Topic: Spell Mastery question (proposed HR)

[Grinnen Baeritt]

Grinnen Baeritt;
 Yes I in my combo-RM-HARP style spell lists I would love to see some options for 1/2 Radius, 1/2 Duration, or any other type of shrinking of the spells effects.


MDC

If a spell has a 100' range and it is cast 30' away, there should be no reduction in pp. 

To me, the same wrong headed idea of upping a spells level with SM is at work with lowering its level because it is not cast at maximum parameters.

PS:  I say wrong headed with all love and respect.  More a measure of my passion mixed with a healthy dose of limited vocabulary.  No offense intended.

None taken.

I hadn't suggested that less PP will actually be used.. However, if a lower level spell, lets say shock bolt 50ft, existed, then, since it is the level that determines the PP cost, a spell of that kind would automatically require less PP than the higher level spell for no corresponding loss in spells damage causing effectiveness.

What I was suggesting was that a volentary restriction using Spell mastery (halving maximum range) could be used to offset the actual increase in another of the spells parameters, and that the two elements of PP useage are partially interchangable. Rather than altering the PP requirement for the spell (or altering its level) it would be a combination of modifiers to determine the difficulty of the Spell Mastery check.

Analogy: You are good at throwing a small rock into a hole 40ft away. You instead have a bigger rock, which is harder to throw.  This you want to throw into the same hole, from the same distance. However, it will be easier to throw that bigger rock into that same hole if you moved 20ft closer.

[yammahoper]

Gotcha.  Sounds simple enough.

[providence13]

As I read it, level of Bolts (for example), has no effect on range/accuracy. Increasing the level (adding PP as some call it here) would only affect RR's; if applicable. Come to think of it, many of the RR's are based on caster level.
Bolts
0-10 =   +35
11-50 =   0
51-100 =   -25
101-200 = -40
201-300 = -55
301+     = -75
The only thing that a higher level Bolt (in this example) spell gives in an increase in maximum range.
The only way to reduce these penalties is Dir Spells.
Perhaps the penalties should be based on % of max range... hhmmm. Or would this alter Directed Spells too much?

up to 10% = +35
11-25% = +10
26-50% = -25
51-75% = -50
76-100% = -75

This way, if you do increase the maximum potential range of the spell, you may not get a bonus, but you might have a lesser penalty.
Just a thought on range reduction.

[ToM]

Here, the updated table, with credits and some other options.
Comments and critiques welcome, as ever.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

Sorry, really can't see me introducing a skill which applies both the penalty of skill use and level as displayed here.

Unless of course the DP cost of purchasing the skill in question is radically reduced and made universal to ALL the spells that the caster knows.

At Current cost: 4/10... Lets assume the skill is every-man to that Profession and the character is 5th level.

That gives a bonus of +80 (20 ranks) +30 (stat if the caster is lucky enough to have +10 in each of the three) +10 Profession bonus (assumed) = +120.

Since ALL the uses on the table appear to carry at least a -10 skill penalty then the best that a caster can hope for is a +110 effective skill modifier + roll. In order to succeed (at the skill alone) they need 111, they need 1 or more on the dice to succeed (so a base 5% of failure, OElow rolls inclusive).

That, in itself, at first glance, doesn't seem that bad. After all the caster has only spent 4/10 =14*5= 70 DP to achieve this marvellous feat. Not much DP.. only about one entire levels worth of DP out of the five!!

Now, reflect upon the fact that those bonuses were admittedly on the generous side and (unless you have a generous GM) you are unlikely to have a character with all three stats giving +10 bonuses (100 Stat), more likely (but still generous) +5, +5, and +5 = +15.

These reductions increase the chance of failure to a 16% failure rate... even on the EASIEST use of the skill and having pumped fully 1/5 of the characters DP specialise a skill that only affects One spell list!

As the caster progresses in levels then it doesn't get much better due to the diminishing returns of the DP /skill bonus progression.

I'm sorry this seems a little too harsh even before adding levels to the equation..(which increases not only the time taken but the amount of PP used).

Better I think to ensure that the methodology behind using the skill is set in stone.

My suggestion.


1. The only modifers that affect the Static Man. check of the skill are those related to the cumulative difficulties of the manipulation.
2. If a spell mastery is attempted there can be no auto casting. The spell mastery is rolled first, with any modifier from the Static.M. table carrying forward on to the spell casting attempt.
3. The spell castiing roll is then made with all the standard modifications. If BOTH are sucessfull the spell is modified, if only the Spell mastery skill check fails, then the spell is cast as normal. The caster cannot choose to cancel the spell.
4. All penalties due to failure from either skill or casting roll are applied.






 

[VladD]

The reasoning behind using SM and making spells cost more PP and attain higher lvl is that it IS the way spells work. There is a base concept: say detecting stuff, and the first lvl spell on it is about detecting something minor. Higher lvl spells give more important data for higher PP cost.
With SM it is the same way: you learn it for one list only, more power in the spell costs more power points and then you need to prepare more, have a really pimped out SM skill and you need to use more power points.
Using SM just to change the color of the spell or have a fire ball just light some birthday cake candles might not cost more PP, but in a way it is pretty impressive to bend an 8th lvl base list spell to doing something minor as lighting tiny candles AND NOTHING ELSE in the room (stress placed purposefully since that is the important bit of the spell mastery.)
But anyway: if you don't like it, either don't allow it, or don't develop it with your mage, but I'm convinced someone will like this rewrite of the SM skill. It is very much a way to take the spell list concept as a whole to a new lvl. Isn't every spell list perhaps a base spell, with other spells developed from that one spell placed on the higher levels of the spell list?
As I wrote earlier: me and my nephew looked at plenty of lists to verify his spell mastery system to see if it worked out, and to us it made sense. ToM even increased some costs in PP, to balance it out even more, so yes: it might not be that super powerful skill it once was, (especially in RM2) but its still workable. Nerfed, but not to death.

@ToM: Table looks great! Hope people here like it.

[yammahoper]

Someone might like it, but not me.

[providence13]

Hey guys, I really appreciate the effort put into your campaign.
I might run some of the numbers differently, but I'll bet it is a huge help in your game.

I vacillate on the extra PP issue.. but I'm not using it. Maybe this system is like having one main spell per List. Then you SM it to have whatever effects required. Added effects require extra Levels that require added PP...
It sounds flexible and I hope it works for you.
My Spell Mastery is a bit different.. but so is everyone's game.

I do wonder why the "no other X modifiers can be applied" is so prominent. If they want to make it incredibly hard on themselves, let them.
 

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I agree with some of the comments here, if it works in your campaign then that's great.

What irks me is the fact that the spell mastery skill already costs to develop, and is fairly restrictive because of the modifiers already.

It's obvious that those that DO agree with this are influenced by either HARP or D&D 3+, but there are significant differences between them and RM

1. Harp. ALL spells learnt are inherently scalable, effectively creating a "spell list", but developed individually. The ability to "scale" once you have learnt the spell to a certain level does not cost additional DP past the cost of developing that spell further.

2. D&D. "Meta Magic Feats", dupilcates Spell Mastery, but to a limited, specific parameter. Once the feat is taken it can be used on ANY spell that parameter exists in that the caster knows..but is limited to the maximum level of spell that the caster can cast, since the spell slot used is of a higher level.

Given the choice I would probably allow "Spell Mastery"  as an inherent part of the RM Spell system (costing NOTHING over and above the cost of developing the spell list, like Harp), attempted with ANY spell the caster knows but THEN directly apply the modifiers as stated in the table to the Casting roll. Unlike HARP the RM spell list system is more generous/progressive in the applications of its spells... which for me is why I would choose the current RM over Harp.

[ToM]

Well, I admit the whole thing has gone a little too far.
I over-ruled it a bit: the basic concept is intriguing but the chance of overdoing it is really high. What I wanted was not a scalable/custom spell system, but additional options for mid to high level characters.

Eventually, this Spell Mastery SHOULD actually work for some games, and shouln't for others.

[providence13]

Given the choice I would probably allow "Spell Mastery"  as an inherent part of the RM Spell system (costing NOTHING over and above the cost of developing the spell list, like Harp), attempted with ANY spell the caster knows but THEN directly apply the modifiers as stated in the table to the Casting roll.

I kinda like this idea.. maybe for Pure Users.
We cast at Rank in the List so it would be pretty powerful. But I wonder if Mages would want to spend DP instead for the Everyman progression.