Alternate enchantment system - brainstorming

[Bruno]

Side note: if you can't tell, I generally don't have powerstones in my games so I tend to write them off. I leave it up to other people to figure out if they're of any use at all the way this is being written, and if so how.

[Bruno]

So. What happens with the final object? What about it's Power aka effective spell skill?
How do you make the equivalent of a Temporary enchantment this way?
How do you make the equivalent of a "permanent" aka normal enchantment this way?
What happens with missile spells (forever the redheaded stepchild of the existing magic system) and other things with effects that depend on Magery levels in some way?

A flat +4 to the objects Power for being enchanted might be excessive, but it has a certain elegance. It means that the skill 12 enchanter produces things that more-or-less "just work", which is nice and a very good incentive to make enchantments even if you aren't a master in the spell. It also tends to produce Power values in the range expected by the base system, which is good for retrocompatability, and means that other than quirkyness and promptness, Skill 12 Standard Guy is perfectly capable of making good, reliable magic items.
On the other hand, it might be too good an incentive, even with the weeks of work to produce it.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by Bruno

I'm noticing a definitely trend towards folks linking spell skill, or magery level, or some other character quality, to controlling energy accumulation per cycle.

EG: Magery level energy per day, some function of Enchanting skill per day/week, etc.


I'm also not seeing easy places to fold in extra skill rolls to reduce the risk.

I like the idea of a rare ability (an advantage) being important but if you want skll to be more a factor wahts wrong using the energy accumulation rules for enchanting?
Just change it to per day and set the amount to whatever fits.
So for your goal of 500 in a few weeks lets say
10 base multiplied by margin of success?

[Bruno]

Side side note: If I weren't running a DF game and slightly lazy, I would break up enchanting into a variety of different skills/checks as a parallel to the crafting process, which often involves different skills for different stages in crafting. Rolling against Enchant for all steps is a little boring but a lot simpler.

[kpram]

Originally Posted by Bruno

It takes five 8 hr working days and a roll against Enchant to "accumulate" 100 energy (numbers subject to change). Failure wastes your five days, and chains of failures create (or exacerbate) quirks. If you manage to alternate every failure with a success while making your sword, you'll take a while but get no quirks. If you get a run of bad luck you get a cursed sword or at least a very quirky one.

Critical failure spoils everything, and calls for a check against Thaumatology to shut down the process safely. If this "saving throw" fails, something drastic happens (I would generally suggest an alchemical lab failure type result, but tinker to suit), otherwise all that happens is you loose your accumulated energy and possibly waste raw materials involved.

Critical success calls for something I'm not sure about yet - double energy which you can then turn into extra effective skill or something if you end up with surplus, as per the usual rules?

Power/effective skill of the item is based on your skill with the relevant spell (eg Fireball for a fireball wand). Note that at no point are you rolling against "the lower of Enchant and spell" or something.

<snip>

The skill 16+ enchanter makes items in 69% of the time of the skill 12 enchanter, instead of 50%, 33%, or the like, and the results are neutral to Magery vs raw skill vs IQ vs whatever.

I've decided I like 5 day cycles, with this setup. But I need to find a way to add assistants that's modestly beneficial without becoming assumed the way they have in the standard system.

Assistants roll vs enchanting when the master does. It only counts as a failed enchant if the master fails by more than the assistants MOS. If the assistant fails by more than the master's MOS, it counts as a failure for the master.

Not sure that makes assistants worthwhile; they may need to add energy as well. I'm guessing it makes them useful for medium skilled enchanters who are worried about repeat fails. It does require minimum skilled apprentices, though. Without extra energy, a very skilled master wouldn't need the help.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Refplace

I like the idea of a rare ability (an advantage) being important but if you want skll to be more a factor wahts wrong using the energy accumulation rules for enchanting?
Just change it to per day and set the amount to whatever fits.
So for your goal of 500 in a few weeks lets say
10 base multiplied by margin of success?

Well, largely because I didn't think of it :) although upon reflection I suspect that I rejected MoS based results because they cause a larger gap in time-to-craft between skill 12 ("Professional but not exciting") and skill 15 (expert). I'm not sure skill 20 guy should be cranking out items so much faster than skill 12 guy - skill 20 painters don't make more paintings so much as more awesome paintings.

I went with larger time units and larger energy associated (5 days and 100 energy) because this reduces the total number of rolls floating around before it becomes an exercise in statistics. Magic items can end up with some pretty high energy totals. This also reduces chances of eventually hitting a critical failure and having a stop to your project, than if it were "per day" and 20 energy (or similar). Even switching to MoS I'd make the same choice for the same reason.

That said, either way I should really run those numbers and see what the sort of "effective cap" on energy is to see where single enchantments tend to top out with this route.

I'll go doodle on MoS and get back to you. I'm not 100% sure about my gut instinct on the delta between Skill 12 guy and skill 15 guy or skill 20 guy, and I want to see results.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Well, largely because I didn't think of it :) although upon reflection I suspect that I rejected MoS based results because they cause a larger gap in time-to-craft between skill 12 ("Professional but not exciting") and skill 15 (expert). I'm not sure skill 20 guy should be cranking out items so much faster than skill 12 guy - skill 20 painters don't make more paintings so much as more awesome paintings.
..

I think you owe Bob Ross an apology. He made awesome paintings really fast.

[Bruno]

Incidentally on the theme of More Enchanting Skill = More Awesome Enchanting, not More Bulk Enchanting:

If each additional enchantment on the object causes a cumulative -1 to Enchanting skill to work with it again, due to the rapidly increasing complexity of the thaumatological matrixes surrounding the objects aura (or whatever), that would give higher skilled enchanters the ability to make more complex magic items. And room for Enchanting perks to ignore that "spells on the item" penalty for a given enchantment, much like ignoring the normal "spells on" penalty.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I think you owe Bob Ross an apology. He made awesome paintings really fast.

I think Bob Ross has special Speed Painting techniques, along with Compartmentalized Mind for talking to the camera while painting.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Incidentally on the theme of More Enchanting Skill = More Awesome Enchanting, not More Bulk Enchanting:

If each additional enchantment on the object causes a cumulative -1 to Enchanting skill to work with it again, due to the rapidly increasing complexity of the thaumatological matrixes surrounding the objects aura (or whatever), that would give higher skilled enchanters the ability to make more complex magic items. And room for Enchanting perks to ignore that "spells on the item" penalty for a given enchantment, much like ignoring the normal "spells on" penalty.

Well, there's Time Spent rules . . .