[Magic] Double Checking Some Rules Mistakes

[scc]

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.

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.

I thought everyone knew what RAW and RAI where, and while your are correct that PC enchantment is not allowed, but between the details we get in DF1 (I think) plus some Kromm post(s) we know that even in DF worlds the enchanters are only contributing 10 energy each and have very low skill.

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.

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?

Given that your skill with Fireball still counts it's rather doubtful, but given that Enchantment Only Magery exists I don't think this holds up

Originally Posted by evileeyore

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".

The stone part of the name comes from the practice of using gemstones.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

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.

I'm going to not-exactly disagree, I think your casting both.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

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.

As evileeyore points out Magic is rather infamous for not having a proper editing cycle, it was likely added as a way of throwing a bone to people who didn't have a lot of money without thinking about the consequences, which actually matches up really well with the comic page I linked to.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by scc

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.

Enchantment only involves casting one spell (enchant), and in any case, the standard for spells that are in two colleges is that you can is that you can treat it as being in either spell. For example, a one-college stone (mind control) could be used to cast Keen Ears, as could a one-college (sound) stone.

Originally Posted by talonthehand

RAI - Rules As Intended, as opposed to Rules As Written.

While it's possible that the rules are dumb, there's nothing accidental about that text.

Originally Posted by scc

I'm going to not-exactly disagree, I think your casting both.

If you were casting two spells there would be two rolls.

FWIW, raise cone of power does make powerstone irrelevant and probably just causes enchantment costs to be $1 per energy up to 800 (practical limit of Q&D due to long task penalties), and represents much worse 'what were they thinking?' than cheap powerstones.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Anthony;2294715

While it's possible that the rules are [i

dumb[/i], there's nothing accidental about that text.

There are so few changes between Magic 3e and 4e that the changes that did show up have to be pretty deliberate. The Power"stone" thing is more a change in flavor anyway changing the favor of powerstones to something the 4e team liked better. It might even make the math simpler.

Single College Magery and accompanying powerstones might have been better candidates for getting the chop. Of course it's the new "Regular Spells scale up costs with the SM" rule that's the real crit fail.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Of course it's the new "Regular Spells scale up costs with the SM" rule that's the real crit fail.

I think it used to scale costs with linear dimension or number of hexes, not sure which, but in any case you could shatter planets with Enlarge Object even back in 3e.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by scc

Given that your skill with Fireball still counts it's rather doubtful, but given that Enchantment Only Magery exists I don't think this holds up

What type of spell is being cast is an important consideration not just for One-College Powerstones, but also F129's "Divided Magery" where you take limits based on allocating your FP to only be spendable on casting certain colleges.

Your skill with fireball caps your skill at casting a Meta College spell like Counterspell, so I think it just caps your skill at casting an Enchantment College spell like Enchantment too.

I don't hate the idea of treating item creation as both instead of just one or the other, but then I think (like if you were casting a spell that appeared in 2 colleges, such as Lich being both Enchantment and Necromancy) that the way it would probably work is that you could fuel the creation of a Wand of Fireball with EITHER a Powerstone of Fire or a Powerstone of Enchantment, not just unrestricted stones.

Now I'm starting to wonder how it works with spells that belong to 2 colleges and limited magery...

If I had Magery 10 (Necromancy Only) and Magery 5 (Enchantment Only) for example, would I get +15 to Lich (both combined) or +10 to Lich (the better of the two?)

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Plane

Now I'm starting to wonder how it works with spells that belong to 2 colleges and limited magery...

If I had Magery 10 (Necromancy Only) and Magery 5 (Enchantment Only) for example, would I get +15 to Lich (both combined) or +10 to Lich (the better of the two?)

Given that magery 5 (Necromancy) plus magery 5 (enchantment) costs more than magery 5 (unrestricted), they'd better stack, so yes, you get +15.