Spell Techniques

[Anders]

Has anyone experimented with creating techniques for spells? It would be used for minor variations on a given spell. For example

Explosive

Hard

Prerequisite: any Missile spell
Default: prerequisite spell -10
This converts a normal Missile spell into an explosive version. The missile can be thrown at a wall, floor, etc. (at +4 to hit) to catch foes in the blast. The target and anyone closer to the target than one yard takes full damage. Those further away divide damage by three times their distance in yards.
Energy Cost: Twice normal
Note: This technique replaces the various "Explosive" spells.

Far Distance

Hard

Prerequisite: Any Missile spell
Default: prerequisite spell -4
This increases the ½D and Max range of any spell tenfold.
Energy Cost: Twice normal

Double Pentagrams

Hard

Prerequisite: Pentagram spell
Default: prerequisite spell -2
This creates a "double pentagram", one pentagram inscribed into another. A double pentagram is especially effective against elementals and elemental spells, and relatively useless against other spells. Treat the double pentagram as having +10 Power against elementals and elemental spells, and -5 against all other spells.
Energy Cost: Normal
Note: This technique is dedicated to Roger Undhagen, whose Döda Skogen adventure (1985!) was the first module to make a real impression on me. The Double Pentagrams appear in this module.

[Barghaest]

They actually have a similar option in Thaumatology for adding enhancements to a spell on the fly. It has an extra fatigue cost and I believe a skill penalty as well, you could use that as the 'default' for refining the technique.

I'm personally against allowing people to add explosive to most missile spells since there is usually an Explosive/Ball version of them that has that affect already and requires knowing the normal one as a prerequisite.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Has anyone experimented with creating techniques for spells? It would be used for minor variations on a given spell. For example

GURPS Thaumatology is your friend ;)

[Dinadon]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Has anyone experimented with creating techniques for spells? It would be used for minor variations on a given spell.

You mean aside from those suggested in Thaumatology?

Though I admit that using the stuff from Thaumatology makes a low power explosive missile more expensive than the default. So I tend to leave them in, but do make it so you can spend 2, 3 or 4 points per die depending upon what divisor you want.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Yeah, but I wouldnt use the -5% = +1 FP & -1 to skill. I would go with 10%; I've been using that for a while in my Urban Fantasy campaign and it makes *much* more sense. You might also want to charge a simple 2 FP much like a psi technique, I've been doing this and it too doesn't break anything. As for techniques I have a few somewhere in a file, we've been notating them simply as:

Fireball/Explosive (H) PS+0 [0]-X

But I like your idea and I might snitch a few. ^_^


Ghostdancer

[Nymdok]

Ive been looking at that a lot lately.

Id probably cap the overal technique penalty at 10 (At that point its probably better to just come up with a new spell), but I do like the idea for generating new spells.

Even in that Id probably go a bit further and say that the techinque default is the sum of the absolute value of the modifiersm but the mana cost is based on the net. (See example below)

For Example:

If I take grease and I slap the wall enhancement on it (at +20% see footnotes). Thats -4 to skill and +4 to energy cost. The problem is that that jumps the base cost to 7 which is pretty stout. So if we abuse the RAW just a little bit and Allow the mage to use less energy by accepting a skill penalty then we have something thats a little more workable.

Snail Trail / Luge / Slip n' Slide

Area (Special)

Constructed: Grease (Wall +20%*)
Default: Grease -7 (4 for difficulty, 3 to reduce cost per speed and skill box) Cannot exceed grease.
Cost: 3 per 3yd x 1yd linear track

This spell allows the caster to create a slick line 3 yards long and one yard wide for each 3 mana invested. The normal effects for grease apply.

For more utility the GM may allow the Mage (or anyone) to make a Hobby Skill (Skate Boarding) or a DX -4 roll to slide upright down the length of the trail. +6 for Perfect Balance (For a net bonus of +2). If its on an incline, others may slide on their knees or backs at no penalty.

For level sliding, Treat the casters move as constant along the path at whatever move he had acquired when intiating the slide. For inclined sliding, add 1/2 the falling velocity for up to 30 degree inclines, and 3/4 for a 31-60 degree incline to the casters initial velocity. ANything over 60, treat as vertical. Optionally, use the rules for the Skiing spell.

* Note that the wall Enhancement is listed as 30%. Ive reduced it to 20% as it fits neither the definition for Permeable or Rigid as defined in the enhancement. Im willing to hear arguments for lowering the value to as low as +10%.

Other Builds
Alternatively, I suppose that we could have made it a 2 second spell to keep the cost at 3 per yard. Again, we are slightly abusing the raw here as it specifies ruels for decreasing time for extra skill but not the opposite.

You could alternatively offset the 20% penalty with visible -20%. Giving it a Default of -8 and not costing any extra energy.


Why use it?
I 've been fooling with this spell as I like the idea of 2 Mages, Jet spells out and maintained, jousting at each other as they go skating by at maximum move. I also like the idea of putting this on an incline with a wililng barbarian to make and EPIC level Slam attack in full and heavy armor.


Nymdok

[Kazander]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

Yeah, but I wouldnt use the -5% = +1 FP & -1 to skill. I would go with 10%; I've been using that for a while in my Urban Fantasy campaign and it makes *much* more sense.

I took the middle ground; the +1/-1 per 5% was crazy IMO too, but it was mostly the Fatigue surcharge that was completely out of hand.

So, IMC, we do +1FP, -2 to skill per 10%. Skill penalty stays the same but fatigue is halved.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Kazander

I took the middle ground; the +1/-1 per 5% was crazy IMO too, but it was mostly the Fatigue surcharge that was completely out of hand.

So, IMC, we do +1FP, -2 to skill per 10%. Skill penalty stays the same but fatigue is halved.

I am glad I'm not the only the only one that thought it was a bit extreme.

Ghostdancer

[Mysterious Dark Lord v3.2]

Imbuements mentions that a spell can be treated like a weapon for purposes of imbuing.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Nymdok

Ive been looking at that a lot lately.

Id probably cap the overal technique penalty at 10 (At that point its probably better to just come up with a new spell), but I do like the idea for generating new spells.

At any point where you'd consider buying up the technique it would be better to invent a new spell.

Efficient mages are designed to get desirable spell levels for 1 cp. This is all that takes the curse off the prereq system.

It takes 1cp to get anything for an Average technique and 2 for a Hard one. So techniques are nice stuff if you have a super high skill level that lets you eat the penalties but spells and buying up techniques don't mix.