Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > The Fantasy Trip

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-12-2018, 03:01 AM   #21
zot
 
Join Date: May 2018
Default Re: Should all spells be equally easy to learn?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
Turning to the original question; I could see varying the XP cost to learn a new spell by the IQ. Given the "100 XP" cost currently being described, I would suggest something along the lines of "10 XP x IQ level of the spell" -- that is, an IQ 8 Spell would cost 80 XP to learn, and an IQ 20 Spell would cost 200 XP to learn. Given that higher IQ spells are both more complex and have greater effects, this seems like a good compromise in spell learning.

Naturally, for non-Wizard types, the cost would still be three times as high (i.e., 240 XP for that level 8 Spell, and 600 XP for that level 20 Spell).
This is really good! Also, it can scale with different XP talent costs.
zot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 03:32 AM   #22
Rick_Smith
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
Default Re: Should all spells be equally easy to learn?

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Brinegar View Post
At least they're consistent.
Hi John,
They are not completely consistent. The rules in the Remove Thrown Spells description says that this spell does not effect magic items, but the rules in Weapon/Armour Enchantment, & later in the book says it DOES.

Warm regards, Rick.
Rick_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 03:39 AM   #23
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Far northern California
Default Re: Should all spells be equally easy to learn?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zot View Post
...Also, it can scale with different XP talent costs.
That's quite true! ;-) And I think it would be a good way to go with talents too!
JLV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 03:45 AM   #24
Rick_Smith
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
Default Astral Projection - A powerful spell... not powerful enough?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zot View Post
Heh, you left out Astral Projection...
Hi all, Zot.
I have mixed feelings about Astral Projection. I love the idea behind this spell, but I'm not happy with it as written.

Astral Projection is such a neat idea, I would be happiest if it was dropped from the base book, but made a mini supplement of its own. Let us say on W23, there was a $2 *.pdf which gave 10 or 20 pages on this spell and the Astral Plane.

It could go into...
-- what the Astral Plane is like,
-- how quickly and how deeply you could enter it,
-- what dangers lurk on the Astral Plane,
-- Astral Monsters,
-- powerful 'time storms' on the Astral Plane,
-- Mnoren artifacts powered with Astral Energies which could be found there and brought back,
-- the dangers of losing connection with your body when in the Astral Plane,
-- strange experiments that can be preformed on the Astral Plane,
-- defences people can take to prevent astral spying,
-- spells that only can be cast on the Astral Plane, etc.

Basically, the spell cries for a small splat book. As it is, I find the Astral Projection spell a bit dull.

I would be willing to write this if no one else is interested.

Warm regards, Rick.
Rick_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 04:04 AM   #25
zot
 
Join Date: May 2018
Default Re: Astral Projection - A powerful spell... not powerful enough?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
Hi all, Zot.
I have mixed feelings about Astral Projection. I love the idea behind this spell, but I'm not happy with it as written.

Astral Projection is such a neat idea, I would be happiest if it was dropped from the base book, but made a mini supplement of its own. Let us say on W23, there was a $2 *.pdf which gave 10 or 20 pages on this spell and the Astral Plane.

It could go into...
-- what the Astral Plane is like,
-- how quickly and how deeply you could enter it,
-- what dangers lurk on the Astral Plane,
-- Astral Monsters,
-- powerful 'time storms' on the Astral Plane,
-- Mnoren artifacts powered with Astral Energies which could be found there and brought back,
-- the dangers of losing connection with your body when in the Astral Plane,
-- strange experiments that can be preformed on the Astral Plane,
-- defences people can take to prevent astral spying,
-- spells that only can be cast on the Astral Plane, etc.

Basically, the spell cries for a small splat book. As it is, I find the Astral Projection spell a bit dull.

I would be willing to write this if no one else is interested.

Warm regards, Rick.
Yes! It could use a ton of love. Lots of Dr Strange material deals with it (as does real Western occultism). For that matter, Astral Projection could be the basis for an entirely new magic system (fingers itching to make one now).

A wizard with Astral Projection is a lot like a decker in Shadowrun or a classic television series "cyberchick" (I think Theora in Max Headroom was the first of this now prevalent trope).
zot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 09:57 AM   #26
John Brinegar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Default Re: Should all spells be equally easy to learn?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
Hi John,
They are not completely consistent. The rules in the Remove Thrown Spells description says that this spell does not effect magic items, but the rules in Weapon/Armour Enchantment, & later in the book says it DOES.

Warm regards, Rick.
I probably should not have said "consistent." "Easy to harmonize" is more accurate, since three of the four passages in question clearly state that Remove Thrown Spells affects the Weapon/Armor Enchantment spell. The fourth (the description of Remove Thrown Spells) apparently uses "magic items" to mean "magic items created by Greater/Lesser Magic Item Creation"; if it were amended to say just that, then the passages really would be consistent.

Last edited by John Brinegar; 07-12-2018 at 09:59 AM. Reason: fix typo
John Brinegar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 10:09 AM   #27
John Brinegar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Default Re: Should all spells be equally easy to learn?

What is odd about disenchanting magic items is the following sentence from Dissolve Enchantment: "The DX and damage bonuses on enchanted weapons and armor may also be removed by this spell at a cost of 50." Even if you assume that one casting of the spell removes all the DX/damage bonuses, that's still 5 times more expensive than casting Remove Thrown Spells 5 times for the same effect. (Yes, you might not succeed 5 times in a row with Remove Thrown Spells, but you almost certainly wouldn't spend 50 ST getting the 5 successes.) The only way I can see anyone ever using Dissolve Enchantment for this purpose is if they don't know Remove Thrown Spells.

Last edited by John Brinegar; 07-12-2018 at 10:10 AM. Reason: needed to cast "Dissolve Typo"
John Brinegar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 10:19 AM   #28
CJM
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: Should all spells be equally easy to learn?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
Turning to the original question; I could see varying the XP cost to learn a new spell by the IQ. Given the "100 XP" cost currently being described, I would suggest something along the lines of "10 XP x IQ level of the spell" -- that is, an IQ 8 Spell would cost 80 XP to learn, and an IQ 20 Spell would cost 200 XP to learn. Given that higher IQ spells are both more complex and have greater effects, this seems like a good compromise in spell learning.

Naturally, for non-Wizard types, the cost would still be three times as high (i.e., 240 XP for that level 8 Spell, and 600 XP for that level 20 Spell).
I think this is en excellent idea. It works for the many reasons stated above in this thread. keeps things simple. What I like about your take on things JLV is you "cut to the chase", and find a simple solution to a potential problem. There has been some really good ideas in this forum that fixes the few problems that TFT had. Anyway nice job...
CJM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 10:27 AM   #29
John Brinegar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Default Re: Should all spells be equally easy to learn?

I should also go on record as opposing changes to spell learning costs. The ease of learning spells is counterbalanced by the costs and difficulties of casting them. Once you have a talent, it works at no ST cost, and most talents don't involve a roll for success. Every time a wizard tries to cast a spell, she pays an ST cost and must roll to see if it succeeds.
John Brinegar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 10:47 AM   #30
zot
 
Join Date: May 2018
Default Re: Should all spells be equally easy to learn?

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Brinegar View Post
I should also go on record as opposing changes to spell learning costs. The ease of learning spells is counterbalanced by the costs and difficulties of casting them. Once you have a talent, it works at no ST cost, and most talents don't involve a roll for success. Every time a wizard tries to cast a spell, she pays an ST cost and must roll to see if it succeeds.
Hmm, while that's technically true about talents in general, most spells are combat-related and most combat-related talents enable you to use weapons and they do require a roll to use.

Weapons have no ST cost but spells are a lot more versatile. Also, ranged weapons consume ammunition which, although not the same as ST, is also a limited resource.

Another point on your side of the argument, though, might be that talent costs don't increase with IQ, so spells shouldn't either.
zot is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ease to learn, memory, problematic spell, spells, talents

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.