jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) (04/02/85)
In article <26000002@siemens.UUCP> steve@siemens.UUCP writes: >By the way, I have a really neat magic system, but it has one flaw that >the obvious solutions won't really fix: a magic user can go off and spend >some huge amount of time making an arbitrary number of potions or enchanted >swords or whatever and then carry huge amounts of magic with him. Any >suggestions on "realistic" reasons why magic users cannot do this, that don't >restrict the ability to make a few potions or swords or whatever? There are several easy solutions to this. Encumbrance is the first; after all, think how few bottles of pop you can carry with you, even if you have a backpack or a pack horse. Make potions the size of a large (750 ml) bottle of pop, and you limit MUs simply on encumbrance. Another simple fix is to say that magic items give off some magic radiation that is somewhat similar to radioactivity. (This is what is picked up by a Detect Magic spell). Too many magic items in one small area is similar to too much Uranium 235 crammed together; you get critical mass and the whole thing blows up. Extremely experienced magicians are sometimes able to build magic "dampers", similar to lead shields. Thus, high level MUs can carry a little bit more because they can block out SOME of the radiation. There is always a little radiation that leaks no matter how effective a damper you have, so you can't have an infinite supply of stuff with you. A final simple fix is the opposite of the previous one. Instead of giving off radiation, magic items leech energy (manna) from the surrounding environment. (The "manna" concept is used in several stories by Larry Niven, e.g. "What Good is a Glass Dagger?") The magical properties of the items depend on a constant supply of manna being absorbed. Too many magic items in one place drain the local manna; then, like plants without water, all the items die (lose their magical potency). In the Niven stories, the manna in an area never came back once it was used, so flagrant use of manna in a particular region exhausted that region forever and magic would never again work there. An interesting situation for a campaign...a world on the edge of manna depletion, trying to survive reality. Images of a Swords and Sorcery Morrow Project spring to mind... Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo
chenr@tilt.FUN (Ray Chen) (04/03/85)
> Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo > > In article <26000002@siemens.UUCP> steve@siemens.UUCP writes: > > >By the way, I have a really neat magic system, but it has one flaw that > >the obvious solutions won't really fix: a magic user can go off and spend > >some huge amount of time making an arbitrary number of potions or enchanted > >swords or whatever and then carry huge amounts of magic with him. Any > >suggestions on "realistic" reasons why magic users cannot do this, that don't > >restrict the ability to make a few potions or swords or whatever? The three solutions Jim mentioned are all silly. Encumbrance is a good idea but making magic items oversized (a potion == the size of a bottle of soda. Be real.) is overdoing it. The critical-mass concept of magic is just plain stupid. Can you imagine 2 high-level MUs shaking hands. Whoops, too much magic in a certain volume. BOOM!! Magic as manna is pretty bad, too. It made for a great story, but think about the implications. Do you REALLY want to tie your world to this kind of system. Imagine keeping track of how much manna has been drained from each area of your world. Ugh. My solution: Let'em cart around as much magic as they want. First, figure out how much they'll be bogged down by all the junk they're hauling around. If somebody wants to carry around two staves, 10 wands, and a 2-handed sword, let him. What with all the other stuff that adventurers normally carry, he'll be lucky if he makes it down the hallway without tripping. Then, when they need something in a hurry, figure out how long it'll take them to find the one thing they want. If they answer "I put it in my bag of holding along with the other 99 potions..." they're hosed. And don't tell them about the party of NPC's who're after them because they did a "Detect Magic" and almost had their eyes burned out by the aura. Ray Chen princeton!tilt!chenr
barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) (04/03/85)
Another more or less standard way of limiting a mage's ability to make potions/enchanted swords/etc. is to have each such item tie up one of the mage's Intelligence points (or Talent points, Power points, whatever), thereby lowering his overall spellcasting ability. This system can also be used to limit the number of Undead a Necromancer or Evil Cleric can control. Spelling Nitpick: Manna is the food that rained down on the Hebrews in the desert. Magical energy is MANA. --Lee Gold
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (04/03/85)
> By the way, I have a really neat magic system, but it has one flaw that > the obvious solutions won't really fix: a magic user can go off and spend > some huge amount of time making an arbitrary number of potions or enchanted > swords or whatever and then carry huge amounts of magic with him. Any > suggestions on "realistic" reasons why magic users cannot do this, that don't > restrict the ability to make a few potions or swords or whatever? Another reason why this isn't so hot is that a lower level MU can make +1 swords, etc much more easily than +2, etc. If wants to carry around 100 +1 swords (or 100 potions of water walking, etc) that's fine, but they won't help him much (and will probably attract lots of brigands who want to outfit their entire army with +1 stuff...) Wayne
baldwin@cornell.UUCP (Michael S. Baldwin) (04/03/85)
yeah, well, whatever I prefer the idea of expensive material components being required to create lasting magic. After all, what were all those spells written with? and on? For instance, inscribing a rune for a fire spell, better have a little ground ruby and dragon blood, etc. This solution make seem artificial, but consider that a spell is a piece of power contained and focused by the mage's will, if he continues to concentrate on the spell, no problem, but if he ignores it entropy sets in and the spell decays until there's nothing left. The rationale for material components of this nature is to say that they have sufficient power to hold the spell in statis until it is invoked, which negates the need for continous concentration. Another alternative along this line is to limit the total number of items on the rationale that some part of your will must continue to concentrate on all magic that you have created to maintain its existance, if you make too much, you forget about that one wand, and POOF, gone. The problem here, of course, is death, what happens to all your magic if you die, and ergo cease to will its continued existance, and what about enemy mages and their items? Perhaps the loss of the mage causes only a slow decay that can be reversed if caught in time. hmm....
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/03/85)
> yeah, well, whatever > > I prefer the idea of expensive material components being required to create > lasting magic. After all, what were all those spells written with? and on? > For instance, inscribing a rune for a fire spell, better have a little > ground ruby and dragon blood, etc. This solution make seem artificial, > but consider that a spell is a piece of power contained and focused by the > mage's will, if he continues to concentrate on the spell, no problem, but > if he ignores it entropy sets in and the spell decays until there's nothing > left. The rationale for material components of this nature is to say that > they have sufficient power to hold the spell in statis until it is invoked, > which negates the need for continous concentration. Dragon blood for a fire spell? This reminds me of the 'example' list of ingredients for the components of the ink for a protection from petrification scroll, which is listed in the AD&D DM's guide. The ingredients include parts from several different petrification-causing monsters! Anyone who actually *needs* protection from petrification would never be able to gather the requisite components. Catch-22. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "No, not bird, nor plane, nor even frog. Just little old me, <crash> UNDERDOG!"- not Idi Ahmin
jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) (04/04/85)
>The three solutions Jim mentioned are all silly. Encumbrance is a good >idea but making magic items oversized (a potion == the size of a bottle >of soda. Be real.) is overdoing it. The critical-mass concept of magic is >just plain stupid. Can you imagine 2 high-level MUs shaking hands. Whoops, >too much magic in a certain volume. BOOM!! Magic as manna is pretty bad, >too. It made for a great story, but think about the implications. Do >you REALLY want to tie your world to this kind of system. Imagine keeping >track of how much manna has been drained from each area of your world. Ugh. > >My solution: Let'em cart around as much magic as they want. First, >figure out how much they'll be bogged down by all the junk they're >hauling around. If somebody wants to carry around two staves, 10 >wands, and a 2-handed sword, let him. Silly? Silly! No, no, no flaming...but I think what we have here is a difference in gaming styles. I see no reason, for example, why a magic potion must come in easy-to-swallow quantities. It's an interesting break in convention that could lead to amusing results, and make the players pay attention to what's going on...anything to break the Munchkin mentality that was described so well in the recent posting to net.games. Similarly, I think the "magic as manna" set-up could make a very interesting background to a campaign; I'd be surprised if it hasn't been used by someone somewhere. Keeping track of how much manna there is around wouldn't be hard -- you just assume that there is sufficient manna around for simple magic, and gross expenditures in one location will deplete the supply. The GM can throw in the occasional "dead spot" here and there to keep things interesting. In fact, one could make a very interesting scenario on exploring a dead spot, figuring out what sucked all the manna away. There must be something gross in the area, and facing it without magic would be a challenging role-playing experience. The "magic as radiation" set-up is also an interesting world background. Why can't gods fight each other? Because they're too powerful to be in the same place at the same time. Why do powerful rival wizards leave each other alone? Same reason. Remember, we are not talking about reasonable quantities of magic here; we are trying to limit players who want to arm themselves to the teeth. Ray Chen's suggestion is another reasonable approach, but I point out it does NOT solve the problem given in the original message. The problem was that two first level MUs spent a year making 100 bottles of an Illusion potion, then set out to thump the baddies. If you assume that they can fit those bottles in a single bag of holding, they don't need to worry about anything. They keep one bottle on their person and 99 bottles in the bag. When they reach into the bag, they know they always get what they want, so there's scarcely any delay at all. With one or two bottles in their back pockets, to guard against sudden surprises (e.g. someone grabbing the bag in combat), they're laughing. Furthermore, I point out that it is going to be more trouble for the GM to keep track of how long it takes to draw a sword or find a potion in a bag than it is to tell someone at the start of an adventure, "Sorry, you can't carry that much with you." That bogs things down at precisely the wrong moment: during combat when things are usually slow enough already. Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo
hammond@petrus.UUCP (04/04/85)
In article <26000002@siemens.UUCP> steve@siemens.UUCP writes: >By the way, I have a really neat magic system, but it has one flaw that >the obvious solutions won't really fix: a magic user can go off and spend >some huge amount of time making an arbitrary number of potions or enchanted >swords or whatever and then carry huge amounts of magic with him. Any >suggestions on "realistic" reasons why magic users cannot do this, that don't >restrict the ability to make a few potions or swords or whatever? 1) Any mu high enough level to go off and make enchanted items should have made plenty of enemies. Why should he remain undisturbed? 2) Don't your characters age? Why should the mu be able to spend "huge" amounts of time without dying? Doing high level magic could be like being a chemist, last I heard, chemists had the shortest life expectancy of any profession requiring a college degree. 3) How does the mu support himself while making the magic? He must interact with others for food and other suppplies. If he has a stronghold he must spend some time keeping it secure. Even if the local thieves learn to stay away, what about wandering adventurers? Just some suggestions. Rich Hammond {ihnp4, allegra, ucbvax} bellcore!hammond
mff@wuphys.UUCP (Swamp Thing) (04/04/85)
> By the way, I have a really neat magic system, but it has one flaw that > the obvious solutions won't really fix: a magic user can go off and spend > some huge amount of time making an arbitrary number of potions or enchanted > swords or whatever and then carry huge amounts of magic with him. Any > suggestions on "realistic" reasons why magic users cannot do this, that don't > restrict the ability to make a few potions or swords or whatever? > > The first time a couple players tried my system out they rolled up new > characters, both became magic users, and spent a year making "runes of > illusion". (Illusion is a first level spell, and they both specialized in > rune writing, which means that was the only way they could do magic.) > They then set off with backpacks full of runes that they could use at a > moment's notice, effectively having hundreds of illusion spells available. > It was funny, but a disaster as well. They were supposed to be able to > make some small number of runes, not hundreds; but they were also not supposed > to hang around town so long before they left. > The simplest way of curing this problem that I can think of is to remind players that they don't live in a vacuum. If two 1st-level nurds want to spend a year making magic (assuming your system allows this), the first thing they have to worry about is how to support themselves. Sure, they can sell their services, but that takes time. Manufacturing items usually (and, I think should) require intense consentration for long preiods of time. It is also usually expensive. And writing scrolls takes ink. Not just any old ink, but magic ink. This is also hard and expensive to make, and should not be available in umlimited supply (how many black dragon claws can you expect to find, for gosh sakes). If that doesn't stop them, perhaps it's time to introduce them to some of your more interesting NPC's. Hundreds of scrolls should be worth alot of money. If you're just sitting in town making scrolls for a year, the local Thieve's Guild is certain to find out. Mabye a local mage (perhaps the one selling them all that ink and scroll paper) gets a little greedy. The possibilities are endless. I just can't see a first-level character holding on to something that valuable too long. Mark F. Flynn Department of Physics Washington University St. Louis, MO 63130 ihnp4!wuphys!mff ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "There is no dark side of the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark." P. Floyd
john@x.UUCP (John Woods) (04/05/85)
> magical potency). In the Niven stories, the manna in an area never > came back once it was used, so flagrant use of manna in a particular > region exhausted that region forever and magic would never again work > there. An interesting situation for a campaign...a world on the edge > of manna depletion, trying to survive reality. Images of a Swords and > Sorcery Morrow Project spring to mind... > Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo If I recall, in Niven's story, sacrifices would restore some quantity of manna to an area (I believe there were other ways, but that was the most effective, and it wasn't terribly so). Given that, it seems like you could work up a really good campaign (if you rate campaigns on dramatic tension). -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA You can't spell "vile" without "vi".
james@alberta.UUCP (James Borynec) (04/05/85)
To limit the amount of magic a mu can have, Why not let the enchantment decay on magic items. The Higher the magic level, the slower the decay. As Items decay, there is an increased chance the the spell will malfunction. The decay could be very faint in the begining and accelerate to become totally useless in a matter of days? months? years? Jim Borynec
phil@osiris.UUCP (Philip Kos) (04/06/85)
> Similarly, I think the "magic as manna" set-up could make a very > interesting background to a campaign; I'd be surprised if it hasn't > been used by someone somewhere . . . . Ah, yes, Piers Anthony's pet concept of magic (among others, I'm sure). One set of his books (he never seems to write fewer than three books on a subject), the Proton/Phaze trilogy, makes an interesting parallel between mana magic and technology in a split- universe planet (sort of like Pyramid's UNIX, actually). I myself would also be interested in anyone's experience with playing such a campaign. The mana-depleted regions seem to have some very interesting possibilities. I'll be thinking about this. Phil Kos The Johns Hopkins Hospital "Okay, the directions say to turn right from the elevators." "You're in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike." "Oh, hell. Eric sent me to the morgue again."
eppstein@columbia.UUCP (David Eppstein) (04/06/85)
Ok all you net.games.frp.physics experts, tell me this: Is mana conserved? Does it go away because of entropy, or because it gets tied up in various mages' projects and never released (i.e. if you break the spell do you get mana back or is it gone forever)?
robertp@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (04/07/85)
Most of the answers on "how to limit magic" are intrusive kludges that cause more problems than they solve. A better approach is to go back to first principles and ask some questions: 1. Is it a bad thing for mages to make magic items to help themselves? Admittedly, having player characters act intelligently can be a bit of a shock, but there's nothing WRONG about it. 2. If it IS clear that the quantity of magic items they can churn out is too high, you should reassess the magic creation rules in light of how you want magic to work. If magic is supposed to be technology by another name, then mass production, economy of scale, and other (revolting) things will be likely to work. If, on the other hand, magic is an obscure and difficult art, making magic items is likely to be time-consuming, erratic, and expensive. Just HOW time-consuming, erratic, and expensive it is is up to you. 3. Restrictions that are presented in terms of campaign-world problems, like materials costs or the time it takes to get something done, are more palatable than arbitrary rulings that a mage can't make more than x items without turning into a vegetable or something. 4. To simulate the arcane, hit-and-miss approach to magic, large portions of the rules should be kept secret from the players, which will force them to use trial-and-error, or steal other magicians' secrets. Robert Plamondon ..!decwrl!turtlevax!weitek!robertp
ttorgers@udenva.UUCP (Troy Torgerson) (04/08/85)
In article <> baldwin@cornell.UUCP (Michael S. Baldwin) writes: >yeah, well, whatever > >I prefer the idea of expensive material components being required to create >lasting magic. After all, what were all those spells written with? and on? >For instance, inscribing a rune for a fire spell, better have a little >ground ruby and dragon blood, etc. This solution make seem artificial, >but consider that a spell is a piece of power contained and focused by the >mage's will, if he continues to concentrate on the spell, no problem, but >if he ignores it entropy sets in and the spell decays until there's nothing >left. The rationale for material components of this nature is to say that >they have sufficient power to hold the spell in statis until it is invoked, >which negates the need for continous concentration. Another alternative >along this line is to limit the total number of items on the rationale that >some part of your will must continue to concentrate on all magic that you >have created to maintain its existance, if you make too much, you forget >about that one wand, and POOF, gone. The problem here, of course, is >death, what happens to all your magic if you die, and ergo cease to will >its continued existance, and what about enemy mages and their items? >Perhaps the loss of the mage causes only a slow decay that can be reversed >if caught in time. > >hmm.... I agree with the spell components part, but the concentration gets too messy to deal with. . I think that perhaps extending the material components idea a bit would be better. Ok, to take the example from above, a ruby and dragon's blood. These are nice things to need to cast a spell. Where do the PC's get this stuff from? Sure they could go down to the nearest MU shop and MAYBE get some Dragon blood. . . How much does Dragon blood cost? How much is available? WHAT kind of dragon blood? Even in a very large city, there won't be that much Dragon blood. . . Since killing a Dragon contains some considerable risk (& travel expenses!) the price for a very small vial of the stuff should be rather high. If the Dragon blood has to be fairly fresh, a lot would be a waste to keep around, so the local shop shouldn't carry much and if the PC's managed to get large quanties of the stuff, then it should spoil before they use much of it! The results of using spoiled dragons blood could cause the spell to blow up or backfire(going off right then) or cause the spell to backfire at a later date, or . . . All of which would, of course, destroy the ruby and maybe whatever the spell was cast on(or who) etc... Lot's of possiblities here for the creative DM! Ok, now for what kind of Dragon blood. . . Let's say the PC's are in a town or city that leans towards the good alignments. Now, if they need evil Dragon's blood, then nobody would mind, BUT if they needed the Blood from a GOOD Dragon, (which is of course outlawed there!) they would have to *try* to deal with the thieves guild, most likely from another town, to get some (which would of course cost double or triple the normal price, which is already high. . .) OR, better yet, the PC's might not be able to convince anyone else to get them some Dragon blood, so they have to go out and find one (of the right color!) by themselves! Enough about Dragon blood, since everyone can see where that goes. . :-) Now, about the ruby. . How much do you need EACH time the PC casts the spell? What value? If the ruby was only 100gp value, then make the spell need at least 10 or so.. or something along those lines. . . Maybe a 5000 or 10000 gp ruby might be needed if the spell is powerful enough. . . Of course, there is the tricky problem of getting hundreds of the rubies (No matter what their cost) in a town that has maybe one or two jewelry shops. I'm sure you can't just walk into a place and buy a hundred 100gp rubies all in one shot! Say the PC's *try* to get *even* with the DM by "ordering" those rubies from a shop to be delivered later. . . Well, the shop could take the order on the condition that the PC's put up the money for them in advance (anywhere from 70-100%) and then tell the PC's that it will take at LEAST a week. . . And of course, there just happened to be a thief from the thieve's guild from somewhere who heard this deal going on, and plots to waylay them on the way to the city or comes in to the shop when the gems arrive, polymorphed as one of the PC's who ordered the gems in the first place! What happens if the shopkeeper passes off the rubies as 100gp when they are really 50 or 75 gp. . . This would really screw up a spell! Lot's of possibilities here too! Of course, once this has happened, the PC's might want to hire an escort for the gems (or the shopkeeper, who would charge for that too!) which would cost a lot of money (especially if they wanted honest ones!) Now for the most important part! WHERE are the PC's going to get all the money to BUY all these things? Sitting around and spending money for year really depletes the money bags! Unless you run a MH campaign, which I'm sure you don't or this whole thing wouldn't have bothered you in the first place, The PC's will have to go find work or earn money in some other way to pay for all this! All this should limit the number of things that they can create because of the shear factor of the time involved. . . Of course, if the PC's WANT to do that, then I have already given a very small example of the possibilities for adventures that would be a lot of fun for both the player and the DM! After all, if they had to go through several adventures just to get the ingredients for something, then they would really appreciate that item (be it scroll or whatever) and they wouldn't waste it (scroll etc..) either! Sure, if they show signs of only wanting to create something on a rare basis, you don't have to make it so hard to get the things that they need, but if they want to abuse the system, then you can too! Wow, sorry to get so long, but my fingers and my brain finally got coordinated! Troy seismo!hao!udenva!ttorgers
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (04/09/85)
> Ok all you net.games.frp.physics experts, tell me this: > Is mana conserved? Does it go away because of entropy, > or because it gets tied up in various mages' projects > and never released (i.e. if you break the spell do you > get mana back or is it gone forever)? A better idea than to have manna be something having to do with the surroundings is to make it internal to the magic user. Then you can use it for spell points, and you have an easy excuse for not letting people make a lot of magic -- ALL magic of any sort is really a form of pschic energy, and thus must be somehow tied to a consciousness. When a magic-user makes a magical item, he must put a bit of his own consciousness (life force) into it, the more powerful items requiring more life force. Thus the really powerful magical items are generally self-conscious and have big egos, and the more magic you make the more diffuse you become and thus weaker. Old magic-users don't just die off or become gods in this system -- they get bored with being humans and become +5 swords and things like that... Wayne
srt@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/09/85)
> By the way, I have a really neat magic system, but it has one flaw that > the obvious solutions won't really fix: a magic user can go off and spend > some huge amount of time making an arbitrary number of potions or enchanted > swords or whatever and then carry huge amounts of magic with him. Another solution to this problem is to exploit human nature. People have a very hard time trading short term gains for long term gains. So, suppose you have a player who says "Okay, my Wizard Flem is going to make potions for a year". You respond with "Okay, John, we'll see you in six weeks and we'll make the rolls then to see what potions you made." If the player has other characters, make them stay behind to guard and aid the Wizard while he cranks out magic items. If a character wants to take a year to make potions, let him, but make sure that all the other characters get to use that time to their advantage. Even if you let the player run another character during that time, it will be very difficult for him to leave his Wizard alone in a tower while all the other characters plunder some dungeon somewhere. This is particularly effective if the other characters find some trinket that the Wizard has wanted for a long time. If only he had been along! Actually, I don't like this solution much - it seems too antagonistic. The good thing is that you usually only have to apply it once. -- Scott Turner
steve@siemens.UUCP (04/11/85)
I am the one who first posed this question (this time around, anyway), so I suppose I can put my stamp of approval on the material components idea, and it will be somewhat official. I had considered that idea before and abandoned it as taking too long for me to come up with material components for every spell. There's a little known frp game called 'Chivalry and Sorcery' that takes this idea to an extreme: the mage has to acquire various components, sometimes mundane like dog's thigh bone, sometimes exotic like dragon skin, and enchant it before it can be used for spells. The enchanting takes a long time and has high probability of failure, so the mage could spend years enchanting the components for some high-level spell only to have the enchanting fail and have to start over. Of all the suggestions for limiting magic, the material components is the best one because it is "realistic", flexible (for the dm to determine how difficult to acquire them), a good source for adventures, and the players will appreciate their magic much more because it is more involved (but not more boring) to acheive. And for the dm's who like to set up scenarios but don't want the players to know it is set up, it is possible to set up some various scenarios for the material components of spells (some may be generic, some for specific components), and it will be totally up to the players to figure out what to go after, so they won't feel manipulated. (The usual disclaimer that I don't have Chivalry & Sorcery in front of me and it's been years since I looked at it.) -Steve Clark ...princeton!siemens!steve
euren@ttds.UUCP (Leif Euren) (04/11/85)
In article <500@udenva.UUCP> ttorgers@udenva.UUCP (Troy Torgerson) writes: >I think that perhaps extending the material components idea a bit would be >better. >WHERE are the PC's going to get all the money to BUY all these things? >go through several adventures just to get the ingredients for something, >Sure, if they show signs of only wanting to create something >on a rare basis, you don't have to make it so hard to get the >things that they need, but if they want to abuse the system, then >you can too! This is, I think, the very good way to solve to the problem. And together with requirement of heigh-level spell, it propably is the best. In the British magazine White Dwarf issues 58-63 (Nov-84 to Mar-85) was a series of articles called 'Eyes of Newt and Wings of Bat' explaining how to make all those goodies of magic items listed in DMG. Not only were strange and expensive ingriedients required, but also several 'Enchant an Item', 'Permanency' and 'Limited Wish' spells for _each_ item. Due to this rules it is not impossible to manufacture magic items, but they will surely keep low-level characters from it. Leif Euren @ ttds
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (04/16/85)
>By the way, I have a really neat magic system, but it has one flaw that >the obvious solutions won't really fix: a magic user can go off and spend >some huge amount of time making an arbitrary number of potions or enchanted >swords or whatever and then carry huge amounts of magic with him. Any >suggestions on "realistic" reasons why magic users cannot do this, that don't >restrict the ability to make a few potions or swords or whatever? I've been working on a set of AD&D enhancements to magic that might help. The basic problem is that most FRP systems use a simple pass/fail on magic spells. Reality, of course, is much different. If a spell user sneezes halfway through a spell, it really isn't likely for the spell to just go away. A lot of energy (manna?) has been organized already by the parts of the spell that HAVE been activated, and that has to go somewhere. My extensions allow for spells to backfire, twist, turn, and generally do whatever sadistic things the DM can think of. It also allows for messed up scrolls, with blurs, blotches, and typos causing slight distortions of the spell that might not be readily noticable until you use the scroll (for example, you might not notice that the scroll is a 'sheep' scroll instead of a 'sleep' scroll until you try to use it in battle. Where this becomes very useful is spell development. The main hazards in AD&D spell development currently are time and money, and since many DM's seem to ignore age on PC's, if you have gold, eventually you get the spell. If you use something like a chemist as a base for creating new magic compounds, as you get farther towards the edge of knowledge you find yourself more likely to have something blow up in your face. With magic, that can be VERY inconvenient, especially if you gate in a demon or something without appropriate protection. By making it more difficult to create spells and making it more dangerous to use them you make the magic user a bit more cautious and help restore a bit of balance to the game. Would YOU send a mage to create a new spell if you know the DM might just cause him to blow up and take half the town with it? chuq -- :From the closet of anxieties of: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA There is nobody as small as those who refuse to accept the success of others.
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (04/16/85)
> >I think that perhaps extending the material components idea a bit would be > >better. > > This is, I think, the very good way to solve to the problem. And together > with requirement of heigh-level spell, it propably is the best. > > In the British magazine White Dwarf issues 58-63 (Nov-84 to Mar-85) was a > series of articles called 'Eyes of Newt and Wings of Bat' explaining how to > make all those goodies of magic items listed in DMG. Not only were strange > and expensive ingriedients required, but also several 'Enchant an Item', > 'Permanency' and 'Limited Wish' spells for _each_ item. Due to this rules it > is not impossible to manufacture magic items, but they will surely keep > low-level characters from it. Requiring a lot of material components for making magic items makes sense, but I think it is a different story with magical components for routine spells. I have found that if you make players keep track of every single rat hair and bit of dragon blood they need for a spell, things get very cumbersome when a lot of spells get cast. This case is different from magical items, because people will always have to cast spells, whereas they don't have to make gross magical items. We solved the problem by just ignoring material components of spells... Has anybody else had different solutions to these problems? Wayne
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (04/19/85)
One solution is to never allow the party that many magic items. In my (Arthurian-like) campaign, magic items are few and far-between, but normally quite powerful. No magic users of a sufficiently high level to create magic items exist. All magic items have their source in Heaven, Hell, or some stupendously powerful mu long ago. Some of my players have been in my campaign for a year and a half, they are of 5/6/7th level, but none of them have ever had more than two or three magic items. -Nige Gale. PS: they do have plenty of other objectives to strive towards