Enchantment only Spells

[Christopher R. Rice]

So I have a idea for my setting that I am a bit stumped on. I have in my current party roster a PC-enchanter from what amounts to the enchanters guild of the setting. And after flipping through GURPS Thaumatology a bit the characters player asked me a question that made a odd sort of sense: Can a mage learn a "enchantment only" version of a spell at a decreased difficulty if their Magery doesn't have the "Enchantment only" limitation?

That is a darn good question! I am thinking yes, they can, the utility of the spell itself would be reduced enough that it would be a attractive option to "lab mages" who still want a versatility (i.e. have regular magery not enchantment only). This would mean that VH > H and H > A.

Alternatively, what about a mage with the "Enchantment Only" option on their magery being able to ignore prerequisites?


Still as always what does the hivemind think?

Ghostdancer

[Barghaest]

Be a good option for designing a Magic Style out of the Thaumaturgy Companion to reorder pre-reqs for Enchantment Only versions... as for just doing it on the fly that'd be a GM call... I personally would still make them learn pre-reqs studying magic as written but if I took the time to design a style for it I might trim some of them for the style...

On the other point, I don't see why not. They could still learn regular spells having Magery but if they wanted to learn the Enchantment Only version of a spell just to enchant, I think that'd be allowable.

[rosignol]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

Still as always what does the hivemind think?

IMO, a PC with 'enchantment only' as a limitation on Magery should get a significant discount (>50%) on the cost of Magery, but I don't see why learning the spell would be any easier (it's the same spell, after all...) or why they would be able to ignore prerequisites.

Spend the points saved by the discount on extra (discounted) levels of Magery and the relevant skill will be a point or two higher, which amounts to the same result.

I wouldn't worry about it all that much, my experience with PC enchanters has been that the people playing them tend to find it unsatisfying once they realize just how much time the character will be unable to spend adventuring because he's busy working on an enchantment. Of course, I use the one-mage-day-per-point-of-energy rule, if you've modified that, all bets are off.

[weby]

Has never come up in my games, But I would likely allow a enchantment only version of a spell as optional specialisation(thus one step easier making it average or hard instead of hard or very hard). But that spell would then only count as prereq to other enchantment only versions of spells not normal versions.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

So I have a idea for my setting that I am a bit stumped on. I have in my current party roster a PC-enchanter from what amounts to the enchanters guild of the setting. And after flipping through GURPS Thaumatology a bit the characters player asked me a question that made a odd sort of sense: Can a mage learn a "enchantment only" version of a spell at a decreased difficulty if their Magery doesn't have the "Enchantment only" limitation?

That is a darn good question! I am thinking yes, they can, the utility of the spell itself would be reduced enough that it would be a attractive option to "lab mages" who still want a versatility (i.e. have regular magery not enchantment only). This would mean that VH > H and H > A.

Alternatively, what about a mage with the "Enchantment Only" option on their magery being able to ignore prerequisites?


Still as always what does the hivemind think?

Ghostdancer

If it were my campaign, my answer would be "no" to the first. Enchantment isn't the easy part of learning a spell. Not sure about the second.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Barghaest

Be a good option for designing a Magic Style out of the Thaumaturgy Companion to reorder pre-reqs for Enchantment Only versions... as for just doing it on the fly that'd be a GM call... I personally would still make them learn pre-reqs studying magic as written but if I took the time to design a style for it I might trim some of them for the style...

Basically that is exactly what I am doing, however I don't want to put "all other spells allowed in campaign" under the optional skills heading. That along with my Player, got me thinking of a enchantment only spell variation.

Originally Posted by Barghaest

On the other point, I don't see why not. They could still learn regular spells having Magery but if they wanted to learn the Enchantment Only version of a spell just to enchant, I think that'd be allowable.

Well under the Spell Creation rules in Magic it states that a spell and its enchantment are basically two different skills (for creating them only) and that creating the enchantment is a bit harder (it adds a additional -12 to the skill roll), thus spells are sort of like two skills in one (but not actually two skills!)

Originally Posted by rosignol

IMO, a PC with 'enchantment only' as a limitation on Magery should get a significant discount (>50%) on the cost of Magery, but I don't see why learning the spell would be any easier (it's the same spell, after all...) or why they would be able to ignore prerequisites.

Spend the points saved by the discount on extra (discounted) levels of Magery and the relevant skill will be a point or two higher, which amounts to the same result.

Enchantment only is a -30% discount on Magery, and the PC would have taken it but they do other stuff as well with Magic so that just doesnt work for the character.

Originally Posted by Barghaest

I wouldn't worry about it all that much, my experience with PC enchanters has been that the people playing them tend to find it unsatisfying once they realize just how much time the character will be unable to spend adventuring because he's busy working on an enchantment. Of course, I use the one-mage-day-per-point-of-energy rule, if you've modified that, all bets are off.

Nope. I use a all the normal rules as written, but the character has the Speed Enchantment and Quick and Focused perks. Combine this with the fact that she doesn't need to sleep and most 'small' items are within her reach for a couple of days. PC enchanters are very doable, you just have to know what to take to make it so.

Originally Posted by weby

Has never come up in my games, But I would likely allow a enchantment only version of a spell as optional specialisation(thus one step easier making it average or hard instead of hard or very hard). But that spell would then only count as prereq to other enchantment only versions of spells not normal versions.

Thats essentially what I was driving at. The combat utility of the spell is gone, but the item creation aspect is still there. It wouldn't count as a spell in any prereq chain other than other enchantment only spells. So at first blush my gut 'seems alright'

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

If it were my campaign, my answer would be "no" to the first. Enchantment isn't the easy part of learning a spell. Not sure about the second.

Hmmm. Why? If I can ask. What part of the spell would be easiest? The actual spell?

Ghostdancer

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

Hmmm. Why? If I can ask. What part of the spell would be easiest? The actual spell?

Ghostdancer

It seems to me that enchantment is the higher order, more complex magic. By the principles underlying GURPS Magic, that one has to understand the basics before moving onto the more complex even if one doesn't use the basics for anything, making the enchantment easier to learn than just casting the spell seems wrong. But I have considered allowing enchanters who don't know a spell to work with people who do to create an enchantment.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

It seems to me that enchantment is the higher order, more complex magic. By the principles underlying GURPS Magic, that one has to understand the basics before moving onto the more complex even if one doesn't use the basics for anything, making the enchantment easier to learn than just casting the spell seems wrong.

Huh. Good point. I don't really agree, but a good point. I think that both would probably be just as hard to learn, though the bulk of the difficulty would probably rest on the spell itself, after all once you learn how to create a magical effect, 'imprinting' it on a object should be substantially easier after you learn how to 'imprint' (i.e. the Enchant spell)

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

But I have considered allowing enchanters who don't know a spell to work with people who do to create an enchantment.

Now see, on this we agree. This annoys me to the Nth degree, if your main enchanter knows the spell, why do you need to know it as well if you are participating in a circle? Your basically just supplying energy right? (unless I have severely misread how that works, which is possible). How would you handle that? Let them participate in S&S as a normal mage and allow only a specific number of FP to be pumped into Q&D? Or some other different schema.

Ghostdancer

[malloyd]

It seems to me that to make an item that allows the spell to be cast, you would have to know everything required to cast the spell. It might make sense for those spells where the item does something different than that.

It's probably not a particularly efficient use of points even if you permit it. If you are planning to take more than a handful of them, you'd get the same +1 to them, plus whatever other minor benefits come with it, from buying 1 more level of Magery with the enchantment only limitation.

[Captain-Captain]

As an alternate way of doing this, and taking the Enchant spell out of play in the procedss, we making enchanting (Spell) a technique Defaults to Spell -7 (standard penalty for a Very Hard skill). You have to have the Tecnique known at skill 15/20 in low mana regions and the rules established for enchanting still apply otherwise.

This will have the in game effect of allowing any spell caster to enchant an item providing the technique is learned at a high enough level. Specifically, it's possible for a non-mage character who knows a basic spell to go into a High or Very High Mana region and enchant an item.