[Magic] Trying to clarify inconsistency in enchantment

[edk926]

A side effect of the 5 day enchantment work week is taking enchantments that already can take years to complete and adding an additional 29% to the time. I feel like many of the kinds of people that can afford the high energy requirement items will want them as soon as possible, and thus the enchanters may still end up working 6 or 7 days a week.

[scc]

Originally Posted by Kromm

It's this. The rule about missing mages isn't meant to enforce seven-day workweeks; it's meant to penalize enchanters who feel like working with a rotating cast of adventuring wizards who come and go as they please, putting in work when they have nothing better to do. The constraint is that all assistants must be present for every day of work, and that if someone plays hooky, they owe two days to get their contribution in before the project can be closed, while if they go AWOL for good, the project can't be closed at all. On days that aren't days of work . . . well, everybody gets a day off and there's no penalty.

Magic actually assumes a five day work week for mages working on S&S when calculating the costs of magic items so, we'll need to re-calculate the costs there.

In general Magic assumes a world where enchanting is hard and uncommon, probably to limit PC enchantment, but it results in some strange things, like the average master enchanter having only skill 20, or no-one buying up HT or FP, or using Powerstones in enchanting.

[Taneli]

Here are some free SJGames magazine articles related to enchantment in GURPS Magic:

The Compleat Powerstone (3e, but still relevant, especially if you don't use cheap material Powerstones):

http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/Rolepla...owerstone.html


Built a better wand in 7 days
http://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/sample.html?id=5666

Alternate Enchantment
http://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/sample.html?id=4247

There is also the lovely "All Charged Up Over Magic Items" from Pyramid #3-036 Dungeon Fantasy that expands the Spell Stone into more proper DnD 3.x -style wand with limited number of charges, no energy required to cast.

IMO everyone actually using GURPS Magic ought to have these four printed out and tucked into the back of the book as extra notes.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Taneli

Here are some free SJGames magazine articles related to enchantment in GURPS Magic:

The Compleat Powerstone (3e, but still relevant, especially if you don't use cheap material Powerstones):

http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/Rolepla...owerstone.html


Built a better wand in 7 days
http://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/sample.html?id=5666

Alternate Enchantment
http://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/sample.html?id=4247

There is also the lovely "All Charged Up Over Magic Items" from Pyramid #3-036 Dungeon Fantasy that expands the Spell Stone into more proper DnD 3.x -style wand with limited number of charges, no energy required to cast.

IMO everyone actually using GURPS Magic ought to have these four printed out and tucked into the back of the book as extra notes.

Great reference material. I have added the sample page material to the Enchanting Items (Standard Method) page on the GURPSwiki.

For mages with access to industrial alchemy they can have Paul Talismans to work with. In many ways one of these is superior to a powerstone of the same energy level.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by scc

Magic actually assumes a five day work week for mages working on S&S when calculating the costs of magic items so, we'll need to re-calculate the costs there.

If GURPS Magic assumes a five day workweek, why would the clarification that enchanting uses a five day workweek (for purposes of avoiding the penalty for missing a day) require recalculating the costs? If anything, the clarification is necessary for the costs to make sense.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by scc

strange things, like the average master enchanter having only skill 20, or no-one buying up HT or FP, or using Powerstones in enchanting.

The Basic definition of skill levels puts masters in anything at skill level 20+.

I'd agree that skills seen in the spells of PC mages tend to skew somewhat higher than the generic skill level, with the nearly inevitable IQ14 + M3 build meant to give a base skill level of 15 in everything, and with 21 being the next FP breakpoint. So a skill 20 enchanter might not jump out as being especially notable compared to, say, a master blacksmith or mathematician. But they are better than most mages at enchanting (and those 150-point PCs aren't "beginning adventurers" a la D&D or apprentices.) On the other hand, 20 is even more easily achievable for a master musician (of every style and instrument simultaneously), so magic doesn't seem tremendously out of whack.

[Willy]

I looked in GURPS Magic and found that S&S counts as on the job training Magic P.18. So a long time enchanter even a assistant would have after only a handfull of years a fairly high level. To quote Basic Set P. 293 " a year off fulltime work, will you give 2-3 point on job related skills" . The old Classic edition had similar rules. You need this to evenly divide between the enchant skill and the enchantment you used.

This means a long time enchanter could have easily spent more than 40 CP into his enchanting skills, but there IS a catch. The lower of this skills counts for the items power! So each lead enchanter would prefer to specialice on one or two most wanted enchantments, to make the circle as big as reasonable possible.

If you have enchant 30 and accuracy 16 your circle can still have 2 members you and your assistant, not very satisfying.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

T the nearly inevitable IQ14 + M3 build meant to give a base skill level of 15 in everything, and with 21 being the next FP breakpoint. .

FP cost and casting time break at 20 and not 21.

Unless my cp budget is extremely constrained I go for base skill 16 in spells. Comapred to 15 it doubles critical successes and halves crit fails.