Condensing Spells

[JLV]

I guess my recommendation would be to say that any Spell that has the same name and simply changes the size of the area affected by the Spell (fire, shadow, rope, wall, sleep, etc.) would work in the first manner, and all the others don't.

Honestly, I can't see too many more spells that are so closely related that they should benefit from this idea. People could argue that Summon spells are the same thing, but I just don't see the same sort of smooth progression there -- a bear is not a wolf is not a myrmidon. Illusions and Images would work the same way as Rope and Slippery Floor, but Magic Fist and Fireball are two different spells in my mind, and frankly the naming conventions you already established 40 years ago do a great job of differentiating the types of spells that could be affected by this concept.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by JLV

I guess my recommendation would be to say that any Spell that has the same name and simply changes the size of the area affected by the Spell (fire, shadow, rope, wall, sleep, etc.) would work in the first manner, and all the others don't.

Honestly, I can't see too many more spells that are so closely related that they should benefit from this idea. People could argue that Summon spells are the same thing, but I just don't see the same sort of smooth progression there -- a bear is not a wolf is not a myrmidon. Illusions and Images would work the same way as Rope and Slippery Floor, but Magic Fist and Fireball are two different spells in my mind, and frankly the naming conventions you already established 40 years ago do a great job of differentiating the types of spells that could be affected by this concept.

Yeah, I get what you mean, and I wouldn't have different types of summons include each other (has anyone suggested that?).

What do you think about these other spells that Metagaming said did replace each other?

* Small Dragon -> Dragon
* Lesser Demon -> Demon
* Lesser Magic Item Creation -> Greater
* Staff -> Staff of Power
* Stone Flesh -> Iron Flesh
* Reveal Magic -> Spellsniffer
* Detect Magic -> Analyze Magic

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Both of these are the way I see it . . . now, can i explain it neatly and compactly?

How about:

3-HEX FIRE (C): (includes Fire) Like the Fire spell, but covering up to 3 connected hexes. Cost: 2 ST.

or

3-HEX FIRE (C): Like the Fire spell (included), but covering up to 3 connected hexes. Cost: 2 ST.

or

3-HEX FIRE (C): Adds to the Fire spell the option to cover up to 3 connected hexes for 2 ST.

or

3-HEX FIRE (C): Extends the Fire spell, allowing igniting up to 3 connected hexes for 2 ST.

?

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Yeah, I get what you mean, and I wouldn't have different types of summons include each other (has anyone suggested that?).

What do you think about these other spells that Metagaming said did replace each other?

* Small Dragon -> Dragon
* Lesser Demon -> Demon
* Lesser Magic Item Creation -> Greater
* Staff -> Staff of Power
* Stone Flesh -> Iron Flesh
* Reveal Magic -> Spellsniffer
* Detect Magic -> Analyze Magic

I can see the logic of your progressions, but I'm not going to answer that question directly, because I think Steve ought to be the one to make the specific decisions in that regard. It has to do with where you draw the line between "similar" and "dissimilar enough to be different" and I don't think I'm the right guy to answer that question for the system as a whole.

Having said that, I'm guessing that whatever rule Steve comes up with will be easily enough house-ruled if we aren't happy with where he comes down on the answers! ;-)

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

There are places in the Spell Table where a higher level spell should arguably be the same as the lower level spell, just cast with more understanding and therefore a more potent result.

Should Iron Flesh and Diamond Flesh [not published yet, but it's what you think it is] have the SAME cost as Stone Flesh, so in effect the higher wizzes are doing the same spell but better? That might get them used more.

What if we had Turn Missiles at IQ 10 (missile just barely misses), Dispel Missiles at 12, and Reverse Missiles at 14, all at the same cost? (A mechanical problem with that is that I simply have no more room in the Spell Table in Wizard.)

What if improved Fire/Shadow/Wall spells all had the same cost for increased area of effect?

Hi Steve,
The flesh spells are SO much more powerful that I would be leery about keeping them at the low fatigue ST cost for all. Gaining extra armor is huge.

I'm not troubled by having more spells in ItL than in the Wizard microgame.

As for other spells being supersets of earlier spells, I'm not troubled by that.

Warm regards, Rick.

[David Bofinger]

• If the primary constraint is space, then the cost of the spell isn't such a big deal. "IRON FLESH (3+1/T) Includes Stone Flesh, similar but 6 hits stopped," takes space, but the "3+1/T" bit is in not really the problem.
• All the flesh spells should increase unarmed damage.
• From a believability POV I'm OK with it costing more ST. It's a more powerful spell.
• If I have a problem with cost of the flesh spells it's the zero cost of the Stone Flesh magic item. Ditto Blur.
• Whether more powerful spells should cost more depends to some extent on how fast you expect Wizard ST available for casting to increase. If you expect them to have ST in e.g. their staff then they need to have something to spend it on in fights.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

• If the primary constraint is space, then the cost of the spell isn't such a big deal. "IRON FLESH (3+1/T) Includes Stone Flesh, similar but 6 hits stopped," takes space, but the "3+1/T" bit is in not really the problem.
• All the flesh spells should increase unarmed damage.
• From a believability POV I'm OK with it costing more ST. It's a more powerful spell.
• If I have a problem with cost of the flesh spells it's the zero cost of the Stone Flesh magic item. Ditto Blur.
• Whether more powerful spells should cost more depends to some extent on how fast you expect Wizard ST available for casting to increase. If you expect them to have ST in e.g. their staff then they need to have something to spend it on in fights.

Hi David, everyone.
When I rewrote the magic item list, I made all items non-self powering for consistency. Many items became cheaper, but the flesh spell items became non-self powering at no reduction of cost.

Getting magic armor is so powerful that I wanted it to be expensive.

Warm regards, Rick.

[zot]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

There are places in the Spell Table where a higher level spell should arguably be the same as the lower level spell, just cast with more understanding and therefore a more potent result.

Why have separate listings for spells that improve with IQ? What about mashing all the versions of a spell into the same listing? Like just have "Create Wall" and list the sizes, IQs, and costs? That will put then all in the same place, make the other versions easier to find, and save space.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by zot

Why have separate listings for spells that improve with IQ? What about mashing all the versions of a spell into the same listing? Like just have "Create Wall" and list the sizes, IQs, and costs? That will put then all in the same place, make the other versions easier to find, and save space.

Hi Zot,
Good point. Some of my rites for the cleric powers say things like, "Does X points of healing, where X = 1/2 your IQ (round down)." Such descriptions automatically scale as the player improves.

Rick.

[schoon]

Well put Zot.

I think that's the way to go.