Page 2 of 6
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 6:18 pm
by Dreamslinger
Eldric IV wrote:jmucchiello wrote:It fails 40+% of the time. That's crazy. What tool do you use of a continuing basis that fails outright ... 40% of the time? Magic is so unreliable only stark raving mad lunatics should be involved in it. Rational people don't devote their livelihoods to something with such low odds.
While not perfect, I cannot help but think of baseball as a counter-example.
You would be the greatest hitter who ever lived if you only failed 40% of the time at bat. Heck, you would be the greatest hitter if you
succeeded 40% of the time at bat.
Magic
"40% of the time it works every time"
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 6:22 pm
by nanstreet
Dreamslinger wrote:Eldric IV wrote:jmucchiello wrote:It fails 40+% of the time. That's crazy. What tool do you use of a continuing basis that fails outright ... 40% of the time? Magic is so unreliable only stark raving mad lunatics should be involved in it. Rational people don't devote their livelihoods to something with such low odds.
While not perfect, I cannot help but think of baseball as a counter-example.
You would be the greatest hitter who ever lived if you only failed 40% of the time at bat. Heck, you would be the greatest hitter if you
succeeded 40% of the time at bat.
Magic
"40% of the time it works every time"
Quoth the Archmage Yogi Berra?
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 7:21 pm
by jmucchiello
Eldric IV wrote:You would be the greatest hitter who ever lived if you only failed 40% of the time at bat. Heck, you would be the greatest hitter if you succeeded 40% of the time at bat.
I was actually going to point this out. The difference between baseball and the spells is baseball is not life or death. It's a game. People play games all the time and lose or win. But spells are tools. They aren't games, they are there to improve you in some way. They are there to help you get something done. If you had a hammer where the head flew off 2 out of 5 swings would keep using that hammer? Games don't have to succeed. Tools do. And magic where a guy with a brain in the 93rd percentile of humanoid intelligence (16, remember) who fails 40% of the time has to be smart enough to find a better tool.
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 7:30 pm
by nanstreet
Swords will probably miss 2 out of five swings (or more against higher ACs) even for that trained warrior.
I think the attraction for wizards is the insane power with those high rolls. That's the trade off for a 40% fizzle rate.
Toning down the power of those high rolls might warrant lowering the fizzle rate. Heck, give the Wizard a class die and have them lose spells on a 1-2 on it, lower the fizzle rate, and allow them to fizzle but not lose their spells (well, unless the class die is a 1-2 at the same time as the fizzle).
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 7:55 pm
by bholmes4
nanstreet wrote:Swords will probably miss 2 out of five swings (or more against higher ACs) even for that trained warrior.
Just to be nit-picky remember combat is abstract, not modelling each swing. In each roll you may have swung multiple times so warriors actually miss, or at least fail to do damage, far more often. That said the stats hold true for each warrior "action".
nanstreet wrote:I think the attraction for wizards is the insane power with those high rolls. That's the trade off for a 40% fizzle rate.
Agreed.
nanstreet wrote:Toning down the power of those high rolls might warrant lowering the fizzle rate. Heck, give the Wizard a class die and have them lose spells on a 1-2 on it, lower the fizzle rate, and allow them to fizzle but not lose their spells (well, unless the class die is a 1-2 at the same time as the fizzle).
I considered the 1-2 thing for my house rules (basically working like the MDoA) but I can't figure out how to make it work properly. The issue I have is that high level wizards could cast an insane number of times. An 8th level wizard with a d10 will only lose a spell 1/5 times giving them 5 casts of each on average. At 8th level for instance, If they have 10 spells memorized, that means they can cast 50 spells a day on average. Even if you have a 50% fizzle rate that's still 25 spells a day. It obviously gets worse at 9 and 10.
I considered making the numbers (1-2) rise depending on the level of the spell but that only makes low level spells even more useful than high level spells as they would seldom fail. Why memorize Power Word Kill and probably lose it after 1 cast when you can Ultra Nuke, err I mean Magic Missile, and get a similar effect (often insta killing anyway with the insane Magic Missile damage)? Anyway there may still be a system hidden in there but I haven't figured it out or even if it's worth exploring.
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:15 pm
by nanstreet
bholmes4 wrote:nanstreet wrote:Toning down the power of those high rolls might warrant lowering the fizzle rate. Heck, give the Wizard a class die and have them lose spells on a 1-2 on it, lower the fizzle rate, and allow them to fizzle but not lose their spells (well, unless the class die is a 1-2 at the same time as the fizzle).
I considered the 1-2 thing for my house rules (basically working like the MDoA) but I can't figure out how to make it work properly. The issue I have is that high level wizards could cast an insane number of times. An 8th level wizard with a d10 will only lose a spell 1/5 times giving them 5 casts of each on average. At 8th level for instance, If they have 10 spells memorized, that means they can cast 50 spells a day on average. Even if you have a 50% fizzle rate that's still 25 spells a day. It obviously gets worse at 9 and 10.
I considered making the numbers (1-2) rise depending on the level of the spell but that only makes low level spells even more useful than high level spells as they would seldom fail. Why memorize Power Word Kill and probably lose it after 1 cast when you can Ultra Nuke, err I mean Magic Missile, and get a similar effect (often insta killing anyway with the insane Magic Missile damage)? Anyway there may still be a system hidden in there but I haven't figured it out or even if it's worth exploring.
True, it doesn't really change the math for the insane number of spells higher level wizards could cast, whether they are adding a class die or their level to to spell action roll.
Corruption seems to be there to be
the check on spellcasting for higher level wizards.
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:49 pm
by bholmes4
nanstreet wrote:
True, it doesn't really change the math for the insane number of spells higher level wizards could cast, whether they are adding a class die or their level to to spell action roll.
Corruption seems to be there to be the check on spellcasting for higher level wizards.
Actually good point. My view is coming from someone that is working on rules that will reduce (and likely outright limit) the number of spells a wizard can cast in a day. Corruption will come in to play in other ways...
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:22 pm
by A Strange Aeon
Dreamslinger wrote:
You would be the greatest hitter who ever lived if you only failed 40% of the time at bat. Heck, you would be the greatest hitter if you succeeded 40% of the time at bat.
Magic
"40% of the time it works every time"[/quote]
That 40% figure doesn't take into account spellburning, a thematic and mechanical means for wizards to increase the likelihood of their magic working. Magic, as far as I'm concerned, should be a risky, dangerous proposition. If you're wise, you don't waste your spells on situations a crossbow or quarterstaff or torch could take of. But when you cast, you spellburn and placate your patron enough to make sure it succeeds, if it NEEDS to succeed.
Higher-level wizards seem to gain power slowly, which is good. Their bonus to spell-casting seems off-set by the penalty to their die roll for casting higher-level spells (2x the level of the spell being cast), so their inherent spell level bonus is always behind when it comes to casting higher-level spells.
One thing others have mentioned is that the spell tables might make certain spells objectively more attractive than others--for instance, Magic Missile could be more attractive than a Fireball if the higher spell check results of a lower-level spell outweigh the benefits of a harder-to-cast higher-level spell. I think when spells are designed, they need to be made with tables reflecting a progressive balance, or at least this should be considered. It's no victory for imaginative gaming if Wizards cast Magic Missile over a more evocative, higher-level spell simply because it makes more sense mechanically. The least result of a Fireball should be greater than a certain midpoint on the Magic Missile table to encourage casting it and taking a greater risk of failure. I guess I fear that these tables will be hard to balance and players will end up using the mechanically sound but less interesting low-level spells.
Having only seen 1st level spells, it's hard to see how this will develop, but since spells don't have a tremendous chance of vanishing after use, repeatedly casting lower-level spells with high spell check results in place of higher level spells with more difficult checks seems ripe for abuse and broken flavor.
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:30 pm
by bholmes4
Wow welcome to the boards "A Strange Aeon". Great post.
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:50 pm
by Stainless
Some people are addicted to spending their money at casinos. I suspect the odds of success there are much lower than 60%.
From another viewpoint, most people make a risk-benefit equation in their heads about all sorts of things. Something may be risky but if the potential benefit is great enough, people will chance it.
I think in the DCC RPG, Wizards should be thought of as addicts and gamblers.
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:33 am
by Stainless
abk108 wrote:Stainless wrote:, could we not allow Wizards a saving throw (with level as a positive DM) at the time they level up? That way, there is the corruption to deal with whilst at that level (and all its associated roleplaying opportunities), the possibility of removing the corruption and so not further/continually hindering the character/player, but also the possibility that the corruption will remain.
That's exactly what I suggested
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Hence my qualifying comment at the end of my post. What can I say?; Great minds think alike.
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 4:22 am
by abk108
Stainless wrote:abk108 wrote:Stainless wrote:, could we not allow Wizards a saving throw (with level as a positive DM) at the time they level up? That way, there is the corruption to deal with whilst at that level (and all its associated roleplaying opportunities), the possibility of removing the corruption and so not further/continually hindering the character/player, but also the possibility that the corruption will remain.
That's exactly what I suggested
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Hence my qualifying comment at the end of my post. What can I say?; Great minds think alike.
LOL, i wasn't claiming "HEY! I said that first!"
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
i just wanted to say ..."Great minds think alike"
By te way, i was thinking of adopting a similar process for recovering lost ability points: poison, disease and malicious magic might impeach a character. I think those are quite severe things (in books, poison is not something that goes away with a couple days of sleep! think of Frodo's scar from the spectre's blade! It never fully healed), therefore i will allow them to be recovered fully, without having to roll any Save (that'd be nasty), only upon level up.
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 4:27 am
by abk108
jmucchiello wrote:Hamakto wrote:So on average, he will be able to cast his starting six spells a total of 7 times.
I'm talking about the insanity of using "magic" to start with. It fails 40+% of the time. That's crazy. What tool do you use of a continuing basis that fails outright (and can't be used again) for 24-hours 40% of the time? Magic is so unreliable only stark raving mad lunatics should be involved in it. Rational people don't devote their livelihoods to something with such low odds. Especially when even if it succeeds, it doesn't feed you, cloth you, etc.
Game balance-wise, it works perfectly as your math says. But I just don't see the up side for the sane individual.
Hey, I would use magic if I could!!
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
Even if I had a 1% chance of actually casting "Fly" or "Invisibility" on myself................ HELL, I'D SO GO FOR IT!!
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
And I don't think I'm a stark ravid mad lunatic
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 8:50 am
by jmucchiello
abk108 wrote:Hey, I would use magic if I could!!
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
Even if I had a 1% chance of actually casting "Fly" or "Invisibility" on myself................ HELL, I'D SO GO FOR IT!!
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
And I don't think I'm a stark ravid mad lunatic
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Even with the 5% chance of rolling on that corruption chart? Really? Tempting fate in that way is the mark of someone with nothing left to lose or total insanity.
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:30 am
by Stainless
I'm sure someone in the insurance industry could shed some light on this subject.
Man, I wonder how much the premiums would be when you declare your occupation as "Wizard"?! And then when the find out your address is "Haunted castle" and your regular commute is to "Random dungeon"!
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:25 am
by abk108
jmucchiello wrote:abk108 wrote:Hey, I would use magic if I could!!
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
Even if I had a 1% chance of actually casting "Fly" or "Invisibility" on myself................ HELL, I'D SO GO FOR IT!!
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
And I don't think I'm a stark ravid mad lunatic
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Even with the 5% chance of rolling on that corruption chart? Really? Tempting fate in that way is the mark of someone with nothing left to lose or total insanity.
Oh, cmon! I mean, getting horns or tentacles or albino skin is not something that would make me an outcast... If someone says "ahahah! Look at that guy! He's got tentacles! Gross...Eww!" *Friends laugh out loud*
... I'd reply "Yeah, you know why I got tentacles? Cos I can do this *fireball explodes friends* Now.. Why you got monkey ears? that's a good question, that should require medical attention."
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:27 pm
by Aplus
jmucchiello wrote:Eldric IV wrote:You would be the greatest hitter who ever lived if you only failed 40% of the time at bat. Heck, you would be the greatest hitter if you succeeded 40% of the time at bat.
I was actually going to point this out. The difference between baseball and the spells is baseball is not life or death. It's a game. People play games all the time and lose or win. But spells are tools. They aren't games, they are there to improve you in some way. They are there to help you get something done. If you had a hammer where the head flew off 2 out of 5 swings would keep using that hammer? Games don't have to succeed. Tools do. And magic where a guy with a brain in the 93rd percentile of humanoid intelligence (16, remember) who fails 40% of the time has to be smart enough to find a better tool.
Some might say that
Dungeon Crawl Classics is a game. Just sayin'...
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:37 pm
by Aplus
jmucchiello wrote:abk108 wrote:Hey, I would use magic if I could!!
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
Even if I had a 1% chance of actually casting "Fly" or "Invisibility" on myself................ HELL, I'D SO GO FOR IT!!
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
And I don't think I'm a stark ravid mad lunatic
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Even with the 5% chance of rolling on that corruption chart? Really? Tempting fate in that way is the mark of someone with nothing left to lose or total insanity.
It is also the mark of someone playing a game in which fun can be derived from attempting things that may turn out badly. After all, that is why we use dice in the first place - so there can be a chance of failure - failure which often turns out to be more entertaining than success.
That being said, for anyone that wants to add more granularity to corruption, you can simply say that a natural 1 results in some % chance to get a corruption, and have the player roll percentiles whenever they get a 1. It could be a progressively higher chance for higher level spells, or whatever you'd like.
At any rate, I think one of the strongest points going for DCC is the fact that it isn't too self-serious. I would be saddened if it went too far in the direction of being a "legit, well-balanced, self-serious" game. There are enough of those around. The players can make the decision for themselves if they are uncomfortable with the risks associated with being a magic-user.
Just my 2d cents.
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:48 pm
by bholmes4
abk108 wrote:
Oh, cmon! I mean, getting horns or tentacles or albino skin is not something that would make me an outcast... If someone says "ahahah! Look at that guy! He's got tentacles! Gross...Eww!" *Friends laugh out loud*
... I'd reply "Yeah, you know why I got tentacles? Cos I can do this *fireball explodes friends* Now.. Why you got monkey ears? that's a good question, that should require medical attention."
Yep I agree. Big deal, I have horns now. My wife would understand if I made us a bunch of money casting a spell or I needed to use it to save our lives or something.
And if she left me you know that there is some freaky women that would actually be turned on by tentacles or horns, lol. Between that and the inevitable reality TV show they'd make about me, I'd be just fine.
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:29 pm
by A Strange Aeon
Aplus wrote:
It is also the mark of someone playing a game in which fun can be derived from attempting things that may turn out badly. After all, that is why we use dice in the first place - so there can be a chance of failure - failure which often turns out to be more entertaining than success.
That being said, for anyone that wants to add more granularity to corruption, you can simply say that a natural 1 results in some % chance to get a corruption, and have the player roll percentiles whenever they get a 1. It could be a progressively higher chance for higher level spells, or whatever you'd like.
At any rate, I think one of the strongest points going for DCC is the fact that it isn't too self-serious. I would be saddened if it went too far in the direction of being a "legit, well-balanced, self-serious" game. There are enough of those around. The players can make the decision for themselves if they are uncomfortable with the risks associated with being a magic-user.
Just my 2d cents.
This is definitely it. Spell corruption, at a 5% chance, isn't even really that common. A lot of people seem under the impression that a Wizard will have 40+ Corruptions throughout his career or something, and I don't see where that number is coming from. Probably by the 5th, and certainly by the 10th corruption, the consequences of being tainted by a patron or marked as an outcast would lead to more and more situations for that character who is hopefully role-playing the nature of the corruption as well, causing lots of fun encounters with angry commoners, interparty distrust, and unwanted attention from opposing powers-that-be. All of this seems to encourage a wizard to lay low, and reinforces the idea that you have to pay the piper someday, or make increasingly desperate deals with otherworldly powers to stave off further corruption. This all seems in the flavor of the setting.
Like what was said earlier, to limit corruption a wizard has to limit spellcasting. The rules couldn't be more clear that magic-users make dangerous bargains with untrustworthy and self-interested powers. And rolling a 1 isn't tremendously common the way people are making it out to be, either. If the 5% chance when casting a spell (a player choice, it should be remembered) is too high for you, then what percentage would work better? It's simple enough to house-rule, as suggested above, though the inherent limitations on sorcerers (let's just call them this, it sounds more pulp) are that risk of corruption, every time they roll the die to cast a spell.
If a sorcerer is casting multiple spells every round in a combat, those 1's will be coming up more often. Magic is powerful, but dangerous. This seems entirely appropriate. What exactly is the problem?
Someone on a different thread had suggested different tiers of corruption, and this is an excellent idea. Minor are cosmetic mostly, Greater start affecting things mechanically, and Major end up causing physical changes, perhaps turning the PC into an NPC. Their example was:
"Major corruptions would be character altering type corruptions. My example in the email for a Major would be if you have a Patron of death... a Major corruption would be that you turn into a Vampire or Lich. It fits the game environment and it gives a really cool explanation on how some of the races/monsters appear.
If you worship the God of Frogs... you could turn into a Bullywog, etc..."
I love this and hope it gets supported in the final product. The idea that many monsters that are encountered are actually sorcerers or otherwise bonded to a patron whose dealings with extraplanar and infernal powers have caught up with them is steeped in the pulp tradition and makes for an awesome background explanation for monstrous beings, while providing inspiration for specific demi-gods, demons, and patrons to populate the cosmology of the setting with.
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:05 pm
by abk108
bholmes4 wrote:Yep I agree. Big deal, I have horns now. My wife would understand if I made us a bunch of money casting a spell or I needed to use it to save our lives or something.
And if she left me you know that there is some freaky women that would actually be turned on by tentacls or horns, lol. Between that and the inevitable reality TV show they'd make about me, I'd be just fine.
LOL
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
and Amen
Don't forget t-shirts and action figures!
"Damn, how did you grow one of those??" "That's what your mom said"
"I got tentacles.. SO WHAT?"
"My horns make your gf horny"
"Albino is the new black"
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 5:07 pm
by bholmes4
Lol in all seriousness though I don't see corruption as a big deterrant to "limit" casting. Definitely won't work in one-offs or short campaigns, and it actually encourages some types of players who will want to see just how crazy they can make their character look. Add in old school meat grinder-style adventures and their is no real reason to hold back.
"Oh no, I shouldn't cast in case I become a freak? Yeah right, like that will stop me. I will probably fall down a pit trap and die in the next tunnel or be eaten by a dragon anyway. Chances are I won't survive to 5th level (if the campaign even makes it that far). And if I do I will worry about it then... Or just re-roll a new character."
I really like the corruption idea mind you, I just don't think it will serve it's apparent intended purpose here (limiting casting) and should be applied somewhere else. There are other ways to limit casting and still keep corruption, which deserves to be in this setting, in the game. It should have an impact, it should force players to make some tough decisions, but it shouldn't just happen for random casting and shouldn't be used for this purpose. In my opinion it should be something you are faced with when a Wizard seeks power they should not have, or allies with forces best left outside this world:
-Want to spell burn to cast beyond your normal limits? Chance of corruption.
-Want to cast summon monster? Chance of corruption.
-Want to cast a dark ritual? Chance of corruption.
-Want to learn a new spell beyond the limit for your level? Roll to see if you learn it with a chance at corruption as you explore and experiment.
-Find a scroll or spellbook with a spell you want to learn? Roll with corruption at half the chance (since you have much of the information you already need).
-Want to ally with a patron who does not offer as much but is well known to this world? Roll with a reduced chance at corruption.
-Want to ally with an unknown being from the depths of time and space who offers you much in return? Every time you cast invoke patron you are just asking to be corrupted.
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 5:13 pm
by jmucchiello
abk108 wrote:bholmes4 wrote:Yep I agree. Big deal, I have horns now. My wife would understand if I made us a bunch of money casting a spell or I needed to use it to save our lives or something.
And if she left me you know that there is some freaky women that would actually be turned on by tentacls or horns, lol. Between that and the inevitable reality TV show they'd make about me, I'd be just fine.
LOL
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
and Amen
I'd hate to be that project manager. "Hey we just got 100,000 units in from China. What? What do you mean his left arm in now a tentacle? Call the manufacturer and see if we can rip off the normal arms and attach a tentacle? Are you nuts?"
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:25 am
by abk108
bholmes4 wrote:In my opinion it should be something you are faced with when a Wizard seeks power they should not have, or allies with forces best left outside this world:
-Want to spell burn to cast beyond your normal limits? Chance of corruption.
-Want to cast summon monster? Chance of corruption.
-Want to cast a dark ritual? Chance of corruption.
-Want to learn a new spell beyond the limit for your level? Roll to see if you learn it with a chance at corruption as you explore and experiment.
-Find a scroll or spellbook with a spell you want to learn? Roll with corruption at half the chance (since you have much of the information you already need).
-Want to ally with a patron who does not offer as much but is well known to this world? Roll with a reduced chance at corruption.
-Want to ally with an unknown being from the depths of time and space who offers you much in return? Every time you cast invoke patron you are just asking to be corrupted.
Some of this links to that thread debating two different types of Arcane Magic: one less flashy and more reliable, the other corrupting, dark and over-the-top.
In that thread, i suggested, as a vague idea, to move all Necromancy, Evocation and Conjuration (this means Summoning spells) to the "Dark Path", while leaving Charme, Illusion and Divination to the "White Path"
jmucchiello wrote:abk108 wrote:bholmes4 wrote:Yep I agree. Big deal, I have horns now. My wife would understand if I made us a bunch of money casting a spell or I needed to use it to save our lives or something.
And if she left me you know that there is some freaky women that would actually be turned on by tentacls or horns, lol. Between that and the inevitable reality TV show they'd make about me, I'd be just fine.
LOL
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
and Amen
I'd hate to be that project manager. "Hey we just got 100,000 units in from China. What? What do you mean his left arm in now a tentacle? Call the manufacturer and see if we can rip off the normal arms and attach a tentacle? Are you nuts?"
Oh cmon. Action Man could be dressed as a ninja, as an astronaut, as a marine or maybe even as Santa's Combat Elf... We just need to sell the basic Wizard, then sell sets of removable limbs for all opportunities!! ...
![Mr. Green :mrgreen:](./images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
Re: "Limiting" Corruption
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:52 am
by bholmes4
abk108 wrote:bholmes4 wrote:
Some of this links to that thread debating two different types of Arcane Magic: one less flashy and more reliable, the other corrupting, dark and over-the-top.
In that thread, i suggested, as a vague idea, to move all Necromancy, Evocation and Conjuration (this means Summoning spells) to the "Dark Path", while leaving Charme, Illusion and Divination to the "White Path"
I assume one is not entirely bound to one path? As such any wizard can cast Illusion?
I would love to see someone do this. The one problem I foresee is that it's not quite that simple. I imagine some domination-type charm spell that reduces you to a gibbering fool for the rest of your life is likely more to the Dark Path. Or perhaps divining through a giant eye above your tower, so that you can watch for and capture the Halfling with your ring, is not such a nice spell either.
I really think corruption chances should just be added to the spell charts and ignore "crits" of "fumbles" (that's what the chart is for already). Perhaps
Enlarge has 0 chance for corruption but
Giant Eye of Searching For Your Lost Possessions causes corruption on a 1-10.