Indefinite Sorcery

[dataweaver]

How much should a Sorcery spell cost if it keeps going until you switch to a different spell, and why?

[Kelly Pedersen]

Some Sorcery spells already do this - anything with a fixed duration (i.e., one listed as "30 minutes" like No-Smell) or permanent duration (such as Flesh to Stone) will last for their full duration, regardless of whether the sorcerer casts something else. See "Maintaining Spells", Sorcery p. 8.

If you want to make other spells not quit when the sorcerer casts something else, the answer is "pay the full cost of the highest-level spell", as per "Simultaneous Spells" (again, Sorcery p. 8). Sorcery spells get a significant discount because they're Alternate Abilities to Sorcerous Empowerment, and one of the big limitations on Alternate Abilities, why they're so cheap, is that you can't have them active simultaneously.

[Refplace]

If a spell is listed as Indefiante in Duration it typically lasts until you stop maintaining it. That would often be when you switch to a new spell.

[dataweaver]

You misunderstood my question. I want to know how much it would cost for a spell that lasts until you switch to another spell, with no need for maintenance in the meantime — but which does end the moment you switch. If you can end it prematurely by deallocating the points instead of reallocating them, even better. And in particular, I'm wondering how much such a spell would cost compared to an otherwise identical one that uses Sorcery's normal duration rules.

[Anaraxes]

Build the spell so that it requires no maintenance. That is, remove the usual one level of "Costs FP" that makes Sorcery spells typically cost 1 FP per minute to maintain. (Or add enough levels of Reduced Fatigue to make the base ability free.)

Normally this cost is built into all Sorcery spells because it's part of the Sorcery power modifier (see p. 13, "Inventing New Spells"). The rules and example spells also go to some trouble to try to make sure the spell-abilities are all built to cost the standard 1 FP, as that makes the maintenance rules simple to state. Assuming no other FP-cost modifers in the build, removing one Costs FP would add 5% to the positive modifers, or if you'd rather think about it this way, effectively change the Sorcery PM for that spell to -10%.

Note that that change is not quite the same thing as just adding 5% to the final cost of the spell. It's 5% of the base cost of the underlying Advantages before you start multiplying for Enhancements and Limitations, which will be less than 5% of the final cost for any spell with more Enhancements than Limitations, yet more in the opposite case. But if you don't want to look at the spell statistics to take them apart, then just adding 5% would at least be simple, if not particularly accurate.

Such a spell would still be part of the AA group, and so still terminate when you switched spells.

[Ejidoth]

It might be worth charging at least a perk-level unusual background for including a sorcery spell that breaks the rules of sorcery in the character's repertoire, depending on how your setting works.

[Rindis]

Actually, I'd say give it the usual 1 FP cost (i.e., use the Sorcery power modifier), and the the +150% version of Permanent, with the condition 'When I Cast Another Spell'. Not necessarily efficient... but it does the job

[Kelly Pedersen]

Sorry, dataweaver, you're right, I did misunderstand. I'd go with Anaraxes' answer.

Originally Posted by Rindis

Actually, I'd say give it the usual 1 FP cost (i.e., use the Sorcery power modifier), and the the +150% version of Permanent, with the condition 'When I Cast Another Spell'.

This, on the other hand, I'd strongly recommend against. It's way too expensive for the benefit, I doubt you'd get anyone taking spells with that price. If you're worried about balancing something that goes against the normal assumptions of Sorcery, I'd go with the idea of a perk per spell that breaks the rules, not a massive inflation of their cost that breaks the usual rules of modifiers.

[sir_pudding]

If what you want is a persistent passive magical power that uses up a spell tree while active, you could just take the ability with just the magical PM (instead of the Sorcery PM) as an AA of Sorcererous Empowerment.

[dataweaver]

OK. How would that work with spells that are currently Persistent or Affliction-based? I don't have my book handy, and I don't recall what Persistent does; and if I recall correctly, Afflictions are created by an Ability (in this case, a spell) and then run their course without any need to maintain them, which is why they can't be canceled at will.