Spells Feedback

[Bedwyr]

But the same spell can not create two entirely different effects.

I suppose then we just need to come up with what "entirely different effects" means.  Standard way of handling illusions are whether you are changing or creating, how large/detailed the change or creation is, how much substance it has, how long it lasts, and if changing whether it is yourself (or parts of your self) or others (or parts of others).  So, in our case, you'd have one illusion spell for "changing a small body part of myself for a minute with no substance behind it" that you could use to make your hand look like a claw or your head look like a cobra's hood.

[Tom]

I suppose then we just need to come up with what "entirely different effects" means.  Standard way of handling illusions are whether you are changing or creating, how large/detailed the change or creation is, how much substance it has, how long it lasts, and if changing whether it is yourself (or parts of your self) or others (or parts of others).  So, in our case, you'd have one illusion spell for "changing a small body part of myself for a minute with no substance behind it" that you could use to make your hand look like a claw or your head look like a cobra's hood.

Do not thing abstract.

If the same concrete term applies to both effects, it can be the same spell. "soldiers" is such a term, leaving the details of weapons and banner to casting time. But you'd do quite some semantic gymnastics to find a common term that encompasses both soldiers, horses and a bridge.

[Phellan]

Do not thing abstract.

If the same concrete term applies to both effects, it can be the same spell. "soldiers" is such a term, leaving the details of weapons and banner to casting time. But you'd do quite some semantic gymnastics to find a common term that encompasses both soldiers, horses and a bridge.

So a spell that creates an illusion of "a charging host of phantom knights" would be specific enough as it states the type of unit, their actions, and number?   But is general enough that you can specify the details of their armour (though, clearly its heavy armour as they are knights), nation, and general appearance.



Some of the differences between "change" and "control" seem a bit hard to understand for me - especially when dealing with elemental items, like fire and wind.     Sometimes by "controlling" fire, you can change what it is doing, how it acts, or where it is.    Will this be specifically up to the details of the spell to determine if it's a "Control" or "Change" issue for the GM who reads it?

I think its possibly because as far as elements like water, wind, and fire go - they don't have a set "shape", so changing them can be achieved through controlling the actions they take.

Though it's not always that hard - water to ice is a change (state), where as direction the wind is blowing is. . . change? control?   Extinguishing a fire or flaring it up?

[Tom]

So a spell that creates an illusion of "a charging host of phantom knights" would be specific enough as it states the type of unit, their actions, and number?   But is general enough that you can specify the details of their armour (though, clearly its heavy armour as they are knights), nation, and general appearance.

Yes

Some of the differences between "change" and "control" seem a bit hard to understand for me - especially when dealing with elemental items, like fire and wind.     Sometimes by "controlling" fire, you can change what it is doing, how it acts, or where it is.    Will this be specifically up to the details of the spell to determine if it's a "Control" or "Change" issue for the GM who reads it?

I think its possibly because as far as elements like water, wind, and fire go - they don't have a set "shape", so changing them can be achieved through controlling the actions they take.

Though it's not always that hard - water to ice is a change (state), where as direction the wind is blowing is. . . change? control?   Extinguishing a fire or flaring it up?

Yes, there are many overlaps and grey areas.

In case of doubt, check the synonyms as well, that often clears things up. Basically, if you want to control what the fire does (e.g. where it moves, what it burns), use Control, if you want to change the fire itself (size, intensity, colour, etc) you use Change.

[Bedwyr]

Do not thing abstract.

But I wannah!   Not really, but I do find it hard to figure these things out without approaching them abstractly.

What about increasing the effect level for a general spell?  So, if I want a level 1 effect but want it general, can I make an effect level 2 spell?

[Ramiel]

I want to combine bases

[Cline]

Would it be possible to have multiple bases and intents? To mix like water and earth to make oil? So you can cast this, then a fire spell to light it on fire?

Also I have a spell idea for some of the elements. The ability to turn into water/sand to go under doors, through cracks in walls. Similar things could be done for other elements.

[Zakilevo]

I think only a ritual can do that at this point.

[Tom]

What about increasing the effect level for a general spell?  So, if I want a level 1 effect but want it general, can I make an effect level 2 spell?

That won't make it more general, but more powerful.

[Bedwyr]

That won't make it more general, but more powerful.

So we can't sacrifice power for versatility?  Trying to come up with a way to have a decent suite of illusion spells without having to devote all time in existence to researching them...

[Tom]

Would it be possible to have multiple bases and intents? To mix like water and earth to make oil? So you can cast this, then a fire spell to light it on fire?

No, that's this other game, Magicka.

In this game, the base of your spell is whatever is the dominant one. For oil, I'd say that is water (it's still a fluid).

[Tom]

So we can't sacrifice power for versatility?  Trying to come up with a way to have a decent suite of illusion spells without having to devote all time in existence to researching them...

No, you can't sacrifice power for versatility. Read the description of spells again - their strength is ease of casting, their downside is that they are very specific. They are, basically, frozen rituals.

You can always do a ritual if you are unhappy with the spells you have, or need more flexibility.

[Bedwyr]

No, you can't sacrifice power for versatility. Read the description of spells again - their strength is ease of casting, their downside is that they are very specific. They are, basically, frozen rituals.

You can always do a ritual if you are unhappy with the spells you have, or need more flexibility.

Bah, I say.  Now, to look into mass mind-control spells for making rituals faster...

[Nathan]

Bah, I say.  Now, to look into mass mind-control spells for making rituals faster...

I may be able to trade you one, if it's accepted. How does a whole village worth of controllable souls sound?

[Tom]

I may be able to trade you one, if it's accepted. How does a whole village worth of controllable souls sound?

Remember that it needs to last at least as long as the ritual. *g*