Topic: Redesigning Arcane Magic

[jdale]

6d10 has a mean of 32 and only a 15% chance of getting above 40. 2d100 has a mean of 101 and only has a 15% chance of getting below 55. That seems like a meaningful difference to me. You will very likely get a result 3x as big.

The traditional way of handling arcane is simply by increasing the failure chance. I would rather leave the failure chance the same as other spells, but put the uncertainty in the spell effects themselves. Yes, if you do it often, you will eventually have a spell that barely sputters into being, but in RMSS an extra one out of 50 times the spell won't work at all. I think my kind of failure is more interesting.

It is not something that you see in RM2/RMSS arcane lists, that's true. Unless you want to take a spell like Phasing, on the Ethereal Mastery spell list in RoCo 1, where you have a chance of randomly dying during the spell. I don't find that very satisfying either.

But I will take your post as a vote against my approach....

[RandalThor]

Or you can handle it like weapon breakage; assign specific spells (spell lists, more likely) numbers like breakage numbers (1-X) and if the spellcaster rolls a double within that range something unusual happens. It doesn't have to be bad, just unexpected - a chart all sorts of weird things should be made to roll on. I would increase the "Arcane Breakage" number if a spellcaster was casting a spell hurredly or just at a negative for whatever reason (like injury, fatigue, etc...).

For Example: Repel Entity Sphere (20th level on the Arcane Temple spell lists), could have a AB# of 1-5 normally. But the caster is injured and at -20 to all actions, which translates to a +1 to the AB#, for a total of 1-6. So, if they roll any one of the following numbers: 11, 22, 33, 44, 55, or 66, they get an Arcane Surge Event.

I would make the chart like a critical chart with the least problematic events low, so that modifiers can be issued for different reasons, such as failing the spell which could be a +10 or +20 on the table. If you have it go to 150 or even 200, it can have lots and lots of strange stuff, from the caster's skin/hair/eyes/whatever changing color to the spell turning into a totally different spell (randomly determined, even the school so it can be a channelling, essence, mentalism, or another arcane spell).

With this, you have a new way of doing arcane magic, but don't have to learn a new system/method.

[terefang]

But I will take your post as a vote against my approach....

If you really want to keep that uncertainty element, you could  make it more RMish and mod one parameter (AoE, Range, Duration) based on a Base Attack Roll (BAR).

in the 2d100 example (avg = 100) an unmodified BAR of 82 on column "Arcane Spell/Other" would give a result of 140 (100+40%), you can surely extrapolate from here.

OR you could do as i did and change the rpg system entirely for magick styles.

PS: i actually like the style of spells on your lists for an arcanist and will probably convert them over to my homebrew.

2c

[jdale]

RMU has no BAR, so that doesn't save a roll. It could work for other versions of RM. Personally, I like the cases where the player doesn't know. I suppose it is a bit capricious? But that's magic.

[Cory Magel]

RMU has no BAR, so that doesn't save a roll. It could work for other versions of RM. Personally, I like the cases where the player doesn't know. I suppose it is a bit capricious? But that's magic.

Pick a random number from 1-100 and the closer they roll to it the more haywire it goes within a certain range?  Just change the number each time it actually has an impact.

[terefang]

RMU has no BAR, so that doesn't save a roll. It could work for other versions of RM. Personally, I like the cases where the player doesn't know. I suppose it is a bit capricious? But that's magic.

sorry i'm still on old school RM2, since i have never considered seriously to "upgrade" myself to a later version.

mfg

[terefang]

Pick a random number from 1-100 and the closer they roll to it the more haywire it goes within a certain range?  Just change the number each time it actually has an impact.

since RMU seams to have dropped the BAR it would not be beneficial to the flow of the game to add another pick and roll.

but judgeing from the RMU(BETA) files another mechanic could be used.

just let the world (the arcane weave) make an unmodified RR against the spell:

• for each 10% failed add +10% to the parameter
• for each 10% succeded add -10% to the parameter

you even could add modifiers for special sites like nodes, temples, etc.

mfg.

[Cory Magel]

Pick a random number from 1-100 and the closer they roll to it the more haywire it goes within a certain range?  Just change the number each time it actually has an impact.

since RMU seams to have dropped the BAR it would not be beneficial to the flow of the game to add another pick and roll.

You don't need to, just use the normal roll.

[terefang]

You don't need to, just use the normal roll.

that reminds me of one of the RMCs where you were supposed to switch the digits of one particular roll and lookup the result on another table ...