[RPM] overcoming resistance

[Anders]

How do I increase my chances of overcoming resistance?

[Diomedes]

I think you just add a Lesser Strengthen Magic effect, Bestows a Penalty. Personally, I'd call it a "wrapper," like the Control Magic used for charms and conditional rituals, so you can add it without creating a new specific ritual.

[PK]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

How do I increase my chances of overcoming resistance?

Same way as with any other magic system -- raise your skill. :)

(I'm not opposed to the "bestows a penalty" method, mind you. But bear in mind that allowing that to be added cheaply may make magic a bit overpowered.)

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by PK

Same way as with any other magic system -- raise your skill. :)

(I'm not opposed to the "bestows a penalty" method, mind you. But bear in mind that allowing that to be added cheaply may make magic a bit overpowered.)

Is that in reference to a 'narrow' bonus/penalty, or even for the most wide bonus/penalty available in the table?

[Diomedes]

Originally Posted by PK

(I'm not opposed to the "bestows a penalty" method, mind you. But bear in mind that allowing that to be added cheaply may make magic a bit overpowered.)

Would it? The cost of the bonus is exponential, after all; that would seem to make it impractical to add large bonuses.

[PK]

Originally Posted by Diomedes

Would it? The cost of the bonus is exponential, after all; that would seem to make it impractical to add large bonuses.

It's actually the opposite that concerns me -- not the occasional large penalty, but ubiquitous small ones. If it's just a few energy to throw a small penalty to resist onto every ritual, then it's effectively like a free +1 to +3 skill for overcoming resistance, and every competent caster is likely to add it on to every spell.

It's also mechanically questionable. Your spell is imposing a penalty on the subject, except that penalty hits him before it's even determined whether he resisted the spell in the first place. If you ask me, this is a two-spell process. First, you cast a spell like Sorcerous Mark (p. 50), which is resisted normally. Then that ritual gives the target a penalty to resist subsequent spells.

(Again, I'm not trying to put my foot down and saying, as the designer, that it's not legal. I'm just explaining why I see some issues with it. The final call here is explicitly up to the GM.)

[blacksmith]

Originally Posted by PK

Same way as with any other magic system -- raise your skill. :)

(I'm not opposed to the "bestows a penalty" method, mind you. But bear in mind that allowing that to be added cheaply may make magic a bit overpowered.)

Well first you have to get through their resistance with a bestows a penalty check. Now bestowing a bonus on you might help but it doesn't help you get around the rule of 16.

[Diomedes]

Originally Posted by PK

It's actually the opposite that concerns me -- not the occasional large penalty, but ubiquitous small ones. If it's just a few energy to throw a small penalty to resist onto every ritual, then it's effectively like a free +1 to +3 skill for overcoming resistance, and every competent caster is likely to add it on to every spell.

It's also mechanically questionable. Your spell is imposing a penalty on the subject, except that penalty hits him before it's even determined whether he resisted the spell in the first place.

What it's doing, is adding energy to the spell to make it more powerful, making it stronger in a brute-force attempt to overcome anticipated resistance. This might be better expressed as a bonus to the casting roll, rather than a penalty to the subject. Since it's a Quick Contest, a bonus to one side is mechanically identical to a penalty to the other, except that 1.) Bonuses to magic are not allowable effects, and 2.) it doesn't actually increase your chances of success on the casting itself.

[PK]

Originally Posted by Diomedes

What it's doing, is adding energy to the spell to make it more powerful, making it stronger in a brute-force attempt to overcome anticipated resistance. This might be better expressed as a bonus to the casting roll, rather than a penalty to the subject.

No, because that's explicitly disallowed. See the Stacking Spells box, note 3.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Just to chime in here and say "I do this" (the Bestows a Penalty bit); there have been a few occasions where this has reared it's head in a ugly way, but overall can pay for itself when trying to deal with area-effect spells. That said, if you're going to use it, be cautious as the GM. If every single player is using it on every single spell...that's a problem. I've required either a expensive Unusual Background or a perk per spell you can do this for. The perk seems balanced, still trying to work out ow the UB is impacted the player environment, I've only had one player take it and they're complaining it's too expensive for what it can do.