GURPS Thaumatology: Sorcery

[Raekai]

Originally Posted by PK

Sure. Replace Sorcerous Empowerment with Ritual Adept + levels of Magery (Ritual Path), and use RPM for "improvised magic" instead of sorcery. That way you have fast, easy "sorcery evocations" and slow, versatile "RPM rituals."

¡Muchas gracias! Again, I haven't had too much time to do too much reading or thinking, but would there be a good way of tying Sorcery to Paths as well? As in, I'd have to roll against the Path of Energy to use my Fireball of Sorcery. What would a good limitation be for this? I was thinking it'd be more than an IQ roll since it's mapped to different skills for different things. Any ideas?

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Raekai

¡Muchas gracias! Again, I haven't had too much time to do too much reading or thinking, but would there be a good way of tying Sorcery to Paths as well? As in, I'd have to roll against the Path of Energy to use my Fireball of Sorcery. What would a good limitation be for this? I was thinking it'd be more than an IQ roll since it's mapped to different skills for different things. Any ideas?

Skills for everyone, Powers 162 addresses this.

[Kuroshima]

At last this is out! The hints PK was giving were strong, but I obviously could not spoil the surprise. Otherwise, my inside information privileges would have been rescinded.

This is very close to the contents of the original article, and yet there are small differences that might trip you. It certainly feels more balanced now that regular improvisation doesn't take ages any more.

Personally, I don't feel that regular spell magic scales well. It works best at the 100-150 points, sort of manages to keep working at 150-250, but some popular archetypes start becoming useless (the combat/fireball flinging wizard, for example). Once you reach a high point value (IME 400+ points), you either abuse the system like there's no tomorrow or you suck. Days start with the cast spell/delay/maintain spell routine until the rest of the party decides you've wasted enough of everyone's time. Out of combat magic is often extremely cheap for the utility offered, or extremely expensive, both in terms of points (prerequisites) and fatigue.

Sorcery, on the other hand, ought to be able to keep scaling well. Even Sorcery 1 characters with a piddly 2-3d innate attack learned spell won't feel useless in combat, save or suck effects are usually suitably expensive, and plot wrecking spells cost considerable amounts of points, as they should.

This is from the perspective of a mainly DF/Supers GM. I won't say that that doesn't color my opinion.

[munin]

Using "Truly Permanent" for Enchant means there is no way (p. B105) to remove sorcerous enchantments?

[PK]

Originally Posted by Blind Mapmaker

Definitely a worthy read, I posted a review on my blog. My advice: don't buy it for the converted spells (they may not be quite what you expected), buy it for the expanded Sorcery system and especially for the enchantment rules.

Thank you for the detailed and comprehensive review! It's obvious that you fully read and grokked the system, which makes the turnaround time on your post all the more impressive.

Overall, it's a fair review, for both the good and the bad. I'll note that we didn't necessarily plan on leaving the remaining 95% of GURPS Magic spells to be converted by the GM. Let's just say that if this sells well, we might have ideas on some follow-up supplements . . .

[PK]

Originally Posted by A Ladder

I had already converted all my spells over to Powers-based magic a while ago but the one thing that was missing was Enchanting. Thanks PK for the great enchanting system!

I'm glad you like it! And I want to take a minute to thank Kromm and my playtesters, who banged on everything from the basics to enchantment, to help smooth it out and catch any oddities.

However, I don't think I understand the Alchemy section...It looks like a 1d healing potion would cost $1229, while an Icy Weapon Sword only costs $1152 plus the cost of the sword. That seems a little inconsistent. What am I missing?

Nothing -- the fact is that Minor Healing is simply a far higher-cost spell than Icy Weapon, so any artifacts based on the former will cost far more than the latter. Compare the price of a Minor Healing potion to a Minor Healing wand, or an Icy Weapon potion (you pour it on the sword) to an Icy Weapon swords.

[Pragmatic]

Still on tablet, excuse errors or brevity.

Can multiple spell rule apply to lower-point spells?

Eg, 50pt spell, 30pt spell, 25pt spell. Buy 30pt spell full cost, can cast 25pt spell at same time. But both end if cast 50pt spell.

[PK]

Originally Posted by Kuroshima

Sorcery, on the other hand, ought to be able to keep scaling well. Even Sorcery 1 characters with a piddly 2-3d innate attack learned spell won't feel useless in combat, save or suck effects are usually suitably expensive, and plot wrecking spells cost considerable amounts of points, as they should.

Thank you for pointing this out. Scaling was one of the highest priorities in my mind as I wrote the system, so I really hoped that it came across this way.

However, part of this scaling involves GM calls and caps on area and damage. To address a relevant, specific point raised by BM's review, it's important to follow the guidelines in Damage (p. 10) and not allow 15d Sunbolts unless the campaign and setting call for them. Because this system can scale up to infinite levels, it's crucial that the GM sets appropriate caps.

Though as an idea that I'm just now having, the GM who wants to set much higher caps could use the more detailed advice in Arms Control (GURPS Powers, p. 138) and build a UB into the cost of the spell. Obviously, this would have to be calculated independently for each setting, but it wouldn't be too hard to do. For example, take a TL3 DF game where a half-ogre knight can do the equivalent of 5d at range with a sling (a reasonable upper limit on "damage from personal weaponry"). If we say that 6d-10d is "portable support weapons" (scorpions and small ballistae), 11d-15d is "light vehicular weapons" (large ballistae, small trebuchets, catapults), and 16d-20d is "heavy vehicular weapons" (large trebuchets), then that means:

1. By the time we reach 6d, the caster needs to have paid for a 25-point UB. Thus, we can spread this over levels 1-5 at +5 points each.

2. By the time we reach 11d, the caster needs to have paid for a net 50-point UB, which means another 25 points. Thus, we can spread this extra 25 points over levels 6-10 at +5 points each.

3. By the time we reach 16d, the caster needs to have paid for a net 100-point UB, which means another 50 points. Thus, we can spread this extra 50 points over levels 11-15 at +10 points each. Alternatively, since the UB stops at this point, we can spread those 50 points over levels 11-20 at +5 points each, which is probably fairer as it's not like there's a massive difference between 16d and 15d.

So the above logic suggests adding a flat +5/level to all Missile spells in a DF game if the GM plans on allowing Damage up into the 20d range. You could use similar reasoning to work out fair values for any setting; as a rule, it'll get cheaper as technology gets better. However, please note that if he follows the actual guidelines in Sorcery and caps damage at about 5d, this isn't an issue and doesn't require any UB-based tax!

[PK]

Originally Posted by munin

Using "Truly Permanent" for Enchant means there is no way (p. B105) to remove sorcerous enchantments?

Doing so would require the equivalent of a Remove Enchantment spell, which here would be built as a specific Neutralize with Truly Permanent (+300%) and Cosmic (+100%). If we ever do a book expanding Enchantments, that's where I'd delve into such things in detail.

[Rigil_Kent]

Question regarding the Special Limitations. You have "Limited Colleges" and "Limited Scope." How would you handle "Forbidden Colleges"? Something like "Cannot cast from Mind Control or Necromancy college"? Would that not be a valid limitation?