BattleMaster Community
Toms Other Games => SpellMaster III => SM General Discussion => Topic started by: Tom on August 25, 2011, 09:50:36 AM
-
Because there is no message system currently, so rejecting a spell does not tell the inventor anything:
Skim Thoughts - like the other mind/perceive spell, I'll reject this one because the target should be 2 - you are reading the thoughts of a human, not of his head. That's a modern/mechanical thought, in a holistic/magical view, thoughts aren't located in the head, they are the property of the whole being.
With a target of 1, you could read the "thoughts" or emotions of a small animal.
-
ok, now it's better:
We now have a "lifecycle" for spell inventions.
When the spell gets rejected, you will see it as "rejected" under your "under research" list. There will be a link "rework" next to it. You can review the rejection reason there, modify the spell and submit it again. The GMs will see that this is a reworked, not a new spell, and the reason why they (or some other GM) rejected it initially. They can then accept the re-submitted spell, or reject it again.
Right now, there is no "final rejection" at which point a spell would be deleted.
-
Would it be possible to modify spells until they're considered by a GM? It may be less of a problem once the game gets going, but in my spell submission frenzy I've made a mistake or two. Not a big issue, but means you have to reject my spell and I have to rework it later rather than me just fixing the mistake.
Could cause a race condition if someone evaluates it at the same time as I fix the mistake, but that should be solvable.
-
As long as you guys know i am claiming the poly morphing spells ;)
My character Circe will start with only the ability to change a living form into another. and depending on how much fun it will be, she will probably stay with that, no destructive spells etc, just her trying to fool people or get way from certain situations. just be careful not to step on the cattle in the cities...
-
I would at this time recommend submitting spells that are 'basic'. Like invisibility for example.
-
If we create spells now using the official interface, will they be available when the game officially starts, or will they be wiped on official release?
Will the spells that are created ever be made publicly available?
Will it be possible to see spells that others have created, and learn them?
Will we be able to indicate somehow that we want to teach a particular other player a specific spell?
Will it be possible to indicate that a spell is, for lack of a better term, "released into the public domain"?
What happens if two people create essentially the exact same spell, but with different names? I assume this is allowed?
Will rituals be designed in a manner similar to spells? If not, then how will it be determined how many people, time, and materials are required?
-
As Tom said in another post the spells created now will be available. I'm guessing we won't know them at the start, with the possible exception of a few simple ones, but they're going to be in the game. He said there would be some advantage to be the creator.
Spells can be learned, but you have to learn them from someone. At a guess simple spells will probably be more or less learn able by anyone, maybe at a higher cost if noone teaches you, while more complex ones will likely be one off spells. You can invent it, but if I want to learn it I have to beg, borrow or steal your works.
Rituals follow much less rigid structures. You pick your base and intent, as well as effect, and start performing it either alone or with help. If you pick decent costs for it the GM's will just let you continue, but if you decide that you can create the Sword of Instant Death(tm) in 5 minutes without expending any resources they'll just slap you with a "Didn't happen, try again with this cost..." or some spectacular failure.
The rest I dunno. I'm guessing no duplicate spells, but they might let it slide if it happens simultaneously.
One of the greatest benefits of Councils is just that, sharing spells. Depending on the council in question all spells might be held in common, they might be divided into ranks, they might require you to have rare spells to join etc. Council politics really are half the fun of the game IMO, can't have spellcasters without some intrigue and fun.
-
Spells made now are going to go live. Unless something needs to be reset for an unknown reason.
-
Thanks for the answers.
The rest I dunno. I'm guessing no duplicate spells, but they might let it slide if it happens simultaneously.
I would think that anyone would be able to duplicate any effect, given the appropriate research time. It's not like once one person learns to carve a depression in a block of wood that no one else will ever be able to learn how to make a bowl.
-
I would think that anyone would be able to duplicate any effect, given the appropriate research time. It's not like once one person learns to carve a depression in a block of wood that no one else will ever be able to learn how to make a bowl.
That would be the reasoning behind duplicating a simple spell like lighting a fire, boiling water, mending bones etc. The principle is simple, as is the execution of it. In game terms it's likely to be the exact same spell as some other spellcaster has researched, but you'll probably have to research it from scratch if that takes longer than learning a spell from another caster.
More advanced spells like teleportation, farsight, polymorph and the likes probably aren't quite as easy. Everyone's inherently able to cast those spells, but that doesn't mean you can just do it. It'd probably be more like a well crafted piece of software, you understand what it does but without the source code you can't just go around duplicating it.
I'm not sure where exactly the limit on what you can just "pick up" will be, if allowed at all.
There will be only one Fireball spell, making up your own won't work. Because getting spell formulas, trading for them, etc. is a major part of the game. And control of some especially interesting spells will be part of what the councils powers could be.
-
More advanced spells like teleportation, farsight, polymorph and the likes probably aren't quite as easy. Everyone's inherently able to cast those spells, but that doesn't mean you can just do it. It'd probably be more like a well crafted piece of software, you understand what it does but without the source code you can't just go around duplicating it.
Why not? All our characters are expert programmers? Just because I don't duplicate the source code character-for-character doesn't mean that I can't get the same effect. There are, after all, many different programming languages, formatting conventions, etc.
There will be only one Fireball spell, making up your own won't work.
So, once someone creates a spell for a ball of fire that flies out and blows up, no one else can ever make a spell that has a ball of fire that flies out and blows up? Or does that mean that I can't call mine "Fireball", it has to be called "Indirik's Spherical Conflagration"? Or perhaps mine has to have blue fire, instead of orange fire? Or it's made of hot plasma instead of burning fire?
I'm not trying to be argumentative, here. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the system. It seems to me that if once the generic spells have been designed, that creating new ones will get more and more difficult. So the people that start first, and especially the ones that "register" all the common spells, will have a huge advantage over the people that start later.
-
Can you modify someone else's spell? Like if someone created the fire ball spell, can I modify it some way to make it into some kind of smaller but has more penetration or something?
-
Who has the most spells is not what would decide who does best, it's who knows how to use their spells to the best effect that will always come out on top...
Also, it is right that the people who have been around longer will be the stronger ones, but then it's down to those new to magic to put in the effort to learn things for themselves, or find someone to teach them...
-
Who has the most spells is not what would decide who does best, it's who knows how to use their spells to the best effect that will always come out on top...
BS.
Sorry, but if the game is based around magic, and you can't start out with stronger magic, the one who knows more different spells is going to have an enormous advantage over the one who knows only a few.
Yes, you can be somewhat clever about how you use spells, but the system is specifically designed so that you can't, for instance, use a Fireball to start the trees on fire to send up a plume of smoke to signal someone. Fireball, being a Harm spell, must be used to hurt someone.
So even if you're very clever, your options are pretty limited.
Also, it is right that the people who have been around longer will be the stronger ones, but then it's down to those new to magic to put in the effort to learn things for themselves, or find someone to teach them...
I think the problem here isn't just that someone who comes along later will have fewer spells because it's a younger character. The problem is that the people here right now have the chance to research lots of basic spells, spells that are simple and obvious, but that haven't been laid out by the GMs from the start. They get to make them up, and then their characters know them.
When people come along later, they will not be able to research these basic spells, because once one person has created Fireball, no one else can ever learn a Fireball spell except from them! (or, obviously, in a chain leading back to them)
So people here now get to boost their stock of useful starting spells by some arbitrary amount, a boost which the later people will not have access to.
-
Are you serious?
People won't be learning early spells if they join too late? That is insane!
-
BS.
No it's not.
As I said, it's who knows how to use them best, and by that I do not mean the effects, as you say, they are fixed for each spell. I mean by which spell to use when. Someone with vast amounts of spells might get carried away and cast spells that make them tired very quickly meaning the other person, with just a dozen or so spells, could take advantage of the situation.
The one who has the most spells may well have a huge advantage but only if they know how/when to use them properly. Someone with a vast quantity of spells who does not know how to use them best will probably find having so many options a hindrance rather than a help.
I think the problem here isn't just that someone who comes along later will have fewer spells because it's a younger character. The problem is that the people here right now have the chance to research lots of basic spells, spells that are simple and obvious, but that haven't been laid out by the GMs from the start. They get to make them up, and then their characters know them.
The spells being done now, before the game starts properly are, as far as I'm aware, going to be kept in the game but the characters will not necessarily keep knowledge of each one once we go active.
When people come along later, they will not be able to research these basic spells, because once one person has created Fireball, no one else can ever learn a Fireball spell except from them! (or, obviously, in a chain leading back to them)
As has been stated elsewhere, if/when Councils are up and running, if they take similar form to the past the keep their own grimoires which are made available to all members of the Council (possibly split at different levels). So a new player, if they joined a Council, would have most of the basic spells made available to them through that.
This isn't a game about people spending most of their time away from other SpellCasters, there should be lots of interactions and opportunities for trade/teaching/learning.
If there do seem to be problems once we're underway, we can look at addressing things, but the basic spells should be relatively easy for people to get hold of once we've been going a while.
-
No it's not.
As I said, it's who knows how to use them best, and by that I do not mean the effects, as you say, they are fixed for each spell. I mean by which spell to use when. Someone with vast amounts of spells might get carried away and cast spells that make them tired very quickly meaning the other person, with just a dozen or so spells, could take advantage of the situation.
The one who has the most spells may well have a huge advantage but only if they know how/when to use them properly. Someone with a vast quantity of spells who does not know how to use them best will probably find having so many options a hindrance rather than a help.
That's a lot like saying, "Well, yeah, your opponents are going to have swords, daggers, and crossbows and you're just going to have a club—but they might be really stupid and not know how to use them, so you should be fine!"
-
Maybe the person with fewer spells might delved deeper into his spells? Even though both of them have the same fire ball spell, the fewer spell guy might have a stronger fire ball since he spent more hours in the spells?
-
Settle down Tim. As has been said before we're getting basic spells into the game's database. A lot of spells have been rejected, and maybe 12 have been activated, and not all of them were set to 'learned'. It'll be relatively easy to clear a character's spell list, or to set a default list of spells (such as the old grimorie (http://lemuria.org/SpellMaster/spells.php3)
But James' point is entirely valid. If someone has a lot of fire or water spells, and the person they're up against has death spells and a few protection spells against fire and water then they'll be able to blast away with a Flesh Rot spell while the other guy is powerless regardless of his huge arsenal.
There was a unity shield that a few characters had in the original SM. Man was that thing powerful. Just one spell made a guy on better footing
-
Maybe the person with fewer spells might delved deeper into his spells? Even though both of them have the same fire ball spell, the fewer spell guy might have a stronger fire ball since he spent more hours in the spells?
Jack of all trades master of none...
-
As I said, it's who knows how to use them best, and by that I do not mean the effects, as you say, they are fixed for each spell. I mean by which spell to use when. Someone with vast amounts of spells might get carried away and cast spells that make them tired very quickly meaning the other person, with just a dozen or so spells, could take advantage of the situation.
So you're assertion is that people who are new, and have fewer spells, are smarter than those who have been playing a long time, and have lots of spells. Huh? Someone who has more tools will be more likely to have the right tool for the job. That's why the experienced auto mechanics have huge toolboxes full of hundreds of special purpose tools. When he wants to do something, he grabs the tool specifically designed for that purpose. He doesn't just say "Oh look, a sledgehammer! Woohoo!"
If no one can duplicate a spell except by learning it from the creator, then whoever grabs the Player's Handbook now and starts slapping in the spells is going to have a HUGE advantage, no matter how clever everyone else is. And what happens if that person later goes inactive, or his character dies a fiery death? All those spells are forever lost, and no one else can ever learn Fireball?
The one who has the most spells may well have a huge advantage but only if they know how/when to use them properly. Someone with a vast quantity of spells who does not know how to use them best will probably find having so many options a hindrance rather than a help.
It seems like you're counting on the scenario where the person who enters all those spells into the system is incompetent. That seems like a flimsy hope on which to base what could be the success/failure of the game.
The spells being done now, before the game starts properly are, as far as I'm aware, going to be kept in the game but the characters will not necessarily keep knowledge of each one once we go active.
So even if I were to enter a spell now, that doesn't necessarily mean that I will get to use it later? If I can't, who can? I mean, if no one can duplicate it, and I can't use it, then what happens to it?
If there do seem to be problems once we're underway, we can look at addressing things, but the basic spells should be relatively easy for people to get hold of once we've been going a while.
Perhaps rather than trust that people will be willing to share their secrets, there should be some threshold of difficulty below which spells can be freely duplicated. Anyone with a functioning brain should be able to duplicate the formula for a Light spell. It's only when you start getting into the higher level/more difficult/complex stuff that duplication is restricted.
I don't want to be a doomsayer here in predicting an early death to the game. I'm just trying to understand it, and some of this isn't really making sense to me.
-
Jack of all trades master of none...
Don't be ridiculous. I don't have to "master" a spell to monopolize it. I could enter 500 Death spells right now, and never learn a single one of them, or even bother putting any points in the Death base. But once I've designed the spells, no one else can ever master them, either, because "I own the patents, bizatch!".
So, what is there in the system that prevents someone from doing something like this?
-
wait what? you can summit spells now? I thought we haven't launched the game yet.
-
wait what? you can summit spells now? I thought we haven't launched the game yet.
We haven't, but we need to get some of the initial Spell base set in place which is why we are asking for submissions now, none of which are you guaranteed to have when the game does actually start.
-
Don't be ridiculous. I don't have to "master" a spell to monopolize it. I could enter 500 Death spells right now, and never learn a single one of them, or even bother putting any points in the Death base. But once I've designed the spells, no one else can ever master them, either, because "I own the patents, bizatch!".
So, what is there in the system that prevents someone from doing something like this?
The GMs...
-
Don't be ridiculous. I don't have to "master" a spell to monopolize it.[/b].
The point before wasn't about trying to monopolize a spell which is inherently ridiculous, it was about how someone could have a bunch of spells and one person could have gone deep into a particular base and intent and destroy the other person with just a few really powerful spells, or another way of looking at it, their costs go way down and so even though one person has 100 spells to cast they can only do what maybe 20 if they're well rested.
The other person can have 10 and can cast those same to 100 times.
-
So you're assertion is that people who are new, and have fewer spells, are smarter than those who have been playing a long time, and have lots of spells. Huh?
I don't think I said anything about the experience level of people involved, just the quantity of spells they own. There will probably come a time where some people who have only just started playing, because of the Council they join, immediately have more spells than someone else who has been playing for a while. In this situation, just because they have more spells, they are new to the game so don't necessarily know exactly what the best way is to use what they have.
With regard to experience, anyone who has been playing longer should have an advantage over new players, so I don't see how that is even an issue.
It seems like you're counting on the scenario where the person who enters all those spells into the system is incompetent. That seems like a flimsy hope on which to base what could be the success/failure of the game.
No, I'm basing it on the scenario where character xxx has y amount of spells, nothing to do with whether they are ones that character created or not. There may well be some characters who never bother creating their own spells because everything they want is already available. Whereas there may well be other characters who just go on a creation frenzy. At the early stages there will be lots of new spells to be created, later on in the game, if there are hundreds of spells already created, the need/idea of new ones may be limited.
So even if I were to enter a spell now, that doesn't necessarily mean that I will get to use it later? If I can't, who can? I mean, if no one can duplicate it, and I can't use it, then what happens to it?
We will find ways to ensure spells get into the game.
Perhaps rather than trust that people will be willing to share their secrets, there should be some threshold of difficulty below which spells can be freely duplicated. Anyone with a functioning brain should be able to duplicate the formula for a Light spell. It's only when you start getting into the higher level/more difficult/complex stuff that duplication is restricted.
A SpellCaster that never shares his secrets is unlikely to have anyone else share things with them, so they could cling to their few secrets but will be missing out on a lot of other opportunities.
Something will be worked out regarding duplication of spells and we will let people know what that is once it is clear to the GMs.
I don't want to be a doomsayer here in predicting an early death to the game. I'm just trying to understand it, and some of this isn't really making sense to me.
Just remember we haven't actually started the game proper yet and hopefully once it is active, things will make more sense.
-
where do I submit spells then? Do I send a private message? The SM3 website doesn't work yet.
-
The website should work if you register.
-
Edit: Mis-aligned column sort-headings fixed for 'Spells you are currently researching' section.
-
With regard to experience, anyone who has been playing longer should have an advantage over new players, so I don't see how that is even an issue.
Oh, I agree with this. I'm not trying to argue that it shouldn't be that way. What I don't want to see, though, is that after two or three years, that every spell some new player tries to make comes back marked "Denied, some else already has that". This could be insanely frustrating, especially when they are submitting iconic spells, like Fireballs, Magic Missiles, Invisibility, etc.
At the early stages there will be lots of new spells to be created, later on in the game, if there are hundreds of spells already created, the need/idea of new ones may be limited.
What I'm not understanding, though, is why we have to limit the learning of basic spells just because someone else already made a spell with the same effect. Does it matter if two people have discovered the formula for a Light spell independently? What intrinsic property of a spell makes it so that once it has been "discovered", that no one else can ever discover it without first finding the person that discovered it first?
Keep in mind that it is completely possible for someone to independently develop the exact same spell and effect without ever even knowing that someone else has already developed it. Especially when it comes to standard magical fantasy fodder like Invisibility, Magic Missiles, Healing, etc. The possibility that someone can't independently invent, research, learn, and cast somethings as simple as a Sleep spell because someone else already created a spell with that effect is mind boggling. Especially if, as it seems like will be the case, creating and researching spells is a big part of the game.
We will find ways to ensure spells get into the game.
Something will be worked out regarding duplication of spells and we will let people know what that is once it is clear to the GMs.
I'm glad to hear that. I am eager to find out what measures will be devised to to ensure this. Personally, I'd try to work something out based on the complexity of the spell. i.e. a [1,1,1] spell should be trivial to duplicate. A [2,3,3] much harder, and a [5,5,5] nearly impossible.
Just remember we haven't actually started the game proper yet and hopefully once it is active, things will make more sense.
I do trust that you will come up with something good to cover these situations.
-
I'd like to suggest the GMs to just correct spelling mistakes if they find them.
I can make mistakes and i don't fell like reworking spells because of spelling mistakes but rather because of issues with the spell it's self.
My accepted spells also got spelling mistakes btw, just so you know...
and also if someone says about half an hour just make it into half an hour if you think time has to be specific, i don't know i imagine magic not as something 100% calculable, but rather as used energy, so sometimes something lasts for 37 minutes, and sometimes it lasts 22 minutes.
It feels a bit childish to reject spells on spelling mistakes, just correct them if you see them.
I am goddamn dyslexic .
-
I'd like to suggest the GMs to just correct spelling mistakes if they find them.
That will be the case in the future, but at the moment the interface does not allow us to make any modifications ourselves. This will be getting changed, but until then we will not be able to accept any with any errors in (and if some have slipped through we will have to address those once we are able to).
Apologies for the current inconvenience.
-
Why not? All our characters are expert programmers? Just because I don't duplicate the source code character-for-character doesn't mean that I can't get the same effect. There are, after all, many different programming languages, formatting conventions, etc.
So, once someone creates a spell for a ball of fire that flies out and blows up, no one else can ever make a spell that has a ball of fire that flies out and blows up? Or does that mean that I can't call mine "Fireball", it has to be called "Indirik's Spherical Conflagration"? Or perhaps mine has to have blue fire, instead of orange fire? Or it's made of hot plasma instead of burning fire?
I'm not trying to be argumentative, here. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the system. It seems to me that if once the generic spells have been designed, that creating new ones will get more and more difficult. So the people that start first, and especially the ones that "register" all the common spells, will have a huge advantage over the people that start later.
Theoretically, you can invent spells, duplicating other people's effects. We may have a library of "common spells" that can be learned that way.
Like complex software, artwork, constructions, inventing one from scratch is very time-consuming. Yes, you can re-invent the combustion engine or the lightbulb without ever having seen a blueprint - but it will take years of failed experiments, getting the proper resources, fiddling with the details, etc. etc.
That is why we won't simulate the re-invention part within the game. It would mean dedicating your character to this task for a very, very long time.
-
Sorry, but if the game is based around magic, and you can't start out with stronger magic, the one who knows more different spells is going to have an enormous advantage over the one who knows only a few.
There are actually two systems to the game. The advancement in power (through skills) is one, acquiring spell formulas is the other. The second one is purely self-limited by you players. No game mechanics stops you from having a collection of a hundred spells a week after starting the game. You probably won't be able to use most of them since your skills aren't that good, but your opponent with 20+ skill in everything can't harm you one bit unless he knows a harm spell or two.
-
Don't be ridiculous. I don't have to "master" a spell to monopolize it. I could enter 500 Death spells right now, and never learn a single one of them, or even bother putting any points in the Death base. But once I've designed the spells, no one else can ever master them, either, because "I own the patents, bizatch!".
So, what is there in the system that prevents someone from doing something like this?
The basic misunderstanding here seems to be that if you invent the spell, no one else can ever discover it. That's not true and I didn't say that. What I did say, and will stick with is that there won't be duplicate spells in the database. I don't want to have 20 different Fireballs where the only difference between them is their name and the flame colour.
There will also be different methods of gaining spells than the "spell creation" interface. I want to leave that even though I don't want to have much invention, because it allows you, the players, to be creative instead of having to rely on whatever spells the small GM team can come up with. But invention is not intended to be a major source of spells for your character.
The main source should be other characters. Since new characters will start out with spells that the older ones almost certainly already know, trading is not much of an option. But this is one way to get apprentices, favours, debts, etc. - which gives us stuff for roleplays, intrigue and conflict.
There will also be spells you can find through roleplaying. If you discover an old mystical library, the GMs may reward you with a few formulas.
Councils as a source of spell sharing have already been mentioned.
So please don't stick to spell invention as a source of spells. That's not what it's for. That is why there is no guarantee that you automatically learn the spells you invented - and also no guarantee that we won't be giving it to someone else.
-
Does it matter if two people have discovered the formula for a Light spell independently? What intrinsic property of a spell makes it so that once it has been "discovered", that no one else can ever discover it without first finding the person that discovered it first?
It's not an in-game restrictions, it's an OOC restriction. We just don't want 50 identical spells. A fireball should be named "Fireball", not "My Flaming Sphere", because otherwise people will have no idea what the heck the thing does.
Again, you being the inventor of a spell doesn't mean it is yours. We may well store it and give it to someone else as part of his starting spell collection.
-
After some discussion spells that heal a portion of a body are target 1. The same would hold for non-lethal damage to a limb. Say cutting the Achilles tendon of a target, blinding them etc.
---
Setting a broken bone would be a Target 1 spell.
Poisoning someone is clearly a Target 2 spell.
Basically, for healing and direct damage: A single wound healed or caused will usually be a Target 1 spell, major damage (or wounds that cause terminal effects to the entire being) are usually Target 2.
-
What about protection? Like a barrier spell or shield? How do I decide the level of effect for these spells?
-
After some discussion spells that heal a portion of a body are target 1. The same would hold for non-lethal damage to a limb. Say cutting the Achilles tendon of a target, blinding them etc.
I had been asked to revise Bruise Begone to Target 2 prior to this decision, and the spell was previously accepted for Target 2. Can a GM manually change it back to Target 1, or should I resubmit with Target 1, while the Target 2 version is deleted?
Edit: Oops! When I reworked two more Heal spells (Knit Bone and Coagulate Blood) to revise them back to Target 1, I think I accidentally changed the Effects instead of the Targets. Sorry for the inconvenience :(
-
What about protection? Like a barrier spell or shield? How do I decide the level of effect for these spells?
What do you want it to protect... a person then 2, a small group 3 etc.
I had been asked to revise Bruise Begone to Target 2 prior to this decision, and the spell was previously accepted for Target 2. Can a GM manually change it back to Target 1, or should I resubmit with Target 1, while the Target 2 version is deleted?
Unknown, Tom could manually fix it. That was the only one I know of that was accepted with an incorrect target size.
-
Again, you being the inventor of a spell doesn't mean it is yours. We may well store it and give it to someone else as part of his starting spell collection.
Any chance of giving just one spell that we invent as part of our starting spell collection? It seems reasonable to at least own one thing that we invent. Don't want to submit my cool mind-blowing spell if someone else is going to own it :(
-
Any chance of giving just one spell that we invent as part of our starting spell collection? It seems reasonable to at least own one thing that we invent. Don't want to submit my cool mind-blowing spell if someone else is going to own it :(
Wrong mindset.
We are building this game together. If you approach the spell creation part with a protective attitude, that's a mistake.
That said, chances are that you will get a couple of your own spells rather than those of other people.
-
There will also be different methods of gaining spells than the "spell creation" interface. I want to leave that even though I don't want to have much invention, because it allows you, the players, to be creative instead of having to rely on whatever spells the small GM team can come up with. But invention is not intended to be a major source of spells for your character.
So please don't stick to spell invention as a source of spells. That's not what it's for. That is why there is no guarantee that you automatically learn the spells you invented - and also no guarantee that we won't be giving it to someone else.
Hmm... OK. That makes things make a bit more sense, then. I was under the impression that the creation of spells was intended to be more significant in the playing of the game. The fact that designing a spell doesn't confer any form of ownership, or guarantee that you'll even have the spell IG puts a whole new light on things. In other words, putting spells into the interface means that we are participating not in character development, but world building. We are, in effect, writing a common spell book from which the GMs can pull source material.
-
We are, in effect, writing a common spell book from which the GMs can pull source material.
Exactly. And that you will receive a few of those spells you've contributed for your own use is simply the reward/incentive for your efforts.
-
holy hell. we have higher chance of getting our own spells? I wasn't writing spells that I really wanted for my char.. crap!
-
holy hell. we have higher chance of getting our own spells? I wasn't writing spells that I really wanted for my char.. crap!
Relax. We'll still be basing your initial selection on the skills your character has.
-
oh so the currently active spells I have are not necessarily going to be mine? Because I am thinking about going death base but most of spells I have registered so far are based on fire/earth/mind.
-
(http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/6471/sm3bonecell.png)
Excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone) under 4) Cellular structure:
There are several types of cells constituting the bone;
- Osteoblasts are mononucleate bone-forming cells that descend from osteoprogenitor cells.
- Bone lining cells are essentially inactive osteoblasts.
- Osteocytes originate from osteoblasts that have migrated into and become trapped and surrounded by bone matrix that they themselves produce.
- Osteoclasts are the cells responsible for bone resorption, thus they break down bone.
I'll remove 'cells' since it's not a big deal, but I just wanted to point out that bone does have cells.
-
obviously the person answered you didn't take bio.
-
For 'Local Analgesia'...
(http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/7199/sm3prtcprcv.png)
...I picked Perceive because the spell doesn't really Protect the targeted area of the body. Pain won't be felt, so I figure a guy whose body part is targeted Perceives something contrary to his customary reality, but that doesn't mean the area is Protected from damage. For example, if his arm is targeted, then he can still get it chopped off, but he could keep fighting without feeling shock or overwhelming pain. He may eventually faint from blood loss, but he likely won't be screaming his head off.*
If my opinion of Perceive vs Protect is misguided, then the active/already accepted spell 'General Analgesia' will also need to be reworked/manually modified, because it uses Perceive instead of Protect as well--and it even affects the target's entire body instead of just a small part. I'll wait for a reply before reworking 'Local Analgesia'.
*(He'll just be like the Black Knight in Monty Python :-X)
-
One way or the other, SM3 is a game long before cells were something people talked about. Try to stick with descriptions fitting the setting, please.
-
I'll remove 'cells' since it's not a big deal, but I just wanted to point out that bone does have cells.
Of course it has cells, but primarily it is the ossified connective tissue excreted by those cells that people think about. Especially when you're fixing a bone. ;-) And no I took a lot of Bio, it's sort of my job, though I focus on the nervous system now.
-
For 'Local Analgesia'...
If my opinion of Perceive vs Protect is misguided, then the active/already accepted spell 'General Analgesia' will also need to be reworked/manually modified, because it uses Perceive instead of Protect as well--and it even affects the target's entire body instead of just a small part. I'll wait for a reply before reworking 'Local Analgesia'.
It could go either way. Resubmit as Perceive since general was also perceive.
-
I know this has sort of been settled already, but I wanted to provide my feedback anyways. Who knows, maybe some of this could be helpful? I think that having a multiple spells that provide the same effect with slightly different names and/or special effects would help make game world more organic and realistic. I also think that learning spells through invention should be an option. Simply put, creating your own version of fireball would take a LOT more time and effort than learning it from someone else but it should still be possible.
I really like the comparison of spell making to programming. In most cases there are MANY ways to get the same effect. Simple programs (spells) can be created from scratch nearly as easily as getting it from someone else. More complex programs (powerful spells) would take much longer to develop independently than to get from someone else. This would suggest that it is easy for new mages to gain entry level spells through invention. Good for their education too. At a certain point however, it is simply no longer feasible to learn new spells that way.
To combine this all with what I have heard so far, I would like to suggest:
- Have a spell list with no duplicated effects/names (Tom seems adamant on this one)
- Each spell can be learned by self study (invented). Simple spells do not take too long. Advanced spells take WAY long.
- Characters can learn new spells (new to the game or new to them) via self study much more easily when they are simple making slight modifications to a spell they already know.
- Each spell can be learned from another. All spells can be learned relatively quickly this way.
- Spells should be vague in superficial details (gestures to cast, color of the flame, smell of the smoke).
- Players should be allowed to call a spell what they will and decide the superficial details at will.
Example:
Jimmy the wizard is taught a spell to start fires by his master. It takes him 6 hours to learn. His master then tasks him with creating a spell of equal complexity (power), a spell to purify a small amount of water. Jimmy manages but it takes 9 hours (This spell could be completely new, or one off of the master list). Jimmy now knows two spells.
When Jimmy casts his purify water spell he says "cleana youa" and the water glows purple momentarily. When his master purifies water he says "ika waya" and the water bubbles momentarily.
Jimmy then teaches another apprentice his purify water spell. This apprentice then modifies the spell so it will clean more water at once. This takes the time to learn the spell from another (6 hours) and then an additional 6 hours to make a new spell based on an existing spell. This new spell could be new to the game or simply new to the apprentice.
-
@Pelgart:
I don't want duplicates. Variations are ok, if there really is a difference.
We had something in the older games regarding personal "signatures" on spells. I might copy that.
But there is an important gameplay reason why I want trading to be the #1 source of spell formulas: It makes character interaction necessary, providing source material for both conflict and cooperation.
-
Sounds great. I just thought that making simple spells only marginally harder to learn through self study (invention) would allow new players to establish a decent spell base. It would still take more effort/time than learning from others. This way a new character would not be "penalized" for not immediately joining an established group. As spells became more powerful I completely agree that it should take so long to learn the spell through self study (invention) that most would rather seek out the spell in other, more interactive ways. This would also encourage players to find like minded mages and get to the interacting.
Either way I am excited to see where this all goes. It sounds like a lot of fun! Thanks for taking my feedback seriously!
-
Just a note, "illusory" is actually a word. I resubmitted the spell anyway, but I'm likely to use it again.
Also, for illusion spells...Are we going to have to be specific with "creates an illusion of a clawed hand" or can we have general purpose illusion spells? It's going to get very tiresome if we have to create a whole slew of spells like "make a small group of people look like armed guards of this country" "make a small group of people look like minor bureaucrats of that country".
-
wtf? One of my spell won't be submitted ever. The guy wants me to submitted it as a ritual but I don't see the option to do that.
-
This is odd...I don't know how I screwed that up, but somehow the Gauge Crowd spell is registering as using Harm and Fire rather than Perceive and Mind as it should.
-
This is odd...I don't know how I screwed that up, but somehow the Gauge Crowd spell is registering as using Harm and Fire rather than Perceive and Mind as it should.
Yeah, there is some weird bug somewhere deep in the code. I can't reliably reproduce it, which is why I can't fix it right now.
-
wtf? One of my spell won't be submitted ever. The guy wants me to submitted it as a ritual but I don't see the option to do that.
There is no submission for rituals, because they are free-form. They don't have formulas.
-
oh. So I can just use it in my story then? That would be pretty cheap.
-
yes, you can basically just do it. If you have the proper skills, etc.
-
Just a note, "illusory" is actually a word. I resubmitted the spell anyway, but I'm likely to use it again.
Thought it was a typo, you can resubmit as illusory if you want just PM me.
-
There is no submission for rituals, because they are free-form. They don't have formulas.
I'm guessing this is the same for spontaneous magic too?
-
huh I thought we were not going to start with spells we made but guess we are. I will probably need to trade a LOT or make more spells to make my character what I want him to be.
-
I have a question regarding change. I was told that change must always have a duration and that change can not be permanent. This makes no sense to me. Perhaps my understanding is off. If I take an object, any object, and change it using mundane means it stays changed. The duration is how long the change takes. When it comes to magic spells I think of two options:
Big effect, instant duration: The magic changes the target instantly. Once changed the magic is done. The effect would be huge requiring a 4 or 5 (5 in my opinion). After all you just ended the existence of the target by changing it's form (like reducing them to ash). A full change like this results in all kind of side effects. Like having the brain of a frog. Lots of possibilities with this kind of change. Like changing yourself into a newborn babe as a way of avoiding death. Problem is all knowledge and experience is gone with the old brain. New brain is blank. Perhaps you could hire a team to retrain you but nothing is certain. Or you could turn someone into an adult orc. Same problem. New brain. Enough functions to live but no understanding of how to walk or talk or anything else.
Slightly smaller effect, non-instant duration: The magic is doing more than just changing your body. It is retaining your mind, interfacing with the new body, making you able to use the new body with ease, and being there to change you back when the spell is complete. More powerful in most ways but the magic has to be there the whole time to hold all this together. Once it is gone you pop back to yourself.
What are all your thoughts on such change magic?
-
I figure my character to be little more than an apprentice who will need to learn and grow in game. Honestly, I am having a hard time making a lot of spell ideas fit into the intent/domains. I need to buy myself come creativity!
Also, since we are making a 1 spell per effect system would it be possible for us, as players, to see the spell list? It would help to reduce duplicate effort and could help spark ideas in others. Of course, our characters might not know of all these spells but that is what role playing is all about. Makes you wonder what the point is if 9 from ten spells are rejected as duplicates.
-
I have a question regarding change. I was told that change must always have a duration and that change can not be permanent. This makes no sense to me. Perhaps my understanding is off. If I take an object, any object, and change it using mundane means it stays changed. The duration is how long the change takes.
Seems to me that if you're changing an inanimate object, it's reasonable to have the change be permanent, so long as it falls under reasonable restrictions—conservation of mass seems like a good one. Another would be not being able to dramatically increase the complexity—say, to form a fully-fledged tower, with lots of interior rooms and whatnot, out of solid bedrock. That's not the sort of thing a spell should be able to do. Perhaps in these cases, the amount the complexity can increase can be dependent on the amount of time you spend casting the spell? And that's where the duration comes into play?
Transforming any living thing, though, is a whole different order of change. If you want it to stay living, you need to make sure that what you change it into has all the bits in the right places. Moreover, it seems like it would make sense for balance reasons: if you've trained a dog to be your faithful animal companion, the ability to just transform him permanently into something significantly more dangerous than a dog seems...overly powerful. Similarly the ability to transform a human into some other form permanently.
And if you were to transform yourself permanently in such a way as to lose your personality and memories, would there really be much point? You'd no longer be a spellcaster, so you'd be easy prey for any rivals who wanted to kill you at that point, and it would take you long enough to return to power that it really wouldn't make much sense to retain your character as a PC.
-
I have a question regarding change. I was told that change must always have a duration and that change can not be permanent. This makes no sense to me. Perhaps my understanding is off. If I take an object, any object, and change it using mundane means it stays changed. The duration is how long the change takes. When it comes to magic spells I think of two options:
...
What are all your thoughts on such change magic?
I think your understanding is off :)
If you want to change your enemy into an ogre permanently, then you're creating an ogre from the body of your enemy. If you want to change someone's face so that they're the most beautiful person ever to exist, but only until the clock strikes midnight, then it's a change spell because you're changing their face for a while.
-
because you're changing their face for a while.
8) [146|5208663cce7dfabfbad451e79afcbbaffa8a1a0b]
-
huh I thought we were not going to start with spells we made but guess we are. I will probably need to trade a LOT or make more spells to make my character what I want him to be.
Nothing right now is final, your spell selection will very likely change on launch.
-
I have a question regarding change. I was told that change must always have a duration and that change can not be permanent. This makes no sense to me. Perhaps my understanding is off. If I take an object, any object, and change it using mundane means it stays changed. The duration is how long the change takes.
For all spells, but especially for change and creation spells, the following principle applies:
The duration of a spell is how long the magic lasts. After the duration ends, the other natural laws assert themselves.
Examples:
If you move an object 10 metres into the air, when the magic ends, it will fall down (gravity).
If you move it 10 metres to the left, it will stay there when the magic ends, because there is no force forcing it back to its old position (unless it's on a hill etc - you get what I mean).
If you create an un-natural object, such as summoning a demon, or creating an illusion, it will disappear when the magic ends.
A magically created natural object, like a wall or some coins, will stay after the magic ends.
If you change an object or person into something else in a natural way, the change will be permanent. Example: Healing spells, grooming spells, etc.
Unnatural changes will revert at a "natural" rate. So a 3rd arm will wither and die off, not a pleasant experience. It won't vanish immediately, because that wouldn't be a natural thing, either.
For those spell with a permanent result, duration is not the duration of the change lasting, but the speed of change - the duration during which the change takes place. Don't make instant change spells if you want the target undamaged/unharmed, because the human body and most objects will rupture if you change them too suddenly.
Maybe we should have different intents for these. I think that would make sense. Looks like we have to clean up our intents once we have a full picture.
-
nice I was actually thinking the same thing when I was making my spells. Unnatural things eventually turning natural.
-
huh I thought we were not going to start with spells we made but guess we are. I will probably need to trade a LOT or make more spells to make my character what I want him to be.
See beta testing thread.
-
because you're changing their face for a while.
8) [146|5208663cce7dfabfbad451e79afcbbaffa8a1a0b]
I actually giggled at that one :D
For those spell with a permanent result, duration is not the duration of the change lasting, but the speed of change - the duration during which the change takes place.
Phew, glad to know I got this right when designing a few of my spells.
Maybe we should have different intents for these. I think that would make sense. Looks like we have to clean up our intents once we have a full picture.
Not necessarily. Perhaps you just need to make it clearer what duration is? Those examples cleared everything up for me, although I already had duration down as that anyway so I'm not the best test subject.
-
So in the case of change there are two "breads" of spell. Permanent changes and temporary changes.
Permanent Changes:
The more drastic the change the greater the effect should be and the more narrow the scope of the spell should be. Changing the shape of a rock that would be low effect and the end shape need not be specified by the spell. Changing a living thing to another living thing would have a high effect (enough to kill) and the spell should probably limit the end creature type. Also, the rate of change should be taken into account. To change a living creature without killing them would require a longer time ( thus higher duration). In the end the effects of such a change would follow the course of nature. Thus a person turned to a frog would think frog like and probably be a blank slate.
Temporary Changes:
The more drastic the change the greater the effect should be and the more narrow the scope of the spell should be. The changes are instant however and only last until the magic runs out (duration) them the change is reverted. In the end the effects of such a change would follow the course of nature but can have enhancements as the magic is working the entire time. His could allow one to think and remember what they already knew and still benefit from the natural abilities of their new form.
The same would be of enchantments, protections, etc…
Am I closer?
-
Changing the shape of a rock that would be low effect and the end shape need not be specified by the spell.
The end shape always needs to be specified. Spells are always precise. They will do whatever the spell description says and nothing else. If no shape is given in the description, then no end shape exists and no change will take place.
What you can do is experiment with methods of "input". So a spell could make a rock soft as clay and allow the wizard to change the shape with his hands. Or a rock held in one held could take on the form of whatever object is held in the other hand. I'd allow that. I won't allow anything that says "whatever shape" or something like that.
Rate of change also needs to be specified for unliving creatures. If you change anything instantly, it will break. Because if you think in terms of physics, you are applying a near infinite force.
But a rock can probably get away with a duration of 2 for a change, while a human being will probably not survive a major change with that duration. The bigger the effect and the more fragile or complex the object/creature to be changed, the more careful you should be.
-
So to have a properly open-ended illusion spell, you have it read as "changes x into what the caster envisions" or "creates illusion of what caster envisions"...Yes...I see...
-
So to have a properly open-ended illusion spell, you have it read as "changes x into what the caster envisions" or "creates illusion of what caster envisions"...Yes...I see...
No, I won't allow that. That's just a more elaborately worded version of "whatever".
Spells are specific. There are no "does whatever I want at that moment" spells. Basically, as long as I can think of a more specific version of the spell without getting ridiculously detailed, I will not allow it.
-
Okay...So we're going to have to come up with a separate spell for every illusion we might want to cast? That's going to get prohibitive quickly. Illusions are a lot more specific than, say, fireballs. If the spell is limited in specificity to "five humans of medium height from this particular region in this type of gear" then I'm going to have to rethink my character plans, as an illusionist really isn't going to be effective.
-
Well, there's always the copy the clothing of target X as an illusion. or just copy the whole person's look down to the boil on their nose.
-
Okay...So we're going to have to come up with a separate spell for every illusion we might want to cast? That's going to get prohibitive quickly. Illusions are a lot more specific than, say, fireballs. If the spell is limited in specificity to "five humans of medium height from this particular region in this type of gear" then I'm going to have to rethink my character plans, as an illusionist really isn't going to be effective.
We will have to find a middle ground. No, it won't be necessary to have a seperate spell for each type of clothing if you want to have an "illusionary clothes" spell.
But the same spell can not create two entirely different effects.
For examples:
One spell would be sufficient to create an illusionary building, and you would have some freedom with the details of the building. But creating an illusionary horse would require a different spell. But the same spell that creates an illusionary horse could create an illusionary cow or some other four-legged animal of similar size.
So your example above would be a spell like "a group of human soldiers" with details like specific weapons, armour and banners open to choose at time of casting.
Hm... the more I think about it, I think we need one more field for spells: "Specify at time of casting" - namely what the caster can/must select when casting the spell.
No sweat, we're doing this whole beta thing so we find the problem areas of the system and can fix them. :-)
-
It might also be good to require a method of targeting. Do I have to tough the person? Can I hit them at range as long as I can see them? Can I hit anyone anywhere by just thinking of them or do I need a piece of their person (hair clippings)? Range and targeting I guess...
-
It might also be good to require a method of targeting. Do I have to tough the person? Can I hit them at range as long as I can see them? Can I hit anyone anywhere by just thinking of them or do I need a piece of their person (hair clippings)? Range and targeting I guess...
No, I've intentionally left that out. All you need to do is name a target and boom. All magical attacks are assumed to hit automatically, with a line-of-sight requirement, though depending on the spell that is more or less the case. A target 4 spell that hits an entire area will hit your enemy even if he is hiding behind a wall, because he is still in the area that you target.
Most importantly, always remember that this is a roleplaying game. Finding exploitable details in the magic system is not what it's about. :-)
-
OK. What about sympathetic magic? Being able to strike someone from anywhere if you can establish a connection? Like a voodoo doll? Like the power of true names? Like having the blood of a foe and being able to affect them through that instead of having to see them? Would this all be ritual magic?
-
OK. What about sympathetic magic? Being able to strike someone from anywhere if you can establish a connection? Like a voodoo doll? Like the power of true names? Like having the blood of a foe and being able to affect them through that instead of having to see them? Would this all be ritual magic?
yes. see the new page on ritual magic I've added. You would use a distance of 10.
-
Tom,
I think the Parser should include a "10" setting when choosing rituals as you have just added that capability. Perhaps I am wrong in this but it seems like a simple oversight? Or are such epic rituals not meant to be used in the Parser at all?
-
It already understands 10, but I've not yet added that to the dropdown boxes.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
I want to combine bases :D
-
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.
-
I think only a ritual can do that at this point.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgcEZ8jz_Hc).
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).
-
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.
-
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...
-
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? :P
-
I may be able to trade you one, if it's accepted. How does a whole village worth of controllable souls sound? :P
Remember that it needs to last at least as long as the ritual. *g*
-
Remember that it needs to last at least as long as the ritual. *g*
Only if I don't want it to catastrophically fail in the middle of casting. That would be pretty hilarious, you know...
-
I may be able to trade you one, if it's accepted. How does a whole village worth of controllable souls sound? :P
Not nearly enough for my purposes. I'm actually considering using a ritual to do a mass mind-control spell to gather in enough people to power my real ritual...But, the problem is, I'd need a whole council defending my ass while this went on as everyone panicked at the tens of thousands of components I was using in a ritual...
-
Not nearly enough for my purposes. I'm actually considering using a ritual to do a mass mind-control spell to gather in enough people to power my real ritual...But, the problem is, I'd need a whole council defending my ass while this went on as everyone panicked at the tens of thousands of components I was using in a ritual...
Have you been using mind-reading spells on my character? My character has had a very similar idea himself as a means to a very awesome ritual. (however, very very powerful)
-
There was some discussion on a different thread about summonings and such, however there is no "summoning" base. Will summoning come under creation or whatever elemental base the creature is most associated with? Also considering the duration limitation I'm guessing any kind of long-term summoning would be confined to rituals?
-
I'm still not sure if I want to split summon off or leave it under create. Right now, if you check out create in the research dialog, you'll notice that summon is listed as a synonym.
-
Seems like summon would be more like a change than a creation to me. You are changing the location of existing creatures, not making new ones. Or that is my thought at least...
-
Seems like summon would be more like a move than a creation to me. You are moving the location of existing creatures, not making new ones. Or that is my thought at least...
FTFY?
-
I had forgotten that move existed!
-
I'm still not exactly clear what you get with things such as Body-Move or Death-Move, to be honest.
-
How about this spell for body/move
[276|d54f0673435e0651469d0f3af249c79a54a81655] - Unhand Me
-
Are spells still being reviewed? I submitted a few about a week ago, but they are still "Proposed".
-
I'm still thinking about things...
Latest thought: Remove "Create" and replace it with "Summon". Idea being that you can summon creatures from another plane, but not create something out of thin air. However, some current Create spells would be easy to modify into "Change" spells with the simple change that their base materials need to be present.
-
I'm still thinking about things...
Latest thought: Remove "Create" and replace it with "Summon". Idea being that you can summon creatures from another plane, but not create something out of thin air. However, some current Create spells would be easy to modify into "Change" spells with the simple change that their base materials need to be present.
Would it be possible to run a couple of different Change spells? One to take (say) a lump of rock and transmute it into the steel you need for a sword, and then another to transform the raw steel into the sword?
-
Are spells still being reviewed? I submitted a few about a week ago, but they are still "Proposed".
Yes. Just more slowly... there are a ton of spells in there to be reviewed. Well over 100 now. As soon as I cleared it out last week another big deluge hit. Granted I didn't help when I added some 45 myself =)
-
That is a lot. How many GMs are working on it anyway?
-
That is a lot. How many GMs are working on it anyway?
There have been exactly 322 submitted spells. There are three GMs. I'd say Tom has been working more on the codebase, so two and a half.
Edit: Ok I went through and modded at least two spells for everyone who had one submitted. Horray everyone!
-
...and one of the GMs has been away quite a lot recently (slacker) so more 1 and a half...
-
There should be a way to delete/abandon proposed spells that have been rejected.
-
There should be a way to delete/abandon proposed spells that have been rejected.
agreed, but I haven't come around to coding it, yet.
-
I have a single target spell called The Voice (Perceive/Mind) that causes the target to hear a single sentence or phrase coming from somewhere. That one got approved awhile ago. I just had a multi-target/multi-voice spell- pretty much the high end version called The Voices rejected yesterday because Perceive was deemed not the proper intent.
While I can maybe buy that, the previous spell seems to set precedent already. Can I get some clarification please?
-
Sounds like they're both clearly Control/Mind to me anyways.
Edit: I didn't mod either of them ;-)
-
There's no such thing as precedents in this game. Everyone is learning the details as we go along, including the GMs.
Which pretty much means I will be setting all spells to "proposed" one day and we will go through them again, and it'll probably be rejected with that very same reason then.
-
There's no such thing as precedents in this game. Everyone is learning the details as we go along, including the GMs.
Which pretty much means I will be setting all spells to "proposed" one day and we will go through them again, and it'll probably be rejected with that very same reason then.
That works. I wasn't really favoring one or the other. Just wanted them to be consistent. Thanks!
-
Which pretty much means I will be setting all spells to "proposed" one day and we will go through them again, and it'll probably be rejected with that very same reason then.
Are you sure that's a sensible idea? I've submitted 22 spell ideas, if other people are submitting about the same number (which I'm presuming they are) then setting everything back to proposed will mean a ridiculous amount of work for you and the other GMs.
-
Yes, I know. But I've added a lot of things since then, from classes to duplicate detection, and it would really help cleaning things up. For the record, we currently have 167 active spells in the database, and a further 200 or so waiting.
-
I lost a spell. It was going back and forth between rejected/reworked and it's now disappeared. I'm about 98% sure I didn't click the "give up" option and have convinced myself I'd see the latest iteration sitting with "reworked" beside it.
Was called "The Madness", if that helps the dev hunt.
-
I lost a spell. It was going back and forth between rejected/reworked and it's now disappeared. I'm about 98% sure I didn't click the "give up" option and have convinced myself I'd see the latest iteration sitting with "reworked" beside it.
Was called "The Madness", if that helps the dev hunt.
It appears as an 'active' spell in my lists, which means it has been accepted.
-
It appears as an 'active' spell in my lists, which means it has been accepted.
Huh. Ok. Must be a bug floating around in the code then. It's not in my list of "Spells You Know" and it's gone from "Spell Research".
-
Huh. Ok. Must be a bug floating around in the code then. It's not in my list of "Spells You Know" and it's gone from "Spell Research".
Not all spells that are accepted at the moment are granted to the creator remember.
-
Huh. Ok. Must be a bug floating around in the code then. It's not in my list of "Spells You Know" and it's gone from "Spell Research".
No, it's not a bug. It is simply that currently there is no message system in the game, so the game can't tell you what happened (spell was accepted, but you didn't learn it automatically).
-
I have too many spells on the waiting list and not enough spells on my active spells...
-
I'm seeing so far it's much more costly to protect against a harm spell of roughly equal effect.
For example:
There can be only one: Power level required 8.
http://lemuria.org/SM3/info/view_spell/279
Since you'd be dead immediately after the spell is cast you'd have no chance to counter it's effect. Since you'd need the same power level to counter (as per some of my feedback on my spell submissions) and it would have to effect the same size target, those parts of the protection spell and the harm spell would be equal, power level wise. The problem is that with the duration 1 insta kill spell, you shouldn't get a chance to counter it after it's cast. The protect spell needs to be in place already, meaning a duration of at least 2+.
I suggest a multiplier modification to power level based on intent. Harm * 2, Protect / 2 ... or something along those line. Haven't really thought it out much.
-
If whoever fails with shifting my spontaneous magics, I will just write my own. I am seeing some people just subtracting numbers instead of shifting them. Or people just not responding to spontaneous magics.
-
I'm seeing so far it's much more costly to protect against a harm spell of roughly equal effect.
Correct. However, one protection spell can protect against multiple attack spells.
I've not yet written down the rules, but my thoughts go roughly like this:
Each level of Effect in a protective spell, will reduce the Effect of attack spells by one. So an Effect-1 spell would be enough to reduce a spell like "There Can be only One" to non-lethal.
However, each attack with an equal or higher Effect would also reduce the Effect of the protective spell by 1. So the above example, that protection would be cheap (1-2-2 = PL 4) but only prevent 1 attack, and you'd still be seriously injured. But the really powerful defenses (say, 5-2-3 - PL 30) would last you quite a bit - all attacks would be blocked completely, and only Effect 5 attacks would reduce its strength.
-
How about spell duration of protection spells = number of spells it can neglect? Of course following your reducing effect of spell rule.
-
How about spell duration of protection spells = number of spells it can neglect? Of course following your reducing effect of spell rule.
But that would make them even less powerful. Right now, a duration 3 protection spell will be really good for a long time, much longer than 3 attacks.
Plus, I'd rather not make special exceptions for types of magic.
-
I got my Biofeedback spell rejected with the note "Unclear why this is water/ice/cold and not body."
I thought I recalled Tom saying that blood fell under the Water base. The Biofeedback spell specifically manipulates the blood within the body.
If that doesn't work, then I guess I can resubmit it as Body, but that does mean that it's much less useful for a Water-focused spellcaster :-\
-
If that doesn't work, then I guess I can resubmit it as Body, but that does mean that it's much less useful for a Water-focused spellcaster :-\
And much more useful for a lucky Body-focused spellcaster :D
-
I thought I recalled Tom saying that blood fell under the Water base. The Biofeedback spell specifically manipulates the blood within the body.
I can't remember ever saying that. We are playing in a pre-scientific world, the body would be considered as a unit there, not divided up into its parts.
-
I can't remember ever saying that. We are playing in a pre-scientific world, the body would be considered as a unit there, not divided up into its parts.
OK. Darn.
-
Tom said water = fluid though. Maybe once the blood is out of the body, you might be able to control that with water base.
-
Tom said water = fluid though. Maybe once the blood is out of the body, you might be able to control that with water base.
Yes, that would certainly work. Once it's left the body, it definitely doesn't fall under Body anymore.
-
Yes, that would certainly work. Once it's left the body, it definitely doesn't fall under Body anymore.
What about right at the boundary—that is, as it's leaving a wound? Could it be stopped there using a Water base, thus forcing the blood behind to stay in and clot?
-
What about right at the boundary—that is, as it's leaving a wound? Could it be stopped there using a Water base, thus forcing the blood behind to stay in and clot?
Tim at his best... being anal about borderline cases. :-)
SM is a roleplaying game, so basically the always-correct answer is "it depends". The big principle is Intention - magic is an art of the mind. so if you intend for the spell to have a healing effect on your body by stopping the blood flow out, then it's a Heal/Body spell. If, on the other hand, you want to sculp red-coloured ice sculptures out of your own blood, it would be a Control/Water spell. :-)
-
Tim at his best... being anal about borderline cases. :-)
Heh, it's why I'm good at finding the bugs ;D
SM is a roleplaying game, so basically the always-correct answer is "it depends". The big principle is Intention - magic is an art of the mind. so if you intend for the spell to have a healing effect on your body by stopping the blood flow out, then it's a Heal/Body spell. If, on the other hand, you want to sculp red-coloured ice sculptures out of your own blood, it would be a Control/Water spell. :-)
OK. Gotcha. I will try and think more in terms of intent, and less in terms of modern knowledge and mechanics, when designing further spells.
-
OK. Gotcha. I will try and think more in terms of intent, and less in terms of modern knowledge and mechanics, when designing further spells.
Yeah, basically, that's the principle. I want a magic that is mystical, and not mechanical. How's that for an alliteration? :-)
-
Like my soul drive spell :) no science involve. just all about believing every thing in the world has a soul or a fragmented version of it :D