GURPS Thaumatology: Sorcery

[GodlessRose]

Originally Posted by PK

As Buffs that grant the subject that defensive ability for the duration. For a good example, compare Return Missile (a Blocking spell, and thus impossible in sorcery) to Reverse Missiles (one of the sample Buff spells). So a comparable Iron Arm spell would grant the subject the ability to make one or more "Iron Arm parries" each turn, rather than existing as a spell to be cast each time you make said parry. Does that make sense?

Does that mean that, if taken by surprise, a sorcerer would always need two turns to activate the ability? Or could the spell be cast at leisure, and set to activate on command? (With Reflexive, maybe?)

Edit: that is, would it work sort of like a "hung spell" in GURPS Magic?

[PK]

Originally Posted by GodlessRose

Does that mean that, if taken by surprise, a sorcerer would always need two turns to activate the ability?

Yes.

Sorcery works differently from standard magic in several ways, and the lack of Blocking spells is one of them.

[GodlessRose]

Originally Posted by PK

Yes.

Sorcery works differently from standard magic in several ways, and the lack of Blocking spells is one of them.

Thanks. So, I'm thinking, to have the same utility as the Magic spell, a Sorcery Iron Arm would need a long Extended Duration, like Scryguard or Magelock. Then a sorcerer could use it like Mage Armor in D&D.

On the other hand, you could build it with the standard duration, and say a sorcerer caught flat-footed is just out of luck. That might be better. It's less like the original spell, but puts more emphasis on preparation.

[Anaraxes]

If you wanted a Blocking spell, you could make it an AA with Sorcery itself -- not a configuration of the Modular Ability pool like the Sorcery spells, but an AA to the entire Modular Ability. That means that when you use the Blocking spell, you'd cut off whatever ongoing effect you had "up" in Sorcery. Not so bad if you had an instant ability like an attack; would be ugly if you were using, say, Flight.

You'll probably need Reflexive in the blocking ability build to make it properly quick and reactive.

It would also cost you the configuration second to set up Sorcery again after the blocking ability. (I assume the pool starts unconfigured and "resets" to that state.)

Or you could avoid those side effects, drop the AA pricing, and have a Blocking spell you could use freely along with your Sorcery.

[A Ladder]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Didn't you write a pyramid article using exactly that approach?

This is the article I use for making Summoning spells in Sorcery:
http://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/sample.html?id=5583

Is this what you're looking for?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by A Ladder

This is the article I use for making Summoning spells in Sorcery:
http://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/sample.html?id=5583

Is this what you're looking for?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of. I find the author amusing given the discussion at hand...

[sonic232]

Just keep in mind that you need to leave Fragile off of those templates. Zombies introduced a ruling that says you can't apply Unkillable and Fragile together. Otherwise, it works out JUUUUST fine :)

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by sonic232

Zombies introduced a ruling that says you can't apply Unkillable and Fragile together.

Which is really dumb. "Goes automatically unconscious at -HP instead of -HPx10" is perfectly limiting. Of course, you could take it as a limitation on Unkillable instead.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by sonic232

Just keep in mind that you need to leave Fragile off of those templates. Zombies introduced a ruling that says you can't apply Unkillable and Fragile together. Otherwise, it works out JUUUUST fine :)

Originally Posted by Anthony

Which is really dumb. "Goes automatically unconscious at -HP instead of -HPx10" is perfectly limiting. Of course, you could take it as a limitation on Unkillable instead.

I don't think it's really forbidden because of that weird interaction. I think it's forbidden because Unkillable is a bit of a meta-trait and the actual interaction between the different levels of Unkillable and Fragile: Unliving isn't really linear.

Unkillable 1 and Fragile: Unliving are pretty much totally incompatible, full stop. One, you die at -10xHP, the other you die at -1xHP.
All the other levels of Unkillable include Unkillable 1, with no way to separate it. That makes them incompatible.
There is currently no official price for enjoying the benefits of Unkillable 2 or Unkillable 3 without Unkillable 1; if this modifier existed, then Unkillable and Fragile: Unliving would easily be compatible. Just "remove" Unkillable 1 and go on your way. I houserule that, for example.

For whatever reasons, Kromm decided not to delve into if "Unkillable 2 without Unkillable 1" was really only 50 points of benefit or not (and similar with Unkillable 3). The simplest solution is to say "Don't do it".

[Varyon]

I think "Mortal," which negates Unkillable 1, has been discussed as something like a -20% Limitation. Combining that with Fragile: Unnatural should be legitimate.
EDIT: Personally, I'd be tempted to treat "No Unkillable 1" as a distinct Disadvantage, worth [-20], and that has Unkillable 2 or 3 as a prerequisite. I see no reason why a character with Unkillable 3 should get more points back for dying early than one with Unkillable 2, particularly because death is even less of an inconvenience for the former character.