Re: Higher Level Spells for BETA
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:12 am
I was personally hoping fireball and fly would not exist in DCCRPG. Oh well.
Fan Forums Archives - Closed to New Posts
https://goodman-games.com/forums/
Thanks for talking with Joseph!finarvyn wrote:I've gotten approval from Joseph to post 1-2 spells.(Emphasis mine, not Joseph's.)goodmangames wrote:For now, just post 1 or 2 -- not too many. I still need to figure out a couple things on spells -- first, to make sure they're balanced across levels, and second, to think through exactly how many and which ones to include. So a few examples, sure, but I don't want to inadvertently create expectations that may not "come true" in the final version.
In spite of some dire posts that annouce that spells are a "sacred cow" and won't change, I should draw everyone's attention to the final line in the quote above -- we don't really know yet what the final spell part of the RPG will look like. As such, I can release a couple but only with the warning that the final version may not look like what you get to see here.
So the question is: which spells?
I had thought maybe "fireball" and something like "fly". That would give a flash-bang spell and a non-combat spell. Any thoughts on this?
So where is this reflected in DCCRPG? Obviously these "psychic powers" do not have anything to do with the corrupting effects of external forces/beings.yfr wrote:I think the wizard was not casting spells in any Vancean or Gygaxian sense. The wizard was using "psychic powers" much like an E. E. "Doc" Smith Lensman or an A. E. van Vogt ubermensch. Howard seems to have assumed that wizards could use psychic powers (telepathy, mesmerism, telekinesis, etc.) at will, just as Conan could use his mighty muscles at will.
Maybe the "haste" like spells could be all part of a fly-themed spell. At low results, you just get to reduce attrition with the ground, and move quickier.geordie racer wrote:Fly is one of the module-breaking spells (like Teleportation, Invisibility, Time Stop, Polymorph etc) so I'm interested to see how it's handled - is it a condensed Feather Fall/Levitate/Fly and what's the speed/duration like ?
Yeah, Howard's idea of wizardry is very different than Leiber's idea, and both of them differ from Moorcock's idea, and all three of them are wildly divergent from Vance's idea.jmucchiello wrote: So where is this reflected in DCCRPG? Obviously these "psychic powers" do not have anything to do with the corrupting effects of external forces/beings.
Psychics would have to be much less powerful than the wizards in Howard to preserve class balance.jmucchiello wrote: A cool psychic class would be much more interesting than the silly cleric. This just makes seeing "fireball" and "fly" much more annoying, in terms of "Oh, it's just D&D with the numbers filed off."
It isn't clear whether these "small" fireballs get the 20' radius explosion or not. Assuming they don't then for a 5th level a 28-29 result on magic missile gives you 3-8 missiles that can hit different targets for 1-8+5 damage each, or an average of 5.5 missiles, each potentially on a different target for 9.5 damage while fireball gives you exactly 3 targets doing 8.75 damage each.finarvyn wrote:27-31 The wizard launches a spray of small fireballs. The wizard designates three targets, and 1d4 small fireballs flare out toward each target. The targets can be up to 200’ away. Each of the mini-fireballs does 1d6 damage.
Then just imagine if you have more than one spellcaster in the party, and they get to 5th Level and start chucking 2 Fireball spells/round each at the enemy.meinvt wrote:That line makes attempting to cast a fireball in a dungeon pretty dangerous.
I imagine the high level fish-headed tentacled wizard freak having a collection of fingernails of rival, VIPS and foes. Maybe there's a black market for locks of hair of heirs to the throne....The wizard launches a fireball at a target up to 1 mile away, doing 20d6 damage. The wizard can choose an area of effect ranging from a single human-sized target up to a sphere of 40’ radius. The wizard need not have line-of-sight to his target. He can choose a geographic point of which he has knowledge (such as a specific hill, tree, or room), or a target of whom he has a physical trace (such as a lock of hair or fingernail). The fireball explodes at the designated point
They aren't going to be human for very longgeordie racer wrote:Then just imagine if you have more than one spellcaster in the party, and they get to 5th Level and start chucking 2 Fireball spells/round each at the enemy.
finarvyn wrote:I'll start with Fireball now, then add another one later. I kind of like the suggestion of posting a cleric spell. Have to ponder it further.![]()
Fireball
You have Scorching Ray too, from the playtests:abk108 wrote: Thanks Finarvynthat's really going to be useful. Now we have two example for offensive spells, like Magic Missile & Fireball. Creating something stronger or in between the two won't be that hard.
Great! Thanks for this Geordie!geordie racer wrote:You have Scorching Ray too, from the playtests:abk108 wrote: Thanks Finarvynthat's really going to be useful. Now we have two example for offensive spells, like Magic Missile & Fireball. Creating something stronger or in between the two won't be that hard.
No, spell level still regulates which spells the wizard has access to - so he's only able to cast Fireball at 5th Level - even though with a bit of spellburn and a lucky halfling, he could be napalming his way through the land at 1st Level.jmucchiello wrote:The 1-15 Lost, failure at the top confirms a lot of details about what spell level does and how redundant it is.
In DCC a 1st level WIZARD knows only 4 spells, and gets 1 more per level (so 8 spells at 5th level). They also stated at the beginning of the Magic chapter that spells are rare resources, arcane knowledge kept secret by those who have it. Therefore, the DM controls exactly which spells a WIZ gets to know. It's not like in 3E where at 5th level you instantly know Fireball and Dispel Magic. The DCC judge will hand out a grimoire with some spells in it. Maybe 1-2 spells per book, not more! He could have the players find a book with Fireball and Summon Animal in a 1st level adventure... if Fireball is the only offensive option he has, the wizard is not overpowered imho.geordie racer wrote:Balancing ability by limiting access is totally necessary, or it becomes a game where if you're playing a wizard you're actually playing a completely different game to other classes. They're playing low-level Warhammer, you're playing Exalted.
thing is, you don't get to pick spells at level 1 (you randomly pick them); at higher level, i think it depends on what you find. Even individual research might not bring the results wanted.geordie racer wrote:The thing with Fireball is that I'd probably prefer to use Magic Missile instead - unless fighting another caster (who might have Magic Shield cast), unless I require area effect, or if I'm eliminating foes who take extra damage from fire.
I actually think that the 'pick 1/2 your spells if the initial 4 are useless' guidance in the picking and rolling section on page 100 will come into play quite a lot - as players will argue their way into getting the spells they want.abk108 wrote: you don't get to pick spells at level 1 (you randomly pick them)
Once this hits the 22+ range I'm not sure I like the results. Too ridiculous (though maybe it plays better than it reads).finarvyn wrote:I'll start with Fireball now...
He knows. He's just continuing to pummel an expired equine.geordie racer wrote:No, spell level still regulates which spells the wizard has access to - so he's only able to cast Fireball at 5th Level - even though with a bit of spellburn and a lucky halfling, he could be napalming his way through the land at 1st Level.jmucchiello wrote:The 1-15 Lost, failure at the top confirms a lot of details about what spell level does and how redundant it is.
Is that really the case? I guess I'm just looking for some explanation/reason that spell level is necessary here. It seems like some higher level effects are actually better for the first level spell than the third level spell. Is it because the mid-range (16-20 or so) rolls are better for fireball? Is it because the highest effect is stronger for fireball?finarvyn wrote:He knows. He's just continuing to pummel an expired equine.
"Necessary" is tough to quantify. What spell level does is limit the options of the spellcaster so that not all spells are possible for all wizards. It gives the wizard a way to "grow" instead of just getting better numbers. I don't think anyone has said that it's necessary, only that its traditional and that it works well.meinvt wrote:I'm just looking for some explanation/reason that spell level is necessary here.
I'll have to ponder the ramifications of your system, but I should point out that what you've done in essence is to divide spells into those which are simple (corruption 3 or less) versus those which are complex (corruption 8 or less). This is in effect a spell level system whether you want to call it that or not.meinvt wrote:Have corruption occur on a modified spell casting result at the bottom of the spell table, variable by spell.
So a simple spell like Cantrip causes corruption on a result of 3 or less. Fireball causes corruption on an 8 or less, etc.
This of course means that fumbles will often cause corruption as well, although not necessarily for a higher level wizard.
Likewise, the threshold for any successful effect gets higher with more powerful spells (like the fireball example).
Have the wizard roll a class die (much like the warrior does) when casting a spell, so that their positive modifier is not always a fixed amount.
I think that would be a thematic and interesting system.
Totally fair call-out. I'll endeavor to describe my perspective and why I'm pushing for this. I'll note up front that I get caught up in these sorts of design discussions because I want to make things 'better' from my point of view, and help. If Joseph comes on in ten minutes and describes why he knows he absolutely wants a spell level system I'll just drop this and flow with it. The last thing I want to do is push anything towards a designed by committee type outcome.finarvyn wrote:Seems like both ways achieve the same goal, only some like one and others like the other.
I'm not against levels of power, and the intended implication is that a system something like this would allow fine gradations, so that low threshold might be 4, 5, 6, etc. or even higher.finarvyn wrote:I'll have to ponder the ramifications of your system, but I should point out that what you've done in essence is to divide spells into those which are simple (corruption 3 or less) versus those which are complex (corruption 8 or less). This is in effect a spell level system whether you want to call it that or not.
Yes, I agree. As I said in the other spell thread I have no problem with there being no spell levels as long as we use corruption and the scalable range of the spell to limit it being comfortable for lower level casters to pull off extreme high 'level' effects.meinvt wrote:I think that would be a thematic and interesting system.