Spell Prerequisite question

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by maximara

As pointed out before something is keeping Marlin-1's United States isn't filled to the brim with Demons. Similarly Merlin-3 is in much the same boat and there is nothing to show Europe under the Third Reich is a demon infested nightmare...of course with the Third Reich running things for certain peoples a demon infested nightmare might be an improvement. ;-)

I should point out that summoning a demon is itself a 18 on the Critical Spell Failure Table. So one has to critically fail on the spell and then get a really bad result (0.5%) on the table.

Being generous to the demons and assuming skill 12 for the average joe that is 1.4% and the chance of getting a demon out of that is 0.5% or 0.00007 or 0.007% per casting.
s.

And with two dozen castings a day that works out to several demons per month. Does this apply to industrial magic settings? Obviously not. They must have ways to reduce the risk. (Although it's not like Merlin doesn't have a demon problem. It just isn't that bad a demon problem.)

My point is not that you can't have an industrial magic setting but just that you can't automatically assume that the mere existence of the spells from GURPS Magic will fling a medieval setting out of its paradigm, that the default rules give a reason why magicians would be somewhat circumspect in their magic use and prefer to make their money by enchanting than by turning themselves into industrial fabricators.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

And with two dozen castings a day that works out to several demons per month. Does this apply to industrial magic settings? Obviously not. They must have ways to reduce the risk. (Although it's not like Merlin doesn't have a demon problem. It just isn't that bad a demon problem.)

My point is not that you can't have an industrial magic setting but just that you can't automatically assume that the mere existence of the spells from GURPS Magic will fling a medieval setting out of its paradigm, that the default rules give a reason why magicians would be somewhat circumspect in their magic use and prefer to make their money by enchanting than by turning themselves into industrial fabricators.

Perhaps this exis didn't hit the board by the time you replied but:

But, assuming Merlin-1 has the same population of our Earth in 2004, there are 292.8 million in the US alone. Going by the 1:1000 have magery 1 that gives us 292800 mages. Assuming each one of these casts a single spell per day statistics suggests that 1 demon per day is summoned. If we back extrapolate that Magery 0 is 10 times as common as magery 1 than that number becomes 10 demons per day

Moreover, thanks to GURPS Thaumatology there are the Stable Casting enhancement (+40%) and Stabilizing Skill perk options.

As I have pointed out before there is something weird about Yrth;'s ratio of spellcaster to magery (which I have dubbed The Magery-Spell Paradox)

As I pointed out Why would anyone in a normal-mana or low-mana without Magery learn a skill that in that area they would never be able to use? The only way that statement makes any sense is if the early form of "Clerical" magic where followers of a deity could cast spells as if they were mages without having Magery existed on Yrth.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by maximara

GURPS Thaumatology (pg 21) gives conflicting information on this

Which is why I say you need to pick one. I think Partially Limited Magery and Limited Magery 0 are more sensible, but they are best taken as replacements rather than additions to the rules seen in Basic. And that means that if you are using the Thaumatology rules, anything that assumes Basic's version (Magery 0 (Unmodified) + Magery 1 (Limited) prevents spellcasting outside of the limitation) has to be adjusted.

Originally Posted by maximara

Kindly explain why Partially Limited Magery is not applied in this case.

Because the rules in Basic assume one thing, and the rules in Thaumatology assume another. If you are using the rules as written in Basic, Partially Limited Magery does not seem to be an option.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Plane

I overlooked this question. Didn't actually know about that group of enhancements on T67 ("Power Investiture as Modified Magery") until today.

I would say it DOES apply, but that the +30% from the right column is conveniently cancelled out by the -30% of "Limited Spell List" from the left column. The only difference is that instead of it being limited to what the deity provides, it's limited to what the racial template provides.

While on the surface that looks like a solution, it isn't as the -30% is in regards two colleges of spells not a handful.

A handful of spells is handled by One-Spell Magery at -85% for one spell and +5% for each spell above one ie 5 spells would be -65% In fact, as presented "Racially innate spells" at -40% should be giving the race access to 10 spells based on One-Spell Magery.

So no matter which way you go from it the math is basically wonked.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by maximara

Perhaps this exis didn't hit the board by the time you replied but:

But, assuming Merlin-1 has the same population of our Earth in 2004, there are 292.8 million in the US alone. Going by the 1:1000 have magery 1 that gives us 292800 mages. Assuming each one of these casts a single spell per day statistics suggests that 1 demon per day is summoned. If we back extrapolate that Magery 0 is 10 times as common as magery 1 than that number becomes 10 demons per day

Moreover, thanks to GURPS Thaumatology there are the Stable Casting enhancement (+40%) and Stabilizing Skill perk options.

Please stop repeating that. Unless something like Stable Casting is widespread in the setting it doesn't make a difference to the setting. Yes, it's possible to use world-building options that make industrial magic less problematic. But it's irrelevant to my point, which is once again that the use of GURPS Magic spells doesn't automatically make a pseudo-medieval setting impossible.

As I have pointed out before there is something weird about Yrth;'s ratio of spellcaster to magery (which I have dubbed The Magery-Spell Paradox)

As I pointed out Why would anyone in a normal-mana or low-mana without Magery learn a skill that in that area they would never be able to use?

They wouldn't.

So in High Mana one person in 50 knows a spell and half of them have no Aptitude.

In Normal Mana one person in 100 knows a spell but, say 90% of them have Aptitude. And only 10 percent of the people who have aptitude know no spells but those who don't have Aptitude do things like relying on their witches hut being in a High Mana oasis.

In Low Mana one person in 500 knows a spell, and 80% of the people who have Aptitude don't know any spells.

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

They wouldn't.

So in High Mana one person in 50 knows a spell and half of them have no Aptitude.

In Normal Mana one person in 100 knows a spell but, say 90% of them have Aptitude. And only 10 percent of the people who have aptitude know no spells but do things like relying on their witches hut being in a High Mana oasis.

In Low Mana one person in 500 knows a spell, and 80% of the people who have Aptitude don't know any spells.

Yeah, that's my read on it: I think that the book phrased it clumsily, and the editors didn't catch it. That said, if I were GMing Banestorm and still using the standard spell system, I'd probably be willing to allow groups of non-mages to cast spells ceremonially in normal or low mana regions, if they know any.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

But it's irrelevant to my point, which is once again that the use of GURPS Magic spells doesn't automatically make a pseudo-medieval setting impossible.

Which has NEVER been my point. My point was the more common the magic the more likely the TL is not going to remain pseudo-medieval (ie TL3). Heck, the Equivalent TL certainly is going to be different if it is common per Niven's Law

Per system theory the more factors you have operating the more changes in the TL you will see. James Burke made this easy to understand in his original Connections series.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

So in High Mana one person in 50 knows a spell and half of them have no Aptitude.

In Normal Mana one person in 100 knows a spell but, say 90% of them have Aptitude. And only 10 percent of the people who have aptitude know no spells but those who don't have Aptitude do things like relying on their witches hut being in a High Mana oasis.

In Low Mana one person in 500 knows a spell, and 80% of the people who have Aptitude don't know any spells.

Originally Posted by Prince Charon

Yeah, that's my read on it: I think that the book phrased it clumsily, and the editors didn't catch it. That said, if I were GMing Banestorm and still using the standard spell system, I'd probably be willing to allow groups of non-mages to cast spells ceremonially in normal or low mana regions, if they know any.

Except the editors either caught or were told of an error with the first printing and posted a correction - which contained the same clumsy phrasing (face palms) If it had been worded the other way ie x have magery but x/2 know as spell there wouldn't be a problem. Heck, they had the option to fix this with GURPS Banestorm and they didn't. If anything they made things worse as magery is more the product of genetics then environment with a flat 1 in 50 being a mage when that was limited to high-mana areas in 3e. So there are even more mages running around.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by RyanW

Dance, Musical, and Song all say "You must ... to cast spells."

True, but do you think that's still a requirement even in High Mana where non-mages can cast spells?

I think that's meant to be in the context of "to use this limited magery". Otherwise we'd have to apply it to High Mana too.

Once it's in that context, we can view it as the level 1 that's limited and not the level 0 which isn't.

Originally Posted by maximara

GURPS Thaumatology (pg 21) gives conflicting information on this: "The standard rules for Magery (pp. B66-67) imply that one cannot apply limitations to Magery 0."(sic)

Now it tries to handwave this but it contradicts the previous Partially Limited Magery (pg 20) section where you "apply limitations to some but not all of a wizard’s Magery levels"

I'm not seeing how this is a contradiction.

The intent seems to be that Thaumatology reworks how the limitations in Basic Set work, depending on whether or not you apply them to Magery 0.

Could you explain what you mean perhaps by using the examples of Lysimachus and Roxana from T21?

Originally Posted by maximara

per "Partially Limited Magery" all mages with Special Limitations have Magery 0 (normal) + Magery (limitation) and are able to cast any spell not require Magery1+ regardless of the limitation

I'm following you here so far...

Originally Posted by maximara

while "Limited Magery 0?" says the opposite.
Kindly explain why Partially Limited Magery is not applied in this case.

Which part says the opposite?

Originally Posted by maximara

While on the surface that looks like a solution, it isn't as the -30% is in regards two colleges of spells not a handful.

I can't recall Power Investiture specifying 2 colleges, although the number of spells a deity gives access to should probably total somewhere in that region given that assigned pricing.

Originally Posted by maximara

A handful of spells is handled by One-Spell Magery at -85% for one spell and +5% for each spell above one ie 5 spells would be -65%

In fact, as presented "Racially innate spells" at -40% should be giving the race access to 10 spells based on One-Spell Magery.

Er I think you're off? T25...
-80% one spell
-75% two spell
-70% three spell
-65% four spell
-60% five spell
-55% six spell
-50% seven spell
-45% eight spell
-40% nine spell

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Unless something like Stable Casting is widespread in the setting it doesn't make a difference to the setting.

Even if you don't buy it permanently, shouldn't any mage be able to pump in FP for "Temporary Enhancements" (GURPS Powers) for a chance to get to get it briefly?

Perhaps TE should come with a hanger of "you don't know if you actually succeeded in getting the enhancement" so you have to cast the spell without knowing whether or not it's more stable, or aura-reduced, etc.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Plane

True, but do you think that's still a requirement even in High Mana where non-mages can cast spells?

I think that's meant to be in the context of "to use this limited magery". Otherwise we'd have to apply it to High Mana too.

Once it's in that context, we can view it as the level 1 that's limited and not the level 0 which isn't.

I agree that this is the most sensible way to run it. But it isn't the way Basic seems to be suggesting it be run. All of the "you must... to cast spells" and p453's "A race that can only cast racially innate spells pays the usual 5 points for Magery 0..." imply an expectation that Magery 0 without a limitation + with all other levels of Magery limited the same way means that you can only cast spells within the confines of your magery.

On the other hand, Partially Limited Magery was implied in at least some cases as far back as Magic: "In these worlds, mages buy some or all of their Magery with gadget limitations" (emphasis added).

Edit to add: I'm not arguing that you can't treat Magery 0 + limited Magery 1+ as allowing full access to all magic that doesn't require Magery 1+. I'm saying Basic seems to suggest you can't, and if you adopt rules that explicitly allow you to (like those in Thaumatology), you must adapt rules that are based on Basic's assumptions (like the p453 Racial Magic).

Originally Posted by Plane

Even if you don't buy it permanently, shouldn't any mage be able to pump in FP for "Temporary Enhancements" (GURPS Powers) for a chance to get to get it briefly?

Assuming both Temporary Enhancements and Stable Casting are allowed in the game in question.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by RyanW

p453's "A race that can only cast racially innate spells pays the usual 5 points for Magery 0..." imply an expectation that Magery 0 without a limitation + with all other levels of Magery limited the same way means that you can only cast spells within the confines of your magery.

Given that it's possible to design a Magery 0 race (no limits) and a Magery 1 rage (limit only on the extra level) per the basic set I guess we could look at how either version works.

I think in either case you're limited to a specific spell list much like Power Investiture? I look at this as the built-in -30% limitation (applying to magery 0 and beyond) from T67. "Limited Spell List" from "Power Investiture as Modified Magery":

they’re generally more well-rounded than the restricted set accessible to mages with One College Only, so this is priced as being as good as access to two colleges. -30%.

If viewed as offset by their +30% No Spell Prerequisites enhancement which is how it can work out to 0. But it just lacks the other features of PIAMM (Talent/Sanctity + Inspired/Item + NoZero/Pact)

Originally Posted by RyanW

On the other hand, Partially Limited Magery was implied in at least some cases as far back as Magic: "In these worlds, mages buy some or all of their Magery with gadget limitations" (emphasis added).

Magic was 27 Feb 2006, Fantasy was 3 Feb 2006 so I thought it might have won but I can't find any reference to Magery via gadgets, closest would be F26 general guidelines for fetishes but that only specifies Ally/Patron. The "Sorcerer's Wand" on same page is like a precursor to GURPS Thaumatology: Sorcery since it involves Affliction w/ Gadget Limitations. Weirdly they seem to have skimped on the "Mana-Sensitive" (later called Magical -10%) limitation so it should work in No Mana areas.

Originally Posted by RyanW

Edit to add: I'm not arguing that you can't treat Magery 0 + limited Magery 1+ as allowing full access to all magic that doesn't require Magery 1+. I'm saying Basic seems to suggest you can't, and if you adopt rules that explicitly allow you to (like those in Thaumatology), you must adapt rules that are based on Basic's assumptions (like the p453 Racial Magic).

Basic does seem to have assumptions that Magery 0 inherits the limits of Magery 1+ despite not getting a discount from them, so if that applies to the usual modifiers I guess it should apply to the racial modifiers...

Though that does lead to the weird situation of having just Magery 0 (no Magery 1+ to apply a limit to) yet still having it function as if it had those limitations.

I'm actually not sure what the -40% does represent, since the +30/-30 for PIAMM seems to work out to 0% feature now. Maybe the -40% shouldn't apply anymore?

If looking for outside parallels, B116's Untrainable comes to mind. It's also -40%.

"Normally requires a skill to use" doesn't really apply to magery unless you count the IQ roll you make for sensing magic objects on sight/touch...

If you worked it that way, learning skills as if IQ were 8 (or -1 to IQ if already 8 or less) and maximum skill level being 10 would worth something...

"Hard to Use" could end up being worse for Magery sensing (-3 to rolls per -5%) despite being worth fewer points though, so allowing Untrainable on Magery might be too big a discount unless you had a really high IQ or you interpreted it as not just applying to the sensing but also to the spells themselves.