The Economics of Enchanted Items

[hal]

Originally Posted by Kax

Campaigns, pp481, Enchanting: "The caster [I]must[I] use Ceremonial Magic...and he and any assistants must know both Enchant and the specific spell being put on the item at 15+.".

Pretty unequivocal--no casting Enchant for Enchantments on skill 12.

That is a pretty strong assertion to make. For purposes of debate if you will, please state whether you are reading GURPS MAGIC for 4e rules, or the original rules for Spell casting in GURPS FANTASY 1st edition (Not the GURPS FANTASY for 4e) or the GURPS MAGIC 2nd edition (for use with GURPS 3rd edition Revised)

Terminology:
QnD = Quick and Dirty
SaS = Slow and Sure
CC = Ceremonial Circle
GCM = GURPS CLASSIC MAGIC, really GURPS MAGIC for GURPS 3e Revised
GM4e = GURPS MAGIC for 4e

Page 14 of GCM, we see the beginning of the rules for CC spell casting. QnD starts on page 18 of GCM, and in fact, is in an entirely new chapter than is the original CC rules. Note too, that the rules for trading ANYTHING for skill, is on page 15 of GCM, where it states unequivocally that extra energy grants a +1 to skill for 20% extra energy, +2 for 40%, +3 for 60% and +4 for 100%.

Page 19 is the ONLY reference, where you will find that one can trade TIME instead of energy, to effectively raise the skill.

Note that we're talking not only about a five page difference in "train of thought" for the author, but an entire chapter change from Chapter one to chapter two.

But, there is more...

Time required: CC requires 10 times longer to cast a spell, whereas, QnD requires 1 hour per 100 energy involved, minimum 1 hour. SnS on the other hand, requires an EQUAL time spent by all members involved such that no one spell caster can contribute more to the process than others. If you have three casters, then divide the time required by 3.

CC permits those without skill 15 to participate, but in a lesser function than those who know the skill at 15. Those without any skill at all, can only contribute 1 energy as a spectator. SnS does not have this functionality, nor does QnD. In addition, CC does not suffer a -1 penalty to skill for each additional mage participating, whereas QnD does, and SnS does not. More importantly? CC permits a bunch of mages to participate in the casting of a ceremonial spell, slip out, and leave the CC ongoing as long as even ONE mage is maintaining the CC spell casting. A mage could work in the Circle on day 1, skip out on day two, and then join in again on day three. QnD requires that all participants remain in the process from start to finish within the hours involved - whereas SnS requires that all participants engage in the process every single day or the enchantment can not be completed at all, and is worthless.

The problem here is this:

Page 17 of GCM, chapter 2 (not 1), we find this to be true:

"Normally, an item’s Power equals the caster’s skill with (a) the Enchant spell or (b) the spell contained in the item — whichever is lower."

Further evidence of wording later on, under Quick and Dirty is this, on page 18 which states:

"The same is true for assistants, but their skill levels do not affect the item’s final Power. However, they may not reduce their effective skill below 15."

Note that Effective Skill was used in the wording of that quoted above. It also specifies that the skill of the assistant is not important. That has implications - food for another post perhaps...

(side note: note too, that a single solitary mage CAN engage in Quick and Dirty enchanting, it does not require a circle)

It does NOT specify that the mage has to have a skill 15, merely, that the adjusted skill may not go LOWER. Get the point? Adjusted skill, not base skill.

One could argue that per ENCHANTING: CREATING A MAGIC ITEM, it specifies that Enchanting is a Ceremonial process (not necessarily a CC process). Were it a strictly a CC process, then a solitary mage could NOT enchant an item. Clearly, per CC standards, enchanting is not 100% bound by those rules.

Going on...

The place where it states an Item's power MUST be 15 or higher, is again, page 17, chapter 2 of GCM. It has this to say (which is very specific)

"An item’s Power must be 15 or above, or it will not work. Power of any
item brought into a low-mana area is temporarily reduced by 5."

Note, that no where does it specify, that the original spell caster MUST have a skill 15, but only that the "POWER" of the item must be 15 or above in order to function. So, the problem with unequivocally stating that the enchanter must have skill 15+ is false. Trading energy for skill can raise skill (and thus power) in QnD, as can Trading time in SnS. The Final adjusted skill level becomes the item's power.

Pursuing this further: QnD, like CC, permits one mage to contribute more than any other mage to the process. It allows for unequal contributions. SnS on the other hand, does not. Right there, we can see that neither of SNS nor QnD follows precisely, the rules that govern CC or that they even share the same foundations of rules for each other. They have exclusive differences.

As a final analysis of the whole thing? The ONLY thing that stipulates what skill level is required to participate in a circle, is the CC rules themselves - which is not 100% applicable to Enchantments, and QnD rules - which operates under a subset of rules that CC does not (ie, the -1 penalty per extra mage participating in the process). Even QnD rules stipulate a final adjusted skill, not a base unmodified skill.

Slow and Sure enchantment already violates, repeat VIOLATES (for stress purposes, not yelling) the rule that it takes two or more mages to engage in ceremonial spell casting. It is the one exception to that particular rule as far as enchantments go.

So, stating that it unequivocally states it - I would invite you to go to specific pages, list them and quote them to show that during the enchantment process, mages must start with a skill 15+ in order to enchant. As best as I can see, the only stipulation is that the POWER must be 15+ (exact wording is 15 or more) and that elsewhere, POWER is equal to Skill. As I pointed out in the past, and am pointing out now...

GURPS CLASSIC MAGIC allows for increasing/improving skill through the exchange of either time or energy depending on the process being used (Quick and Dirty requires energy, Slow and Sure requires time). Had the rules specified that Power is equal to the base skill level and could not be changed in any way, I would not have even bothered to bring this up, let alone debate the issue.

Now - as I've stipulated earlier - GURPS 4e removed those 23 words (plus the page reference) from its current edition. Those words were present initially in GURPS FANTASY 1st edition (where GURPS MAGIC was first introduced to the entire system) remained in GURPS MAGIC 1st edition, remained in GURPS MAGIC 2nd edition, and what would be the third edition for use with GURPS 4, is where it gets removed. Again, I cannot argue the point in GURPS 4e, that trading time for skill is viable, and that one does indeed, require a skill of 15+ to create magic items. Was it a victim of the "Word count" demon, that requires a book stay under a certain limit? Was it excised because the author of the new book for 4e, overlooked those 23 words entirely, not thinking them to mean what I've outlined them to mean after all these years?

In all, the implications are one thing, the specifics are another, and the lack of "details" in all of the years since 1986 where someone posted an example of a skill 11 mage engaging in Enchantment was proof that the powers that be "approved" of this, is indeed troubling.

But just because those 23 words were NOT noted by people early one, missed by 99% of the gaming community, does not mean that those words do not mean what they state:

To wit: Power is equal to modified skill, and skill can be modified by either of energy for skill, or time for skill.

Addenda: missed the fact the response was regarding 4e, which was already stipulating it is different than CLASSIC MAGIC. My apologies!

[Kax]

Originally Posted by hal

That is a pretty strong assertion to make. For purposes of debate if you will, please state whether you are reading GURPS MAGIC for 4e rules, or the original rules for Spell casting in GURPS FANTASY 1st edition (Not the GURPS FANTASY for 4e) or the GURPS MAGIC 2nd edition (for use with GURPS 3rd edition Revised)

Terminology:<snip>
Addenda: missed the fact the response was regarding 4e, which was already stipulating it is different than CLASSIC MAGIC. My apologies!

Yup. Also note the page reference being for Campaigns pp<xxx>, which can only be 4e. :)

[hal]

Originally Posted by Kax

Yup. Also note the page reference being for Campaigns pp<xxx>, which can only be 4e. :)

That was my clue... ;)

Seriously though, I can't help but wonder why those 23 words were stricken from the 4e version when they had made it into the GURPS Fantasy 1st edition, survived GURPS MAGIC 1st edition, GURPS MAGIC 2nd edition first printing, and even GURPS MAGIC 2nd edition subsequent printings.

For those who haven't been part of the journey, there are subtle differences between the First printing 2nd edition and second printing (Plus) 2nd edition. It was in the second printing that they changed the wording that magic can not be used to modify enchantments (don't know if there were other changes, but that one hit home after I published the Alaconius lecture on Divination use with Enchantments. After the second printing, that became "illegal".

Simply put?

The GM can easily roll die rolls ahead of time to simulate future events. So, for example, the GM could be told "If <insert name here> engages in quick and dirty enchantment today on his project, will he be successful (where success is defined as a non-quirked powerstone)?"

If the GM utilizes the penalties to the Divination roll for a divination into the future, his rolling in advance for the enchantment would let him know what is ordained for the future assuming that things go as expected.

Here's the thing - a crit failure on a divination means that the diviner gets a "Lie" result. On a Success, he gets a truthful answer. On a failure, he gets no answer.

Now, with an enchantment, rolls of a 16+ are failures. The odds of rolling both a failure on the enchantment, and a crit failure on a divination are relatively low. This changes the incidence of quirked or destroyed powerstones dramatically.

So, after I posted that to the GURPSNET in the form of an Alaconius Lecture, the rules were actively modified in the next printing of the GURPS MAGIC 2nd edition.

Ironically? It stuck in my mind from a private conversation with the powers that be, that having access to vast amounts of energy for spell casting was deemed to be "unbalancing". Yet, here we are with GURPS 4e, where the rules for Ceremonial Casting made the unfettered use of energy in excess of 100 energy at any given time - something that was way too easy to achieve. Again, discussing this aspect privately, the presumption is - any Mage character with reliable access to this kind of energy for ceremonial casting, should be taking an ally group to account for their functionality within the game.

In the end, it largely doesn't matter - each game will be played as the GM determines it will be played, and outlawing the Alaconius Divination method didn't change its use in my campaign universe. Nor did it matter much that the game suggested "Opals" for power stones, where as Cunningham's Stone and Crystal Magic suggests that Opals and QUartz can be interchangeable. So, in my game universe, Quartz can be used in lieu of Opals, and powerstones are STILL limited by the carat size of the gemstones.

When GURPS CABAL came out and I had access to the playtest notes, I came up with a system for "one college powerstone gemstones". The idea was to correlate the system presented in CABAL (and subsequently used in GURPS THAUMATOLOGY) where each College corresponded with with which gemstone, and presto - details that I used in my own campaigns for a few times (Fell out of use because I lost my article in a computer crash).

In any event - for 4e campaigns, anyone using the RAW (Rules As Written) for GURPS MAGIC, enchanters of skill 11 aren't vaiable. For those of us who largely dislike what was done with GURPS MAGIC for 4e, can still refer to GURPS CLASSIC MAGIC and see possibilies of what to include or exclude from their campaigns. Too many of the spells in GURPS MAGIC for 4e are actually spells introduced in GURPS GRIMOIRE - and for me, that book was beset with issues before it ever reached the printing stage, and after it was printed, to my eye, contained too many spells that were over the top, or even failed to conform to the structure established in GURPS MAGIC 2nd edition. The spell ESSENTIAL WOOD for instance, grants a permanent functionality for a mere fraction of the energy cost, that similar enchantments provide. One necromantic spell provides what two necromantic spells provide combined into one spell, and is cheaper to cast then either one version of the two spells. That to me is a no-no.

So, if people want to play with the original classic rules structure for their game worlds, that's fine. Truth be told, I don't expect too many individuals to do so. Look at how long it **** for people to even see the possibility of an enchanter with skill 12 and failed to heed it or use it in any material written for subsequent GURPS books, or PYRAMID issues (back when Pyramid was an actual paper publication rather than a digital one).

30 years from now, no one is going to care that this topic was brought up, or that I even enjoyed GURPS as a Hobby (which is as it should be!). So, life and death debates on pubic forums just aren't my style. Now, if someone gets personal or nasty, I simply send them a private message saying "Is this where you really want to go?" and find out if they meant to come across in a bad way (after all, what you implied may not be what I inferred!). If I can't resolve the issue privately, I simply place an Ignore on the offenders and never remove them from that. I can't get aggravated at what they write if I can't see it.

So, I share ideas, steal them shamelessly and file the serial numbers off for my own games. Beyond that, isn't that really what this forum is about? Sharing ideas, talking about our shared interests, and maybe offering help or getting help where needed?

Time to bring THIS musing to a halt. ;)

[AlexanderHowl]

In any case though, it really does not make economic sense to be an enchanter because you can make more money doing about anything else. Ignoring Earth to Stone (which allows you to create tons of bronze every hour), many colleges have marketable spells. Body possesses Strike Barren, which is a marketable form of reversible permanent birth control. Earth has Shape Earth, which allows for the movement of earth and stone for the construction of canals, fortifications, roads, sewers, etc (as well as Essential Earth and Purify Earth). Food possesses Season, Mature, Prepare Game, Water to Wine, and Distill. Gate possesses Plane Shift, Plane Shift Other. Healing possesses Minor Healing, Major Healing, Greater Healing, etc. Light and Darkness possesses Continual Light, Glow, Gloom, and Continual Sunlight. Making and Breaking possesses Inspired Creation, Clean, Copy, and Repair. Mind possesses Oath, Permanent Forgetfulness, Permanent Madness, Lesser Geas, and Greater Geas. Plant possesses Heal Plant, Bless Plant, Plant Growth, Blossom, and Essential Wood. And there are more that, while they possess only situational utility, possessing them will make a mage more wealthy than being an enchanter.