First GURPS Mage

[Godogma]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Is Flame Jet any good?

I use flame jet, and steam jet - though I prefer Steam Jet for blinding the target as well as damaging but its still not a ranged spell; for a character stuck around 4/5 DR with very well enchanted gear and a weight limit of 20lbs total weight due to limitations on Magery to get it to the ridiculous levels I have it at relatively inexpensively.

[vsh]

See Adjustable Spells, Thaumatology 39. If your GM is allowing this, it's a very good option. You've got Magic! skill, so you're probably not having any skill penalties, just additional FP cost.

[Godogma]

Originally Posted by zorg

Get a sword, shield and armor; and cast a number of Buff spells on yourself.

Fly above the battlefield, drop pebbles, and enlarge them to epic proportions.

Accept that your character cannot instakill a dragon with hundreds of hit points, any more than any other character could.


If the basic magic system in the books doesn't do what you want it to do, you might want to consider alternatives - even though your character is already finished.

Simply adding über-damage spells seems iffy; unless the warrior characters get access to über-weaponry to compensate your sudden advantage. I mean, this is like saying My knight can't decapitate the dragon with one blow, let's stat up a sword which deals tera-damage!".

The dragon was an example of an ubercharged spell that did what I call very underperforming damage. Not that I wanted to instakill the dragon. Which was NEVER mentioned.

The other combatants in that fight? Guess what due to their builds were generally doing 3d+9 damage minimum per blow. I don't want to equal damage a gorram hugely combat specialized character.

I want to be competitive damage wise and able to survive multiple foes when caught alone in combat without having to pop bubble shield and take a hell of a lot of time winning a fight vs a decent number of mooks.

I would like to have effective combat spells for that reason.

I found your post to be very much an attack on myself and my gaming group and I'd appreciate it if you'd check your facts before spewing vitriol - read the damn thread.

[vierasmarius]

Okay, guess I'll try my hand at a Chain Lightning spell.

Start with the basic Lightning spell, 1d-1 per energy point. The spell Explosive Lightning is basically the same thing with the explosive modifier (+50% if it were an advantage), which increases energy cost to 2 per 1d-1 damage. We could make the Lightning spell a 1 yard wide Cone (basically a line), which is a +60% advantage. That's close enough to Explosive's +50% that I'd say it's also 2 energy per 1d-1 damage.

But Chain Lightning is supposed to hit enemies that aren't lined up, albeit at lower damage each time. Not sure how I'd build it... sounds like Area or Cone with Selective, and a limitation that each extra target takes 1d-1 less damage than the previous one. Well... maybe I'm just lazy, but that also sounds like it would be worth 2 energy per 1d-1.

As you can see, it really isn't any stronger than the existing lightning spells. Building new spells isn't likely to solve your problem of not dealing as much damage as fighters and archers.

[Godogma]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Okay, guess I'll try my hand at a Chain Lightning spell.

Start with the basic Lightning spell, 1d-1 per energy point. The spell Explosive Lightning is basically the same thing with the explosive modifier (+50% if it were an advantage), which increases energy cost to 2 per 1d-1 damage. We could make the Lightning spell a 1 yard wide Cone (basically a line), which is a +60% advantage. That's close enough to Explosive's +50% that I'd say it's also 2 energy per 1d-1 damage.

But Chain Lightning is supposed to hit enemies that aren't lined up, albeit at lower damage each time. Not sure how I'd build it... sounds like Area or Cone with Selective, and a limitation that each extra target takes 1d-1 less damage than the previous one. Well... maybe I'm just lazy, but that also sounds like it would be worth 2 energy per 1d-1.

As you can see, it really isn't any stronger than the existing lightning spells. Building new spells isn't likely to solve your problem of not dealing as much damage as fighters and archers.

Its not that I'm not dealing as much damage or at least a useful amount of damage, its just that surviving combat with multiple mooks is a vastly time consuming thing without spells that will actually hit multiple opponents reliably and deal respectable damage and Chain Lightning came to mind as a spell that would work to do so, thus I asked for help with statting it.

[Godogma]

As a question:

Has it been changed in errata that Rain of Fire takes a minute to cast? Because in the copy of Magic I have it takes sixty seconds to cast which is far and above any of the other "Rain of" spells.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Godogma

Its not that I'm not dealing as much damage or at least a useful amount of damage, its just that surviving combat with multiple mooks is a vastly time consuming thing without spells that will actually hit multiple opponents reliably and deal respectable damage and Chain Lightning came to mind as a spell that would work to do so, thus I asked for help with statting it.

Well then, I hope my example helped!

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Godogma

As a question:

Has it been changed in errata that Rain of Fire takes a minute to cast? Because in the copy of Magic I have it takes sixty seconds to cast which is far and above any of the other "Rain of" spells.

Not that I heard, though you're right - Rain of Fire takes a minute, the rest of the "Rain of" spells take just one second! And if you look on the spell index listing for Rain of Fire (pg 232) it's listed as a 1 sec casting time, same as the others. So there's certainly an error in there somewhere. It makes a good case for giving it 1 sec casting.

[Godogma]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Well then, I hope my example helped!

It did indeed help. The main thing seems to be to me that most of the non fire and non-earth spells (neither of which has a -1 to die of damage and both of which would likely be catastrophic in an inhabited area) spells even if supercharged and perhaps especially if supercharged would seem to be less than useful.

Has anyone noticed a "break point" in which the minuses add up to making the spell much less effective than it otherwise could have been due to subtracting so much of the damage from the die code?

12d-12 for lightning bolt for example didn't seem to be an effective spell though it did ignore the dragon's 20 armor due to having a metal lance stuffed through it which acted as a type of lightning rod (17d+?? damage lance charge). If it hadn't would have done a mere 8 damage.

Without the -12 it would have done 40 and been reduced down to 20 by the beasty's DR.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by vsh

See Adjustable Spells, Thaumatology 39. If your GM is allowing this, it's a very good option. You've got Magic! skill, so you're probably not having any skill penalties, just additional FP cost.

I kinda like those rules, but the cost seems prohibitively high. Would it be greatly unbalancing to halve the penalties (ie, 1 FP and -1 skill per 10% enhancement)?

[Kalzazz]

Eh, not really . . . . 2.5 per die is 2.5 per die, it doesnt matter if its 12 dice or 2 dice

The one spell that seems to have majorly diminishing returns is concussion . . . it gets its 'save or be stunned effect' completely uncaring of how many dice are in it