Showing posts with label magic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label magic. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

[Fate Core] It's Skill Pyramids All the Way Down

WIZARD!
I had a thought over on RPG.net today on sub-pyramids of skills, so I figured I'd expand on it here.

Then I had further thought on the same thing, and suddenly it was skill pyramids all the way down. But we'll get to that soon enough.

First, let's say you have a skill that's important enough to your game that you really want to drill down into what it can do. Piloting, fencing, and magic are the first things that spring to mind for me. I'll go with magic, because the first two will entail a lot more thought and crunchiness. So we have a skill called Magic. It's about magic stuff.

Come up with a number of distinct things -- around 10 -- that the skill can do. "Distinct things" will vary depending on personal preference, game world, and campaign. For magic, I'd go with schools, and for the sake of convenience and my familiarity with the subject, let's say they're the nine schools of 2nd edition AD&D: Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, Evocation, etc. (They used these in 3.X too, right? Anyway. That's neither here nor there.) I'm calling these specialties for now.

You also have these specialties in a pyramid, with an apex equal to your Magic skill. So if you have Fair (+2) Magic, your Magic pyramid might look like this:
Fair (+2): Evocation 
Average (+1): Invocation, Transmutation
Three slots in your pyramid, three schools of magic.

If you have Great (+4) Magic, you have skill in all schools of magic -- a wizard's wizard, who puts the study of the magical arts above all else. That might look like this:
Great (+4): Evocation
Good (+3): Invocation, Transmutation 
Fair (+2): Enchantment, Divination, Abjuration
Average (+1): Conjuration, Necromancy, Illusion
When you cast a spell, you don't roll your Magic skill -- you roll your specialty skill. So if you're casting a fireball, you'd roll your Great (+4) Evocation. If you're casting phantasmal killer, you'd roll your Average (+1) Illusion. Etc. Probably the only time you'd roll Magic is to know stuff in general about magic.

What do these specialties do? Give 'em some Fate Core actions, as appropriate. No need to define them more than that. Evocation overcomes by blowing stuff up, creates advantages by blowing stuff up, and attacks by blowing stuff up.

This is the part that goes rather completely crazy, in my opinion. Once you have this secondary pyramid, you make a tertiary pyramid for each of these schools of magic. What's in these skill pyramids? Not skills -- spells. Since this is already so AD&D-heavy anyway, open up your PHB and take your spells right from there.

So for Evocation, this wizard's wizard above would have 10 Evocation spells, rated from +1 to +4. For Divination, they'd have three spells. And so on.

Yeah! You're right! That is a lot of spells to keep track of. An ungainly number. It's ridiculous! See, I told you it was crazy. It's more a thought exercise than anything else.

There are a couple more reasonable approaches to this. One is to make the schools individual skills (instead of specialties), and then make spells the specialties. E.g., you have Good (+3) Evocation, which means you can have a Good (+3) Fireball, Fair (+2) Burning Hands and Melf's Acid Arrow, etc.

Another way is to ditch the whole "school" thing and instead go with types of magic, like Fire, Water, Air, Earth, and Death or something. Each of those is a skill, and spells are specialties -- but probably not cribbed from AD&D. I'd make them player-defined, then build the spells as custom skills in the style of Atomic Robo. Maybe you have n points to spend on making those spells, where n is determined by your skill rating.

(BTW, if you're an ARRPG playtester and any of the above reminds you of modes, it's sheer coincidence.)

This has nothing to do with skill sub-pyramids, but: Another way to go would be to have spells as stunts, possibly as stunts you could swap out via some sort of spellbook mechanism. So whether have you have schools of magic as skills or specialties, you can roll Evocation, Abjuration, and Divination all day long to do whatever it is you do with those schools (according to their actions), but then you might also have stunts that stretch those boundaries a bit. For example:
Fireball: When attacking with Evocation, spend a fate point to affect everyone in the targeted zone.
Shield: +2 to Abjuration when defending against physical attacks.
Discern Location: Spend a fate point and specify one creature you've seen or object you've touched. You know the location of that creature or object unerringly and in exacting detail, even if it's on another continent, planet, or plane of existence.
 Anyway. Back to Robo.

Saturday, July 28, 2012

[Greyhawk] Magic Resistance

Spirit of Greyhawk has been proceeding slower than I’d like, though it is still occurring! Now that most of the larger blocks of mechanics have been translated, the challenge has been to keep the Fate’s design fractal intact as I get the point of “filling in the blanks”. In other words, I’ve been trying to avoid creating new mechanics in SoG, even if the source material did.

My most recent instance of this fractal challenge has been Magic Resistance and consistency with Armor.

In the source material, Magic Resistance and Armor effectively do the same thing--make the possessor harder to hit. The distinctions between them are what's being used for the attack and the specific mechanic for that determination. So the attacker has to roll to hit then if the hit is successful, only then do you take damage into account. Neither provides a reduction in damage--only a reduction in the chance of taking damage.

SoG already reflects that Armor reduces the number of shifts of damage done, which seemed important as degree of success and damage are linked to the same roll in the Fate mechanic. While inconsistent with SoG’s source material, it has playtested pretty well. Stated differently, I don’t like the source material’s mechanic for “Armor Class” enough to translate it into Fate as is.

My initial take on Magic Resistance was more consistent with the source material: an additional chance that a magic effect has no impact. Initially I felt it was necessary to bring this assumption over intact because in the world of Greyhawk, the great consensus is that a 20% resistance has as much chance to resist a 1st level spell as it does a 3rd level spell. It turns out that this is not an entirely accurate assumption--in order to play the game as it was written, Magic Resistance is adjusted up or down depending upon the level of the spellcaster (DMG, p. 228)

Reviewing that definition for Magic Resistance gave me the following assumptions about how it acts in the gameworld:

  - Magic Resistance is separate from Saving Throw (i.e., opposed skill roll).
  - Magic Resistance can negate a magic effect BEFORE any opposed skill roll is rolled.
  - More powerful magic users can reduce or entirely offset the value of the magic resistance.
  - Magic Resistance is more effective against less powerful magic users.

So for me there was a decision point in translation: Accuracy or Consistency?

Here’s two different ways it might be handled in Fate. One is more accurate to the source material and one is more consistent (fractal) with existing mechanics.

“More Accurate” Magic Resistance

Translating the Magic Resistance Value

The source material is expressed in the source material as a percentage.  The defender must then roll that value or less.  To turn that into a 4dF difficulty that must be met or exceeded (as per the normal SotC mechanic), you could do the following:
10% Magic Resistance is +4
20% Magic Resistance is +3
30% Magic Resistance is +2
40% Magic Resistance is +1
50% Magic Resistance is 0
60% Magic Resistance is –1
70% Magic Resistance is –2
80% Magic Resistance is –3
90% Magic Resistance is –4
100% Magic Resistance is -5
This means that in its most basic form, something with 80% Magic Resistance must roll -3 or better on 4dF in order to resist the magical effect.

Basic Rule

When a magic effect impacts something with Magic Resistance, the defender rolls the dice TWICE:
The first die roll is to determine if Magic Resistance cancels the magical effect.  If Magic Resistance does not work then the defender rolls again... 
The second die roll (if the defender’s Magic Resistance fails) is for the defender’s Opposed Skill Roll.
The defender rolls the 4dF and if the roll MEETS or EXCEEDS the difficulty the defender is immune to the magic effect.

You could accomplish a similar effect by only rolling dice a single time and then translating that roll in those two contexts, but it didn’t seem to have the right “feel”.

Adjusting Magic Resistance

The skill of the caster has an effect on a defender’s Magic Resistance.  To be consistent with the source material (again, DMG, p.228) and some of the other general assumptions that SoG makes about levels of skill/power, adjust the Magic Resistance (as above) by the following rule:
Subtract 5 from the power of the Magical Effect and apply the difference to the Magic Resistance’s "difficulty".
Examples:
Spell Power +3 - (5) = -2 to the difficulty (makes it less difficult to resist)
Spell Power +6 - (5) = +1 to the difficulty (makes it more difficult to resist)
So putting it all together you’d have the following scenario:
Defender has a “base” 10% Magic Resistance, which means rolling +4 (or better) on 4dF.
Defender is targeted by a spell with a power of +4, which then adjusts the defender’s Magic Resistance to be:
+4 (Spell Power) - 5 = -1 modifier to the Magic Resistance of +4 = +3 or better must be rolled.
Defender rolls +2 on 4dF, so Magic Resistance doesn’t work and then the Defender rolls his Opposed Skill Roll (as per normal).

The Bottom Line

Though this feels like a fairly accurate translation, I don’t think it’s playable “enough”.

“More Consistent” Magic Resistance

Going to back a previous statement, there’s the gameworld assumption that Magic Resistance is similar to mundane Armor.  So this translation considers Magic Resistance consistent with Armor, just used against magical effects instead of mundane attacks.

Translating Magic Resistance

A closer translation of Fate Shifts to a 100% scale, means that each shift is worth between 15% and 20%.  For ease of translation, let’s stick with using 20% = +1 shift.
+1 Magic Resistance equates to Magic Resistance 1% to 20%.
+2 Magic Resistance equates to Magic Resistance 21% to 40%.
+3 Magic Resistance equates to Magic Resistance 41% to 60%.
+4 Magic Resistance equates to Magic Resistance 61% to 80%.
+5 Magic Resistance equates to Magic Resistance 81% to 100%.
By virtue of Fate's different level of granularity, there’s a bit of a fudge factor there especially in the 81% and up range, but I think it’s balanced out during play (see below).  So the reduction in shifts of effect is not entirely accurate with source material, it is more consistent with the changes that were made to mundane armor.

Basic Rule

Magic Resistance applies the shifts in the same way as armor protects from mundane attacks.
Example:
A creature with Magic Resistance listed in the source material as 40% (worth +2 in SoG) is attacked by a spell generated by a Wizard with a Magic skill of +4.
The Wizard casts the spell, the player rolls 4dF and gets +1 for a total of:  Skill (Magic +4) + Dice (4dF, +1) = Magical Power of +5
The creature has an opposing skill (let's say Willpower) of +2 and rolls +2 on 4dF.  Including the Magic Resistance, the opposed result is:   Skill (Willpower +2) + Dice (4dF, +2) + Magic Resistance (+2) = +6
The creature's +6 is greater than the Magical Power of +5 and the spell has no effect on the creature.

The Bottom Line

Though this translation allows for a reduction of magic effect (which doesn't exist in the source material), it is still consistent with what I think is the more important gameworld assumptions, is consistent with mundane armor and avoids the creation of another modified mechanic.

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

[Anglerre] Gettin' Medieval

So! Because I just listened to this Yog-Sothoth podcast recording of the Cubicle 7 panel from Dragonmeet and my name was mentioned, I figure I can go ahead and talk about this thing I'm working on.

It's a supplement for Legends of Anglerre focused on France in the early-ish Middle Ages, from the crowning of Charlemagne in 768 to the crowning of William the Conqueror (or "the Bastard," depending on your political affiliations) in 1066. There's a lot going on in those 300-ish years, and I don't know if I've ever seen an RPG product that's really tried to cover it.

We're going for a mostly historical version of France, but with mythical and otherwise supernatural elements included as easily integrated options. Magic will be handled as the people of the time would've understood it -- i.e., largely concerned with demons, and the consorting therewith. The alchemy fad hadn't really hit Europe yet, but contact with the East was pretty common, so we'll likely include some material on that, too. Of course, the LOA magic system makes this a pretty simple thing to do, so whatever your magic preferences, it probably won't take up much of the book (because it won't need to).

Some things you can expect to do with this material:
  • Fight off Saracens as Charlemagne's paladins
  • Investigate injustice as members of the missi dominici
  • Defend Paris from Vikings (or try, anyway)
  • Take up arms in one of many civil wars
  • Hunt down long-lost (or stolen!) relics
  • Battle the Tarasque
  • Betray Roland!
  • And much, much more which isn't so combat-oriented, honest
Anyway, I'm super-excited about it and neck-deep in research, which accounts for my long periods of silence on the ol' blog(s) here. That high-school French is really paying off!

Saturday, November 12, 2011

[Fantasy] Another Magic Idea

Sometimes -- on a pretty regular basis, even -- a post will appear on RPG.net to the effect of "I'm interested in FATE, but is there a good, simple, easy magic system for it?" I'm not sure why FATE in particular seems to attract this kind of inquiry so often. Occasionally, someone will ask something similar about Savage Worlds, but rarely does it come up with regards to most other generic systems.

Sure as the changing of the seasons, one such thread popped up a couple days ago, prompting myself and others to chime in with the usual round of responses. Specifically, the poster, disturbingly named irate fetus, was looking for "preferably something along the lines of DnD levels/spells per day." Fair enough.

Many responded to the call, including me, because I'm a sucker for that (and because it was pretty easy to plug Guy's Spirit of Greyhawk stuff on this very blog, which goes after AD&D-style "levels/spells per day" as a point of design). Building on something TheUnshaven suggested, and with helpful advice from TheMouse, I came up with something that also incorporated some of my own long-neglected, half-formed ideas. I think it's worth exploring here on the blog.

Suppose there is a magic-oriented skill called, I dunno, Magic. What you can do with this skill is determined by a magic-related aspect you have, like "Druid" or "Fire Mage" or something.

Give yourself a second skill pyramid that peaks at your Magic skill rating. So if you have Good (+3) Magic, your pyramid's apex is Good (+3). This is your spell pyramid. It has one Good (+3) slot, two Fair (+2) slots, and three Average (+1) slots. So far, they're all blank.

Every time you cast a spell, you claim one of the spell pyramid's slots, and use its rating as a bonus to your roll, just as if it were a skill. When you're out of blank slots, you're out of spells to cast for the day.

You know a number of spells equal to your Magic skill rating. Again, if it's Good (+3), you know three spells. Write 'em down. They only have to be names, and you only have to have a general idea about what they do -- don't sweat the details. So if your magic aspect is "Fire Mage," for example, your spells might be Fireball, Wall of Fire, and Flaming Bolt.

When you cast a spell, pick one of your spells and say what it's doing. It can Attack, Defend, Maneuver, Assess, or Block -- the standard FATE stuff. Whatever it is, it has to make sense within the confines of your general idea of what the spell does. You'll have a hard time Assessing with Fireball, for example, but an easy time Blocking with Wall of Fire. However, if you want to Attack with Wall of Fire, go ahead. It makes sense, after all, seeing as how it's on fire. You just won't be able to Block with it as well.

(Could you work in two effects, like Attacking and Blocking? Probably, if you spend a Fate Point. That seems reasonable. Still has to make sense, though.)

If you manage to get more than one magic aspect, like "Pyromancy" and "Divination," you get to write down another batch of spells befitting the new aspect, which means more types of things to do with your spell pyramid. How do you get magic aspects? Maybe with a stunt. That also seems reasonable.

You might prefer to have multiple magic-related skills instead, like a Pyromancy skill and a Divination skill, with attached aspects. This is perfectly natural and nothing to be ashamed of. In that case, the spell pyramid's apex is equal to the highest magic skill you have, but the rating of the spell pyramid slot for a given spell can't exceed its related skill rating. So if you have Good (+3) Pyromancy and Average (+1) Divination, you can use any slot for Pyromancy, but only the Average (+1) slots for Divination.

There is still the question of how these spell slots work, in terms of their ratings. Is that the only bonus you add to your roll, or do you add it and your Magic (or Pyromancy or etc.) skill? The latter seems a little unbalanced, although if you have a different skill for each sphere of magic, it also seems kinda necessary. Otherwise, those skills are just taking up real estate in your skill pyramid, and that's no fun. With a singular Magic skill, though, that skill could be used as a sort of magical Academics -- knowing about magic, as opposed to applying it. I suppose the same could be done with more specialized skills, but you probably wouldn't get as much use out of them.

The last piece of the puzzle is how to clear those spell slots so they can be reused. There needs to be a way. Obviously, sleeping for the night should do it, especially if we're kinda trying to emulate D&D, but I also want you to be able to clear them on the fly, in the heat of the moment. My initial ideas for that bordered on punitive -- that's our me! -- but TheMouse quickly set me straight by mixing together two of them.
The more mathematically sound way seems to be that you can clear up a spell slot with a rank equal to or less than the number of shifts your sacrificed Consequences are worth, +2 for each fate point expenditure. So if you do a Minor (2) and a single fate point, you can clear out a spell slot worth up to +4.
That sounds pretty good.

So that's the gist of it. If I have a more concrete application for it at some point, I'll do more with it, but for now it's something for you to fold, spindle, or mutilate, as you will. Comments welcome, of course.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

[Greyhawk] Translating Spells into Fate

In an earlier post, I laid out three possible approaches to translating the source material’s spells into the Fate mechanic. I had also stated that SoG would be closer to the “faithful recreation” end of the spectrum with respect to translating spells.

Specifically, spell layouts and the general expectations of what spells did were to stay consistent, while the properties and the implementation of those magical effects were what was translated into Fate mechanics.

Rather than just throw out translated spells, I’d rather share SoG’s translation guidelines and “teach a man to fish.”

Translating Time and Distances

The source material looks at distances and time differently depending upon where the party is located (PHB, p. 102). SoG will apply only one standard, based on “city” or “dungeon” environments.

Both “Time” and “Distance” could be posts by themselves, so the information here is limited only to what is necessary to translating spells.

Translating Time

The source material’s most granular unit of time is 6 seconds (1 Segment) and SoG will consider that the equivalent of a single Fate “exchange” (or Full Action). While I think that 6 seconds to cover only a single combat exchange is a bit long, it’s not bad enough to warrant trying to make a more complicated translation.

There’s also a translation challenge associated with the Time Ladder—it’s story-centric. In other words, each rung of the ladder does not reflect the same amount of time. I’m not going to cover the entire Time Ladder in this post, but here are guidelines dealing with the lower end of the ladder, where each line is another “rung.”

Source Material Casting

SoG Time Ladder

“Actual” Time in Game

Instant

Action (not full action)

Maybe 3 seconds or less

1 Segment

Full Action (1 Exchange)

6 seconds

2 Segments

2 Exchanges

12 seconds

3 Segments to 1 round

3 Exchanges

18 seconds to 1 minute

1 round to 1 turn

Full Conflict

1 - 10 minutes

1 turn to 2 turns

Entire Scene

10 - 20 minutes

(The ladder goes further than this, but again this is enough for translation purposes.)

Translating Distance

Distance is used when considering both Area of Effect and Range.

Fred Hicks posted a great guideline about how to adapt Fate to 4e D&D maps (1 map square = 5 feet of game distance) that serves as the basis for SoG distance assumptions (which use older AD&D scales). SoG works with both zones and maps, but here’s the bottom line for purposes of SoG spell translation:

  • Most source material dungeon maps scale at 1 map square = 10 feet of game distance.
  • The source material expresses distance for spells (within a dungeon) as 1 inch = 10 feet of game distance.
  • 1 zone in SoG = 30 feet long & 30 feet wide, which is 3 map squares on each side.
  • When placing characters on a map (should your game choose to do that) the caster stands at the middle of a 3x3 square that represents the Fate “zone” currently occupied.

This means that melee attacks (range “Touch”) can only be executed on adjacent squares or a target occupying the same square as the caster.

SoG - ZoneExample02

Anything further than that requires either the caster to move or a Missile-type of attack. In other words, outside of the caster’s zone.

SoG - ZoneExample03

This means that in order for a spell to affect someone in the next zone, the spell must have a range of at least 2” (using the measure of distance as shown in the source material). In order to affect an entire zone of targets, the spell must have an Area of Effect of at least 3” square or radius (again, as shown in the source material).

Spell Components

Components in SoG represent requirements placed upon the spell caster in order to generate a spell’s effect. If one of those requirements cannot be met, the spell cannot be cast as Wizardry. Remember, trying to modify a formula on the fly turns the casting into sorcery.

Each category of component places a temporary aspect on the caster for the duration of the spell casting that could result in an additional difficulty.

These temporary aspects could be tagged by opponents seeking to attack the caster (while otherwise engaged) or to interrupt the spell. Relying on party members to provide blocks against such attempts would be important! It’s possible that they could even be compelled by the GM (see Material Components, below). Once the casting is completed, those aspects are no longer present.

As with other aspects, the frequency of compelling tends to be more according to dramatic opportunity rather than standard gaming procedure. For example, a GM would probably not compel a Wizard’s Material Component temporary aspect every time a spell is cast.

The source material states there are three categories of spell components, any or all of which could be required for the Wizard to cast a particular spell:

Verbal Components

The caster must speak certain magical words in order to cast the spell. SoG’s assumption is that the caster would likely have to speak at a normal tone or louder. This places a temporary aspect on the caster for the entire time the spell is being cast.

Example: A party is trying to hide from sentries, and the Wizard casts a spell with a Verbal component. The GM can then tag that aspect to give the sentries a +2 to Alertness.

Somatic Components

The caster must use certain gestures or movements in order to cast the spell. SoG’s assumption is that freedom of movement for both hands is required. This places a temporary aspect on the caster for the entire time the spell is being cast. Bear in mind that if the caster is forced to move during casting (for example, dives for cover), the Somatic Component is interrupted.

You could liken this to the experienced gunslinger stopping and standing still to reload his six-shooter, while an opponent's bullets are hitting all around him.

Example: A Wizard is being attacked while casting a spell with a Somatic component. For the duration of the casting the attacker could have access to the normal free tag of +2 to an attack, or pay Fate points after the free tag.

Material Components

The caster must expend certain magical reagents (Material Components) in order to cast the spell. The caster must be able to access these components during the casting, and this places a temporary aspect on the caster for the entire time the spell is being cast.

Rather than worry about specific material components, consider the collective rarity of the material components relative to the situation.

Currently SoG only uses three categories:

  • Common materials are something that would be readily available to the Wizard under normal circumstances.
    • Examples: Dirt, grease, chalk
  • Rare materials require effort on the part of the Wizard to obtain or require some sort of processing to manufacture/distill/etc.
    • Examples: Crystal, sulfur, mercury
  • Very Rare materials reflect something beyond the ability of most Wizards to create for themselves, or require an extreme effort to obtain.
    • Examples: Hair from the target, a True Name, gems of 10,000 gp value

This also serves as a guide as to how often this aspect might be compelled:

Example: If a Wizard has the aspect of “Impoverished”, and is attempting to cast a spell with “Very Rare” components, the GM could compel the Impoverished aspect and essentially block the casting by declaring the Wizard does not have the resources available to have those components at the time (and credit the Wizard a Fate Point).

Rarity also helps to determine the impact to the spell difficulty if a casting is attempted without their use:

  • Common material components will give a -1 decrease to difficulty if not available.
  • Rare material components will give a -2 decrease to difficulty if not available.
  • Very Rare material components will give a -3 decrease to difficulty if not available.

It's possible material components could venture in to the "Unique" realm for a greater decrease, but I would consider these sorts of things as high level treasure, seeking them out as the focus of one or more adventures.

The GM is ultimate arbiter for determining the relative benefit / rarity of components, but this post I wrote about treasure might be of use.

Translating Positive Shifts

Many spells have a variable (damage, duration, etc.). The measure of this variable will be dependent upon the number of positive shifts generated from casting the spell. Some spells have no variables based upon the roll of the dice. In that event, any positive shifts during casting are discarded.

Translating Effects

Obviously this is something of a case-by-case basis, but the general effect translation process for SoG goes something like this:

  1. Translate the spell effect into “reality”. In other words, assume the spell exists in the World of Greyhawk, and try to get something resembling a real-world understanding of it.
  2. From there, translate it into the Fate mechanic, keeping in mind the typical 2 levels (or 2 HD) equal an extra +1 on the Fate ladder.

I have found this process helps to keep the “feel” of the spell right.

Spell Translation Examples

Spell “Tenser’s Floating Disc”

Source Material Original

Level: 1
Range: 2"
Duration: 3 turns + I turn/level
Area of Effect: Special
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: I segment
Saving Throw: None

Explanation/Description: With this spell, the caster creates the circular plane of null-gravity known as Tenser's Floating Disc after the famed wizard of that appellation (whose ability to locate treasure and his greed to recover every copper found ore was well known). The disc is concave, 3' in diameter, and holds 1,000 g.p. weight per level of the magic-user casting the spell. The disc floats at approximately 3' above the ground at all times and remains level likewise. It maintains a constant interval of 6' between itself and the magic-user if unbidden. It will otherwise move within its range, as well as along with him at a rate of 6", at the command of the magic-user. If the spell caster moves beyond range, or if the spell duration expires, the floating disc winks out of existence and whatever it was supporting is precipitated to the surface beneath it. The material component of the spell is a drop of mercury.

SoG Translation

Skill: +1 Difficulty
Range: 20 feet (2 squares)
Duration: 30 mins + (20 mins * Skill level)
Area of Effect: See below
Components: V, S, M (Rare: drop of mercury)
Casting Time: Action (3 seconds or less)
Opposed by: n/a

Effect: Create a magical construct in the shape of a concave disc 3' in diameter that holds an amount of weight that can be expressed as either:

  1. 2,000 gp x Caster’s Skill Level
  2. 200 lbs x Caster’s Skill Level
  3. Might Skill of -1 (Poor) + (Caster’s Skill Level * 2)

All three represent the same weight, just expressed by 3 different standards.

It maintains a constant 6 foot distance (adjacent map square) to the caster unless otherwise stated by the caster's command, but the disc itself cannot push anything out of the way. It will remain at 3 feet off the ground, and stays level. If it is blocked from the caster and more than 20 feet (2 map squares) is put between them, the spell is broken.

If the spell is broken or expires, the disc construct dissipates and what ever was being carried by the disc falls as normal.

No positive shifts are considered for this spell, and unless in combat or otherwise challenged during casting, there is not a need to roll dice to cast this spell.

Example: Someone with a Wizard Skill +2, casts this spell and creates a floating disc that will last for 70 minutes (30 + (20 x 2)), and can carry 400 lbs (200 x 2) or has a Might of +3 (-1 + (2 x 2))

Example: Using Wizard Skill +7, this spell would create a floating disc that will last for 170 minutes (30 + (20 x 7)), and can carry 1,400 lbs (200 x 7) or has a Might of +13 (-1 + (7 x 2)). Or 14,000 gp, if there was a way to stack the gold pieces on the 3' diameter disc!

Design Notes:

  • One definition of weight (DMG, p.225) is that 10 gp = 1 pound. That means 1,000 gp = 100 lbs. The SotC Weight Factor table (SotC, p.258) reflects that a Might skill of "Poor" (-1) means being able to hold and move (slowly) with 100 lbs, which is the “base” capacity of the disc.
  • The variable in this spell is based upon the skill level of the Wizard, which then is used for both the "strength" of the spell's effect, as well as for the duration. Unless otherwise stated, when looking at a factor of "(something) per level" you don't just consider the Wizard's skill level, but rather the net result of the Wizard's skill level, the dice roll, and the impact of any aspects or other casting modifiers.
  • For this particular spell, any positive shifts during this casting are discarded. For game play purposes, unless someone was trying to interrupt the wizard this casting wouldn't require a dice roll.
  • Also remember that when dealing with a "per level" factor, every +1 of Wizard skill counts as two experience levels in the source material.

Spell “Magic Missile”

Source Material Original

Level: 1
Components: V, S
Range: 6" + 1"/level
Duration: Special
Saving Throw: None
Area of Effect: One or more creatures in a 10 square foot area
Casting Time: 1 segment

Explanation/Description: Use of the magic missile spell creates one or more magical missiles which dart forth from the magic-user's fingertip and unerringly strike their target. Each missile does 2 to 5 hit points (d4+1) of damage. If the magic-user has multiple missile capability, he or she can have them strike a single target creature or several creatures, as desired.

For each level of experience of the magic-user, the range of his or her magic missile extends 1" beyond the 6" base range. For every 2 positive shifts levels of experience, the magic-user gains an additional missile, i.e. 2 at 3rd level, 3 at 5th level, 4 at 7th level, etc.

SoG Translation

Skill: +1 Difficulty
Range: 60 feet + 20 feet / skill level
Components: Verbal, Somatic
Duration: Special
Area of Effect: One or more creatures in a 10 foot square area (1 map square)
Casting Time: Action (3 seconds or less)
Opposed by: n/a

Effect: The spell creates a magical missile (with an additional missile for every two positive shifts generated by the caster--in other words you divide by two and round down) which dart forth from the caster's fingertips and unerringly strike their target with no chance for the target to dodge or defend. Mundane armor does not count for protection.

The caster can determine at will how many missiles will strike each target within the 10' area of effect.

Each individual missile counts as +1 physical stress. Because each missile counts as a separate attack, when multiple missiles are aimed at a single target, the cumulative “rollup” effect can be devastating.

Example: Trevare (Wizardry +5) is duelling against a sorceror. He casts Magic Missile in the hopes of getting in the first blow. The Wizard rolls 2dF+2 and gets +2 for a result of +6 (+5 skill + 2 shifts - 1 difficulty = +6). This creates 4 missiles (1 + (6/2) = 4) that streak toward the unfortunate rival.

Unable to dodge and having no other defenses already in place, the sorceror receives 4 separate missiles each of 1 stress, wiping out the first 4 physical stress boxes.

Example: The wizard Morgeaux (Wizardry +3) is beset by a group of 3 foul bugbears. An earlier fireball by Morgeaux has left many of them damaged, and she knows that even a simple spell might finish them off. Casting Magic Missile, she rolls 2dF+2 and gets a result of 1. This means she has generated (3 skill + 1 shifts - 1 difficulty) 3 positive shifts, for a total of two missiles (1 + (3/2)). Margeaux chooses to aim one missile at two of the three bugbears and deals one physical stress to each, leaving her to deal with a single remaining bugbear rushing her…

Design Notes

  • A single hit die is a D8, so technically each stress box counts as 2 hit dice. Which also means that the average hit points from 2HD would be about 9 or 10. Which would also place the average damage per missile at 4 points (3 + 1), which would then mean 2 missiles would be needed to do enough damage to take out 1 stress box. Rather than worry about the exact number of missiles in the description, I would rather just simplify to 1 missile equal 1 stress box.
  • Because the variability in the original spell (the dice roll) was about the damage and in translation the damage roll was too granular for Fate, the variability in the spell has now changed to be a modifier to the number of missiles. This was how the shifts-to-missiles formula was created.
  • I believe there needed to be a variable, given that this is a combat spell. The idea of a combat spell having no variable power of any kind seemed inappropriate.
  • This is a rare combat spell in that it has no opportunity for target to oppose the spell (no Dodge, etc). The casting could be interrupted, if someone has saved their action.
  • Later versions of this spell required line-of-sight to the target / targets, but this original listing did not. So the implication here is that the Wizard just has to “know” the target is there (around the corner, invisible, behind cover, etc). This might need review for game balance.

Friday, September 16, 2011

[Greyhawk] The Unified Theory of Magic (Part 3) - Clerical Magic

Clerical Magic Effects Overview

A continuing concern while working through the SoG Magic system was how clerics fit into the mechanic. While the source material treats clerical prayers and magic-user spells as being practically identical with respect to mechanics, the underlying principles by which magic-users and clerics generate magical effects are very different.

The source material states that clerics don’t actually harness magical forces. Clerics pray to their deity (singular/plural/whatever) with the desire for a particular prayer’s magical effect to occur. The deity’s power structure (for lack of a better term) then determines whether or not the cleric’s prayer will be fulfilled or not and then entities within the cleric’s faith system actually generate the magical effects on behalf of the cleric.

So to apply another metaphor (a prior post mentioned Wizardry and Sorcery were like sailing), clerical magic could be considered like “calling in an airstrike”.

To flesh out the metaphor, a cleric’s Faith (the Resolve skill, see below) is the communicator upon which an airstrike is called. Remember that classic line from the character Rene Belloq in “Raiders of the Lost Ark”?

Belloq Before

“It's a transmitter, a radio for speaking to God!”

..and we all remember what happens when you try to use that particular radio without Faith…

Belloq After

But anyway, the cleric’s specific prayer / spell would be the effect requested and the “casting” is the act of calling in the airstrike.

When calling in that accurate airstrike, the cleric would need to provide fairly specific information given the “right way” to the correct party “on the other end of the line”, so the prayer (spell) has some pretty specific requirements. This also assumes that the cleric is also “the right person to call in the desired effect”.

Despite these distinctions, to keep terminology consistent, SoG still considers magical effects generated by a cleric’s prayer as “spells” and the cleric as being the caster.

Skill “Resolve (Faith trapping)”

The basic skill of the cleric to cast spells is the cleric’s Resolve skill expressed with the trapping of “Faith”.

The cleric’s Resolve skill represents the maximum spell difficulty the cleric can cast. A Resolve skill of +3 means that only spells of +3 difficulty (3rd level) and below can be completed.

What About the Magic Stunt?

Because the cleric is not actually generating the magical effect, there is no requirement for a cleric to have the Magic stunt. There are upsides and downsides to this:

  • Clerics have no concerns about magical recoil.
  • The reliance on their deity’s power structure to generate magical effects does tend to mean that things like the cleric’s Faith, and Aspects that affect that faith (in both the positive and the negative) become especially important to the cleric’s ability to create miracles.
  • There is no currently no opportunity for the cleric to modify any spells or otherwise generate effects on the fly without some story-related mechanism being involved. A cleric’s spell must be followed “rote” or it just doesn’t work.
    • SIDE NOTE: While the above is SoG’s current general position, I have wondered about the situation where a clerical spell requiring a cleric’s holy symbol as a component of that spell--should the GM consider that the spell is not possible without the symbol, or just less effective (with chances of possible failure)?
    • Not allowing the spell places it closer to source material canon (I think), but further distances clerical spell use from magical spell use in SoG. Specifically in that a Wizard can modify the spell requirements and then deal with the potential for things like spell failure, magical recoil and a generally less effective result.
    • On the other hand, allowing the spell but making it harder (less effective) means that you have to deal with idea that a clerical spell could fail (due to 4dF and increased difficulty) but wouldn’t result in magical recoil, which taken in combination with no requirement for the Magic stunt might present balance issues.

There is no restriction against a Cleric character possessing the Magic stunt, but there would be no benefit with respect to the clerical spells that are cast. That cleric COULD however generate magical effects by themselves the same as any other sorcerous effort (see prior post for more). In fact certain faiths might actually promote their clerics being magic-users or even Wizards in their own right (Boccob seems like a good possibility) to say nothing of the whole split-class/multi-class situation. However any sort of sorcery or wizardry done by clerics would follow normal magic use rules.

Mechanics of Clerical Casting

The actual game mechanics of a cleric’s casting are similar to Wizardry:

  • The cleric commits a Fate point (doesn’t spend it) that will be returned at the end of the current scene.
  • Player rolls 2dF+2 and applies the result to the cleric’s Resolve skill and applies it against the desired spell’s difficulty. Remember that the spell must be less than or equal to the cleric’s Resolve skill.
  • Aspects are compelled or tagged as normal.
  • If the cleric succeeds in the casting, any positive shifts count towards the effectiveness of the spell.
    • Side Note: Positive shifts generated with respect to the cleric’s player doing the dice rolling might be questioned, since the cleric is not generating the actual magical effect. The source material allows for the variability and sets the expectation so it is being left in SoG. This “bonus” could be explained within the game by considering that appropriate Aspects being tagged could have resulted in the deity granting extra spell power, variability in the entity actually casting the spell on behalf of the cleric, etc.

Aspects and Clerical Spells

Compelling or tagging an aspect when praying for a magical effect would reflect the situation where the deity’s power structure might grant a more (or less) effective result based upon the Aspect.

Example of Negative Aspects for Clerics

A cleric with the aspect of something like “A Shadow of Doubt”, or “Lawful Questionable” might be compelled to deal with a –2 effect due to possible impacts to alignment or faith.

Example of Positive Aspects for Clerics

Aspects of “Smite the Wicked!” or “A Friend in Deed” could easily be tagged to increase a spell’s effectiveness.

Casting Failure & Clerics

Because Clerics don’t actually harness the magical forces of the spell, there is generally no magical recoil associated with a casting failure by clerics.

Like Wizardry, if for some reason the cleric fails a spell casting, then the general rule is nothing happens other than the loss of the spell.

While it’s possible that some sort of faith-related recoil might be possible in certain situations…

  • A cleric of one faith profaning another faith’s holy areas/symbols/etc.
  • A Lawful Good cleric trying to cast “Cause Wounds” instead of “Cure Wounds” a little TOO often.

…I think that would reflect more of a “smiting” attitude, as opposed to an actual prayer / spell going wrong. Any stress taken due to something like this would have to be considered carefully by the cleric, as negative Aspects that might arise from matters of faith could get pretty nasty.

Druids and Clerical Spellcasting

With respect to Druids, at this point SoG maintains the source material’s assumption that they are a sub-class of clerics and generate magical effects in a similar manner, but their faith is not so much a deity but rather in “Nature”. Additionally the source material provides them with a different spell list than other clerics.

More playtesting will be needed to determine if that needs to be more closely considered.

What’s In the Pipeline

Okay, that’s quite a lot of information this week. Unless things take a different turn, the next series of posts will be something along the lines of:

  • The on-the-fly “Magic Economy”
  • Translating existing spell lists
  • The Fate system and Magical Topics (Sorcerous Covens, anyone?)
  • Crafting Magic Items

If anyone’s got a preference as to which gets posted next, I’d be curious to hear.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

[Greyhawk] The Unified Theory of Magic (Part 2)

Continuing on from the prior posting…

Generating a Magical Effect

A magical effect may be generated by someone or something either “on the fly” or via a predefined spell (formula, recipe, etc).

On the Fly Magic Effects

On the Fly magical effects occur when the sorceror states the intention to generate a desired magical effect. The player and the GM then determine the difficulty of the spell by costing out the magical effect using a “magic economy” by defining the benefits (increase difficulty) and costs (decrease difficulty).

The caster compares the skill level used with the Magic stunt against the effect’s difficulty, spends a Fate point and then rolls 4dF as per normal.

  • If successful, the effect is generated as desired by the caster. Positive shifts count towards a greater effect as per normal.
  • If the caster fails the difficulty, then the magical effect does not occur as desired and bad things happen (see “Casting Failure” below).

Side Note: This is a significant departure from the source material in that there were only predefined spells and that the caster never failed to successfully cast the spell. However that same spell could fail to fully or partially affect the target (due to saving throws). Also a predefined spell’s casting could generally be interrupted with little if any negative impact to the caster (beyond the loss of the spell).

A conceit of SoG is that casting failure and negative effects were always present in the game world but as long as a Wizard followed a pre-defined spell that was within the proscribed limits of his Wizardry skill level, there were sufficient fail-safes built into the spells to prevent any sort of negative impact to the caster or those around them and there was no failure to cast the spell.

Spells might fail to have the desired effect on targets, but that was due to some property of the target, not because the spell “failed”.

Even if the spell was interrupted during the casting there was no generally negative impact (past the loss of the spell).

Another design assumption was that if casting failure was possible but never mentioned, then it must be pretty bad… (mwa-ha-ha)

Predefined Spells

This is the situation where someone uses the Wizardry skill to cast a pre-defined spell, following the spell’s recipe (adhering to the restrictions) in order to generate the magical effect.

The Wizard then commits a Fate point (doesn’t spend it), rolls 2dF+2 (not 4dF) and determines if there were any positive shifts.

The 2dF+2 roll produces a result between 0 and +4, so unless there is some outside factor (aspects, some sort of attempted interruption) increasing the spell difficulty, there would be no chance for spell failure (consistent with the source material).

The benefits of the Fate point commit and the 2dF+2 are only in force so long as the following occurs:

  • The difficulty of the spell is LESS THAN OR EQUAL to the caster’s Wizardry skill.
  • The caster can fulfill all the requirements of the spell (components, etc.).

If these cannot be met, than the caster may still attempt the pre-defined spell, but must now actually spend a Fate point, and roll 4dF instead, risking a casting failure.

Question: Why be a Wizard?

In reading this material without looking at the actual spell table, it might appear that Wizards are so restricted with the magical effects they can generate why would anyone be a Wizard when they can do Sorcery?

It is true that in SoG the magical effects of pre-defined spells are less flexible than the option to generate magic on the fly, however pre-defined spells typically have effects that are quite often more powerful than what could be generated on the fly.

I consider that this exists in the game world due to the heavily researched and optimized nature of pre-defined spells that have been around for decades if not centuries.

Example: Compare a magical effect that makes a continual light. In the source material, the predefined spell that generates a permanent magical light is a 2nd level spell for Magic-Users, so it’s only a +2 difficulty for Wizards in SoG.

Using the SoG magic economy to create such an effect on the fly would require a duration that maxes out the Fate Time Ladder (“A Lifetime”) and would require an additional 12 shifts (+12 difficulty!) when attempted by a Sorceror.

My plan is to translate pre-defined spells into SoG pretty closely to how the source material originally listed them. So if a spell says says “Duration: Permanent” at 2nd level… then it’s permanent!

So even though the variety of effects a Wizard might be capable of generating would be much less flexible than Sorcerors, a Wizard who kept his wits about him and was smart about the use of Declarations and Aspects could be EXTREMELY powerful within the “less flexible” nature of pre-defined spells. Consider also: a screwdriver is “only” a screwdriver but how many ways can you use a screwdriver?

On top of all that, Sorcery has the added negative of casting failures!

Additionally, there’s nothing saying that a Wizard can’t indulge in sorcery anyway if desired or the situation was dire enough. The Wizard would just apply his Wizardry skill against the adjusted spell difficulty, expend a Fate point and roll 4dF and hope for no failure.

NOTE FOR FUTURE:
A Wizard modifying an existing spell (eg., deciding not to speak on a spell that has a verbal component) takes the existing predefined difficulty and increases it (in this case +1), loses a Fate point and rolls 4dF and risks potential recoil.

A Sorceror attempting the same effect on the fly would still have to cost out the magical effect which could end up still being more difficult than the Wizard trying to modify a tried-and-true formula that did the same thing.

This is another distinction between Wizardry and Sorcery that might need reconsidering, but given the following…

  • A Soceror can leverage an apex skill (for example, Craft/Performance skill for Bards) for both his chosen path in life AND generating Magic effects with no more “cost” than the use of a Stunt slot.

…it doesn't seem overly generous at this point to give a Wizard the benefit of indulging in modifications to existing formulas without having to consider the difficulty in the same way as "on the fly" magical effects.

Casting Failures

If the casting results in a failure then no effect generated--at least not under the control of the caster. But there is a magical recoil to contend with!

The magical power that was harnessed or focused in the attempt to create the effect has to go "somewhere". So the base magical recoil would be the effect’s original difficulty, increased by the number of shifts by which the caster failed the roll.

Example: If a Sorceror attempts a +4 spell difficulty and fails by +1, a Superb (+5) magical recoil is generated.

Example 2: If a Sorceror’s apprentice (I couldn’t resist) with a +1 Skill attempted to cast a magical effect of +5 difficulty and then rolled –4 on the dice, then he would end up with a (+5 – 1 +4 = +8) magical recoil! This would also tend to indicate why you would keep a close eye on apprentices… Or why sorcerors tend to live alone…

Dealing with Magical Recoil

I like the roleplaying potential inherent in allowing the caster to determine if the recoil impacts only them or if they reflect some or all of it out into the world.

With respect to the impact upon a Sorceror’s alignment, projecting magical recoil into the world represents something of a chaotic, or evil, or selfish act. The caster electing to take the stress of magical recoil represents more of a lawful, or good or selfless act.

In SoG, magical recoil of any kind is assigned to the stress track of the GM's choosing and is usually based upon the nature of the casting or the desired effect, or what sorts (if any) Aspects were leveraged during the casting.

Which also brings up an interesting thought…

While a compel could occur during a casting to make a casting difficulty higher, could it be used after the failure to make it worse? I think I like the possibilities…

Example: A Sorceror generated a +2 recoil that was projected out into the world, and the GM decided to have it be expressed as physical stress (heat) on a party member wearing metal armor that had some Aspect attached to it--could you compel a +2 increase on that party member for a total of +4 physical stress? (*evil laugh*)

Wizardry and Casting Failure

Under normal circumstances a Wizard cannot fail to cast a spell equal or less than his difficulty, though it is possible to increase the difficulty of a casting via Aspects being compelled, or some party attempting to interrupt the Wizard.

If the Wizard is considered to be “casting a spell” and is successfully interrupted (i.e., fails the difficulty), there is no magical recoil and no negative impact, beyond the loss of the memorized spell (or the loss of the scroll being read).

SoG's assumption is that Wizard spells’ are considered to have integrated various fail-safes so that if a spell was interrupted, the focused energy would be safely dispersed.

Side Note: It is possible to consider that it’s not the spell that has the fail-safes within it, but rather that the Wizard possesses the skill and knowledge of how to safely disperse the energies.

Problem with this assumption is that you might need to state that non-wizards using scrolls could experience casting failure, which was not in the source material.

NEXT: Clerical Magic and the Tragic Case of Rene Belloq…

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

[Greyhawk] The Unified Theory of Magic (Part 1)

So yeah, it's been a while (okay a long while) since there was a Spirit of Greyhawk (SoG) posting. In the meantime, I had been doing a lot of thinking about High Fantasy Magic and have managed to re-work things into a more coherent single system of Magic that still retained a lot of the things I liked from the previous iterations.

Magic Overview

How Magic Exists in Spirit of Greyhawk

Magic exists as a "force of nature", like magnetism or wind. But while people may understand the principles of Magic, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are able to generate magical effects. Conversely, someone may have the ability to generate magical effects but have no knowledge of the underlying principles that they are using.

Generating magical effects in SoG could be compared to being able to make a sailboat go where you want it go. You need a sailboat and you need wind. You also need a degree of knowledge to be able to use the sailboat to harness the wind to get where you want to do.

Depending upon where you’d want to go (or how big a sailboat you use), you need different degrees of knowledge: consider the difference in knowledge and type of ship needed to sail across the ocean versus sailing across a lake.

Why Care “How” Magic Works Within the Game World

Besides being an interesting thought exercise, I believe that you need to provide players an internally consistent framework for understanding something about what they are doing. Without that framework, I think you make Magic less “useable” or less fun especially with respect to harnessing Aspects. Similar to dealing with combat: a player who has actual knowledge of fighting can be much more effective in his use of Aspects (or have a more rewarding play experience) than someone using the same character who has no first-hand knowledge of combat.

SoG elaborates somewhat on the source materials’ implication that magical effects are not made “just” by casting the spells as listed in the source material. So the SoG implementation makes a clear distinction between actually casting spells and generating magical effects.

The distinction is this:

  • Casting spells is but one way of generating magical effects.
  • Magical effects can be generated by other means than just casting spells.

Requirements for Generating Magical Effects

Elaborating on the sailing metaphor above, this means that in order to generate magical effects (not necessarily casting spells), there must exist all of the following:

  • Magic must exist as a force within the game world that is harnessed in order to generate magical effects (the “Wind”)
  • Having the Magic stunt to harness the world’s Magical forces (the “sailboat”)
  • A Skill tied to the Magic stunt (the knowledge of how to use and steer the ship)

Required: Stunt “Magic”

Within a High Fantasy environment (or this one at least), anyone with the Magic stunt can create magical effects.

Like many other stunts, Magic is tied to a skill. The caster can determine what skill is used to generate magical effects. That connection is typically established when the stunt is acquired and the connection is generally permanent unless circumstances within the game call for a possible change. The particular skill that is tied to the Magic stunt would then play a big part in the “trappings” of the magic effects.

Here’s some examples:

  • Bards generating magic effects might have Magic tied to their Craft/Performance skill.
  • Rangers generating magical effects might have Magic tied to their Survival skill.
  • Monks generating magic effects might have Magic tied to their Discipline skill.

Aspects are tagged or compelled as normal in the course of generating magical effects.

Like other powerful stunts, every invocation of the Magic stunt requires the allocation of a Fate Point. I use the term “allocation” because SoG contains an important distinction between casting spells and generating a magical effect on the fly:

  • Generating an “on the fly” magical effect requires the expenditure of a Fate point. The point is expended and the caster doesn’t get this Fate point back.
  • Casting a predefined spell requires only the commitment of a Fate point. The distinction here is that the caster gets the Fate point back at the end of the scene (similar to stress). More on this distinction later.

Optional: Skill “Wizardry”

This skill represents the study, research and understanding of the underlying principles of Magic. Attaching the Magic stunt to the Wizardry Skill is what establishes someone as a Wizard and allows them to use (cast) predefined spells. Using any other skill with the Magic stunt constitutes Sorcery.

Think of Wizards as “ivory tower scientists” of magic, whereas Sorcerors are typically closer to garage tinkerers. This is not to say Sorcerors are not effective, but they can be just as dangerous to themselves and their allies as well as their enemies. Often the term “sorcery” can have a negative connotation, at least among Wizards.

Someone could elect to learn the Wizardry skill without having the stunt, but would not be able to actually cast spells or otherwise generate magical effects. This would be more like a Magic researcher, rather than a Wizard.

While this distinction between wizardry and sorcery was not laid out in the source material, I like it for a number of reasons:

  • Enables players who want to leverage the more flexible nature of Fate mechanic with respect to magic, but still leave the “predefined” nature of source material intact.
  • Distinguishes Wizards from other types of people that generate magic effects (more on this later).
  • The source material appears (to me at least) to contain assumptions that the use of actual spells within the world was a relatively rare currency but yet almost every class of character at varying levels of achievement could either cast spells or generate magical effects (to say nothing of the frequency of crafted magical items appearing within the game).
    This seemed a nice way to reconcile that assumption and leave intact a player’s assumptions for what their characters would be able to achieve.

It is possible that someone could elect to learn the Wizardry Skill without the stunt, but would not be able to cast spells or generate magical effects. This would be more like a Magic researcher instead of a Wizard.

NEXT: How to generate magical effects and the heartbreak of magical failure.

Monday, April 18, 2011

[Greyhawk] Approaches for Magic Translations

So after working out some of the low-level infrastructure issues in the Spirit of Greyhawk ruleset, I've finally started to get some traction with translating the source material's spells into their Fate equivalents.

However in doing so, I've run across an issue that I wanted to think out on paper (albeit digital paper).

When translating spells, it's a given that that not everything in the source material's spell listings is going to translate out nice and tidy into a Fate implementation.

So how would you resolve conflicts with the translation?

Example 1: If the source material lists "Fireball" as a 3rd level spell, and if after translation it turns out to be +4 difficulty spell (i.e., in Fate the same effect would net out as a 4th level spell), what do you do?

Example 2: Conversely if a 5th level spell translated into a 3rd level spell under the SoG ruleset, should it be left as +5 difficulty? Or be a +3 difficulty to cast correctly?

I've been thinking through a few approaches and each one has it's costs and benefits...


Approach One - Err on the Side of the Source Material
This means that if the spell had a specific series of effects and was originally at "X" level, then that spell would have those effects at that level regardless of the Spell "economy".

Benefits:
  • Translation time is quicker--less fuss about balance
  • Most consistent with the source material and original gameplay expectations
Costs:
  • Possible balance issues
  • Most inconsistent with the "fractal design" approach

Approach Two - Err on the Side of the Fate Mechanic
One of the reasons the Lord of the Rings movies were as satisfying as they were for most viewers, is that the writers understood that they were not trying to do a page-by-page recreation of the books, but rather used the books as the source from which the movies were taken and then put that into an effective structure for presentation within the movies.

In other words, spells would be accurately translated, and whatever the Fate spell difficulty would be, that's where it would appear in the spell lists. Using the example above, the Fireball spell would be considered a 4th level spell, instead of a 3rd level spell.

Benefits:
  • Translation time is quick, as it is what it is.
  • Most consistent with the "fractal design" approach
  • Wizardry effect powers have better balance with on-the-fly magic (stunt-based magic or Sorcery)
Costs:
  • Less consistent with the source material

Approach Three - Change the Spell to Stay Within the Same Level
This resolution means that you modify or redefine the spell effects to change the net difficulty to stay within the pre-determined level.

So in the example above, the spell might be changed (hopefully in a minimal fashion) to have the net difficulty now be +3, instead of +4. Perhaps an additional cost could be associated with the spell, or a reduced effect.

This could also be a situation where perhaps a spell turns out to be LESS difficult than source material would imply.

Benefits:
  • Spell Lists consistent with the source material.
Costs:
  • Expectations of what a spell does will need to be modified.
  • Translation time increased having due to having to "balance the budget".


My Campaign's Personal Preference
I've had the opportunity to pose the question to my players and I got a very interesting answer from them--they don't care about the accuracy or balance right now. Third level is third level is third level. I find this really interesting for a couple reasons:

  • The campaign's magic use right now is typically Sorcery or on-the-fly magical effects. So the decision would not impact their abilities with Magic.
  • My intention was to use Wizardry more in the form of their opponents and monsters that use magic, so it would be their opponents who are impacted.
Most interesting, this lack of concern on the players' part indicates to me that they appear really have embraced the cooperative story-telling mechanics of Fate and have ceased to get concerned about things like this in the first place. Very interesting!


So What Might This Mean for SoG?
I will probably end up doing something along the lines of Approach One (Translate the spells, leave the difficulty ratings in place) with the occasional dip in to Approach Three (Modifiy the spell) if something translates to being WAY out of whack.

So that's just for my SoG campaign--if/when the compiled SoG material ever becomes available, I may end up doing some sort of dual-table layout, where there's the "traditional" spell list, and another one with an alternative spell listing that groups spells by their translated difficulty.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Spirit of Greyhawk - Spells & Spellbooks

Writing Spells in the Caster's Spellbook
What might be the closest parallel for the writing of a spell in the World of Greyhawk?

  • Engineering?
  • Gadgeteering?
  • Academic Research?
  • Forgery?
  • Artistic Crafting?

There's valid reasons to consider all of the above. I was starting to get lost in the options, so I turned it around and considered the source material first...

Characteristics of Writing a Spell in the Greyhawk Realm
  • It doesn't always work--not every caster can know every spell. The wizard doesn't know until they attempt it.
  • Writing down a spell is basically copying an existing spell.
  • The wizard must have a skill level consistent with the level of the spell.
  • There's nothing saying that wizards are prevented from copying new spells into their spellbook while in dungeons.
  • For each spell written in the spellbook, certain material requirements are necessary, and the time required to write it down was equivalent to one day per spell level.

Categorizing Spell Books
Is a Spell Book a magic item?
Not in and of itself. A standard spell book is a mundane item. However the spells contained on the pages within can be used as one-shot scrolls. So the spells themselves are magical, but the spell book itself is not magical. A spell book might have improvements that imbue it with magical properties, but I don't consider it a requirement. Plus it's also more fun to leave it as a mundane item, with all the frailties of a mundane book.

Is a Spell Book a Gadget?
You could consider it a Personal Gadget for purposes of defining if it can be taken away, destroyed, etc. This then also implies that if the owner has an Aspect that names the Spell Book, it's more or less off-limits (game-wise).

This categorization is interesting for balance purposes, because a Wizard would need to devote a Stunt to his Spell Book (defining it as a Personal Gadget), and additionally it then becomes awfully tempting for a Wizard to want to devote an Aspect to making sure his "source" is basically off-limits, game-wise.

The other impact of making the spellbook a Personal Gadget "stunt" as written in SotC is that the stunt allows for one or two "improvements".

While there may be fertile ground here, I believe that in general a spellbook falls under essential "Tools of the Trade" for a Wizard to do his job. So making a requirement that a spellbook must be a "stunt" doesn't really work for me. This then puts a standard spellbook in the same category of a Thief having lock-picks (at least standard ones) as tools of the trade.


Translating Specifics about Intelligence & Spells
What to do about the Intelligence Stat?

In the source material, a lot of specifics about spells are tied to the Intelligence statistic. However in SotC, we don't have Intelligence as a skill. Should an "Intelligence skill" be added?

For Spirit of Greyhawk, I'm currently taking a "minimal change" approach and saying that I don't see a need to add one within the current framework. We can assume a baseline average intelligence with modifications up or down as being possible within the existing game mechanic: lower intelligence could be simulated by taking a negative aspect, and higher intelligences could be addressed by the use of Stunts (see below).

Caster's Chance to Be Able to Cast a Particular Spell
In the PHB, a stat of 10-12 Intelligence (considered "average") results in about a 45% chance of knowing a spell. Increased intelligence increases the chance of being able to know/cast a particular spell.

If we make the base assumption that people (Wizards specifically) are possessed of at least average intellect, this means that the base roll to know a spell is Mediocre (+0) or 50% chance to know a spell or not.

Fate points and Aspects can impact this positively or negatively as per normal.

In other words if someone has an aspect of "Pyromancer", then it could be tagged to improve the chance to learn a fire-related spell. Alternatively it could be compelled to make a cold or ice-spell less likely to be useable by that character.

If the roll fails, then that spell will never be available to the caster (barring some retroactive modification).

Minimum / Maximum Number of Spells per Level
Wizards in the Greyhawk realm assume that they have a minimum/maximum range for the number of spells for each level of spells that they are capable of casting. In other words, this indirectly establishes how much could be effectively stored within a spell book. The source material states that this min/max range is a function of a caster's Intelligence stat. How could this be determined when Intelligence isn't a skill?

Looking at the table in the PHB, we can simplify it by looking at it as a formula:

  • The minimum number of spells is determined as half of the source material's Intelligence stat.
  • Maximum number of spells per level can be determined as the minimum number of spells per level, plus half that score again (rounding down).

Example: For an INT stat of 10 in the source material, the Minimum spells per level would be 5 (10 / 2 = 5). The Maximum spells per level would be 7 (5 + (rounded down 5 / 2 or "2") = 7)

But once again, how to determine these values in absence of an Intelligence stat / skill?

I plan to address it with the assumption that a character starts with an average degree of intelligence and then can choose to modify it with Aspects or Stunts.

Start from average, which was the INT 10-12 range. This gives the min/max of 5/7.

Each progressive Intelligence Stunt (see below) will be worth an extra number of spells added to the Minimum amount of spells.

I'm going to choose to not address reducing the min/max range for the situation of "dumb" wizards.
  • 1st Intelligence stunt is worth +2 to the minimum number of spells per level
  • 2nd Intelligence stunt is worth another +2 to the minimum
  • 3rd Intelligence stunt is worth another +1 to the minimum


Intelligence Stunts
While it's possible that there might other uses of this later on, for right now, these stunts are for the Magic Skill.

While these stunts have more functionality contained within than other stunts, I feel that because they are so specific to Magic-related situations, it may even out.

Stunt "Fantastic Intelligence"
  • Adds +2 to the Minimum Number of Spells per Level.
  • Allows the ability learn 7th Level of Spells
  • Adds a +1 to the roll to be able to understand a spell.

Stunt "Epic Intelligence"
Prerequisite: "Fantastic Intelligence"
  • Adds another +2 to the Minimum Number of Spells per Level.
  • Allows the ability learn 8th Level of Spells
  • Adds another +1 to the roll to be able to understand a spell.

Stunt "Legendary Intelligence"
Prerequisite: "Epic Intelligence"
  • Adds +1 to the Minimum Number of Spells per Level.
  • Allows the ability learn 9th Level of Spells
  • Adds a +1 to the roll to be able to understand a spell.

Example: Wizard starts with "average" intelligence has a minimum spells per level of 5, a maximum spells per level of 7. The wizard is currently capable of learning 6th level spells or less. The Wizard's ability to understand any particular spell is a base difficulty of +0 (Mediocre).

However if the player selects the "Fantastic Intelligence" and "Epic Intelligence" stunts, the Wizard would then have the following:

  • Minimum Spells per level: 5 + 2 +2 = 9
  • Maximum Spells per level: Minimum Spells per level + (Minimum Spells per level / 2, rounded down), or 9 + (9/2, rounded down or 4) = 13
This doesn't scale up exactly with the source material in the PHB, but I'm willing to live with it for now.

The wizard's maximum spell level (not skill level) is 8th level.

The wizard also has a +2 that can be used when rolling to determine if a particular spell can be used by that wizard (assuming an available spell slot).

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Spirit of Greyhawk - Spells per Level & Memorization

Hello again, everyone! After a lot of side trips and delays, we now return you to my not-so-regularly scheduled discussions on translating "high-fantasy" magic from the Greyhawk source material into my "Spirit of Greyhawk" implementation of Fate.

Setting Expectations

It occurred to me that it might be a good idea before going any further (i.e., digging into more specifics), to be clear about which versions of the source material I'm using.

While other versions of AD&D could be patched together to form a “best of breed” patchwork source, I think that’s an easy way to get focused on the finger pointing at the moon, rather than moon itself.

So, the publishings of AD&D (1st Edition) documentation that I’ll be using will be the following, when I refer to the “source material”:

  • Monster Manual (December 1977)
  • Players Handbook (June, 1978)
  • Dungeon Master Guide (August, 1978)

Game World Assumptions for Wizardry Spells per Level and Spells Memorized


So working from the expectations of the above source material, here's a summary of topics as how the world of Greyhawk works with respect to Wizards and the spells they can cast:

  • There is a pre-determined progression of spells per level that can be cast in a day by a Wizard of a particular level.
  • Wizards of higher skill levels can cast (per day) more spells in a particular level than a less-skilled Wizard would.
  • Highly intelligent Wizards can have more spells in their spellbook than Wizards without that same degree of intellect. In other words, they have a greater selection of spells that could be available to them.
  • Higher-level spells also require a higher intelligence. Without that higher intelligence (whether from natural stats or some sort of boost), Wizards cannot cast certain spells.

Taking those assumptions into Fate we end up with the following game-related topics…

  • The number of Spells that can be cast in a defined period are an important limiting factor and should be translated into SoG. There should be a reduction in the number of “slots” a Wizard can have for increasingly difficult spells.
  • Having a higher skill level in Wizardry allows for higher difficulty spells.
  • Given that SoG does not have a skill reflecting pure intellect (a la AD&D’s Intelligence attribute), is there a way within the existing Fate framework to account for a Wizard having an additional qualification to be able to memorize more powerful spells? Is there even a need?

Additionally, I want whatever I do for SoG to keep reference tables to a minimum and to keep bookkeeping as simple as possible.

Wizard's Spells per Level in Spirit of Greyhawk

Start with a Traditional Fate Pyramid


My first step was thinking SoG’s “Pyramid” approach is the cleanest way to implement this, based upon the Wizard’s skill level.

So, I'm starting off by stating that the highest spell level that can be memorized by a Wizard is equivalent to his skill level and will be generally defined as 1 spell in that level can be memorized.

So, a Wizardry skill level of +5 (Superb) allows for 1 5th level spell to be memorized for use within a particular period of time (see “Memorization Period” below). Using the example above, the Spell Memorization pyramid is structured similar to SoG’s Skill Pyramid:

  • 5th Level Spells: 1
  • 4th Level Spells: 2
  • 3rd Level Spells: 3
  • 2nd Level Spells: 4
  • 1st Level Spells: 5

If we compare that to "Spells Usable by Class and Level Magic-Users" (PH, p. 26), this most closely resembles a 9th level magic-user, but gives them one extra 1st and 2nd level spells. My rule of thumb for translation is that 1 skill level should generally be equivalent to 2 AD&D skill levels (in other words, SoG's Magic skill level of 5 would be equivalent to a 10th level M-U). So that seems pretty close to the source material without having to get too fiddly.

Subsequently this also means that using the current SoG ladder maximum of +9, I'm effectively capping out SoG at about 18th level. At this point, I don’t see a real benefit in trying deal with classes past that point so I'm gonna call it good.

Problem: Higher-level Wizards & lower-level spells

However there's now a balance issue in the number of lower-level spells a higher-level Wizard gets under SoG. The source material indicates that for SoG's 18th level "cap", no M-U would have more than 5 spells memorized from spell level 5 on down. Given the difference in the number of spells per day, there needs to put be a similar cap on a Wizard's spell pyramid.

Which means that instead of a Wizard at Magic Skill Level 9 having this "pure" pyramid…

  • 9th Level Spells: 1
  • 8th Level Spells: 2
  • 7th Level Spells: 3
  • 6th Level Spells: 4
  • 5th Level Spells: 5
  • 4th Level Spells: 6
  • 3rd Level Spells: 7
  • 2nd Level Spells: 8
  • 1st Level Spells: 9

…it would instead look like this…

  • 9th Level Spells: 1
  • 8th Level Spells: 2
  • 7th Level Spells: 3
  • 6th Level Spells: 4
  • 5th Level Spells: 5
  • 4th Level Spells: 5
  • 3rd Level Spells: 5
  • 2nd Level Spells: 5
  • 1st Level Spells: 5

…which I think turns out to give you a fairly decent parallel to the source material. There's a few exceptions, but nothing game-killing.

The REAL Rule for Wizards and Spell Memorization

So then the actual rule for a Wizard's Spells per Level would be the following:

  • The highest spell level that can be memorized is equivalent to the Wizard's skill level in "Magic", with only 1 spell at that level.
  • Each reduction in level gives an extra spell.
  • The maximum number of spells that can be memorized per skill level is 5.

If you're an Excel fan, it would look like this:

# Memorized per Spell Level = MAX(MIN(Magic Skill Level – Spell Level + 1, 5), 0)

Memorization Period

Source material canon states that a wizard's spell slots are allocated for a particular spell "loadout" once per day. So once a particular spell is fired, the slot used is unavailable until the next day.

However given that the Fate mechanic places an emphasis on the starting and ending of scenes, I keep wondering if perhaps a Wizard's spell slots in Spirit of Greyhawk might reset by scene, instead of by day.

My current thinking is that this is too far off canon and that SoG will stick with the “per day” memorization period. Here's why:

  • Allowing a greater refresh frequency removes some of a player's angst of "planning" a day's spells. I happen to find very attractive the idea that a Wizard character should always be trying to plan ahead and the inherent risks of doing that in an adventure, especially in the fluid nature of a cooperative storytelling mechanic.
  • Allowing a Wizard to refresh "by scene" also removes some of the distinguishing factors between a Wizard (who is always trying to plan ahead and look for angles that will help them survive) and a Sorceror who is more of a seat-of-the-pants caster.

…Especially when you consider that it's quite possible that 3-4 scenes could occur in a day. Anyone got a different perspective?

Next Time: Intelligence & Spells, Spell Books

Sunday, February 7, 2010

SoG - Play Session Update

Quick update from Sunday's "Spirit of Greyhawk" gameplay session:

Consequence Pool: Didn't have a chance to try it out. Party didn't let themselves get engaged in a group combat yesterday that lasted that long.

Healing spells: The healing rules around "stress" need some polish. I need to figure out something a bit more elegant (or easy to remember) than what I have in place right now. But the basic premise of "multiple small healings add up to big healings" is the right way to go for SoG.

(Quick response from biff's prior comment re: Healing and the social stress track. I dabbled with things like that a bit. Scan the source material for things involving modifiers to morale checks--I consider the source material's concept of 'morale' to be the closest parallel to attacks and healing on the social stress track. So for example, "Bless" and "Curse" involve placing aspects on targets that would also be VERY taggable for purposes of making social stress-related attacks and healing.)

Sorcery and Fate Point "Commitment": Biff's comment here is now officially "in" SoG. My "on the fly" spell-caster went a little nuts with low-level healing spells (see above), and this was the perfect way to establish checks and balances without being punitive. There was a bit of a problem with the initial understanding of the difference between "spending" versus "committing" a fate point, but that's a "once and done" problem.

(Thanks, biff-dyskolos!)

Monster Conversion: Hellhounds worked out pretty well. They're scary when they act in concert with each other. PC's really didn't like fighting "dogs" that were smart enough to start manuevering aspects upon the PCs (latching on, then shaking PC to the ground) that the rest of the pack would then tag--actually rattled them quite nicely. (GM nasty laugh)

Turning Undead: Attempted an initial try at rules for turning:
  • Use the cleric's spell-casting skill as a Manuever to put an aspect against the target(s) (single versus group target didn't matter) and
  • Consider any opposed alignment aspects to tag.
  • Gaining spin either puts you in control of them(instant minions!), or dispels them (depending upon the turner's alignment).
Not sure about the balance yet on turning especially at the bigger disparities with respect to gaining spin, but the gameplay "speed" was a good feel.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Magic Spells - Healing Spell(s)

This is a situation where I'm currently working from the premise that for SoG there is only a single damage-healing spell (instead of multiple healing spells at different levels). Likely this same situation will also come into play with the "Monster Summoning" spells--there will only be a single spell, and the Margin of success of the casting will determine the strength of the spell.

Healing Spell (+1 Difficulty)

Benefits (+3 to Difficulty)

  • Improvement: Alternate Useage (Use Magic-related Skill for Physik) (+1)
  • Improvement: Alternate Useage (Make effect more "magical") (+1)
    This improvement means the following change in the use of the magically-generated Physik Skill effect with respect to Medical Attention. With the use of this spell, a target can be the target of more than one healing action in an exchange.
  • Improvement: Alternate Useage (Make effect even more "magical") (+1)
    This improvement means the following change in the use of the magically-generated Physik Skill effect with respect to Medical Attention. When used against Consequences, the caster does not take the entire scene to help the target, and multiple attempts can be made.
Requirements (-2 to Difficulty)

  • Requirement: Verbal Component (-1)
  • Requirement: Somatic Component (-1)

Spell Mechanics:
Before rolling the dice on the spell, the Caster decides on one of two possible uses for the Healing Spell:

  • Heal a Target's Stress
  • Heal a Target's Consequences

Healing Option 1: Heal a Target's Stress

RULES NOTE: This is a slight modification to the Physick skill's "mundane" listing, to remain consistent with the Magic dice-rolling mechanic.)

GAMEPLAY NOTE: There are opinions by players that using a spell to cure Stress might be considered something of a wasted effort given the fact that it's really just "combat fatigue", not so much as considered damage. However it will be left here for now, as it's consistent with the skill's listing in the SotC source material.

Anyway...

When healing stress, roll against the skill level of the spell. If the spell is successfully cast (Caster equals the spell's difficulty), then the subject may remove a checkmark in his one-stress box on his physical stress track. Every two shifts beyond the first improves this effect by one; for example, with four shifts, a character can remove a checkmark in his target’s three-stress box. The list below shows the full progression.

Healing Success Effects
  • 0 shifts (equal): Clear the one-stress box
  • 1 shift: Clear the one-stress box, roll up
  • 2 shifts: Clear the two-stress box, roll down
  • 3 shifts: Clear the two-stress box, roll up
  • 4 shifts: Clear the three-stress box, roll down
  • 5 shifts: Clear the three-stress box, roll up
  • 6 shifts: Clear the four-stress box, roll down
  • 7 shifts: Clear the four-stress box, roll up
  • 8 shifts: Clear the five-stress box, roll down
  • 9 shifts: Clear the five-stress box, roll up

The "roll up", "roll down" notation refers to the fact that if the target box is already clear, then the effect rolls and clears the next available box in a particular direction. For example, if the spell's success was "4 shifts" and allowed the three-stress box to be cleared, but only the one-stress box was checked, then clear that one instead.

ACTION ITEM: Review if this scenario works or not: If there is nothing left in the direction indicated, then just look for the lowest stress box, and then redefine that having been downgraded by one stress. Note that the downgrade only occurs if there were no stress boxes available to clear, as described according to the shifts above.

Example: Conman the Barbarian had the following physical stress: ( )( )(X)( ) ( ), and a caster scored "2 shifts (roll down)" on a healing. Conman noted that his 2-stress box was clear and there no lower-stress boxes to clear. What would happen then is that the 2-stress box would be "downgraded". In other words, the 3-stress box would be cleared, but the 2-stress box was now checked, for a final effect of: ( )(X)( )( ) ( ). This way no healing was "wasted", consistent to the source material.

NOTE: The goal of all this crunch was that the source material's magical healing mechanic allows for the ability of a number of small healing spells would eventually return a high HP character to full capacity. In other words, unless the "tank is topped off", healing doesn't go to waste.

Healing Option 2: Heal a Target's Consequences
TRANSLATION NOTE: This one gave me a lot of headaches. Ultimately this effect ended coming almost directly from the source material. Reviewing the clerical healing spells in the source material and what level they are...

  • Cure Light Wounds: 1st Level spell
  • Cure Serious Wounds: 4th Level spell
  • Cure Critical Wounds: 5th Level spell
  • Heal: 6th Level spell

...Taking the spell terminology literally, you might then end up with the following expectation...

  1. The "Cure Light Wounds" effect allows the caster to clear a single Mild Consequence at Average (+1) difficulty.
  2. The "Cure Serious Wounds" effect allows the caster to clear a single Moderate Consequence at Great (+4) difficulty.
  3. The "Cure Critical Wounds" effect allows the caster to clear a single Severe Consequence at Superb (+5) difficulty
  4. The "Heal" effect allows the caster to clear all Consequences at Fantastic (+6) difficulty.

Now we have a convenient link between the power of a healing spell and the severity of the consequence.

Based upon the source material, we already know that a lot of high-level fighters can absorb multiple "Critical" wounds. In other words, the AD&D spell "Cure Critical Wounds" will often leave high-powered PCs still short of their maximum HP. So this should be consistent with the Endurance-related stunts of allowing extra consequences over the normal 3.

ITEM FOR REVIEW
What should the benefit be to someone with ONLY a single Severe Consequence, if they are the recipient of only an Average (+1) difficulty Healing Spell against that consequence? My current sense is that "failing" to clear a consequence should at least allow for a downgrade of one level. The caster determines what gets downgraded.

Example: An Average (+1) healing spell is cast against a target who has Mild, Moderate and Severe Consequences. The caster of the spell can choose one of the following:

  1. Clear the Mild Consequence
  2. Downgrade the Moderate Consequence to an additional Mild Consequence
  3. Downgrade the Severe Consequence to an additional Moderate Consequence

ITEM FOR REVIEW
It might make sense to tweak the difficulties a bit to avoid that uneven progression (+1, then +4, +5, +6), but I think that even given the subjective nature of FATE's consequences, there's a relatively big gap between what constitutes a Mild consequence versus a Moderate consequence. Or even Severe consequences for that matter. So it probably all evens out.