RAW enchanting system and Luck use

[hal]

Originally Posted by DungeonCrawler

The Magic, P 12 inset, clear states that Wishes, Luck, and Bless spells do not affect Ceremonial Magic.

It also clearly states in the following sentence that, in general, magic cannot affect or predict the outcome of a ceremonial ritual.

That seems pretty clear cut to me, Luck doesn't count for Enchantments. Ever. And it seems clear that it rules out the use of Divination to try and predict the outcomes in order to cut costs or increase effects.

This is why I mentioned, that the rules for GURPS MAGIC were modified from their first edition to the second edition - specifically to deal with the use of Divination I introduced back in the day when we only had GURPSNET ;)

The irony here is that, Divinations themselves do not affect enchantments as a process, other than to delay when a person might or might not start the enchantment ritual. Ironically, attempting to avoid the "quirks" aspect of powerstones defeated the purpose of introducing them in the first place - which is why Divinations (and presumably luck) were specifically excluded. It is particularly telling, that quirks are not things that happen to regular enchantments, but pretty much only to powerstones. When was the last time someone got a hold of a quirked Sword of +1 Dex, that only worked if you dipped it in bats blood?

In any event, seeing the seeming discontent aroused with four consecutive posts as being "too long", I think I'd best bail out of the discussion ;)

[DungeonCrawler]

Originally Posted by hal

This is why I mentioned, that the rules for GURPS MAGIC were modified from their first edition to the second edition - specifically to deal with the use of Divination I introduced back in the day when we only had GURPSNET ;)

The irony here is that, Divinations themselves do not affect enchantments as a process, other than to delay when a person might or might not start the enchantment ritual. Ironically, attempting to avoid the "quirks" aspect of powerstones defeated the purpose of introducing them in the first place - which is why Divinations (and presumably luck) were specifically excluded. It is particularly telling, that quirks are not things that happen to regular enchantments, but pretty much only to powerstones. When was the last time someone got a hold of a quirked Sword of +1 Dex, that only worked if you dipped it in bats blood?

In any event, seeing the seeming discontent aroused with four consecutive posts as being "too long", I think I'd best bail out of the discussion ;)

Ooops! I missed the twist in the last paragraph and completely misunderstood your point (got it backwards, in fact). That's my fault and I apologize.

[LargePrime]

Originally Posted by hal

In any event, seeing the seeming discontent aroused with four consecutive posts as being "too long", I think I'd best bail out of the discussion ;)

I would like to send you a PM to come back. I know of no discontent raised about your posts. As well you have driven the discussion forward in an important way. Specifically a point that was not immediately clear that the restrictions of powerstones are there for game balance reasons. It seems a simple solution is to cap the size of Powerstones a wizard can use to the FP a wizard has.

Originally Posted by DungeonCrawler

The Magic, P 12 inset, clear states that Wishes, Luck, and Bless spells do not affect Ceremonial Magic.

As other posters have mentions, and the whole reason I raised this post from years ago, It is NOT clear the rules say what you are saying. Others have had a certitude it works as you say and seen the ambiguity of the actual wording.

As another poster noted, and the question I first asked, is "DID we ever actually get a definitive answer to this question?" This is even more relavant after noting the points raised in Hal's thesis.

[Akicita]

Originally Posted by LargePrime

As other posters have mentions, and the whole reason I raised this post from years ago, It is NOT clear the rules say what you are saying. Others have had a certitude it works as you say and seen the ambiguity of the actual wording.

When DungeonCrawler said "The Magic, P 12 inset, clear states that Wishes, Luck, and Bless spells do not affect Ceremonial Magic," he was quoting directly from the book. To me, there does not seem to be any possiblity for understanding the rules to say anything other than what he said.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I really don't understand what it is you are finding ambiguous, nor do I understand what other reading you can apply. Could you clarify for me just how you interpret this rule?

[DungeonCrawler]

Originally Posted by LargePrime

I would like to send you a PM to come back. I know of no discontent raised about your posts. As well you have driven the discussion forward in an important way. Specifically a point that was not immediately clear that the restrictions of powerstones are there for game balance reasons. It seems a simple solution is to cap the size of Powerstones a wizard can use to the FP a wizard has.As other posters have mentions, and the whole reason I raised this post from years ago, It is NOT clear the rules say what you are saying. Others have had a certitude it works as you say and seen the ambiguity of the actual wording.

As another poster noted, and the question I first asked, is "DID we ever actually get a definitive answer to this question?" This is even more relavant after noting the points raised in Hal's thesis.

I definitely agree that Hal didn't do anything wrong.

And definitely disagree that the wording is in anyway ambiguous. Playing games of semantics can make almost anything seem uncertain, but that doesn't mean it really is. And in this case, it clearly says Luck can't affect ceremonial magic.

Since it doesn't limit Wishes or Luck in any way, it means that Wishes or Luck from any source.

It can be argued all day that crimson isn't red...and would be just as wrong as trying to claim that sentence in Magic means anything except what it says. Luck cannot affect ceremonial magic.

Luck potions are not spells, but they are magic...and in general, magic can't affect ceremonial magic either.

As a point of semantics, no one refers to a luck potion as just Luck. "Luck" means the advantage.

Perhaps more importantly, all a luck potion does is temporarily provide the target with the Luck advantage, so they end up being the same thing anyway, no matter what they are called.

And I think the whole topic becomes even less important after reading Hal's post, since he made it clear why allowing anything to affect the way enchantments (especially on powerstones) works is a bad idea.

And yes, this topic came up before. Long before.

http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...5&postcount=22

As to getting a definitive answer...if the rule as written isn't definitive, what would be?

[LargePrime]

Originally Posted by Akicita

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I really don't understand what it is you are finding ambiguous, nor do I understand what other reading you can apply. Could you clarify for me just how you interpret this rule?

I did not pose the question, only found a thread in which the question was posed, and asked if the question was answered. I even linked the post with the question in case you missed it. Feel free to respond to the questioner.

Originally Posted by DungeonCrawler

And definitely disagree that the wording is in anyway ambiguous.

In the same way, feel free to respond to the questioner.

Originally Posted by DungeonCrawler

Perhaps more importantly, all a luck potion does is temporarily provide the target with the Luck advantage, so they end up being the same thing anyway, no matter what they are called.

Being under a magical effect that confers an Advantage, is NOT the same as having that Advantage. Most simply, one is magical, the other not.

Originally Posted by DungeonCrawler

As to getting a definitive answer...if the rule as written isn't definitive, what would be?

Specifically? Third edition actually says one could not use the "Luck Advantage" in cerimonial magic. Fourth does not. I and others see a difference and are asking for clarification.

[DungeonCrawler]

Originally Posted by LargePrime

<snipped>
Being under a magical effect that confers an Advantage, is NOT the same as having that Advantage. Most simply, one is magical, the other not.

The advantage may be conferred magically by the potion...and that conferral may be disspellable, which is a difference due to the method of getting the advantage. However, the Luck advantage is the Luck advantage, no matter how it's gotten.

And a luck potion isn't called Luck, it's called a luck potion or maybe a "potion of luck". And once a character drinks it, then they have the Luck advantage (temporarily and barring dispelment). And Luck can't be used to influence ceremonial magic, as clearly and unequivocally stated in the rules.

Originally Posted by LargePrime

Specifically? Third edition actually says one could not use the "Luck Advantage" in cerimonial magic. Fourth does not. I and others see a difference and are asking for clarification.

Since there is no other thing called Luck, there is no issue and thus no need for clarification.

Do they now have to put the word "advantage" after every advantage or else someone will read it as "well, they could be talking about something else"? And increase the size of the books by many pages and raise the prices accordingly? And should they also do the same for disadvantages, quirks, perks, attributes, skills, spells, and powers?

Because that's what you seem to be saying is needed for clear communication. I don't think it's necessary, since the terms are perfectly clear and they use capitals to emphasize that it is a game technical term, not the standard English word and usage.

I certainly don't see it happening because it would cost too much to do. Especially since you also seem to be saying they'd have to repeat it for every such trait in a list.

However, I've been surprised in the past and SJG may start doing exactly as you suggest. But I won't be able to afford the extra twenty bucks per book...and the extra weight of the books might strain my back if I could afford to buy the revised versions.

...

In what way to you think the question hasn't been answered by the books themselves? Do you understand the capitalized word "Luck" on P12 of Magic to mean something other than the Luck advantage? If so, what? I'm truly curious, because I can only see one possible meaning for it.

And if you and others do see one, then please tell me what one you see.

[hal]

Originally Posted by LargePrime

I would like to send you a PM to come back. I know of no discontent raised about your posts. As well you have driven the discussion forward in an important way. Specifically a point that was not immediately clear that the restrictions of powerstones are there for game balance reasons. It seems a simple solution is to cap the size of Powerstones a wizard can use to the FP a wizard has.As other posters have mentions, and the whole reason I raised this post from years ago, It is NOT clear the rules say what you are saying. Others have had a certitude it works as you say and seen the ambiguity of the actual wording.

As another poster noted, and the question I first asked, is "DID we ever actually get a definitive answer to this question?" This is even more relavant after noting the points raised in Hal's thesis.

Hello LargePrime,
Not to fear, I wasn't offended by your comment specifically so much as I've become only too aware of my reputation amongst the inner circle of the SJGames establishment. So, don't take it personally, that I opted out of a discussion. Think of it more as a "Ok, I've been burned before - and am reticent about getting burned again" <g>. Put another way, it isn't your fault, so relax on that issue ;)

As for commenting on your post above, I'd like to address certain issues before I go any further.

Much of the information I work off of, stems from a time period where I corresponded with Sean Punch in the era where he started out as the Net Guru for GURPS preceeding the time in which he'd become the line editor, and ultimately, the co-author of GURPS 4e. It doesn't mean I have the inside scoop on what is GURPS MAGIC, nor does it mean I'm an expert on it. In fact? I'd pretty much conclude that previous contributions to the GURPS line aside, I'm pretty much the maverick and much of my views should be considered as the antithesis of the official GURPS powers that be point of view. Truth be told, I've had enough run ins with various members of the SJGames establishment, that I have not a single doubt that my name is mud amonst various individuals within that organization. My personal interaction with Sean has dropped to the lowest it has ever been, and I accept that it is in a large part, partially my own fault.

That having been said, I can only add the following in reference to what was said above:

From my recollections at the time I was writing the Alaconius lecture series for GURPSNET, Steve disallowed the divination process to the point where he deliberately wrote in the new rules for GURPS MAGIC 2nd edition such that luck, divinations, etc - could not be used to help in the creation of magic items. This was one of the straws that broke the camel's back to the point where I stopped writting the Alaconius lectures. Sean told me at that time, privately, that Steve was concerned with the play balance issues of permitting mages unfettered access to large amounts of power for spell casting. Mind you, this was at a time when Sean was merely the Net Guru for GURPS, rather than the Line editor he was fated to become later on ;)

I find it decidedly odd, that GURPS MAGIC for 4e has reversed itself on the original statement made to me in an earlier age. For example, in the older version of Powerstone, one was limited to the powerstone size in carats. In the newer version of the spell Powerstone, we find that there is now, no longer a cap on the maximum power level any given powerstone may have. Once you exceed the item's intrinsic worth in enchanting powerstone spells into the object, you may continue to do so, but at 4x the energy cost to create the enchantment.

Now, while some might argue semantics regarding whether or not the rules prohibit the use of luck or any other outside force, the age old problem of "Spirit of the law versus the letter of the law" comes to the fore. Ironically enough, one of Sean's earliest tasks as the Net Guru for GURPSNET was to clear up any ambiguities involved with the "letter of the rules" to the point where his rulings were for all intents and purposes, the last word on the issue being contended. The spirit of the rules in which nothing may AID the process of enchantments - nothing like luck, divination, etc, was expressly intended to force the player and/or GM to adhere to the concept that once you engage in enchantments, nothing but the actual die roll matters for the actual enchantment. You can't "peek into the future" to see if it will work, because divinations only see into "A possible future" instead of "The future that will be if the peeker does nothing to change it". Divinations as spells, are essentially worthless as they have been nerfed by adding the clause "A possible future". The fact that divinations may "Lie" seems pretty straightforward in the sense that either the "peeker" interpreted what they saw incorrectly, or they latched onto the wrong future itself. But, that's an argument for another time, and one I've already argued in the past. ;)

None the less, GM's should avail themselves of any and all tools they think they require to run a game for their players. If they want to limit it such that no mage may utilize a powerstone larger than the user's Fatigue level, then so be it. If a GM decides that there can be no powerstone larger than 20 fatigue, again, that is how it works in THAT universe, and no one can really argue the point other than to perhaps vote with their feet (ie stop playing in that GM's game world). But that requires the GM and players to play in a game universe that does not follow the philosophy of "Rules as Written".

My advice is simply thus:
Rules are guidelines for which people agree to co-operate with each other towards a common goal. If the rules are too restrictive - change them. If they are too loose - tighten them. Back at a time when GURPS CABAL was in playtest, I combined Cunningham's book on Stone Magic with CABAL rules to create an alternative powerstone rules set where each college required a very SPECIFIC gemstone for the college itself. There is nothing to keep creative GM's from doing something similar and researching/incorporating elements for candle magic, color magic, crystal magic, or any other of the new age books on magic into their campaigns.

If you as the GM wish to use "Luck" as being a valid "aid" for the creation of magic items, who is to tell you that you can't? The rules as written? Not hardly, if you're the GM. The GM? If he uses the rules as written, then you have to abide by it. If he doesn't use the rules as written, you still have to abide by the GM's decisions any way. ;)

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by hal

It is particularly telling, that quirks are not things that happen to regular enchantments, but pretty much only to powerstones.

Just to point out: By the rules, anything enchanted with the Quick and Dirty method can become quirked. See Magic, p17, where it says (in part) “On a failure, the enchantment perverts in some way. It might acquire unpleasant side effects…”, etc. It certainly might be the case that people ignore those rules, but they’ve been in place for a while.

[hal]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

Just to point out: By the rules, anything enchanted with the Quick and Dirty method can become quirked. See Magic, p17, where it says (in part) “On a failure, the enchantment perverts in some way. It might acquire unpleasant side effects…”, etc. It certainly might be the case that people ignore those rules, but they’ve been in place for a while.

Same holds true for GURPS MAGIC 2nd edition page 18. However, while your point of quick and dirty enchantments may cause perversions of the enchantment, my original point still stands.

No where, do you see normal enchantments done the slow and sure way, will you see a magic item require that it be dipped in bat's blood to activate the enchantment, while a normal slow and sure enchantment for powerstones CAN produce quirks such as "must be dipped in bat's blood".

So, my original point about normal enchantments not following the same rules as powerstone enchantments holds true but for the quick and dirty rules.