Help with these Fantasy spells

Obirandiath · 01-10-2012, 03:19 AM

Quote:
Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't you allow them? I'm asking as someone who's never GM'd GURPS before.

They just felt out of balance for the kind of game I like to run. For instance, the Slow Consumption spell combines the effects of two other spells: Monk's Banquet and Recover Energy, for the same energy cost as just Monk's Banquet. Though I realize Recover Energy has no cost, the caster would effectively be getting that spell free for 1 day - and doubled if he already has Recover Energy. Add to that the debilitating effects and damage to the target and I felt that it was a bit too much. The Bestow Wounds likewise effectively combined two spells: Deathtouch and Minor Healing. Although the energy cost is roughly the same (depending on the damage roll), you get two effects with one casting instead of having to cast two seperate spells - most likely while in combat, when time is at a premium. Also, the healing provided does not suffer the cumulative -3 penalty for healing the same being repeatedly. That alone is worth a significant increase in the enrgy cost, though it could be mitigated by the fact that the caster can only heal himself (though the use of Share Vitality can easily overcome this limitation). Third is the Hurl Weapon spell which, upon a second reading I think that perhaps it is fine as written. I misread it initially as both launching the weapon and returning it, though I see now that it simply returns a weapon after it has been thrown. A 1 minute duration that is expended after a single return for that cost seems fair to me. One thing I would change in that spell description: the words "this cannot be prevented." I think it would be better to avoid absolutes. Make things very difficult if you like, with large penalties and such, but not impossible. I applied the stats for Loyal Sword when I wrote my suggested changes, as I think they are appropriate here. Only if a divine entity or something of that caliber is taking a direct hand will I make something flat-out impossible. As in, "Thor's hammer returns to his hand, this cannot be prevented." That's just my opinion, though, and I reiterate, if the GM allows the spells because he (or you, if you're the GM) feels they don't unbalance the game, go for it.

Also, as a note regarding the use of spells as a threat to Dependents, some spells come to mind immediately. Specifically I'd look at Malefice, Ensorcel, Lesser Geas, Great Geas and Enslave - all in Magic - since it seems you were looking for a slow, subtle threat rather than an overt one. Certainly there are creative uses for other spells that will fit the bill, too.

starslayer · 01-10-2012, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obirandiath

Quote:
Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't you allow them? I'm asking as someone who's never GM'd GURPS before.

They just felt out of balance for the kind of game I like to run. For instance, the Slow Consumption spell combines the effects of two other spells: Monk's Banquet and Recover Energy, for the same energy cost as just Monk's Banquet. Though I realize Recover Energy has no cost, the caster would effectively be getting that spell free for 1 day - and doubled if he already has Recover Energy. Add to that the debilitating effects and damage to the target and I felt that it was a bit too much. The Bestow Wounds likewise effectively combined two spells: Deathtouch and Minor Healing. Although the energy cost is roughly the same (depending on the damage roll), you get two effects with one casting instead of having to cast two seperate spells - most likely while in combat, when time is at a premium. Also, the healing provided does not suffer the cumulative -3 penalty for healing the same being repeatedly. That alone is worth a significant increase in the enrgy cost, though it could be mitigated by the fact that the caster can only heal himself (though the use of Share Vitality can easily overcome this limitation). Third is the Hurl Weapon spell which, upon a second reading I think that perhaps it is fine as written. I misread it initially as both launching the weapon and returning it, though I see now that it simply returns a weapon after it has been thrown. A 1 minute duration that is expended after a single return for that cost seems fair to me. One thing I would change in that spell description: the words "this cannot be prevented." I think it would be better to avoid absolutes. Make things very difficult if you like, with large penalties and such, but not impossible. I applied the stats for Loyal Sword when I wrote my suggested changes, as I think they are appropriate here. Only if a divine entity or something of that caliber is taking a direct hand will I make something flat-out impossible. As in, "Thor's hammer returns to his hand, this cannot be prevented." That's just my opinion, though, and I reiterate, if the GM allows the spells because he (or you, if you're the GM) feels they don't unbalance the game, go for it.

Also, as a note regarding the use of spells as a threat to Dependents, some spells come to mind immediately. Specifically I'd look at Malefice, Ensorcel, Lesser Geas, Great Geas and Enslave - all in Magic - since it seems you were looking for a slow, subtle threat rather than an overt one. Certainly there are creative uses for other spells that will fit the bill, too.

I feel you are missing some of the requirements and counting them as additional bonuses with regard to the first spell. The victim must be defenseless and restrained for ten minutes- more then 'if I wanted them dead they'd be dead' or 'if I wanted them injured, even in very specific ways, they'd be injured' time, so looking at the damage done as a penalty is not correct- it's an additional requirement consideration that prevents the spell from being used on the same victim indefinitely- it means that the necromancer who uses this magic is going to have a few victims in chains in their basement; with my version it could literally be dozens (so that the necromancer can float 4 extra death checks at once on days they are feeling extra paranoid). The issue with all of the alternative spells you have listed is- they end when the caster dies, likely the exact sort of scenario that a caster might want to avoid when they have access to a hero's loved one, but not the hero- it basically becomes a spell that allows you to effect another indirectly through proxy. Of course it's actual effectiveness SHOULD be compared to those spells, and outside of the specific situation outlined any of those spells would be a superior choice to cast on your bound captive victim.

The second spell already cost twice as much as deathtouch (which costs 1 point per die of damage) and on most die rolls will heal less efficiently and severely then a major healing, but better then a minor one. It is also much more obvious then deathtouch (which does not wreath the caster's hand in black flames).

The third spell is basically winged knife+one shot loyal sword- which is to say; the same effect COULD be achieved with an enchantment, this is just a 'cast on the fly version'; the cost may be a bit low but it does not seem to break anything outright.

thom · 01-10-2012, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starslayer

The third spell is basically winged knife+one shot loyal sword- which is to say; the same effect COULD be achieved with an enchantment, this is just a 'cast on the fly version'; the cost may be a bit low but it does not seem to break anything outright.

Thanks for the input, starslayer! So what price would you put on the Hurl Weapon spell?

starslayer · 01-10-2012, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thom

Thanks for the input, starslayer! So what price would you put on the Hurl Weapon spell?

I would say you need to make it cost at least 2 for each pound of item weight (since it is superior to winged knife which only costs 1 per pound of item weight); though there is likely room for argument for making it cost 1 per half pound of item weight (therefore allowing shuriken to be thrown for the normal value and then return to hand; but still making tossing your sword expensive).

I would venture 2/lb is likely good, but seeing as how this will likely come up is having a very well enchanted thrown weapon (IE is a missile) and this spell, effectively allows you to use the weapon more often then once per combat 3/lb or 1/lb min 5 may be required to prevent that from being abused (IE- you could have many weapon enchantments on a weapon for 1/10 cost if it IS a missile; so you could enchant a throwing knife to do more damage then a fine sword for less the the cost of a fine sword- with this spell it then becomes a weapon you can use multiple time in combat for potentially low cost)

Obirandiath · 01-11-2012, 02:22 AM

Quote:
I feel you are missing some of the requirements and counting them as additional bonuses with regard to the first spell.
Not so. I see the requirements, I just don't seem to think that they are worth as much as you seem to think they are. Regarding the revised Slow Consumption spell, I also included a 1 minute casting time. If someone can be restrained for 1 minute, in all liklihood they can be restrained for 10 minutes. I don't understand what you mean by "looking at the damage done as a penalty is not correct." The spell had better cause some damage, or else it wouldn't be a very good threat. The purpose seems to be that the subject will die if the spell continues long enough, and for that it needs to do damage.
The additional things you pointed out - floating death checks and spells that outlive the caster - make the original version get the veto from me. Spells that have a life of their own are enchantments and require much more time and energy then we're talking about here.
The touch spell costing twice what Deathtouch does is not enough, in my opinion. That's why I proposed an increase. You'll notice that Magic has no spell like that one -- a battle spell that harms the target and heals the caster at the same time. There is a reason for that: such a thing is incredibly powerful in combat and easily abused.
The third spell does not, as I realized, duplicate the Winged Knife spell. The original spell description stated that it merely returns a weapon that has been thrown to the hand of the thrower once. Other than the infalibility of the return, I think that spell is a good one.
I wish other GMs would chime in on this, as I'd be interested to hear what others have to say. Perhaps you (Thom) could message Krom, Kitty or Bill Stoddard and get a well-experienced opinion. I think the spells I proposed are balanced and the originals are not balanced, but that's merely the opinion of one person. So I say it again: if the GM allows it, it's OK.

01-10-2012, 03:19 AM	#1
Obirandiath Join Date: Dec 2011	Re: Help with these Fantasy spells Quote: Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't you allow them? I'm asking as someone who's never GM'd GURPS before. They just felt out of balance for the kind of game I like to run. For instance, the Slow Consumption spell combines the effects of two other spells: Monk's Banquet and Recover Energy, for the same energy cost as just Monk's Banquet. Though I realize Recover Energy has no cost, the caster would effectively be getting that spell free for 1 day - and doubled if he already has Recover Energy. Add to that the debilitating effects and damage to the target and I felt that it was a bit too much. The Bestow Wounds likewise effectively combined two spells: Deathtouch and Minor Healing. Although the energy cost is roughly the same (depending on the damage roll), you get two effects with one casting instead of having to cast two seperate spells - most likely while in combat, when time is at a premium. Also, the healing provided does not suffer the cumulative -3 penalty for healing the same being repeatedly. That alone is worth a significant increase in the enrgy cost, though it could be mitigated by the fact that the caster can only heal himself (though the use of Share Vitality can easily overcome this limitation). Third is the Hurl Weapon spell which, upon a second reading I think that perhaps it is fine as written. I misread it initially as both launching the weapon and returning it, though I see now that it simply returns a weapon after it has been thrown. A 1 minute duration that is expended after a single return for that cost seems fair to me. One thing I would change in that spell description: the words "this cannot be prevented." I think it would be better to avoid absolutes. Make things very difficult if you like, with large penalties and such, but not impossible. I applied the stats for Loyal Sword when I wrote my suggested changes, as I think they are appropriate here. Only if a divine entity or something of that caliber is taking a direct hand will I make something flat-out impossible. As in, "Thor's hammer returns to his hand, this cannot be prevented." That's just my opinion, though, and I reiterate, if the GM allows the spells because he (or you, if you're the GM) feels they don't unbalance the game, go for it. Also, as a note regarding the use of spells as a threat to Dependents, some spells come to mind immediately. Specifically I'd look at Malefice, Ensorcel, Lesser Geas, Great Geas and Enslave - all in Magic - since it seems you were looking for a slow, subtle threat rather than an overt one. Certainly there are creative uses for other spells that will fit the bill, too.

01-11-2012, 02:22 AM	#5
Obirandiath Join Date: Dec 2011	Re: Help with these Fantasy spells Quote: I feel you are missing some of the requirements and counting them as additional bonuses with regard to the first spell. Not so. I see the requirements, I just don't seem to think that they are worth as much as you seem to think they are. Regarding the revised Slow Consumption spell, I also included a 1 minute casting time. If someone can be restrained for 1 minute, in all liklihood they can be restrained for 10 minutes. I don't understand what you mean by "looking at the damage done as a penalty is not correct." The spell had better cause some damage, or else it wouldn't be a very good threat. The purpose seems to be that the subject will die if the spell continues long enough, and for that it needs to do damage. The additional things you pointed out - floating death checks and spells that outlive the caster - make the original version get the veto from me. Spells that have a life of their own are enchantments and require much more time and energy then we're talking about here. The touch spell costing twice what Deathtouch does is not enough, in my opinion. That's why I proposed an increase. You'll notice that Magic has no spell like that one -- a battle spell that harms the target and heals the caster at the same time. There is a reason for that: such a thing is incredibly powerful in combat and easily abused. The third spell does not, as I realized, duplicate the Winged Knife spell. The original spell description stated that it merely returns a weapon that has been thrown to the hand of the thrower once. Other than the infalibility of the return, I think that spell is a good one. I wish other GMs would chime in on this, as I'd be interested to hear what others have to say. Perhaps you (Thom) could message Krom, Kitty or Bill Stoddard and get a well-experienced opinion. I think the spells I proposed are balanced and the originals are not balanced, but that's merely the opinion of one person. So I say it again: if the GM allows it, it's OK.