Director of Game Design
|
Hey there Everyone,
I just thought I would put up a quick note about this playtest as it is a little unlike the previous playtests we have done.
The playtest of the words of power system is specifically targeted to examine the underlying mechanics and to get at some of the power balance concerns we have. As a result, we decided not to include all of the classes or even all of the words. While we wanted to give a representative sample, what we really want to focus on is the Sorcerer/Wizard words and the power that one can achieve just looking at some of the more potent words at their disposal. So, that means you are seeing a lot of straight damage words along with other words to give flavor to the overall system.
I just thought it might be a good idea to lay that out for all of the playtesters, so that you know where we are coming from. We hope that this methodology will get us the type of feedback we need to refine this system into its final form.
Enjoy and I look forward to seeing your feedback.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Well, I see that there's no sonic words of power -- probably one of the trickier effects to have to deal with because of the rarity of sonic resistance.
But wouldn't a playtest be really where you need to explore something like that? I mean, WORDS of power seem to be very sound-oriented. I really like the words of binding -- they make me think of truenames that speak across dimensions. But words that Shatter, and Shouts and other Sonic-based attacks seem to really fit this kind of magic more than, say, words of barriers.
Just sayin' is all.
I'm kind of thrown off by the lack of any healing effects. Those can create a whole different problem than offensive tactics, and a system designed for all casters with a playtest just for full arcane casters seems like it's going to miss a lot of potential balance problems.
|
I'm kind of thrown off by the lack of any healing effects. Those can create a whole different problem than offensive tactics, and a system designed for all casters with a playtest just for full arcane casters seems like it's going to miss a lot of potential balance problems.
As Jason said. Focused playtest. These are wizard words... and even then only a sample of them. They're wanting to get a baseline on how their system works.
|
Director of Game Design
|
I'm kind of thrown off by the lack of any healing effects. Those can create a whole different problem than offensive tactics, and a system designed for all casters with a playtest just for full arcane casters seems like it's going to miss a lot of potential balance problems.
Believe it or not, those are actually easier to work with. Since there is really only one word family for them, and you cannot combine them, their effects are quite a bit more predictable and easy to formulate.
We need to get the sorcerer/wizard right because they the high end of the numbers scale. The rest is a bit simpler for a variety of reasons.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Quick look, this feels very much like Ars Magica. I'll look deeper, but if that's the case, the layout is... suboptimal for communicating how spells are created.
*deeper look*
Yes, costs are roughly equivalent to magnitude, limitations on magnitude are dependent on level. Hmm, but you've actually given names to effects rather than whole classifications of effects. It's missing the Techniques, and just incorporates them into the Forms. I'll be writing out spells in a Target + EffectLevel:Cost format, something like SiAc0:3 for a single target Acid Burst level 0 spell. Standarized abbreviations for the effects would make an eventual shorthand much more useful.
I can already tell you how this runs, because I've been playing it for about 8 years and writing it for about 4. It's a kick in the pants, but it makes casters potent. That's why it's called "Ars Magica" and not "Ars Grogica." :)
Mmmmm, specifically, word burning is going to be a blast in play, as people consolidate their spells to make some serious heavy hitters. This is going to make for some interesting fun. I'll look forward to playing with that particular toy.
Small note, things like summoning effects probably ought to have predefined targets. Your target words have odd applications to a summoning effect. I'm guessing it's just meant to indicate the area where a summoned creature appears. So, for instances, for a first level effect, this will usually be a SiSu1:3. I notice it's no longer possible to cast a higher level summoning and get more creatures. You could possibly make this by doing MaSu1:5, but that would need to be explained in the header for Summoning that doesn't exist.
For what's trying to be done here, someone really needs to go read Ars Magica 5E; it does this cleaner and better. Don't get me wrong, having Technique and Form definitions for Pathfinder would be getting your combat/feat Totally in my magic system Awesome, and so I'd love to see this done, but there's a reason they went with the Platonic forms and the basic techniques-- it's easy to create the same effect multiple ways. Not so much here. I've still got only one way to do certain things, as evidenced by your effect word categories, but the ability to hack the target words is a nice step in the direction.
We need a clear table indicating available words for a caster/level. If I'm getting this right, a 2nd level wordcaster with a 16 ability has... 12 0th level words and 15 1st level words to work with in casting. I'll need to go dig into the options for Target/Effect combinations to look at potential loopholes, but good times.
This system's more of a bummer for a wizard, as predefining your words can take some of the fun out of it, but with a few winners, this'll be ok. I sense a lot of sorcerers, or really this being the default for sorcerers, because casting on the fly like this becomes really really addictive to people who become comfortable with it.
-Ben.
I can not understand how spells are crafted from the PDF. I admit that I haven't had a lot of time with it, but I think there needs to be some examples posted. I would hate to playtest this 'wrong'. We need to see how this is intended to be used.
From what I can understand, this alternate system is still close to the regular system in all but the crafting of spells part. To tell the truth, I personally was hoping for a completely new spell system. Maybe when I come to understand this, I may decide I like it. My problem, and one I share with most players I know, is if it is hard to understand without a lot of 'study' then I will NEVER get any of my players interested in this.
|
Director of Game Design
|
I can not understand how spells are crafted from the PDF. I admit that I haven't had a lot of time with it, but I think there needs to be some examples posted. I would hate to playtest this 'wrong'. We need to see how this is intended to be used.
From what I can understand, this alternate system is still close to the regular system in all but the crafting of spells part. To tell the truth, I personally was hoping for a completely new spell system. Maybe when I come to understand this, I may decide I like it. My problem, and one I share with most players I know, is if it is hard to understand without a lot of 'study' then I will NEVER get any of my players interested in this.
Hmm.. I am definitely concerned about the complexity level here, but I cannot tell how much time you have spent with it to determine if the wording is a bit too much to be considered reasonable.
Tell ya what, spend 30 minutes going through the intro bits until you get to the Target Word section and report back. If you still don't understand then I will be sure that we have a problem.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Some people have different learning styles. I know for me, personally, I like to skip ahead and read the example first to orient myself, then constantly check against that as my roadmap as I go back and read the actual directions.
Not having an example made it take about 3x as long for me to grasp.
I can not understand how spells are crafted from the PDF. I admit that I haven't had a lot of time with it, but I think there needs to be some examples posted. I would hate to playtest this 'wrong'. We need to see how this is intended to be used.
From what I can understand, this alternate system is still close to the regular system in all but the crafting of spells part. To tell the truth, I personally was hoping for a completely new spell system. Maybe when I come to understand this, I may decide I like it. My problem, and one I share with most players I know, is if it is hard to understand without a lot of 'study' then I will NEVER get any of my players interested in this.
Try to recreate an already existing spell or create a new spell, and I will walk you through it assuming nobody beats me to it.
I should be around for another hour or so.|
|
Some people have different learning styles. I know for me, personally, I like to skip ahead and read the example first to orient myself, then constantly check against that as my roadmap as I read the actual directions.
Not having an example made it take about 3x as long for me to grasp.
Yeah, it made a lot more sense to me when I looked at some of the examples people had come up with on the 'Let's Make Some Spells' thread.
Would it be possible to, since Words of Power and Spells are two seperate forms of magic, to multi-class Wizard (WoP) and Wizard (Spell)? I can't see it being overpowered in anyway. At least no more than Wiz / Sorc.
Description: Blast a single target in range with electricity and issue a simple order to that target.Total word cost:13
Total words: 3
Highest spell level required: 3Seems pretty clear to me.
Except that a 13 wordcount spell is 4th level, not a 3rd. This goes back to needing wordburning better clarified. Is this 3rd? Is it 4th?
-Ben.
I've been at it for about an hour now and I guess I'm stupid because I constantly realize I'm missing key text in the construction of spells.
I have seen people post some clever combinations since I've been bouncing back and forth between the forum and the PDF, but for my life I can't keep my attention on it long enough to be bothered. That and I can't be sure that what is being looked at is "legal" because I don't understand the rules here.
My honest assessment is that I am quickly being turned off to the complex nature of this system. I don't know of any way that it could be made simpler though, so I can't offer anything up in that department. This is a majorly ambitious project, and Jason gets props for taking it on. I have mad respect for this undertaking, but it's more work than I'm willing to put into spellcasting.
Is a lack of desire to test the rules acceptable feedback? Not trying to be a jerk. <<; I guess in defense of the system, I don't even like the meager amount of bookkeeping necessary to play a regular wizard, so my feelings may be moot (outlier).
I can not understand how spells are crafted from the PDF. I admit that I haven't had a lot of time with it, but I think there needs to be some examples posted. I would hate to playtest this 'wrong'. We need to see how this is intended to be used.
From what I can understand, this alternate system is still close to the regular system in all but the crafting of spells part. To tell the truth, I personally was hoping for a completely new spell system. Maybe when I come to understand this, I may decide I like it. My problem, and one I share with most players I know, is if it is hard to understand without a lot of 'study' then I will NEVER get any of my players interested in this.
Hmm.. I am definitely concerned about the complexity level here, but I cannot tell how much time you have spent with it to determine if the wording is a bit too much to be considered reasonable.
Tell ya what, spend 30 minutes going through the intro bits until you get to the Target Word section and report back. If you still don't understand then I will be sure that we have a problem.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingI spent about 10 minutes reading the PDF. Based on the one read here is what I built:
Target: Single: Level 0; Cost 0
Lightning Blast (Electricity) Level:sorcerer/wizard 3, cost:7, Saving Throw Reflex half
Simple Order (Command) Level:sorcerer/wizard 1,Cost 6; Duration 1 round; Saving Throw Will negates
SR:yes
Description: Blast a single target in range with electricity and issue a simple order to that target.Total word cost:13
Total words: 3
Highest spell level required: 3Seems pretty clear to me.
Except your explanation is as clear as mud. I want a example that is step by step. Yours is like throwing out a page of CSS code & saying, that seems simple to me.
To be clear, I don't understand the exact method of crafting in your "example". It is the end product with no explanation. The PDF seems to act as if you have already read the directions & assumes that you understand the limits. It is frustrating enough for me to have the knee-jerk reaction to ban this from my table. That wouldn't be a problem since I KNOW none of my players will even look at this for more than 2 seconds. They already think regular spellcasting is too much to deal with.
I can not understand how spells are crafted from the PDF. I admit that I haven't had a lot of time with it, but I think there needs to be some examples posted. I would hate to playtest this 'wrong'. We need to see how this is intended to be used.
From what I can understand, this alternate system is still close to the regular system in all but the crafting of spells part. To tell the truth, I personally was hoping for a completely new spell system. Maybe when I come to understand this, I may decide I like it. My problem, and one I share with most players I know, is if it is hard to understand without a lot of 'study' then I will NEVER get any of my players interested in this.
Hmm.. I am definitely concerned about the complexity level here, but I cannot tell how much time you have spent with it to determine if the wording is a bit too much to be considered reasonable.
Tell ya what, spend 30 minutes going through the intro bits until you get to the Target Word section and report back. If you still don't understand then I will be sure that we have a problem.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Jason, I read the PDF 3 time through already. It just gets more frustrating to me, which in turn makes it less understandable. My worry is the people who think they understand it may actually not be using it as intended. They may think they built a spell properly, when in reality they have not. I understand the concept well enough, but the explanation on how you actually combine the words is lacking. Do the levels add up? Why confuse the issue with using the same terms over & over when it seems to be referring to different things?
Except your explanation is as clear as mud. I want a example that is step by step. Yours is like throwing out a page of CSS code & saying, that seems simple to me.
I'll give this a shot with an example I've seen around: trying to recreate fireball.
First, we choose the target word. Fireball is a 20 ft. radius burst, so we'll choose the medium burst target word. That sets the minimum level of the spell to 3 and costs 5 points.
Then we choose an effect word. Fireball is a burst of fire, so we'll look at fire words. There are several fire words that deal damage similar to fireball (1d6 per level) but only one has a matching maximum (10d6), so we'll go with fire blast. The minimum level of the spell is still 3, and now costs a total of 9. We use the first listed cost because fire blast is (so far) the only effect word.
Of course, fireball has a long range, and medium burst only has a medium range. If we want to be faithful to the original, we need to boost the range. For this we will use the distant meta word. This word has a minimum level of 2 and a cost of 4.
Because we now have two effect words (meta words are effect words) we must reevaluate the cost. Fire blast's listed cost is 6/8. Since it is the highest level word in the spell, it is considered the first word added and is not subject to increased cost. Distant does not have a second listed cost, so it cannot be increased either. Therefore the cost is 5 + 6 + 4 = 13. This requires either a 4th level slot (since 3rd level slots can only hold 10 points) or a 3rd level slot with added points from word burning (none of the words are above 3rd level, so this can be done).
|
Therefore the cost is 5 + 6 + 4 = 13. This requires either a 4th level slot (since 3rd level slots can only hold 10 points) or a 3rd level slot with added points from word burning (none of the words are above 3rd level, so this can be done).
So, you're saying that for my words of power wizard cannot cast a fireball as a 3rd level spell without a feat unlike the vanilla wizard. That is bad. This begs running through the spell lists to see if this disparity continues. I hope it does not.
Except your explanation is as clear as mud. I want a example that is step by step. Yours is like throwing out a page of CSS code & saying, that seems simple to me.I'll give this a shot with an example I've seen around: trying to recreate fireball.
First, we choose the target word. Fireball is a 20 ft. radius burst, so we'll choose the medium burst target word. That sets the minimum level of the spell to 3 and costs 5 points.
Then we choose an effect word. Fireball is a burst of fire, so we'll look at fire words. There are several fire words that deal damage similar to fireball (1d6 per level) but only one has a matching maximum (10d6), so we'll go with fire blast. The minimum level of the spell is still 3, and now costs a total of 9. We use the first listed cost because fire blast is (so far) the only effect word.
Of course, fireball has a long range, and medium burst only has a medium range. If we want to be faithful to the original, we need to boost the range. For this we will use the distant meta word. This word has a minimum level of 2 and a cost of 4.
Because we now have two effect words (meta words are effect words) we must reevaluate the cost. Fire blast's listed cost is 6/8. Since it is the highest level word in the spell, it is considered the first word added and is not subject to increased cost. Distant does not have a second listed cost, so it cannot be increased either. Therefore the cost is 5 + 6 + 4 = 13. This requires either a 4th level slot (since 3rd level slots can only hold 10 points) or a 3rd level slot with added points from word burning (none of the words are above 3rd level, so this can be done).
That is better, but my problem is with determining the cost & level. That part makes no sense to me in the PDF. It seemed you grouped a bunch of 3rd level words together & then said, "Oops, this is really a 4th level spell. But we can fix it with word burning." What is word burning? I didn't see that term in the PDF. I don't understand the points either. This actually makes the psionics system seem tame.
Therefore the cost is 5 + 6 + 4 = 13. This requires either a 4th level slot (since 3rd level slots can only hold 10 points) or a 3rd level slot with added points from word burning (none of the words are above 3rd level, so this can be done).So, you're saying that for my words of power wizard cannot cast a fireball as a 3rd level spell without a feat unlike the vanilla wizard. That is bad. This begs running through the spell lists to see if this disparity continues. I hope it does not.
It does at first glance, I looked at a few spells and many classic spells are better then their normal words of power equivalents. Jason has already said that you lose some of the specific power in exchange for the versatility. So a fireball is better then it's 3rd level equivalent in words of power but a word of power caster can cast a lightning ball, acid ball, and ice ball just as easily. That is the price you pay for being as flexible as the system is.
Therefore the cost is 5 + 6 + 4 = 13. This requires either a 4th level slot (since 3rd level slots can only hold 10 points) or a 3rd level slot with added points from word burning (none of the words are above 3rd level, so this can be done).So, you're saying that for my words of power wizard cannot cast a fireball as a 3rd level spell without a feat unlike the vanilla wizard. That is bad. This begs running through the spell lists to see if this disparity continues. I hope it does not.
I'm a very mathematics oriented person so I love the looks of the system so far, but it seems like WoP wizards have trouble duplicating effects of many simple spells that other casters can do at the same level. One thing that seemed especially odd to me was that the only "Blindness" spell effect isn't avalable until you get 7th level spells (even if it doesn't allow a saving throw) while other casters get blindness as a 2nd level spell.
That is better, but my problem is with determining the cost & level. That part makes no sense to me in the PDF. It seemed you grouped a bunch of 3rd level words together & then said, "Oops, this is really a 4th level spell. But we can fix it with word burning."
That's exactly what I did.
Word Burning:
You can consume one of your available spell slots each day to
gain a limited pool of points that you can apply to other word
of power spells.
Prerequisites: Caster level 5th, the ability to cast words of
power spells.
Benefit: Each day, when you prepare your words of power
spells or regain your spell slots, you can choose to expend any
one spell slot you possess. You gain a number of points from
that slot equal to its total word cost (see Table 1–1). You can
apply the points from that spell slot to any other spell that you
prepare or cast that day, increasing the total word cost limit.
You can split these points up among any number of other spell
slots, but none of the spell slots can have a level equal to or
higher than the expended spell slot. This does not increase
the maximum word level of these slots, but it does allow more
expensive words to be combined in lower-level spell slots.
It's a feat on page 3 of the PDF.
How to determine cost and level:
Level is determined first by the level of the words involved. Each word has a level, and the highest level word in the spell determines the minimum level of the spell. You can't have a 3rd level spell with a 4th level word in it.
Next you must consider the point limits for the spells. Each level has a maximum amount of points for a spell of that level (Table 1-1, pg 4). Without the word burning feat, you cannot exceed this limit. If your spell has too many points to fit, you must move it to a higher level slot. With word burning, you can get some spare points to fix that.
Cost is determined by adding together the costs of each individual word in the spell. Some words have two costs (listed like 6/8 or 5/7). The first number listed is the cost if it is the only effect word in the spell or if it is the most expensive word in the spell. Secondary effects (defined as effects costing less than the most expensive one) use the second cost if they have one. This is to make stacking extra effects more expensive than using them separately.
I agree that this system is complex, and is only likely to be used by people who already enjoy the complexity of existing spellcasting. For those people though, this system is a lot of fun.
Therefore the cost is 5 + 6 + 4 = 13. This requires either a 4th level slot (since 3rd level slots can only hold 10 points) or a 3rd level slot with added points from word burning (none of the words are above 3rd level, so this can be done).So, you're saying that for my words of power wizard cannot cast a fireball as a 3rd level spell without a feat unlike the vanilla wizard. That is bad. This begs running through the spell lists to see if this disparity continues. I hope it does not.
One thing to keep in mind, as I have seen people talking about magic missile also not being reproducible at the standard level, is that some spells (example: magic missile) are "known" to be too good for their listed level. They are just so iconic in the core system that no one has wanted to mess with them. Fireball may well be another such spell.
That is better, but my problem is with determining the cost & level. That part makes no sense to me in the PDF. It seemed you grouped a bunch of 3rd level words together & then said, "Oops, this is really a 4th level spell. But we can fix it with word burning." What is word burning? I didn't see that term in...
The cost/level is a lot easier than you're making it out to be. The level listed for an effect word simply means you have to use at least that level of a spell slot to use it. You can use multiple level 2 words in a level 2 spell slot.
The cost is simple addition. You add together the cost of the target word, then the costs of any effect words you tack onto it. If the effect word has 2 costs listed (such as 5/7) you use the higher cost if you are already using another effect (highest level effect counts as the first).
So, let's say I want to make a large ball of fire and lighting. Large Burst Target word (cost 8). Then tack on the effect words Lighting Blast (cost 7/9) and Fire Blast (6/8). There's a little confusion on what higher cost to use for the blasts since they're level 3, but since the cost only increases by 2 no matter which one is chosen first let's say Lighting is first (fire costs extra). So, 8+7+8 = Cost 23, a 7th level spell that will do 10d6 Lighting + 10d6 Fire in a 40 ft radius, long range, reflex save for half.
Oh, and the highest level word on that list was the Large Burst at level 5, but that isn't an issue since the cost places the spell into a 7th level spell slot.
Anyone, feel free to correct me if I made a mistake. Honestly, I skimmed the rules once I got the main points because it all seems kind of straightforward to me. I'm a math person XD
Also, Word Burning was a feat I believe.
Therefore the cost is 5 + 6 + 4 = 13. This requires either a 4th level slot (since 3rd level slots can only hold 10 points) or a 3rd level slot with added points from word burning (none of the words are above 3rd level, so this can be done).So, you're saying that for my words of power wizard cannot cast a fireball as a 3rd level spell without a feat unlike the vanilla wizard. That is bad. This begs running through the spell lists to see if this disparity continues. I hope it does not.
Well you could drop the range enhancement (do you really cast fireballs from 400 ft away?) and change the medium burst to Mass (still can hit at least 5 targets) and the cost would only be 8, easily fitting into a 3rd level slot and doing equal damage to fireball. You even have 2 points left over for another effect. And this version never hits your allies.
That said, I'm wondering if Word Burning should be something all Wordcasters get, rather than an optional feat.
PS: replacing Fire Blast with Burning Flash (boosted) drops us to 7 points and lets us make this a 2nd level spell. It will have a lower damage cap than Fireball, but you can use it earlier.
Therefore the cost is 5 + 6 + 4 = 13. This requires either a 4th level slot (since 3rd level slots can only hold 10 points) or a 3rd level slot with added points from word burning (none of the words are above 3rd level, so this can be done).So, you're saying that for my words of power wizard cannot cast a fireball as a 3rd level spell without a feat unlike the vanilla wizard. That is bad. This begs running through the spell lists to see if this disparity continues. I hope it does not.
Well, it has been stated that vanilla casters give up specificity and some measure of sheer might for this added flexibility, but thinking about it now, I wonder if this adds any measure of spontaneity (Is this a word? Spell checker didn't hit it.) to wizards or if they have to prepare their words ahead of time. Obviously if they could use words on the fly, they would eliminate sorcerers... This to me makes vanilla wizards the more favorable of the two. As I have already stated, the system makes little sense to me, so my further observations may be meaningless, but if you lose spell-power (4th level fireballs opposed to 3rd level, etc) and don't gain flexibility (still have to prepare them ahead of time), then wizards gain nothing from this system that couldn't be done better with meta-magic feats.
On the other hand, the targeting words are probably a key strength here of which I can't comprehend the significance. I know the Magus would definitely benefit from being able to create a wider variety of touch spells.
My prediction: Wizards will ignore it, Sorcerers will take up lots of table time trying to make new spells in combat, and the Magi will love it because it seems tailor made for them. The divine classes are a different ball game... This is making my head spin.
Dang, I keep going back to it and trying to get into it, but I keep getting my mind all tangled up in ideas or questions that are mostly irrelevant. Stuff like "Will there be shapable entangle effects for druids?" Which makes me wonder about how divine WoP work, but then I remind myself it doesn't matter for this playtest...
|
Okay 2 things off the bat...mass is too cheap. It costs 1 less then a small burst with a longer range and it has a larger area of effect then a small burst with selective targeting options.
and number 2...this will slow down most games to a crawl...especially with spont casters without a HUGE effort on the players part at higher levels. The idea for having 3 or 4 words is nice in theory, but in execution, it slows down the game WAY too much. The only way I can see this getting speed up is to convert to a power point system so you just deduct the total cost from your pool.
Okay 2 things off the bat...mass is too cheap. It costs 1 less then a small burst with a longer range and it has a larger area of effect then a small burst with selective targeting options.
and number 2...this will slow down most games to a crawl...especially with spont casters without a HUGE effort on the players part at higher levels. The idea for having 3 or 4 words is nice in theory, but in execution, it slows down the game WAY too much. The only way I can see this getting speed up is to convert to a power point system so you just deduct the total cost from your pool.
All they have to do is write down the spell combinations that they'll be using the most often. It isn't like you are really creating a completely unique spell each time. Plus, the math is still simpler than adding together the full round attack from a two weapon fighting rogue. I mean...you just pick 4 parts and add their costs together.
Okay 2 things off the bat...mass is too cheap. It costs 1 less then a small burst with a longer range and it has a larger area of effect then a small burst with selective targeting options.
and number 2...this will slow down most games to a crawl...especially with spont casters without a HUGE effort on the players part at higher levels. The idea for having 3 or 4 words is nice in theory, but in execution, it slows down the game WAY too much. The only way I can see this getting speed up is to convert to a power point system so you just deduct the total cost from your pool.
I agree that without alot of effort this will slow things down, but I dont know how you could keep the idea and not slow the system down. The whole point is to be able to mix and match things, that is going to take time to work out no matter how you slice it.
Unfortunately, the explanation just proved what I was afraid of. The system is too complicated for my tastes. Your players have to do 'homework' to play a caster. I can't get them to read the rule books as it is. They mainly want the rules spoon fed to them & frankly I am burned out of feeling like I have to 'teach' the players all the time.
And before people start screaming how easy it is, it is complicated. I have yet to see a system that really allows spellcasting on the fly. I don't think it can be done. This seems to me to be more a recipe book for designing new spells for core casting. I want my alternate spellcasting system to be more alternate. The ease of use should be the same as a fighter picking a weapon. At least from the point of view of the GM. I know that shoots backward compatibility in the butt, BUT I like that for my alternate rules. Might not be a good idea for core, but alternate is fair game.
There's talk going around in some of the other topics about making a web app which will let you automatically calculate out what each spell combination would do, or even list every possible spell that you can create with the words that you have. So, I imagine that would make things simpler for everyone.
The only way I can see this getting speed up is to convert to a power point system so you just deduct the total cost from your pool.
Another way to speed it up would be to use technology, in the form of a web app or something that lets you pick your options and crunches out what the level / cost / etc. are for you. It wouldn't even be that hard to write.
Ultimately I think people who like wordcasting and want to play with it a lot will get quick at it, but there are ways to make it easier for people that aren't quite there yet or would never be.
Edit: Ninja'd!
For those that dont use any computers at the game table, how about a card deck? Set a point limit & spell level, then 'slap' some cards down to describe the spell.
For those that dont use any computers at the game table, how about a card deck? Set a point limit & spell level, then 'slap' some cards down to describe the spell.
That's a pretty good idea. It would be a pretty big card deck for a high level wizard, but it would definitely be doable at either low levels or for spontaneous casters.
Edit: Though, in reality, it really seems like this system is best for spontaneous casters anyway, lol.
In all honesty, I see this system speeding up my playing a caster significantly. Pick your spell level, choose your target(s), and look through your effects for what you want. All you really need to learn is a much shorter list of effects which are fairly standarized. A much simpler system than the current spell system, which I find myself looking up every other spell I wish to use.
edit: I have no idea when I will be able to actually test this though, unfortunately, and I can definetely see it slowing down many people I play with.
In all honesty, I see this system speeding up my playing a caster significantly. Pick your spell level, choose your target(s), and look through your effects for what you want. All you really need to learn is a much shorter list of effects which are fairly standarized. A much simpler system than the current spell system, which I find myself looking up every other spell I wish to use.
Yea, that's my thoughts too. The current spells are all so varied that you often have to look up the conditions for every single spell you cast unless it is just a standard fireball, and each one has its own set of special effects and conditions.
Ironically, it seems that the simplicity of the effects of the Words of Power are both their greatest strength and greatest weakness XD
Edit: Yea, unfortunately I don't know if I'll ever get to test this either. I really want to, but I'm not playing a wizard/sorc in any of the games that I'm currently in. Blah.
|
|
In all honesty, I see this system speeding up my playing a caster significantly. Pick your spell level, choose your target(s), and look through your effects for what you want. All you really need to learn is a much shorter list of effects which are fairly standarized. A much simpler system than the current spell system, which I find myself looking up every other spell I wish to use.
That's because you have a limited list of effects. The whole list should be MUCH larger if it's gonna compete with normal magic. In that case, you will in all likelyhood be looking up the spell you made's effect in 2-3 locations instead of just one. My worry about the slowdown and complexity isn't as the system is presented...but it's when all the stuff they left out gets added in.
|
First off, I'm thrilled that Pathfinder will have an official alternative spell system to the miserable, illogical Vancian system we've suffered with all these years. Word burning alone makes it worth the price of admission. However, from all the comments evincing confusion with how to correctly build spells from scratch I think it's obvious that Ultimate Magic will have to include a basic set of pre-built spells. That will enable people to easily get started without needing huge amounts of work while also providing a set of examples to work from. I say this because I had a recent bad experience with building a magic system from elements. I tried running a game with BESM which was likewise a basic "toolkit" system where you build everything with points. The effort required to build a whole set of spells from scratch was a beast and was one of the things which brought the campaign to a halt. Alternatively, you could have the new Words of Power system act as a magical spell research system which players can use to "research" custom spells they need. This would be in addition to the bad old spell slot system.
That's because you have a limited list of effects. The whole list should be MUCH larger if it's gonna compete with normal magic. In that case, you will in all likelyhood be looking up the spell you made's effect in 2-3 locations instead of just one. My worry about the slowdown and complexity isn't as the system is presented...but it's when all the stuff they left out gets added in.In all honesty, I see this system speeding up my playing a caster significantly. Pick your spell level, choose your target(s), and look through your effects for what you want. All you really need to learn is a much shorter list of effects which are fairly standarized. A much simpler system than the current spell system, which I find myself looking up every other spell I wish to use.
I suspect it will require similar pre-game prep as summoning does currently. Have some premade stuff ahead of time for general situations and make a quick-reference sheet if you need to actually build something. It should speed up any kind of complexity issues considerably.
So, you're saying that for my words of power wizard cannot cast a fireball as a 3rd level spell without a feat unlike the vanilla wizard. That is bad. This begs running through the spell lists to see if this disparity continues. I hope it does not.
Honestly, that makes me feel better about the system. If you can duplicate spells exactly, and have the flexibility to modify them, all you are doing is making Wordcasters obviously better than standard spellcasters.
At least that's the way I feel about it.
This seems so far to resemble Scrabble.
Yeah you can spell some words, but eventually you'll end up with a couple Q's and a Y.
So what happnes when toward the end all you have are a few words that cant be combined? Can this happen?
|
|
It does at first glance, I looked at a few spells and many classic spells are better then their normal words of power equivalents. Jason has already said that you lose some of the specific power in exchange for the versatility. So a fireball is better then it's 3rd level equivalent in words of power but a word of power caster can cast a lightning ball, acid ball, and ice ball just as easily. That is the price you pay for being as flexible as the system is.
Is that in the pdf? I don't see where I can substitute energy types. If that is the case (and it would save much page space by listing energy words as one generic section over five separate sections saying basically the same thing with the words acid, cold, electricity, fire and sonic being exchanged for one another)it is a great alternative to the normal spell.
|
|
This seems so far to resemble Scrabble.
Yeah you can spell some words, but eventually you'll end up with a couple Q's and a Y.
So what happnes when toward the end all you have are a few words that cant be combined? Can this happen?
You seemed to do pretty well with those left over y's, n, k, r, b and z
You seemed to do pretty well with those left over y's, n, k, r, b and zThis seems so far to resemble Scrabble.
Yeah you can spell some words, but eventually you'll end up with a couple Q's and a Y.
So what happnes when toward the end all you have are a few words that cant be combined? Can this happen?
That made me laugh.
In any case, you don't "run out" of words - if you know a word you can use it as many times as you like.