Luck (Spellcasting only) - how to value limitation

[Kromm]

When we write "Luck" in GURPS rules, we mean the well-known advantage, not the obscure potion in the back of Magic. Luck the advantage is quite specifically no good for ceremonial magic, including enchantment. In fact, no odds-altering effects can influence such castings . . . this is why Bless spells and Wish spells are out, too. If a player came up with some way to involve Daredevil or Serendipity, those would be banished as well.

[PseudoFenton]

Originally Posted by Kromm

In fact, no odds-altering effects can influence such castings . . .

Even if everyone in the group has the advantage (and uses it)? Including things like Higher Purpose and divine (special abilities) patron bonuses etc? I agree that one person shouldn't be able to alter the outcome of a group, but I can situations where specific groups could provide better odds beyond simply their casting skill.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by PseudoFenton

Even if everyone in the group has the advantage (and uses it)? Including things like Higher Purpose and divine (special abilities) patron bonuses etc? I agree that one person shouldn't be able to alter the outcome of a group, but I can situations where specific groups could provide better odds beyond simply their casting skill.

Canonically, it doesn't matter how many parties have such traits or where they got those traits . . . Bless spells, Luck of all sorts, and Wish spells just won't work. The GM could rule otherwise, but "magic is less reliable and controllable than other tasks" is a default premise of GURPS Magic. Another example of this is ceremonial magic failing on 16, and critically failing on 17-18, regardless of skill. Yet another is Great Wish being limited to skill 15 no matter your IQ and Magery.

[starslayer]

Originally Posted by Kromm

When we write "Luck" in GURPS rules, we mean the well-known advantage, not the obscure potion in the back of Magic. Luck the advantage is quite specifically no good for ceremonial magic, including enchantment. In fact, no odds-altering effects can influence such castings . . . this is why Bless spells and Wish spells are out, too. If a player came up with some way to involve Daredevil or Serendipity, those would be banished as well.

It is interesting to have an official ruling on that, so thanks for dropping in with that.

Is there a reasoning behind it? (Relic from 3e, did not want enchanting to ever be a 'sure thing', felt it fit the flavor of unpredictable ceremonies being outside the influence of fate, all three? Something I missed?).

It just seems kind of weird to me that regular 'wild' luck will influence prototype and development rolls for gadgeteering, extremely obscure snatcher attempts, massive worldsplitting RPM and path/book rituals, but not ceremonial magic (be it the enchantment of a blade or the healing of a sick person by a group).

I used those advantages as examples because for roughly the same number of points they allow you to achieve roughly similar effects (Develop a balanced cutting edge geared metal crossbow =~ snatch a very fancy crossbow =~ ritual 'until I breath my last breath' on a crossbow =~ enchant a crossbow with +1 damage, +1 accuracy, AP(2)).

Please note: I am not trying to find fault with the rules as written- but rather to understand them (If it's for flavor and I want magic in my game world to be more predictable then I can just keep saying that luck does work on ceremonial magic, if it has balance reasons then I might need to re-evaluate the cost; if it's a default assumption built into all of the costs/spells in magic then I might have to consider no longer allowing it, etc).

[Ts_]

Originally Posted by starslayer

I am not trying to find fault with the rules as written- but rather to understand them (If it's for flavor and I want magic in my game world to be more predictable then I can just keep saying that luck does work on ceremonial magic, if it has balance reasons then I might need to re-evaluate the cost; if it's a default assumption built into all of the costs/spells in magic then I might have to consider no longer allowing it, etc).

This seems to support the flavor theory:

Originally Posted by Kromm

The GM could rule otherwise, but "magic is less reliable and controllable than other tasks" is a default premise of GURPS Magic.

And I doubt that the pricing of Magery or magic spell skills hinges on Luck being available for ceremonial magic.

Regards
Ts

[Stegyre]

Originally Posted by starslayer

I used those advantages as examples because for roughly the same number of points they allow you to achieve roughly similar effects (Develop a balanced cutting edge geared metal crossbow =~ snatch a very fancy crossbow =~ ritual 'until I breath my last breath' on a crossbow =~ enchant a crossbow with +1 damage, +1 accuracy, AP(2)).

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that a game-balance reason for the distinction with magic is that, while it may be similar in the instances you cite, magic can also do much, much more.

A simple example that springs to mind is the Powerstone (Magic p. 69). Luck effectively eliminates the risk of automatic failures -- you'd have to have two consecutive rolls of 16+, almost a 1/500 chance. Thus, players could make effectively unlimited powerstones.

Once they have those, they can easily cast enchantments and spells that, before, were balanced by their very high energy costs. The only limitation becomes the delay while waiting for these super powerstones to recharge.

[The Benj]

For things like Luck, I'd strongly advise against making Limitations in the key of Aspected too large, simply because while you may be greatly narrowing the field in which you can use the ability, it's an ability that is already so limited in use (by its playtime recharge mechanic) that it's already such a strategic resource.

[chris1982]

Originally Posted by The Benj

For things like Luck, I'd strongly advise against making Limitations in the key of Aspected too large, simply because while you may be greatly narrowing the field in which you can use the ability, it's an ability that is already so limited in use (by its playtime recharge mechanic) that it's already such a strategic resource.

On the other hand since you use it so rarely you will use it where it counts. My Chars with luck very rarely use it out of combat because it is used as life saver...

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by starslayer

Is there a reasoning behind it? (Relic from 3e, did not want enchanting to ever be a 'sure thing', felt it fit the flavor of unpredictable ceremonies being outside the influence of fate, all three? Something I missed?).

INK, but, AIR... It might also be a bit of all three, but the second was the main thing. Not just enchanting, but all ceremonial magic was supposed to be less open to 'swinging the odds in your favor'.

[LemmingLord]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Luck the advantage is quite specifically no good for ceremonial magic, including enchantment. In fact, no odds-altering effects can influence such castings . . . this is why Bless spells and Wish spells are out, too. If a player came up with some way to involve Daredevil or Serendipity, those would be banished as well.

I would definitely waive this caveat in my games. A good-lucky enchanter should have fewer mishaps than a non-lucky enchanter.

Originally Posted by Kromm

Bless spells, Luck of all sorts, and Wish spells just won't work. The GM could rule otherwise, but "magic is less reliable and controllable than other tasks" is a default premise of GURPS Magic. Another example of this is ceremonial magic failing on 16, and critically failing on 17-18, regardless of skill. Yet another is Great Wish being limited to skill 15 no matter your IQ and Magery.

This seems like an odd default. I often wonder how a mage every learns the vast number of spells he/she learns when they are so likely to crit fail when first attempting them...

Assuming though that a gamemaster decided that "magic is less reliable and controllable than other tasks" as apparently RAW sets as the default, it would seem to me that lucky would be even more applicable (not less).

Saying something is less reliable and controllable tells me that luck is MORE important not less.

If I have uncontrollable or unreliable on a power and failed a roll related to those could I not use luck to reroll? I believe the answer to that should be yes... absolutely..

The key concerning luck is that it can only be used a certain number of times for a fixed length of game time. Since enchantment is usually in 0 game time (that is for a ten point power stone, I let the player roll ten times which takes maybe three metagame minutes) then the player would get to reroll only one of those ten rolls. And if I say "a year passes" and the player wants her character to enchant all kinds of things, that is still going to be done in a relatively small period of time... meaning that there is still the chance for multiple critical failures in the same time period.. reducing luck's effectiveness just enough to keep things interesting, and to be in keeping with lucks use in every other situation.