Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > The Fantasy Trip

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-11-2018, 10:03 PM   #11
Rick_Smith
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
Default Re: Should all spells be equally easy to learn?

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Brinegar View Post
The fact that Remove Thrown Spell will negate Weapon/Armor Enchantment is mentioned at the end of the W/AE description, where it also says that "the bonuses on a multiply-enchanted item must be removed one at a time." So to wipe out a +5 would take 5 successful castings of the spell. That's 10 ST and at least 5 turns.
Hi John,
Thanks for pointing that out. The rules for this do seem to be all over.

Warm regards, Rick
Rick_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 10:31 PM   #12
John Brinegar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Default Re: Detect Enemies - Tweak?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
Hi all,
The simple spell Detect Enemies is IQ 10, and costs only 3 fatigue ST to cover a wide area. It finds life with "general or specific hostile intent".

The way this is worded it could be used by a Dictator to find out if Joe is loyal. There is no chance of getting incorrect information.

***

I prefer that loyalty spells are difficult and unreliable.

I suggest that this spell will only detect imminent violence. So if Joe is not loyal to the Dictator the spell misses him. But if Joe is currently planning immediate violence, (say within the next minute), then the spell would kick in.

With this one tweak, I am happy. I don't feel further adjustments are needed to the spell.

Discussion?

Warm regards, Rick.
A few observations: First, it's not true that there's no chance of getting incorrect information. The GM rolls for spell success, and if the spell doesn't succeed, the GM says, "You detect no hostile intent." The caster doesn't know whether there really is no hostile intent or whether the spell failed. The spell description also explicitly says that you don't get specifics: all you get is "You sense something hostile." So unless you target Joe's hex specifically (which you can do), you can't tell if he's the hostile one. You'd have to get him alone and either cast the spell on him yourself or have your wizard do it. This could be done unnoticeably if the caster has IQ 15 or greater, but Joe may still suspect something is up. Even then, it's not clear that disloyalty means hostility. I could, for instance, plan to sell your secrets, which is disloyal but not clearly hostile. Finally, what will it look like if a dictator bumps someone off and justifies it by saying, "I discovered by magical means that Joe was disloyal"? Since he can't prove it, it could well be a false pretext, and people might well regard it as such. If he doesn't care what people think, he probably would just dispose of Joe to start with and avoid all this hassle.

Last edited by John Brinegar; 07-11-2018 at 10:39 PM. Reason: Typo remival
John Brinegar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 10:40 PM   #13
John Brinegar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Default Re: Should all spells be equally easy to learn?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
Hi John,
Thanks for pointing that out. The rules for this do seem to be all over.

Warm regards, Rick
At least they're consistent.
John Brinegar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 10:44 PM   #14
Rick_Smith
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
Default Re: Detect Enemies - Tweak?

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Brinegar View Post
A few observations: First, it's not true that there's no chance of getting incorrect information.
You are correct. Sorry. So if you get a positive, you need to check three more times to be sure.


Quote:
Originally Posted by John Brinegar View Post
The spell description also explicitly says that you don't get specifics: all you get is "You sense something hostile." So unless you target Joe's hex specifically (which you can do), you can't tell if he's the hostile one. ...
If you are using the spell as a loyalty spell, this is presumably what you would do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Brinegar View Post
Even then, it's not clear that disloyalty means hostility. I could, for instance, plan to sell your secrets, which is disloyal but not clearly hostile. ...
True. I would think that this would not be detected. But what about feeding information to the resistance which wants to kill the dictator? That, I WOULD count as hostile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Brinegar View Post
Finally, what will it look like if a dictator bumps someone off and justifies it by saying, "I discovered by magical means that Joe wss disloyal"? ...
What will happen will happen. But I do not like easy tests to look into the hearts of men (and women).

Warm regards, Rick.

Last edited by Rick_Smith; 07-11-2018 at 11:00 PM.
Rick_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 10:58 PM   #15
John Brinegar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Default Re: Detect Enemies - Tweak?

And I do not feel that it is as easy or as practical as you seem to. But I would agree that if you are concerned that the spell will be used this way, your tweak is a reasonable solution.
John Brinegar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 12:02 AM   #16
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Far northern California
Default Re: Should all spells be equally easy to learn?

Turning to the original question; I could see varying the XP cost to learn a new spell by the IQ. Given the "100 XP" cost currently being described, I would suggest something along the lines of "10 XP x IQ level of the spell" -- that is, an IQ 8 Spell would cost 80 XP to learn, and an IQ 20 Spell would cost 200 XP to learn. Given that higher IQ spells are both more complex and have greater effects, this seems like a good compromise in spell learning.

Naturally, for non-Wizard types, the cost would still be three times as high (i.e., 240 XP for that level 8 Spell, and 600 XP for that level 20 Spell).

Last edited by JLV; 07-12-2018 at 12:33 AM.
JLV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 12:30 AM   #17
zot
 
Join Date: May 2018
Default Re: Is the Trance Spell ideal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
Hi all,
The IQ 16 spell, Trance costs 10 fatigue ST (fST) to cast and gets to ask a yes / no question to the GM.

There are a few thing about this, I don't like:

-- It is the only real scrying spell in TFT. A few more would be welcome.

-- It is unlike scrying spells in fantasy fiction. I've never seen a fantasy novel where a wizard casts a spell repeatedly in order to play a game of 20 questions. It does not feel magical.
Yeah, in my game, I'd make it use the rules in my Research and Knowledge post where a research attempt represents your inquiry into a subject. Further attempts wouldn't yield any more useful information.
zot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 12:37 AM   #18
zot
 
Join Date: May 2018
Default Re: Insubstantiality - Make harder to learn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
Hi all,
I've never been fond of the Insubstantiality spell. Wizard casts it and sticks his head thru doors to see what is on other side. Wizard walks thru walls to avoid high security check points, etc. etc.
Heh, you left out Astral Projection...
zot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 01:37 AM   #19
Chris Rice
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
Default Re: Should all spells be equally easy to learn?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
Turning to the original question; I could see varying the XP cost to learn a new spell by the IQ. Given the "100 XP" cost currently being described, I would suggest something along the lines of "10 XP x IQ level of the spell" -- that is, an IQ 8 Spell would cost 80 XP to learn, and an IQ 20 Spell would cost 200 XP to learn. Given that higher IQ spells are both more complex and have greater effects, this seems like a good compromise in spell learning.

Naturally, for non-Wizard types, the cost would still be three times as high (i.e., 240 XP for that level 8 Spell, and 600 XP for that level 20 Spell).

Like everything in TFT, I compare the difficulty of the thing to the relevant attribute. So if an IQ18 Wizard wants to learn an IQ8 spell, it still takes one "slot" but is cheap in XP to learn. In fact I might allow more than 1 spell of that level per slot. I used to have a table that laid this out but it's long gone.

And I'd like to say that Insubstantiality was the favourite Spell of my Magician, Mallengar (the Magnificent), so I'd be against mucking around with it!
Chris Rice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 01:56 AM   #20
Rick_Smith
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
Default Re: Should all spells be equally easy to learn?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
... I would suggest something along the lines of "10 XP x IQ level of the spell" -- that is, an IQ 8 Spell would cost 80 XP to learn, and an IQ 20 Spell would cost 200 XP to learn. Given that higher IQ spells are both more complex and have greater effects, this seems like a good compromise in spell learning.

Naturally, for non-Wizard types, the cost would still be three times as high (i.e., 240 XP for that level 8 Spell, and 600 XP for that level 20 Spell).
Hi JLV, everyone.
I rather like this. It feels proper to me that high IQ spells would take more effort to learn than the easy ones. Your second paragraph also suggests a reason why non-wizards would tend to pick up the lower IQ spells. The tripled experience (XP) cost is significant.

Warm regards, Rick.
Rick_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ease to learn, memory, problematic spell, spells, talents

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.