Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-17-2010, 01:29 AM   #1
Christopher R. Rice
 
Christopher R. Rice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Default Enchantment only Spells

So I have a idea for my setting that I am a bit stumped on. I have in my current party roster a PC-enchanter from what amounts to the enchanters guild of the setting. And after flipping through GURPS Thaumatology a bit the characters player asked me a question that made a odd sort of sense: Can a mage learn a "enchantment only" version of a spell at a decreased difficulty if their Magery doesn't have the "Enchantment only" limitation?

That is a darn good question! I am thinking yes, they can, the utility of the spell itself would be reduced enough that it would be a attractive option to "lab mages" who still want a versatility (i.e. have regular magery not enchantment only). This would mean that VH > H and H > A.

Alternatively, what about a mage with the "Enchantment Only" option on their magery being able to ignore prerequisites?


Still as always what does the hivemind think?

Ghostdancer
Christopher R. Rice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2010, 01:37 AM   #2
Barghaest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Default Re: Enchantment only Spells

Be a good option for designing a Magic Style out of the Thaumaturgy Companion to reorder pre-reqs for Enchantment Only versions... as for just doing it on the fly that'd be a GM call... I personally would still make them learn pre-reqs studying magic as written but if I took the time to design a style for it I might trim some of them for the style...

On the other point, I don't see why not. They could still learn regular spells having Magery but if they wanted to learn the Enchantment Only version of a spell just to enchant, I think that'd be allowable.
Barghaest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2010, 01:47 AM   #3
rosignol
 
rosignol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
Default Re: Enchantment only Spells

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostdancer View Post
Still as always what does the hivemind think?
IMO, a PC with 'enchantment only' as a limitation on Magery should get a significant discount (>50%) on the cost of Magery, but I don't see why learning the spell would be any easier (it's the same spell, after all...) or why they would be able to ignore prerequisites.

Spend the points saved by the discount on extra (discounted) levels of Magery and the relevant skill will be a point or two higher, which amounts to the same result.

I wouldn't worry about it all that much, my experience with PC enchanters has been that the people playing them tend to find it unsatisfying once they realize just how much time the character will be unable to spend adventuring because he's busy working on an enchantment. Of course, I use the one-mage-day-per-point-of-energy rule, if you've modified that, all bets are off.
__________________
What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.
― William Lamb Melbourne
rosignol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2010, 02:17 AM   #4
weby
 
weby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default Re: Enchantment only Spells

Has never come up in my games, But I would likely allow a enchantment only version of a spell as optional specialisation(thus one step easier making it average or hard instead of hard or very hard). But that spell would then only count as prereq to other enchantment only versions of spells not normal versions.
weby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2010, 11:21 AM   #5
David Johnston2
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: Enchantment only Spells

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostdancer View Post
So I have a idea for my setting that I am a bit stumped on. I have in my current party roster a PC-enchanter from what amounts to the enchanters guild of the setting. And after flipping through GURPS Thaumatology a bit the characters player asked me a question that made a odd sort of sense: Can a mage learn a "enchantment only" version of a spell at a decreased difficulty if their Magery doesn't have the "Enchantment only" limitation?

That is a darn good question! I am thinking yes, they can, the utility of the spell itself would be reduced enough that it would be a attractive option to "lab mages" who still want a versatility (i.e. have regular magery not enchantment only). This would mean that VH > H and H > A.

Alternatively, what about a mage with the "Enchantment Only" option on their magery being able to ignore prerequisites?


Still as always what does the hivemind think?

Ghostdancer
If it were my campaign, my answer would be "no" to the first. Enchantment isn't the easy part of learning a spell. Not sure about the second.
David Johnston2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2010, 12:53 PM   #6
Christopher R. Rice
 
Christopher R. Rice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Default Re: Enchantment only Spells

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barghaest View Post
Be a good option for designing a Magic Style out of the Thaumaturgy Companion to reorder pre-reqs for Enchantment Only versions... as for just doing it on the fly that'd be a GM call... I personally would still make them learn pre-reqs studying magic as written but if I took the time to design a style for it I might trim some of them for the style...
Basically that is exactly what I am doing, however I don't want to put "all other spells allowed in campaign" under the optional skills heading. That along with my Player, got me thinking of a enchantment only spell variation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barghaest View Post
On the other point, I don't see why not. They could still learn regular spells having Magery but if they wanted to learn the Enchantment Only version of a spell just to enchant, I think that'd be allowable.
Well under the Spell Creation rules in Magic it states that a spell and its enchantment are basically two different skills (for creating them only) and that creating the enchantment is a bit harder (it adds a additional -12 to the skill roll), thus spells are sort of like two skills in one (but not actually two skills!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rosignol View Post
IMO, a PC with 'enchantment only' as a limitation on Magery should get a significant discount (>50%) on the cost of Magery, but I don't see why learning the spell would be any easier (it's the same spell, after all...) or why they would be able to ignore prerequisites.

Spend the points saved by the discount on extra (discounted) levels of Magery and the relevant skill will be a point or two higher, which amounts to the same result.
Enchantment only is a -30% discount on Magery, and the PC would have taken it but they do other stuff as well with Magic so that just doesnt work for the character.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barghaest View Post
I wouldn't worry about it all that much, my experience with PC enchanters has been that the people playing them tend to find it unsatisfying once they realize just how much time the character will be unable to spend adventuring because he's busy working on an enchantment. Of course, I use the one-mage-day-per-point-of-energy rule, if you've modified that, all bets are off.
Nope. I use a all the normal rules as written, but the character has the Speed Enchantment and Quick and Focused perks. Combine this with the fact that she doesn't need to sleep and most 'small' items are within her reach for a couple of days. PC enchanters are very doable, you just have to know what to take to make it so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weby View Post
Has never come up in my games, But I would likely allow a enchantment only version of a spell as optional specialisation(thus one step easier making it average or hard instead of hard or very hard). But that spell would then only count as prereq to other enchantment only versions of spells not normal versions.
Thats essentially what I was driving at. The combat utility of the spell is gone, but the item creation aspect is still there. It wouldn't count as a spell in any prereq chain other than other enchantment only spells. So at first blush my gut 'seems alright'

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Johnston2 View Post
If it were my campaign, my answer would be "no" to the first. Enchantment isn't the easy part of learning a spell. Not sure about the second.
Hmmm. Why? If I can ask. What part of the spell would be easiest? The actual spell?

Ghostdancer
Christopher R. Rice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2010, 01:03 PM   #7
David Johnston2
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: Enchantment only Spells

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostdancer View Post
Hmmm. Why? If I can ask. What part of the spell would be easiest? The actual spell?

Ghostdancer
It seems to me that enchantment is the higher order, more complex magic. By the principles underlying GURPS Magic, that one has to understand the basics before moving onto the more complex even if one doesn't use the basics for anything, making the enchantment easier to learn than just casting the spell seems wrong. But I have considered allowing enchanters who don't know a spell to work with people who do to create an enchantment.
David Johnston2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2010, 01:11 PM   #8
Christopher R. Rice
 
Christopher R. Rice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Default Re: Enchantment only Spells

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Johnston2 View Post
It seems to me that enchantment is the higher order, more complex magic. By the principles underlying GURPS Magic, that one has to understand the basics before moving onto the more complex even if one doesn't use the basics for anything, making the enchantment easier to learn than just casting the spell seems wrong.
Huh. Good point. I don't really agree, but a good point. I think that both would probably be just as hard to learn, though the bulk of the difficulty would probably rest on the spell itself, after all once you learn how to create a magical effect, 'imprinting' it on a object should be substantially easier after you learn how to 'imprint' (i.e. the Enchant spell)

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Johnston2 View Post
But I have considered allowing enchanters who don't know a spell to work with people who do to create an enchantment.
Now see, on this we agree. This annoys me to the Nth degree, if your main enchanter knows the spell, why do you need to know it as well if you are participating in a circle? Your basically just supplying energy right? (unless I have severely misread how that works, which is possible). How would you handle that? Let them participate in S&S as a normal mage and allow only a specific number of FP to be pumped into Q&D? Or some other different schema.

Ghostdancer
Christopher R. Rice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2010, 01:46 PM   #9
malloyd
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Default Re: Enchantment only Spells

It seems to me that to make an item that allows the spell to be cast, you would have to know everything required to cast the spell. It might make sense for those spells where the item does something different than that.

It's probably not a particularly efficient use of points even if you permit it. If you are planning to take more than a handful of them, you'd get the same +1 to them, plus whatever other minor benefits come with it, from buying 1 more level of Magery with the enchantment only limitation.
__________________
--
MA Lloyd
malloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2010, 03:01 PM   #10
hal
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Buffalo, New York
Default Re: Enchantment only Spells

A quickie answer to the question posed, and I'll head out to work ;)

GURPS MAGIC as initially set up, has the following structure:

Spells:
Each spell, partitioned into separate colleges, produces an immediate effect upon casting. Few spells fall into the category of "Enchantment" only.

Enchantments:
Not ALL spells have the ability to produce an enchantment version of the spell in question. If you look carefully, you will note, that there are more than a handful of spells where you can cast an instant effect type spell, but not be able to produce and "enchantment" version of said spell.

Study of spells:
GURPS MAGIC specifically states that in order to learn a spell, the spell caster must be able to cast said spell. In other words, a spell requring magery 2 for instance, could not be studied by a mage without magery 2. If a mage had magery 1, and Lunar magery that would up his magery relative to the phases of the moon, could study a Magery 2 spell because he can cast it while he has an effective magery 2 overall.

As a consequence of the above, having a one college magery "Enchantments College" would result in the mage never being able to cast ANY spells unless in a mana high location, and only if the spells do not require magery 1+ as prerequisites.

So, utilizing the rules strictly as written, the answer appears to be no. Note however, that the above only applies if you're using the rules as written ;)

Personally? I've always wondered why mages can't undertake the study of the spell "ENCHANT" if they are expert practioners of the fire college spells (ie 10+ spells from the college of fire), thaumaturgy 16+ (ie expert level), AND magery 2+. However, as a GM, I've also concluded that there is nothing to stop the GM (me!) from including a new spell in the game, or the players in my campaigns from asking "Can I invent an enchant spell, that is Fire College based?". I think I would permit it to happen in my campaign world.

COLUMBIA GAMES has a magic system that has but 6 colleges, 7 if you include GREY MAGIC as a college. How would one simulate that kind of game universe using GURPS MAGIC rules? ;)
hal is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
enchantment, magic items, spells

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.