RPM Rituals: Official, Semi-, Quasi- and Un-official

[Icelander]

While 'Nonc' Morel is the chosen guardian of 'Papa' Mangrove and a (self-designated) master druid, he's not averse to a drop with a bit of a kick to it and he's been known to visit the occasional riverboat casino. Of course, Morel believes that the Balance requires that no one enjoy more than their share of luck, but as Wilderness Guardianship doesn't actually carry a salary, he'll occasionally have to raise funds for some necessary action through relieving someone who won't miss it of it.

This spell never gains benefits from Higher Purpose (Druidic) and is not learned as part of Magical Style Familiarity (Druidism). The tradition it belongs in is that of the Deep South conjure or 'hoodoo' man, which 'Nonc' Morel is also well versed in, having many friends and allies that practice such magics, as well as having spent decades studying what works and what doesn't.

A typical casting is done with specially prepared tobacco, which 'Nonc' Morel smokes during play (Elixir, pastille form), afflicting his opponents in a game of chance with bad luck if they fail to resist and re-distributing that luck toward him. 'Nonc' Morel takes care not to profit personally from this spell, always discreetly losing any unneeded profits to gamblers that look like they are due some luck.

Spread the Lady's Favor

Spell Effects: Lesser Control Chance (x2).
Inherent Modifiers: Altered Trait, Unluckiness + Altered Trait, Luck + Bestows a Penalty + Bestows a Bonus + Area of Effect.
Greater Effects: 0 (x1).

Grants Luck (or increases Luck to Extraordinary Luck) and +5 to Gambling, but gives others Unluckiness and -5 to Gambling.

Typical Casting: Lesser Control Chance (5) + Lesser Control Chance (5) + Altered Trait, Unluckiness (3) + Altered Trait, Luck (15) + Bestows a Penalty -5 (16) + Bestows a Bonus +5 (16) + Area of Effect, 5 yds (10) + Duration, 1 hour (3). 73 energy (73×1).

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Spread the Lady's Favor

Spell Effects: Lesser Control Chance (x2).
Inherent Modifiers: Altered Trait, Unluckiness + Altered Trait, Luck + Bestows a Penalty + Bestows a Bonus + Area of Effect.
Greater Effects: 0 (x1).

Grants Luck (or increases Luck to Extraordinary Luck) and +5 to Gambling, but gives others Unluckiness and -5 to Gambling.

Typical Casting: Lesser Control Chance (5) + Lesser Control Chance (5) + Altered Trait, Unluckiness (3) + Altered Trait, Luck (15) + Bestows a Penalty -5 (16) + Bestows a Bonus +5 (16) + Area of Effect, 5 yds (10) + Duration, 1 hour (3). 73 energy (73×1).

You need one Spell Effect per Spell Modifier you add. In this example, you'd need four. One for each of the Altered Traits, one for Bestows a Bonus, and one for the Bestows a Penalty.

Also, I'm not sure how the spell is targeting the caster for the good luck and others for the bad. The way this is written you're hitting everyone in 5 yards with good luck and bad luck and a total of +0 to Gambling for an hour.

You're going to need to fo off RAW to make this work the way you want. Normally, you cannot add enhancements to anything but damage in RPM. In this one case (and for spells like it), I'd be ok with adding Selective Effect to either each effect you can toggle or to the spell's total energy, whichever is more. So in this case you'd add +4 energy (for Selective Effect) x 4 (for four effects) or 16 additional energy. This would let you decide who gets the bonus or trait in the spell's area.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice

You need one Spell Effect per Spell Modifier you add. In this example, you'd need four. One for each of the Altered Traits, one for Bestows a Bonus, and one for the Bestows a Penalty.

I decided that afflicting 'Luck' and 'Unluckiness' along with a +/-5 to Gambling were effects that were closely enough related to fit under one Spell Effect. Essentially, in setting terms, the luck trait and the bonus or penalty to Gambling are part of the same effect. So, two Spell Effects rather than four were a considered choice.

Do you think it's unbalancing or unfair compared to other rituals?

Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice

Also, I'm not sure how the spell is targeting the caster for the good luck and others for the bad. The way this is written you're hitting everyone in 5 yards with good luck and bad luck and a total of +0 to Gambling for an hour.

You're going to need to fo off RAW to make this work the way you want. Normally, you cannot add enhancements to anything but damage in RPM. In this one case (and for spells like it), I'd be ok with adding Selective Effect to either each effect you can toggle or to the spell's total energy, whichever is more. So in this case you'd add +4 energy (for Selective Effect) x 4 (for four effects) or 16 additional energy. This would let you decide who gets the bonus or trait in the spell's area.

I did not include Selective for the Area Effect, no, because I wasn't sure how to do it and I forgot to make a note to solicit specific advice.

Essentially, the spell should always exclude the caster from one Control Chance effect and the rest of the people in the Area of Effect from the other Control Chance effect. Either the caster gets +5 to Gambling and Luck or -5 to Gambling and Unluckiness and the other targets get the alternative. And from a roleplaying perspective, the PC is supposed to cast the spell equally often in both variations, to balance out his meddling with luck.

The caster is explicitly not supposed to be able to choose more targets to benefit from the positive luck. One part of the spell is always single-target, as the price paid for conscious control of the fates is decreased efficiency. Affect the luck of a group of people and transfer the reverse effect to one person. There's no possibility of making everybody on the opposite side unlucky and also bestowing good luck on everybody on the PC's team. That would be a neat spell, but it's not this ritual.

So, essentially, the baseline ritual should include the ability and requirement to exclude one target, the caster, from half of the spell. I thought perhaps that Area of Effect natively included rituals where the spell effect emanated from the caster, who was at the center of it, without including him. If not, I would think that +1 energy to the Area of Effect should account for it, because only one of the two spell effects is ever Area of Effect anyway, the other is always single target.

The player also wanted to be able to exclude certain people from the ritual as a whole, though. He imagined that he'd craft tokens that they'd carry and not be affected either way, with good or bad luck. I think I saw a ritual that allowed a caster to make tokens that protected others from the spell. It could be done at any time and I think the energy cost was minuscule, maybe just the 1 energy for every two excluded targets that Area of Effect proposes. Or maybe it was 1 energy per token, which I'd consider fair trade for the ability to make the tokens separately from the ritual itself.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I decided that afflicting 'Luck' and 'Unluckiness' along with a +/-5 to Gambling were effects that were closely enough related to fit under one Spell Effect. Essentially, in setting terms, the luck trait and the bonus or penalty to Gambling are part of the same effect. So, two Spell Effects rather than four were a considered choice.

Do you think it's unbalancing or unfair compared to other rituals?

Yes. You always need a spell effect per modifier. The only exception to this is when you are adding Altered Traits - in which case you can add multiple traits at once for an appropriate spell effect.

Originally Posted by Icelander

I did not include Selective for the Area Effect, no, because I wasn't sure how to do it and I forgot to make a note to solicit specific advice.

Essentially, the spell should always exclude the caster from one Control Chance effect and the rest of the people in the Area of Effect from the other Control Chance effect. Either the caster gets +5 to Gambling and Luck or -5 to Gambling and Unluckiness and the other targets get the alternative. And from a roleplaying perspective, the PC is supposed to cast the spell equally often in both variations, to balance out his meddling with luck.

The caster is explicitly not supposed to be able to choose more targets to benefit from the positive luck. One part of the spell is always single-target, as the price paid for conscious control of the fates is decreased efficiency. Affect the luck of a group of people and transfer the reverse effect to one person. There's no possibility of making everybody on the opposite side unlucky and also bestowing good luck on everybody on the PC's team. That would be a neat spell, but it's not this ritual.

So, essentially, the baseline ritual should include the ability to designate one target as excluded from half of the spell. I thought perhaps that Area of Effect natively included rituals where the spell effect emanated from the caster, who was at the center of it, without including him. If not, I would think that +1 energy to the Area of Effect should account for it, because only one of the two spell effects is ever Area of Effect anyway, the other is always single target.

The player also wanted to be able to exclude certain people from the ritual as a whole, though. He imagined that he'd craft tokens that they'd carry and not be affected either way, with good or bad luck. I think I saw a ritual that allowed a caster to make tokens that protected others from the spell. It could be done at any time and I think the energy cost was minuscule, maybe just the 1 energy for every two excluded targets that Area of Effect proposes. Or maybe it was 1 energy per token, which I'd consider fair trade for the ability to make the tokens separately from the ritual itself.

You would still need to use the method I outlined above to get what you're doing. RPM - in most cases - only gets you what you pay for. There are examples where this is the case, but this isn't one of them. You have multiple effects affecting multiple subjects with this spell, you can't do that without bending the rules (via the enhancement method) or just houseruling.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice

Yes. You always need a spell effect per modifier. The only exception to this is when you are adding Altered Traits - in which case you can add multiple traits at once for an appropriate spell effect.

Fair enough. Then I'll add two Lesser Control Chance effects.

Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice

You would still need to use the method I outlined above to get what you're doing. RPM - in most cases - only gets you what you pay for. There are examples where this is the case, but this isn't one of them. You have multiple effects affecting multiple subjects with this spell, you can't do that without bending the rules (via the enhancement method) or just houseruling.

Huh.

That's something that I definitely didn't get from the description in Thaumatology: Ritual Path Magic. It seemed that you only add Area of Effect once, no matter how many effects there were in the spell, and that excluding targets from the Area of Effect had a flat cost of 1 energy per two excluded targets, again, no matter how many effects there were in the spell.

In any case, I can't have it cost the same to be able to freely choose, between everyone in the Area of Effect, who are affected with bad luck and who are affected with good luck, as it does to have the caster be affected with one and the area of effect to apply for the other. One is obviously more useful than the other and therefore, by Rule 0, they can't be equally expensive or difficult to do.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Icelander

That's something that I definitely didn't get from the description in Thaumatology: Ritual Path Magic. It seemed that you only add Area of Effect once, no matter how many effects there were in the spell, and that excluding targets from the Area of Effect had a flat cost of 1 energy per two excluded targets, again, no matter how many effects there were in the spell.

In any case, I can't have it cost the same to be able to freely choose, between everyone in the Area of Effect, who are affected with bad luck and who are affected with good luck, as it does to have the caster be affected with one and the area of effect to apply for the other. One is obviously more useful than the other and therefore, by Rule 0, they can't be equally expensive or difficult to do.

Area of Effect is not the problem. Having two different Altered Traits or Bestows a Modifier with opposing purposes is the problem Your current write-up means that everyone in the area gets Luck, Unluckiness, +5 to Gambling, and -5 to Gambling. Normally, a spell can't do that. That's why I said add Selective Effect.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice

Area of Effect is not the problem. Having two different Altered Traits or Bestows a Modifier with opposing purposes is the problem Your current write-up means that everyone in the area gets Luck, Unluckiness, +5 to Gambling, and -5 to Gambling. Normally, a spell can't do that. That's why I said add Selective Effect.

I get it.

From a trait design point of view, RPM rituals all include Link by default. I'm trying to add Area of Effect to one trait, but not to another trait that is activated at the same time. I guess I thought that adding Area of Effect didn't cost any more if it only affected some of the effects in a ritual, such as a shield spell which granted +3 to Active Defences to everyone in an Area of Effect and a DR 12 to the caster. In general, that seems like a special effect and/or consequence of how certain magical effects work in the setting, not something to charge for.

You don't need any special enhancement in RPM to have an Area of Effect exclude the caster, as you just add Range, 2 yds (+0) and have the edge of the effect start somewhere within two yards of the caster, but not actually in his hex. So, essentially, affecting a whole playing table with bad luck, or, alternatively, affecting a whole adventuring party with good luck, would not require any modifiers other than Area of Effect.

I particularly want to avoid flavourful spell effects costing much more energy than less flavourful ones. Just giving your whole party a combat bonus should never be easier than it is to use a ritual that doesn't create luck, but cosmically redistributes it.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I get it.

From a trait design point of view, RPM rituals all include Link by default. I'm trying to add Area of Effect to one trait, but not to another trait that is activated at the same time. I guess I thought that adding Area of Effect didn't cost any more if it only affected some of the effects in a ritual, such as a shield spell which granted +3 to Active Defences to everyone in an Area of Effect and a DR 12 to the caster. In general, that seems like a special effect and/or consequence of how certain magical effects work in the setting, not something to charge for.

You don't need any special enhancement in RPM to have an Area of Effect exclude the caster, as you just add Range, 2 yds (+0) and have the edge of the effect start somewhere within two yards of the caster, but not actually in his hex. So, essentially, affecting a whole playing table with bad luck, or, alternatively, affecting a whole adventuring party with good luck, would not require any modifiers other than Area of Effect.

I particularly want to avoid flavourful spell effects costing much more energy than less flavourful ones. Just giving your whole party a combat bonus should never be easier than it is to use a ritual that doesn't create luck, but cosmically redistributes it.

I really wouldn't treat it as a feature/freebie. Otherwise, you're going to have people creating spells that buff all allies/the caster and debuff all enemies at the same time. I went down that road when making DF19. It's not a good place to be and the food is terrible.

4 energy per effect isn't a lot, but it adds a price to being able to hotswap things like that.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice

I really wouldn't treat it as a feature/freebie. Otherwise, you're going to have people creating spells that buff all allies/the caster and debuff all enemies at the same time. I went down that road when making DF19. It's not a good place to be and the food is terrible.

4 energy per effect isn't a lot, but it adds a price to being able to hotswap things like that.

I agree that 4 energy per effect is not unfair for a spell that can buff all allies and debuff all enemies within the Area of Effect.

This spell specifically wasn't meant to be usable like that, but, of course, I suppose I could design it so that it is easily varied from a ritual meant to affect a game of chance to one that works in combat. Even if the +5/-5 to Gambling is probably pretty meaningless, adding Luck (or upgrading Luck to Extraordinary Luck) is pretty nice and Unluckiness for foes in combat is an entertaining notion.

[Icelander]

Murphy Ward

Spell Effects: Lesser Control Chance.
Inherent Modifiers: Altered Trait: Luck.
Greater Effects: 0 (x1).

Grants the subject Luck (or increases Luck to Extraordinary Luck). Edward Alvin Smith always casts it as a Charm, usually on the tattoo he has on his body with the Nommo sigil for protection from adverse occurances.

Typical Casting: Lesser Control Magic (5) + Lesser Control Chance (5) + Altered Trait, Luck (15) + Duration, 12 hour (6). 31 energy (31×1).