GURPS Thaumatology: Sorcery

[Raekai]

What if, for some crazy reason, I wanted Sorcery (in some cases) to be Physical Only? Should I just rework Sorcery in those cases or can I add it as a Physical Only, -X% limitation on Sorcery? If the latter, how much would that limitation be worth?

[PK]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

The idea of tying enchanted item base price to TL seems to run counter to the way GURPS handles TL/price/wealth variation: normally, the higher the TL, the more stuff people can have. Surely a TL0 enchanter using cave-painted runes is less productive than the TL3 one using scrolls and ink and is less productive than the TL8 one using automated enchanting scripts is less productive than the TL10 one assisted by enchanting-oriented LAIs?

Thing is, it's still "the higher the TL, the more stuff you can have," because for most magic items, it's the enchanter's wages that set most of the price. And wages are far more normalized across TLs than starting wealth. Do the math for some 10- to 30-EP items across TLs and you'll see what I mean; as your personal TL rises, you can definitely afford to own more magic items.

What tying inherent value to starting wealth does is it sets a fixed value for PC enchanters who want to churn out a bunch of magic items. A PC at any TL will pay the same value, relative to his starting wealth, for an item appropriate to a given enchantment. That was definitely an intended feature, not a bug.

So to sum up, the existing rules create unified effective costs for PC enchanters, while allowing everyone paying cash for their artifacts to own more and more of them as their TL goes up.

Originally Posted by Raekai

What if, for some crazy reason, I wanted Sorcery (in some cases) to be Physical Only? Should I just rework Sorcery in those cases or can I add it as a Physical Only, -X% limitation on Sorcery? If the latter, how much would that limitation be worth?

That would be Limited Scope. Speaking from a strictly mathematical perspective, I recommend -25% as the fair value. (Yes, I realize I said not to apply enhancements to the underlying Modular Ability construct, but since you're actually altering the Modular Ability itself this is the one time that it makes sense to delve that deep.)

[PK]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Were there any particular criteria for picking spells to convert?

Sort of. The most important was that I needed at least one of every spell type (one Area spell, one Buff spell, one Information spell, etc.). Beyond that, I wanted to pick the widest possible range of spell builds, so that this book would act as a guide to converting spells, as much as a simple grimoire.

The playtest shook the spell list further, resulting in a number of them being swapped out. Of course, in a few cases, a playtester really wanted a favorite spell to appear, but I felt that said spell was too mechanically similar to existing ones; e.g., one thought that Invisibility was more interesting than Light, but I consider the build for Light to be unique whereas Invisibility is just another simple, easily created Buff.

or any candidates that proved intractable?

No, and I don't believe any such spells exist, as long as you're willing to accept that it may be the feel of the spell that gets converted, rather than the exact mechanics. For a great example, look at Reverse Missiles, long considered by many to be "inconvertable." But by making it leveled by effective missile strength, it's actually fairly straightforward. As other examples, I've already done conversions of things like "save or die" spells along with Utter Dome, Resist Cold, and similar "total protection" spells.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by PK

Thing is, it's still "the higher the TL, the more stuff you can have," because for most magic items, it's the enchanter's wages that set most of the price. And wages are far more normalized across TLs than starting wealth. Do the math for some 10- to 30-EP items across TLs and you'll see what I mean; as your personal TL rises, you can definitely afford to own more magic items.

What tying inherent value to starting wealth does is it sets a fixed value for PC enchanters who want to churn out a bunch of magic items. A PC at any TL will pay the same value, relative to his starting wealth, for an item appropriate to a given enchantment. That was definitely an intended feature, not a bug.

So to sum up, the existing rules create unified effective costs for PC enchanters, while allowing everyone paying cash for their artifacts to own more and more of them as their TL goes up.

IIRC wages tend to be equal to (Starting Wealth / 10f) + CoL, for a given level of Wealth/Status (usually same one). But yes, I find that feature to be counterintuitive, because it seems to indicate that a given level of Wealth provides more stuff as the civilisation becomes more developed . . . unless said civilisation is magical, in which case it gives the same stuff no matter how developed it is. Of course, matters of game balance complicate things, and I don't deny that.

[PK]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

But yes, I find that feature to be counterintuitive, because it seems to indicate that a given level of Wealth provides more stuff as the civilisation becomes more developed . . . unless said civilisation is magical, in which case it gives the same stuff no matter how developed it is.

No, as I explained above, a given level of Wealth does provide more stuff in a magical civilization. Do the math and you'll see that it works out that way. You're placing too much emphasis on inherent value when, for the vast majority of magical items, it's the enchanter's wages that establish the bulk of the price.

Take the Amulet of Minor Healing that Bob buys on p. 33. Now ask yourself (A) how much that amulet costs at different TLs and (B) how many of them a Filthy Rich person of that TL could start with. Assuming 100% markup, we get:

TL3: Costs $9,740. Start with 10 amulets.
TL5: Costs $15,700. Start with 31 amulets.
TL7: Costs $30,750. Start with 48 amulets.
TL9: Costs $26,625. Start with 112 amulets.
TL11: Costs $60,450. Start with 124 amulets.

See? As TL increases, anything mass-marketable will become significantly cheaper relative to starting wealth.

[RogerBW]

Originally Posted by PK

See? As TL increases, anything mass-marketable will become significantly cheaper relative to starting wealth.

And things that need people-time don't. Perhaps a useful illustration: for the same couple of hundred nominal dollars that a car cost in 1910, you can now get a car that's faster, safer, and vastly more reliable, in spite of inflation. But the $250 a year you would have paid for a butler then is around $90,000 now.

[Tyneras]

In the vein of permanent magical creations, one thing that would be useful in a future supplement would be guidelines for making things like golems and zombies and various other types of magical creation that don't fall into the nifty enchantment rules.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Tyneras

In the vein of permanent magical creations, one thing that would be useful in a future supplement would be guidelines for making things like golems and zombies and various other types of magical creation that don't fall into the nifty enchantment rules.

Welp, I just found my next Pyramid article idea. (Assuming of course you didn't want to write it yourself.)

[kabson]

I enjoyed my sorcerous read over the weekend. Especially useful to keep my mind off the typhoon raging outside. If there was a downside, I would have liked to see a few more examples, but I'll be patient and see what turns up. ;)

I have a couple of questions:

As stated, Sorcery requires two Concentrate maneuvers. Do these have to be consecutive? Or can a prudent sorcerer switch out the 'last cast' spell with, for example, the classic "I ready Fireball" line, and then wait for their opportunity for the casting roll?

And is there room for a mechanism to cast multiple low-cost spells without going the full-cost simultaneous route described in the book? I.e. if a sorcerer is limited to 10 point abilities, could they cast and maintain two 5 (or 4) point spells? Maybe with some sort of Link enhancement? Or would this break something, either game mechanics or flavor?

Thanks!

[Blind Mapmaker]

Originally Posted by Smeette

As stated, Sorcery requires two Concentrate maneuvers. Do these have to be consecutive? Or can a prudent sorcerer switch out the 'last cast' spell with, for example, the classic "I ready Fireball" line, and then wait for their opportunity for the casting roll?

It is clearly stated on p. 10 that "Unlike the Missile spells of GURPS Magic,
a sorcery missile cannot be “held.” It is cast as a Concentrate maneuver followed by an Attack maneuver [...]" That seems unambiguous to me. Remember, it's the last spell you cast, not the last spell you prepared to cast.

Having said that, I think the underlying mechanics would make your variant possible. However, the underlying mechanics have already been changed to necessitate the extra maneuver even for attack spells. As always in GURPS, feel free to do what you think fits your play style. Splitting the maneuvers won't result in world-shattering munchkinnery, anyway.