[RPM] a collection of questions

[johndallman]

It seems worthwhile having a thread for the quantities of minor questions that will get asked.

Originally Posted by T:RPM, p15

3. Spells cannot make anyone better at using magic.

Presumably, raising IQ, which will raise skills, is allowed? If not, those capable of spellcasting would seem to be immune to something that works on normal people.

[PK]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Presumably, raising IQ, which will raise skills, is allowed? If not, those capable of spellcasting would seem to be immune to something that works on normal people.

There are no prohibitions against increasing attributes or secondary characteristics, only against them improving spellcasting ability. For example, you can raise someone's FP, but he cannot then sacrifice those FP to fuel a spell. The equivalent ruling here is that you can raise a caster's IQ, it just won't improve his Path skills in any way.

[vierasmarius]

Am I right that the same does not apply to hampering another's ability to use magic? Lowering IQ or Magery, giving a direct penalty to Path rolls, etc. The prohibition is against improving Magic via Magic, but a spell can be used to cripple someone else's spellcasting.

[PK]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Am I right that the same does not apply to hampering another's ability to use magic? Lowering IQ or Magery, giving a direct penalty to Path rolls, etc. The prohibition is against improving Magic via Magic, but a spell can be used to cripple someone else's spellcasting.

Yes. From p. 15: "A ritual can never give a bonus to spellcasting, bestow Magery or Ritual Adept, etc. (It could add Magic Resistance or drain Magery, however.)"

[Dragondog]

"Greater Sense Body can reveal a person’s full genealogy" (p. 7)

How far back does that go? The creation of the world? The first human (by whatever definition)? Something else?

And would that only be ancestors or would that be (great grand) uncle, aunts, and cousins too?

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Dragondog

"Greater Sense Body can reveal a person’s full genealogy" (p. 7)

How far back does that go? The creation of the world? The first human (by whatever definition)? Something else?

And would that only be ancestors or would that be (great grand) uncle, aunts, and cousins too?

Yes. It's a Greater Effect. It could probably go beyond your current species ("I really am descended from monkeys!")

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

Yes. It's a Greater Effect. It could probably go beyond your current species ("I really am descended from monkeys!")

How much would you be able to tell from a Lesser Effect? Just a person's parentage?

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

How much would you be able to tell from a Lesser Effect? Just a person's parentage?

Yeah. "Is this the king's offspring?" would be a fair example. But you could probably get away with anything a normal DNA test could find. You could even look at it like this: a Lesser effect would let you perform one particular medical test, while a Greater effect would let you perform all tests of a related type. So Lesser effect "You are not the father!"; Greater effect "You are not the father! He has cancer from radiation damage, and of yeah, you're kids are probably going to be born with [foo] condition."

[vierasmarius]

Okay, here's something that I didn't see addressed in RPM's discussion of variants, but is pertinent to (for example) Mage: The Ascension or AD&D-based settings. RPM assumes that, while Magery is necessary for skilled spellcasting, anyone with a point in Thaumatology (or whatever skill serves as the core for that magic style) can attempt to cast spells at default. In many settings that's just not the case. How game-breaking would it be to make it so those without Magery 0 can't cast spells at all, rather than casting at -5?

Also, what if the setting has intrinsic limitations on certain types of spellcasting? For example in AD&D, creating new spells is certainly possible but is a long and arduous process. This is partly covered by limiting the mage's Ritual Adept advantages, so they require extra time and facilities when creating spells. But if it also requires difficult Invention rolls, it's a significant limitation compared to standard RPM. Should this have any impact on the cost of playing a mage?

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Okay, here's something that I didn't see addressed in RPM's discussion of variants, but is pertinent to (for example) Mage: The Ascension or AD&D-based settings. RPM assumes that, while Magery is necessary for skilled spellcasting, anyone with a point in Thaumatology (or whatever skill serves as the core for that magic style) can attempt to cast spells at default. In many settings that's just not the case. How game-breaking would it be to make it so those without Magery 0 can't cast spells at all, rather than casting at -5?

Not very much. In one campaign, I made it a requirement to have Illuminated before spells could be cast. Just keep in mind that magic becomes rarer (which is the goal you're aiming for I assume).

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Also, what if the setting has intrinsic limitations on certain types of spellcasting? For example in AD&D, creating new spells is certainly possible but is a long and arduous process. This is partly covered by limiting the mage's Ritual Adept advantages, so they require extra time and facilities when creating spells. But if it also requires difficult Invention rolls, it's a significant limitation compared to standard RPM. Should this have any impact on the cost of playing a mage?

I don't understand. Spells are not learned, Path skills are. If you have a particular Path skill that covers a spell ... you can cast it. You might require this for Ritual Mastery perks or even if one Path has never been discovered before then, but not for spells themselves.