Two RPM spell questions

[Caelarch]

I recently started messing around with Ritual Path Magic and came across two issues I would like some input on.

First, can you combo a Lesser Destroy Mind to mentally stun a target with another Lesser Destroy Mind to impose up to a -5 penalty to recover from mental stun caused by the spell? If so, this is one very nasty and very low cost spell to hose one target. Applying the Stacking Spell rules seems to allow it since the effects come from the same ritual.

Second, if a ritual creates a condition, do you have to buy components for the logical effects of that condition? Specifically, a Lesser Create Matter + Area of Effect to conjure a huge cloud of ordinary flour. The original idea was to outline invisible creatures. But then I got to thinking, This effect would also potentially blind people (ala Glitterdust from D&D) and obscure vision into and through the cloud. Flour is flammable, and even if a random cloud like this is unlikely to explode, it could probably burn if it appeared in an area with fire. The question I have is do I just adjudicate those effects as a natural consequence of the spell doing what it does; or does the caster have to 'pay for' those incidentals?

[Anaraxes]

Pay for any side effects you want to see. It's the only way to keep things fair. Otherwise, you wind up with lots of rules-lawyering and table arguments about the purportedly "logical" or "realistic" consequences of every action. Some people enjoy that game, but I at least got tired of it a long time ago.

If the non-paid-for effects truly are "incidental" (to repeat your term), then there's no harm done in ignoring them, mechanically speaking. If they do have mechanical effects, then why shouldn't you pay to have them take effect?

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Caelarch

First, can you combo a Lesser Destroy Mind to mentally stun a target with another Lesser Destroy Mind to impose up to a -5 penalty to recover from mental stun caused by the spell? If so, this is one very nasty and very low cost spell to hose one target. Applying the Stacking Spell rules seems to allow it since the effects come from the same ritual.

Seems legitimate. Do note the target has to fail his initial resistance roll in order for it to have any effect, and Bestows a Penalty does not penalize this.

Originally Posted by Caelarch

Second, if a ritual creates a condition, do you have to buy components for the logical effects of that condition? Specifically, a Lesser Create Matter + Area of Effect to conjure a huge cloud of ordinary flour. The original idea was to outline invisible creatures. But then I got to thinking, This effect would also potentially blind people (ala Glitterdust from D&D) and obscure vision into and through the cloud. Flour is flammable, and even if a random cloud like this is unlikely to explode, it could probably burn if it appeared in an area with fire. The question I have is do I just adjudicate those effects as a natural consequence of the spell doing what it does; or does the caster have to 'pay for' those incidentals?

In general, it's best to have the character pay for incidentals. For example, a 10d explosion 50 yards away would call for Greater Create Energy (6) + External Damage, Explosive 10d (16) + Range, 50 yards (8), for 90 energy (thanks to the x3 multiplier). Lesser Control Matter (5) + Lesser Create Matter (6) + Subject Weight 10 lb (0) + Range, 50 yards (8) could make and detonate (via shock, which you use the Lesser Control Matter for) a 10 lb blob of nitroglycerin, which would do over 45d cr ex, for only 19 energy. That's a pretty serious difference.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Caelarch

First, can you combo a Lesser Destroy Mind to mentally stun a target with another Lesser Destroy Mind to impose up to a -5 penalty to recover from mental stun caused by the spell? If so, this is one very nasty and very low cost spell to hose one target. Applying the Stacking Spell rules seems to allow it since the effects come from the same ritual.

By regular RPM, probably not. If you mean to say that successful rolls to recover from stunning are at a penalty - maybe. As a GM I'd probably allow it as long as it's on successful rolls and not the initial roll.

Originally Posted by Caelarch

Second, if a ritual creates a condition, do you have to buy components for the logical effects of that condition? Specifically, a Lesser Create Matter + Area of Effect to conjure a huge cloud of ordinary flour. The original idea was to outline invisible creatures. But then I got to thinking, This effect would also potentially blind people (ala Glitterdust from D&D) and obscure vision into and through the cloud. Flour is flammable, and even if a random cloud like this is unlikely to explode, it could probably burn if it appeared in an area with fire. The question I have is do I just adjudicate those effects as a natural consequence of the spell doing what it does; or does the caster have to 'pay for' those incidentals?

You almost always get what you pay for. In this instance, the flour is doing those things no better than normal flour so I'd say no. A lot of this stuff is strictly GM purview and in most cases - use common sense.

[Caelarch]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

By regular RPM, probably not. If you mean to say that successful rolls to recover from stunning are at a penalty - maybe. As a GM I'd probably allow it as long as it's on successful rolls and not the initial roll.

The way I read it the initial resistance roll would be unaffected. However, the subsequent recovery roles can be tanked by the spell to make it a "save or lose" effect. Seems really strong to me for two minor effects. But, it sounds like with this understanding (the resistance roll is not penalized, but recovery rolls are) you are saying it is within Rules As Intended.

As for the flour example, I'm inclined to adjudicate the effects (including unintended effects like blinding and flammability) without requiring additional energy cost. But I worry I'm setting on a slippery slope that allows mages to conjure unexpectedly powerful effects. The nitroglycerin example particularly worries me. Although I would probably say that nitroglycerin is Greater Create Matter, mitigating the advantage somewhat.

[Anaraxes]

Never mind the nitro. Flour also makes for a fine explosive. See grain silo explosions. Or, if you search past threads in the forum, there's one where people actually do the math, as in someone's fantasy game the PCs were actually using milled flour as a weapon (to be dropped by flying mounts and ignited by their wizards), if you'd like to get an actual REF value.

This is the sort of problem you're going to run into -- in many places, in many forms --when you give away significant effects for free because they're "logical". (Always a strange word when we're talking about magic in the first place.) I find trying to hack around each instance is more trouble that it's worth, and winds up being just as illogical in the end. What's particularly vulgar, obvious, and undeniably supernaturally out of place (thus "Greater") about seeing the creation this beaker of clear liquid but not that one? One's nitro, the other's water. Or any two other of thousands of possible clear fluids, some of which will be innocuous on their own, yet explosive when mixed, some of which are just hazardous on their own. Greater vs Lesser isn't going to cover it at all well, and the categories will just come across as arbitrary hacks for meta reasons anyway.

It's a lot easier to handwave away why this particular cloud of flour dust isn't actually explosive, because that's not what the mage intended nor paid for, even though the master of the Path of Flour could have intended and paid for an explosive flour FAE bomb if they had wanted such a thing -- and might in the future.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Caelarch

The way I read it the initial resistance roll would be unaffected. However, the subsequent recovery roles can be tanked by the spell to make it a "save or lose" effect. Seems really strong to me for two minor effects. But, it sounds like with this understanding (the resistance roll is not penalized, but recovery rolls are) you are saying it is within Rules As Intended.

It seems reasonable to me. It's never come up, because I allow for spells that give a resistance to the initial roll via Bestows a Penalty to allow the spell to "hit harder." Now that's a house rule i use (though it's an actual rule for DF19 and can be used in Effect-Shaping RPM).

Originally Posted by Caelarch

As for the flour example, I'm inclined to adjudicate the effects (including unintended effects like blinding and flammability) without requiring additional energy cost. But I worry I'm setting on a slippery slope that allows mages to conjure unexpectedly powerful effects. The nitroglycerin example particularly worries me. Although I would probably say that nitroglycerin is Greater Create Matter, mitigating the advantage somewhat.

So one thing you shouldn't worry too much here is getting finished goods like this. Figure out the cost using the Crafting Penalties Table on p. 16 of GURPS Thaumatology: Ritual Path Magic. So even if they conjure a small amount (let's say $100 worth) they still need to make a Chemistry roll at -2 or Explosives (Demolitions) roll at -2 - if they fail by 0 or 1, they conjured a lump of useless material. If they fail by 2 or more ... well you could easily say it shows up, is unstable, then explodes. (Those rules are from GURPS High-Tech, p. 185.)

RPM magic is vast - but it isn't an "I win" button. There are still rules that must be followed and most of those rules follow the standard fare for GURPS.

[Caelarch]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

It seems reasonable to me. It's never come up, because I allow for spells that give a resistance to the initial roll via Bestows a Penalty to allow the spell to "hit harder." Now that's a house rule i use (though it's an actual rule for DF19 and can be used in Effect-Shaping RPM).

I actually just bought DF19, even though I don't specifically play DF. Seeing that rule gives me a lot of comfort on this interpretation for non-DF RPM.

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

So one thing you shouldn't worry too much here is getting finished goods like this. Figure out the cost using the Crafting Penalties Table on p. 16 of GURPS Thaumatology: Ritual Path Magic. So even if they conjure a small amount (let's say $100 worth) they still need to make a Chemistry roll at -2 or Explosives (Demolitions) roll at -2 - if they fail by 0 or 1, they conjured a lump of useless material. If they fail by 2 or more ... well you could easily say it shows up, is unstable, then explodes. (Those rules are from GURPS High-Tech, p. 185.)

RPM magic is vast - but it isn't an "I win" button. There are still rules that must be followed and most of those rules follow the standard fare for GURPS.

The skill checks for creating finished good do make a nice limit on that sort of behavior. Your response reminded me of another limit, that is even more relevant to my setting: in this fantasy setting finished explosives like TNT/nitroglycerin don't even exist. Thanks for the help!

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Caelarch

I actually just bought DF19, even though I don't specifically play DF. Seeing that rule gives me a lot of comfort on this interpretation for non-DF RPM.

Cool! Let me know what you think. I used the Effect-Shaping model to create the magic system I'm using in my upcoming campaign. It create a a different feeling (in a good way) even though it uses the same basic premise.

Originally Posted by Caelarch

The skill checks for creating finished good do make a nice limit on that sort of behavior. Your response reminded me of another limit, that is even more relevant to my setting: in this fantasy setting finished explosives like TNT/nitroglycerin don't even exist.

Yeah, TL is the ultimate limiter. There is a whole box on that. I didn't think to include that since it sounded like you might be playing in a campaign where nitro was possible in the first place.

Originally Posted by Caelarch

Thanks for the help!

Good luck and no problem.

[Caelarch]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Never mind the nitro. Flour also makes for a fine explosive. See grain silo explosions. Or, if you search past threads in the forum, there's one where people actually do the math, as in someone's fantasy game the PCs were actually using milled flour as a weapon (to be dropped by flying mounts and ignited by their wizards), if you'd like to get an actual REF value.

This is the sort of problem you're going to run into -- in many places, in many forms --when you give away significant effects for free because they're "logical". (Always a strange word when we're talking about magic in the first place.) I find trying to hack around each instance is more trouble that it's worth, and winds up being just as illogical in the end. What's particularly vulgar, obvious, and undeniably supernaturally out of place (thus "Greater") about seeing the creation this beaker of clear liquid but not that one? One's nitro, the other's water. Or any two other of thousands of possible clear fluids, some of which will be innocuous on their own, yet explosive when mixed, some of which are just hazardous on their own. Greater vs Lesser isn't going to cover it at all well, and the categories will just come across as arbitrary hacks for meta reasons anyway.

It's a lot easier to handwave away why this particular cloud of flour dust isn't actually explosive, because that's not what the mage intended nor paid for, even though the master of the Path of Flour could have intended and paid for an explosive flour FAE bomb if they had wanted such a thing -- and might in the future.

I actually read the entire grain dust explosion thread through when the idea of it first occurred to me.

I do think you can draw a difference between a simple, everyday liquid like water and an unusual liquid with strange properties (like a strong acid) even if both look the same in a glass jar. The implicit power in something like acid or explosive would be enough for me to justify requiring a Greater effect. As Ghostdancer noted, it would also need alchemy, chemistry, or some other design/knowledge skill to know what it is and how to make it.

I think the concern of getting to meta with what magic can and can't accomplish is right on, but I think I'm inclined to err on the side of verisimilitude (the wizard conjured flour that behaves like flour) for now.

Thanks for the help!