Spells Feedback

[loren]

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.

[Nathan]

because you're changing their face for a while.

[146|5208663cce7dfabfbad451e79afcbbaffa8a1a0b]

I actually giggled at that one

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.

[cjnodell]

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?

[Tom]

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.

[Bedwyr]

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...

[Tom]

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.

[Bedwyr]

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.

[loren]

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.

[Tom]

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. :-)

[cjnodell]

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...

[Tom]

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. :-)

[cjnodell]

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?

[Tom]

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.

[Dante Silverfire]

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?

[Tom]

It already understands 10, but I've not yet added that to the dropdown boxes.