[Magic] Double Checking Some Rules Mistakes

[scc]

Originally Posted by Anthony

There's no real question that for industrial enchantment using powerstones is economically sensible, it's just something GURPS 4e has chosen to avoid talking about because the math rapidly turns into a mess. You can find some worked out numbers here.

Originally Posted by Rupert

It implies mages with many powerstones, and thus large charging halls with powerstones carefully placed just over 6' away from each other. This means working out the rate of return on such an investment, which also means knowing how much the security and the site rental is going to cost, and how it scales with the size of the facility...

As you say, the maths becomes a mess pretty quickly.

Anthony's calculations also have other problems, he assumes that One-College Only Powerstones can be used for Enchanting, which shouldn't work one the item produced belongs to another College and that you don't actually need to use valuables for the Powerstone to work, which kind breaks the name. It also ignores Raise Cone of Power spell.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by scc

Anthony's calculations also have other problems, he assumes that One-College Only Powerstones can be used for Enchanting, which shouldn't work one the item produced belongs to another College and that you don't actually need to use valuables for the Powerstone to work, which kind breaks the name. It also ignores Raise Cone of Power spell.

There will be a one-college stone that works (in fact, most likely both will work). Depending on how you interpret it, which college it is will vary. In any case, adjusting the math for general powerstones is not hard. Powerstones on cheap materials are explicitly permitted. I ignore raise cone of power because it's not in Magic.

[scc]

Originally Posted by Anthony

There will be a one-college stone that works (in fact, most likely both will work). Depending on how you interpret it, which college it is will vary. In any case, adjusting the math for general powerstones is not hard. Powerstones on cheap materials are explicitly permitted. I ignore raise cone of power because it's not in Magic.

The problem is, and I think I've told you this before, is that Enchanting involves casting spells from two Colleges, thus One College only is pretty much a non-starter.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by scc

Athat you don't actually need to use valuables for the Powerstone to work, which kind breaks the name. It also ignores Raise Cone of Power spell.

That is canon for 4e though it will cost 4x the energy. That 4x number is still low enough that it's a 1 hour Enchantment.

[scc]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

That is canon for 4e though it will cost 4x the energy. That 4x number is still low enough that it's a 1 hour Enchantment.

I'm not disputing that, but that kind of thinking is clearly breaking RAI and should probably be disallowed, otherwise you end up with things like this: this

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by scc

I'm not disputing that, but that kind of thinking is clearly breaking RAI and should probably be disallowed, otherwise you end up with things like this: this

Did you mean to link to something else? What you did link to appears to me to be a total (indeed a comprehensive) non-sequiter.

Also, what is "RAI"?

[talonthehand]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Did you mean to link to something else? What you did link to appears to me to be a total (indeed a comprehensive) non-sequiter.

Also, what is "RAI"?

RAI - Rules As Intended, as opposed to Rules As Written. I think he linked to the comic to show an example of what happens when you take a literal view of the rules instead of an interpreted-as-they-were-intended view.

To an earlier point, scc had mentioned enchanting rules in DF... is this a layer supplement, cause I could have sworn the early ones had “PCs don’t enchant. Period.” on the spell list.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by scc

Anthony's calculations also have other problems,
he assumes that One-College Only Powerstones can be used for Enchanting,
which shouldn't work one the item produced belongs to another College

I believe when you create say a "wand of fireball" that you're actually just using the spell "Enchantment". I don't think you're using the spell "fireball". So I think a "Powerstone of Enchantment" would help make one, while a "Powerstone of Fire" would not, although the Powerstone of Fire could be attached to the Wand of Fire to help power the fireballs once it was made.

M56 says "Cost and Time: See Enchanting (p. 16)." which I think means you're powering the Enchantment spell, not whatever spell it is imparting.

Sometimes the max skill you can have with a spell is limited to another spell you are working with. Counterspell (M121) works that way, for example.

Even though you roll vs the lower of Counterspell or the spell you're countering, you're only casting Counterspell, so only Meta-Only Powerstones could fuel it. You couldn't use Fire-Only Powerstones to cast Counterspell against Create Fire, as far as I know, and I think that's how Enchantment works.

That said... there should totally be some kind of perk for being able to count Counterspell as a member of whatever college the spell it's negating is part of. A guy with Magery (One College Only: Fire) being unable to use Counterspell against Create Fire seems off somehow. The "Meta" college seems like maybe it should have more options with fitting into other schools.

Perhaps some kind of variant like "Fire-Only Counterspell" where it is Average instead of Hard, only works against fire spells, and counts as a member of EITHER the Meta or Fire college?

Originally Posted by scc

and that you don't actually need to use valuables for the Powerstone to work, which kind breaks the name. It also ignores Raise Cone of Power spell.

Powerstones don't need to be made from expensive stuff if you're willing to pay a higher energy cost to create them.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by scc

... you don't actually need to use valuables for the Powerstone to work, which kind breaks the name.

What? In what way does 'power' or 'stone' say 'bling-bling'? 'Powerstone' as a name is a holdover from earlier editions in which you had to use gemstones of value, which was optioned out towards the end of 3e and done away with completely in 4e.

The name should have been changed to 'Power Item', but that's an argument that goes hand in hand with "4e Magic needs a lot more editing".

Originally Posted by Plane

I believe when you create say a "wand of fireball" that you're actually just using the spell "Enchantment". I don't think you're using the spell "fireball". So I think a "Powerstone of Enchantment" would help make one, while a "Powerstone of Fire" would not, although the Powerstone of Fire could be attached to the Wand of Fire to help power the fireballs once it was made.

Exactly. Enchantment is using Enchant (or one of the other Enchantment College spells) despite it possibly being restricted in level by a lower non-Enchantment spell.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by talonthehand

RAI - Rules As Intended, as opposed to Rules As Written. I think he linked to the comic to show an example of what happens when you take a literal view of the rules instead of an interpreted-as-they-were-intended view.

The change in 4e to rules about what you can use for "Powerstones" looks very deliberate as opposed to random and I have no doubt the Line editor signed off on exactly the words seen in 4e. There's no way they can _not_ be Rules As (he) Intended.

I beleive the objecting gentleman is in soem realm of "Rules As I Beleive They Should Be" but that doesn't make a catchy TLA.

The comic looked to me like an example of persons creating a very complex set of rules without considering all the possible combinations. nothign to do with making one change to the Powerstone rules. Incidentally, I have done some of those unexpected FEAT combinations in D&D 3.5 so I know how that goes.