Luck (Spellcasting only) - how to value limitation

[Peter Knutsen]

Isn't it the case with most Enchantments, that you only need to roll once, after you've put in all the required Mage-Days?

I freely admit I haven't read the Enchantment section of GURPS Magic closely in the last many, many years, but I seem to recall that most Enchantments, with Powerstones being the exception, work like this.

If so much hinges on a single roll, then it makes sense to ban the use of Luck to affect it.

If I'm misremembering, though, then it doesn't make sense except as an attempt at world metaphysics simulation.

[Ts_]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Isn't it the case with most Enchantments, that you only need to roll once, after you've put in all the required Mage-Days?

Yes. I also thought that was a meta-reason why Luck was considered offlimits for enchanting. Also, Magic says that the GM makes the success roll for the enchantment, not the player.

Anyway, it's a setting assumption that can trivially be changed if the GM so desires ... Imho, a GM that allows player-made magic items should assume that the players _will_ make these items and not hope for a failed enchantment roll.

Regards
Ts

[LemmingLord]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Isn't it the case with most Enchantments, that you only need to roll once, after you've put in all the required Mage-Days?

I freely admit I haven't read the Enchantment section of GURPS Magic closely in the last many, many years, but I seem to recall that most Enchantments, with Powerstones being the exception, work like this.

If so much hinges on a single roll, then it makes sense to ban the use of Luck to affect it.

If I'm misremembering, though, then it doesn't make sense except as an attempt at world metaphysics simulation.

Yes, this is a good point. Powerstones and other leveled enhancements are rolled once per level..essentially repeated castings.

I'm just saying that as a GM I should still make luck have some kind of function to improve an enchanter's luck with the "unpredictable" process called magic.

I hope the RAW rules at least allow the caster to reroll a mishap like "summon demon." So maybe the caster doesn't necessarily have less mishaps, but those mishaps are luckily less dangerous... SOMETHING.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by LemmingLord

I hope the RAW rules at least allow the caster to reroll a mishap like "summon demon." So maybe the caster doesn't necessarily have less mishaps, but those mishaps are luckily less dangerous... SOMETHING.

Thaumatology makes clear that Luck does not apply to rolls made on "effects tables" such as the Critical Spell Failure Table. That point may also be made elsewhere, but I think it is considered a clarification on Basic's treatment of Luck, rather than a new rule.

[LemmingLord]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

Thaumatology makes clear that Luck does not apply to rolls made on "effects tables" such as the Critical Spell Failure Table. That point may also be made elsewhere, but I think it is considered a clarification on Basic's treatment of Luck, rather than a new rule.

This seems like a narrow vision to have as the default situation. Maybe I have not read enough fantasy novels.. but I've always felt that "lucky characters" are as lucky at casting magic as they are at anything else...

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by LemmingLord

I'm just saying that as a GM I should still make luck have some kind of function to improve an enchanter's luck with the "unpredictable" process called magic.

Having the outcome of a very long-term process such as an Enchantment that requires hundreds or thousands of Mage-Days hinge on a single dice roll, when the roll mechanic is as crazily random as GURPS', is bad design. It's also potentially a lot of unfun for players when they fail such a crucial roll (ignoring the fact that the Enchantment rules are engineered so as to make it as difficult as possible for the PCs to make their own items).

This suggests the rules should be fixed, because badly designed rules are bad. On the other hand, making large changes tend to have a huge effect on the world. If you modify the rules, then you'll have to go back and modify he world, since a good world is always extrapolated from the rules, taking into account important probabilities, such as the percentage of long-term Enchantment projects that fail.

But if most such projects fail 5% of the time, and you remove the roll completely, or introduce a trait built from Aspected Luck, that changes the failure percentage for professional Enchanters from 5% to something like 0.2%, then it will not make the world wildly richer in magic items.

There are real and important psychological factors at play, though. Some Enchanters do paid work, being hired on long-term contracts (or better) by great lords, and told to do this or that project, and they get paid whether or not the project succeeds. These are unaffected.

Others choose to do long-term Enchantment projects on a private basis. Here psychology plays a role. A 5% chance of having wasted all of one's time is rather more daunting than 0.2%, and I think that applies even more strongly for group projects. A lone individual may be strongly devoted to some goal and so keep at it during adversity, but to have a group Enchantment, where several people commit to contribute, that 5% chance of having wasted the effort will deter many. 0.2% will still deter soe, but markedly fewer.

So I think if you do change the metaphysics of your world, such that a trait built from Luck can make Enchantment more reliable, then Enchanted items will become somewhat more common, because there'll be more idealistically founded group efforts, and slightly more solo projects.

Also note the above deals only with those Enchantments that are about Mage-Days where you put in the days then you make a single roll to see whether the project was a success or a failure. It has nothing to do with Powerstones, which are made with different mechanics.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

Thaumatology makes clear that Luck does not apply to rolls made on "effects tables" such as the Critical Spell Failure Table. That point may also be made elsewhere, but I think it is considered a clarification on Basic's treatment of Luck, rather than a new rule.

It's the world builder's privilege to decide on the metaphysics, before game start. If there is a balance problem, I very much doubt it's anything +50% Cosmic can't fix.

Luck 1, base 15 CP, -20% Aspected, +50% Cosmic, 20 CP.

And arguably in this case Aspected should be a bit more, probably -30% since it can do only that thing, but -20% seems to be hardwired into GURPS and shows up everywhere as a knee-jerk reflex.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by LemmingLord

This seems like a narrow vision to have as the default situation. Maybe I have not read enough fantasy novels.. but I've always felt that "lucky characters" are as lucky at casting magic as they are at anything else...

Keep in mind, the Luck Advantage isn't luck. It's an advantage that gives the character certain mechanical benefits, having to do with re-rolls. It's perfectly reasonable to use that advantage to represent something else, such as skill at working magic, e.g. by applying a -20% Aspected (Only to re-roll spellcasting critical misses) Limitation to it. Now it's no longer luck, but great insight, vast knowledge of the intricacies of magic.

[Pomphis]

Especially now that we have Stable Casting (T28) and the Stabilizing Skill Perk (Magical Styles p.24).

[BaHalus]

Originally Posted by LemmingLord

I would definitely waive this caveat in my games. A good-lucky enchanter should have fewer mishaps than a non-lucky enchanter.

This seems like an odd default. I often wonder how a mage every learns the vast number of spells he/she learns when they are so likely to crit fail when first attempting them...

Assuming though that a gamemaster decided that "magic is less reliable and controllable than other tasks" as apparently RAW sets as the default, it would seem to me that lucky would be even more applicable (not less).

Saying something is less reliable and controllable tells me that luck is MORE important not less.

If I have uncontrollable or unreliable on a power and failed a roll related to those could I not use luck to reroll? I believe the answer to that should be yes... absolutely..

The key concerning luck is that it can only be used a certain number of times for a fixed length of game time. Since enchantment is usually in 0 game time (that is for a ten point power stone, I let the player roll ten times which takes maybe three metagame minutes) then the player would get to reroll only one of those ten rolls. And if I say "a year passes" and the player wants her character to enchant all kinds of things, that is still going to be done in a relatively small period of time... meaning that there is still the chance for multiple critical failures in the same time period.. reducing luck's effectiveness just enough to keep things interesting, and to be in keeping with lucks use in every other situation.

i think you forgot the 0% game time modifier.