to pay for the level increases or not, and thus make ALL spells PP variable (Base Cost being Level of the spell on the list), however, if you do that some form of freedom to alter parameters automatically (without the cost or risk of using Spell Mastery) could be introduced to expend the PP that hasn't been used. I.e. a 10th level caster has the option to effectively allocate the optional unused PP to the various parameters of the spell.
Obviously, this doesn't favor the Spell casters using the current rules in ANY way since casting the spell now costs more PP to get the same effect.
-
GB, I utterly agree with your point, which is why I use RMC options 3.1 and 3.2 (which are also in RM2 SL)
Spell Level based on PP used.
So if a 10th level caster casts a 4th level spell, and spends the minimum 4pp on it, then all level based factors are set at 4th level. . .the caster can choose to jack up the spell level up to 10 freely, and beyond 10 if they're willing to overcast.
It makes casting a lot more PP intensive, so I tend to be generous in my rules to allow for more PP for casters. But it means that all power scales are actually tied to a currency that maintains balance. It also covers the problem you raise, so that a 10th level caster's Sleep V is more nasty than a 5th level caster's Sleep V because the 10th level can put twice as much power into it, making you RR vs 10th level.
Like you, I also offer a lot of leeway in terms of letting PC casters play games with spell parameters, as fun is the point after all, but I like for them to keep in mind that there are limits, and if they want to cast firewall as a dome of fire, and walk around with it, they should expect that to be very draining of PP.
-
Like you, I also offer a lot of leeway in terms of letting PC casters play games with spell parameters, as fun is the point after all, but I like for them to keep in mind that there are limits, and if they want to cast firewall as a dome of fire, and walk around with it, they should expect that to be very draining of PP.
But I like the idea that doing something complicated is dangerous and difficult rather than a simple hike in the PP cost.
The point here is, for me, that you either do one thing or the other.. you either don't use Spell Mastery at all and then charge extra PP for making changes to the parameters of the spell... (which for me brings up a whole load of far more serious powergaming abuses...)
or you leave as is.. and let the players struggle with the difficulties. The problem with "getting something for nothing" is a relatively insignificant one compared to the alternatives...
Consider a 20th level Mage with "x" amount of PP. Would he seriously risk even a 1% chance of losing ALL his PP in an effort just to save a small amount casting a single shock bolt? And those with PP multipliers simply wouldn't care about the PP savings...
In addition, the additional PP cost for the suggestion is highly subjective... what would be the cost for increasing the radius of an informational spell, the same as a Ball Spell or less? And who makes that choice the GM, the Rules.. or the player?
-
The basic rule is directly proportional. . .raising the level of the spell multiplies all spell based factors.
For non level based factors, use the elemental variant.
i.e. if "1 mile" is 5 PP then for 10 PP you get "2 miles" (or for 7 PP you can get 1.4 miles).
It eliminates the need to make a 2nd roll when spellcasting, since in effect if you want to double the range of that 1 mile, 5th level spell, you need 10 PP so you cast it as a 10th level spell. . .the difficulty is built into the fact that the higher the spell level is, the harder it is to cast (or to cast quickly).
If you compare the results to the lists, you find that it's generally cheaper to use a higher level spell than to power surge up a low level spell to duplicate it's effects. . .which is the way it should be, since the repeated version of the spell at the higher level is an established, researched and tested higher power version of the spell.
One of the reasons PP cost bias also works, is that you also don't veer into overcasting for free. . .using the SM method, you can jack up a spell to where it's result is over the caster's level. . .at which point not only are they modifying the effects of the spell, they are also overcasting, but that is not reflected in the casting roll.
i.e. if a 10th level caster with lots of spell mastery in a list, casts the 10th level spell on that list and increases it's power using SM, they are now effectively overcasting on the sly.
-
However, why shouldn't it ALSO be a way of getting something for less. Improved and specialised knowledge improves effiecently both in time and energy.
We are entering a "what are spell lists" and "what is experience" argument, so IMHO this is going to be very sbujective...
However: experience and specialised magical knowledge in RM is IMHO handled in several ways.
First you have a spell list, which represent your skill in manipulating magical energies to get certain results. For example, Fire Law is your skill in using the Essence to create and manipulate fire.
Experience in this skill comes in various forms:
- The skill itself: the more ranks you have in the list, the more you're able to "burn" magical power to produce more powerful effects.
- Your level: which basically reduces the cost of spells you cast both in terms of time and in terms of PPs (as for many spells the higher is your level, greater is their effect).
- Spell Mastery: which IMHO is your ability to go over the normal limits imposed by traditional spells, creating new effects (based on the list) on the fly.
So you can use spell mastery to cast more powerful version of normal spells, or to modify their parameters, or even to add new parameters to the spells you cast. This IMHO represent the true mastery in the spell list, as your character is no longer limited by conventional parameters given by it. A character with a high bonus of spell mastery in fire law is a true master of fire, able to produce almost any effect related to fire and heat he wants. This is a great advantage, but IMHO should not diminish the cost of spells, as the caster level is used for that kind of ability.
-
I understand all those principles, however Spell Mastery (to me at least, Im sure there others that will agree with me here) is the way that Spell Casters can effectively boost their level with respect to certain spell lists.
I'm sure it's effect is akin to specialising in specific lists akin to actually being a higher level than the caster is (but only in those specific lists) allowing you to modify them, effectively overcast, to replicate higher level spells by economising on PP... all these things. But at a substantial investment AND risk.
It's expensive enough and risky enough as it is without further tinkering. I'm sure we all have house rules, and we are free to implement them. But it's not one I would feel happy about using as a GM.
-
As a side note, when I proposed to introduce this HR to my players, they were positive about it. The player of the wizard in my example said that it seemed fair to him and suggested restriction far more severe than mine... :angel2:
-
Thinking about this a little more, what about adding a similar skill for weapons? Adrenal strength only gives x2 concussion and needs prep. What about a 'weapon mastery' skill, combat maneuvers catagory, that would add extra damage, crit, possible additional range for thrown, reducing range penalties, etc. for example?
-
Thinking about this a little more, what about adding a similar skill for weapons? Adrenal strength only gives x2 concussion and needs prep. What about a 'weapon mastery' skill, combat maneuvers catagory, that would add extra damage, crit, possible additional range for thrown, reducing range penalties, etc. for example?
Check out the Combat Companion -- the rules for Combat Styles -- specifically the Specific Maneuvers....
-
I suspect the answer would lie in styles, either the MAC or CC versions.
-
Kind of in styles. However to get all the options it would become advanced meaning it would be a restricted skill you would need to buy in addition to the weapon or MA:St/Sw skill. Haven't looked at the combat companion.
Carrying the analogy back to spell mastery you would separate out the different possibilites into a separate, possibly restricted, skill.
-
However, why shouldn't it ALSO be a way of getting something for less. Improved and specialised knowledge improves effiecently both in time and energy.
That remembers me I was looking for a rule about SM and automatic use, the original idea was using the SM bonus as % of improvement, so you save rolls and make game faster (charcater with high bonus want ALWAYS to roll SM of course).
Then, you only roll for changing parameters (wall that moves, etc.) but for improve parameters (increase radius, range, damage, etc.) you use the 'automatic use'. So SM is really the improves effiecently both in time and energy
I think it represent it in a good way.
Another point is that you can control the power of the skill, my original idea was using the bonus as direct % of improve, so if you have +50 you can improve 50% the params (split), so you can improve +25% range and +25% radius in case of a 'ball'. See that having +100 in skill (I think is a good bonus) you can only double 1 param, and with +150 (near possible maximum bonus) you have a +150% of improvement (a maximum of x2,5 in a single param).
You only require a SCSM when you use it but adding the ranks in SM to the SCSM roll directly.
In any way I think that the damage modifer should not be used, the only one that can increase it is the melee combat (see that in missile is not possible) because the risk (I think it should be a reward).
For 'bolts' you can add the SM ranks to OB, see that the difference is casting bolts without SM doesn't require SCSM, that can delay the casting and in combat can be dangerous.
Then you can adjust as you like, if you want less, then you use half and if you like powerfull magic you use more.
This allows too develop the skill as linear one, so casters begin to use it since low lvls and begin to improve their favorite lists in a continous way, not in a explosive way making rolls with -20 to directly double a param.
For example, a 'lay healer' that develops SM for 'con. ways' (wants to specialize) with a +50 SM bonus, 'heal 1-10' is 'heal 1-15' for it (round bottom).
Somethings like that I think makes interesting develop SM in the way you want for any list (maybe for a list you see +50 is OK and for other you want a +100), and in the other hand you can easy control the power of the skill.
Is not a good way that a character increase its lvl and says 'now I cast a bit better my favorite spells'?.
-
I forgot, for 'bolts' , here the 'split' needs work, the easy way is directly not allow, if not, you should to compute the ranks used for the bonus splitted... :P (slow gameplay)
-
There is a skill in the Essence Comp called spell artistry that lets you change the visual aspect of your spells. I like it a lot and spell casters can look at the spells visual affect and possibly tell where the caster studied.
MDC
-
Maybe I will spoil the fun you have...but my thought is that it is a setting issue if spell mastered spells should cost more PP or not. It all depends on the settings assumption about magic.
It is quite clear that everyone agree that you shouldn't get a free lunch...the only debate if how much cost that stops things from being a free lunch.