Alternative enchanting system revisited

Whitewings · 02-27-2014, 10:22 AM

I don't like the enchanting system presented in GURPS, and never have. The times are ridiculously long, but I've never quite come up with a good alternative. I think I just did. Here's how it works:

First, total the energy costs of all the enchantments to be placed in the final item.

Second, divide this by the number of mages involved in the project. As usual, all participants must known all relevant spells at 15 or higher, and the circle's leader must know them at 15+the number of additional participants.

From this total, determine the per-person "energy cost." Divide the cost by fifty, retaining fractions, and square the result to get the number of hours the circle will need to perform the enchantment(s) desired, to a maximum of 1,920 hours (a year's work, assuming eight hour days and five day weeks). These times are minimums: The enchanter(s) must also make the actual, physical object, which requires a rating in the relevant skill of at least 12, preferably higher given that a failure on the roll to craft the object means, naturally, that the project fails. The actual time needed is thus the longer of the enchanting time or the crafting time.

You may be asking, given that the time needed is capped, what's to prevent an enchanter from loading an object with a vast array of enchantments? Nothing at all, except for the risk of failure; if any of the enchantments fail, the entire project is ruined. Naturally, given that the item's creation and enchantment are effectively a single process, upgrades are all but impossible. Powerstone and Manastone are *not* exceptions to this rule: Each casting requires the cutting of a facet on a gem, or the carving of a tiny glyph on an existing facet, or the careful attaching of a bead to the shaft of a feather, or whatever the GM deems appropriate. Because of the risk of failure going up with each enchantment, the cost of really powerful items can be sky high.

Oh, and yes, I am aware that *really* powerful items do not benefit from multiple creators. I consider that to be a feature, not a bug. I like the idea that the greatest wonders are produced by individual masters.

For an example, let us consider an item with Tell Time and Power 1, the equivalent of a wristwatch. This item requires 750 energy, meaning for a single enchanter, 750/50=15. 15^2=225 hours, about five and a half weeks. For a team of six, the time needed is only 750/6=125 per person. 125/50=2.5. 2.5^2=6.25 hours, less than a day's work. Using the costs from GURPS Magic 4e, that translates to $900 for the lone mage's pay, or $175 for the circle's pay, plus the cost of materials in both cases. That's using TL3 pay scales; at TL7, that works out to $525 plus materials, quite comparable to the lower end prices of high quality watches.

gilbertocarlos · 02-27-2014, 01:05 PM

Instead of time, try huge wealth sacrifices plus risk of failure, so, the wizard will spend money instead of time, but the adventurers with a vast wealth may try some crazy thing.

Flyndaran · 02-27-2014, 05:04 PM

I always preferred the hard to get magic ingredients decreasing time to enchant.
Yeah, the mage could spend decades making a magic item. But he'd rather hire a group of adventurers to bring back toe nail clippings of dragon to make it in a week.

Whitewings · 02-27-2014, 05:41 PM

Well, the point isn't to make enchanting useful to adventurers. That's merely a side effect. The main purpose is to bring enchanting times down to something more reasonable, so that enchanting can actually be a viable career for people who are not terminally cracked, and enchanted items can be more than mostly showpieces for the ultra-rich. The enchanting rules were created, so far as I can tell, to support the Yrth setting, in which enchanted objects, barring the most minor, are extremely scarce.

Anthony · 02-27-2014, 05:45 PM

I have no idea why you have squaring in there. In general I think that a basic enchanting system should just say "enchantment X costs Y, use the general crafting rules to figure out how long that takes".

Fred Brackin · 02-27-2014, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whitewings

Well, the point isn't to make enchanting useful to adventurers. That's merely a side effect. The main purpose is to bring enchanting times down to something more reasonable, so that enchanting can actually be a viable career for people who are not terminally cracked, and enchanted items can be more than mostly showpieces for the ultra-rich. .

That's what the Q&D rules are for. You do need to ignore the silly note that Q%D Enchanters don't use Powerstones but after you do there are many utilitarian magic items within the reach of Q&D.

There are also many more ways to aid Q&D and Q&D circles of 500pts are not hard to achieve. See Thaumatology for things like Paut.

This does result in S&S being ignored but that doesn't mean changing S&S and then ignoring Q&D is the solution.

Whitewings · 02-27-2014, 06:23 PM

I originally had a system of steps, but found the squared term yielded a smooth function close to the stepwise results and without the weird break points. Basically, it keeps the cost of low end items low enough that they can be somewhat common, but the cost of higher end items high enough that they remain relatively scarce even with a good-sized circle, which appeals to me. And if the energy cost is high enough, meaning over 13,200, then the item is best made by a single master, which also appeals to me.

Whitewings · 02-27-2014, 10:52 PM

What I'm mostly looking for is more along the lines of how this might impact a setting. Beyond the obvious "enchanted items will be more common," that is. My assumption is that enchanters with Enchant above 20 are vanishingly scarce, and so the the practical maximum size of a circle is 6. Also, a regular enchanter earns a Comfortable income and a master enchanter a Wealthy income. This is reasonable, given that both professions require extensive training, more than almost any other job around.

Fred Brackin · 02-28-2014, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whitewings

What I'm mostly looking for is more along the lines of how this might impact a setting. .

Well, since I've never seen S&S used in a game I can't say off-hand what the results of replacing S&S would be.

Trying out a single possible example of 500 energy total (like a melee weapon with +1 to hit and damage) it looks to me as it a circle of 6 divides 500 by and gets 83.33. Divided by 50 this is 1.66 which should round up to 2 and that would square to 4. so 4 hours.

By comparison the maser alone would divide 500 by 1 and then by 50 and get 10 which squares to 100 and I think your system has broken already.

If you go up to 1000 the 6 man circle scales by the square making twice as costly in time or 16 hours. The lone master also scales by the square to 400 hours.

I suspect that you might have replaced multiple breakpoints with a single strategy where smaller Enchantments made by people will always be better. Your requirement that the enchanter physically create the object during the process may remove the possibility of multiple Enchantments but I'm not sure this would be a good thing.

It would encourage having a lot of smaller pieces of jewelry instead. I don't know if you want all your PCs to dress like Mr T or not. :)

Also the math is unlovely and I would avoid this system for that reason alone in addition to my dissatisfaction with its' results..

Whitewings · 03-02-2014, 02:24 PM

The crafting requirement alters your analysis somewhat; the sword you present would be better made by a small group, perhaps three people (one smith, two assistants), since the time needed to forge a sword varies from as little as a month (starting from an ingot of suitable steel and using European methods) to as much as three months, using traditional Japanese methods and starting materials. It takes a full year to create a traditionally made katana, but most of that time is spent in tasks other than swordsmithing.

The energy cost breakpoint for one person versus a full circle, assuming the crafting time for the item is an hour or less, is indeed surprisingly low: only 120 energy, approximately.

02-27-2014, 10:22 AM	#1
Whitewings Join Date: Jul 2005	Alternative enchanting system revisited I don't like the enchanting system presented in GURPS, and never have. The times are ridiculously long, but I've never quite come up with a good alternative. I think I just did. Here's how it works: First, total the energy costs of all the enchantments to be placed in the final item. Second, divide this by the number of mages involved in the project. As usual, all participants must known all relevant spells at 15 or higher, and the circle's leader must know them at 15+the number of additional participants. From this total, determine the per-person "energy cost." Divide the cost by fifty, retaining fractions, and square the result to get the number of hours the circle will need to perform the enchantment(s) desired, to a maximum of 1,920 hours (a year's work, assuming eight hour days and five day weeks). These times are minimums: The enchanter(s) must also make the actual, physical object, which requires a rating in the relevant skill of at least 12, preferably higher given that a failure on the roll to craft the object means, naturally, that the project fails. The actual time needed is thus the longer of the enchanting time or the crafting time. You may be asking, given that the time needed is capped, what's to prevent an enchanter from loading an object with a vast array of enchantments? Nothing at all, except for the risk of failure; if any of the enchantments fail, the entire project is ruined. Naturally, given that the item's creation and enchantment are effectively a single process, upgrades are all but impossible. Powerstone and Manastone are not exceptions to this rule: Each casting requires the cutting of a facet on a gem, or the carving of a tiny glyph on an existing facet, or the careful attaching of a bead to the shaft of a feather, or whatever the GM deems appropriate. Because of the risk of failure going up with each enchantment, the cost of really powerful items can be sky high. Oh, and yes, I am aware that really powerful items do not benefit from multiple creators. I consider that to be a feature, not a bug. I like the idea that the greatest wonders are produced by individual masters. For an example, let us consider an item with Tell Time and Power 1, the equivalent of a wristwatch. This item requires 750 energy, meaning for a single enchanter, 750/50=15. 15^2=225 hours, about five and a half weeks. For a team of six, the time needed is only 750/6=125 per person. 125/50=2.5. 2.5^2=6.25 hours, less than a day's work. Using the costs from GURPS Magic 4e, that translates to $900 for the lone mage's pay, or $175 for the circle's pay, plus the cost of materials in both cases. That's using TL3 pay scales; at TL7, that works out to $525 plus materials, quite comparable to the lower end prices of high quality watches.

02-27-2014, 01:05 PM	#2
gilbertocarlos Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Caxias do Sul, Brazil	Re: Alternative enchanting system revisited Instead of time, try huge wealth sacrifices plus risk of failure, so, the wizard will spend money instead of time, but the adventurers with a vast wealth may try some crazy thing. __________________ I've revised the Low Tech weapons table: http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=112532

02-27-2014, 05:04 PM	#3
Flyndaran Untagged Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon	Re: Alternative enchanting system revisited I always preferred the hard to get magic ingredients decreasing time to enchant. Yeah, the mage could spend decades making a magic item. But he'd rather hire a group of adventurers to bring back toe nail clippings of dragon to make it in a week. __________________ Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check.

02-27-2014, 05:41 PM	#4
Whitewings Join Date: Jul 2005	Re: Alternative enchanting system revisited Well, the point isn't to make enchanting useful to adventurers. That's merely a side effect. The main purpose is to bring enchanting times down to something more reasonable, so that enchanting can actually be a viable career for people who are not terminally cracked, and enchanted items can be more than mostly showpieces for the ultra-rich. The enchanting rules were created, so far as I can tell, to support the Yrth setting, in which enchanted objects, barring the most minor, are extremely scarce.

02-27-2014, 05:45 PM	#5
Anthony Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Berkeley, CA	Re: Alternative enchanting system revisited I have no idea why you have squaring in there. In general I think that a basic enchanting system should just say "enchantment X costs Y, use the general crafting rules to figure out how long that takes". __________________ My GURPS site and Blog.

02-27-2014, 06:23 PM	#7
Whitewings Join Date: Jul 2005	Re: Alternative enchanting system revisited I originally had a system of steps, but found the squared term yielded a smooth function close to the stepwise results and without the weird break points. Basically, it keeps the cost of low end items low enough that they can be somewhat common, but the cost of higher end items high enough that they remain relatively scarce even with a good-sized circle, which appeals to me. And if the energy cost is high enough, meaning over 13,200, then the item is best made by a single master, which also appeals to me. Last edited by Whitewings; 02-27-2014 at 10:42 PM.

02-27-2014, 10:52 PM	#8
Whitewings Join Date: Jul 2005	Re: Alternative enchanting system revisited What I'm mostly looking for is more along the lines of how this might impact a setting. Beyond the obvious "enchanted items will be more common," that is. My assumption is that enchanters with Enchant above 20 are vanishingly scarce, and so the the practical maximum size of a circle is 6. Also, a regular enchanter earns a Comfortable income and a master enchanter a Wealthy income. This is reasonable, given that both professions require extensive training, more than almost any other job around.

03-02-2014, 02:24 PM	#10
Whitewings Join Date: Jul 2005	Re: Alternative enchanting system revisited The crafting requirement alters your analysis somewhat; the sword you present would be better made by a small group, perhaps three people (one smith, two assistants), since the time needed to forge a sword varies from as little as a month (starting from an ingot of suitable steel and using European methods) to as much as three months, using traditional Japanese methods and starting materials. It takes a full year to create a traditionally made katana, but most of that time is spent in tasks other than swordsmithing. The energy cost breakpoint for one person versus a full circle, assuming the crafting time for the item is an hour or less, is indeed surprisingly low: only 120 energy, approximately.