House rules for Magic

[Waleed Ibn Alurah]

Each player with a spellbook works out spell combinations to aid the GM. ...based on a table such as the "Difficulty Levels" table at: homepage.mac.com/unearthed/risus/ars.html

Example, our Fire mage has the "Fireball" spell. She designs some variations she wants to use.

Casting Time: instant -- 10
Duration: instant -- 0
Range: 30' -- 4
Area of Effect: 10' -- 2

The Target number in this case: 16


"Firewall" (designed to obstruct a standard hallway)
Casting Time: instant -- 10
Duration: 1/2 hour -- 2
Range: 5' -- 2
Area of Effect: 10' --2

Again TN = 16

I actually like this, it makes sense and adds to customizing a spell the way a mage really wants it. What I don't like on the table/rules he suggests are the three modifiers for knowing a spell really well (-3), somwhat well, etc... it's pretty suggestive, unless during the course of gameplay Mike comes out and says, hey, you've cast that spell enough you know it pretty well... but that makes for more book keeping. How often do you have to cast a spell to know it well? Can I just sit one night and keep casting a spell until I know it well? See, don't like it, it's too subjective.

I do like the other modifiers for using spellbooks, etc... those are cut and dry. You want to get a bonus for using a spellbook, you have to pull it out and read from it. I like that.

I do not like Botches. A bad roll means death basically, either quick or slow. A warrior who misses his roll to hit with a bow and arrow, doesn't botch, does he? if we use botches for spells, we should use botches for all cliches.

I don't like cliches for the various topics (?) and modes. The example they give has a guy with more than 10 cliche points and only knows magic in that one area. Ugh.

I do think that mages that specialize, like elementalist, should get a -3 bonus for casting spells in their element cause they cannot cast spells outside their element.

I do like the idea of a focus, like a wand. it should be a permanent magic item made for that purpose. You can't just pick up a stick and call it a focus. I however think that if you lose it, you can still cast normally, just without the -50% bonus, but that may be too powerful. Of course you could make a focus, like a wand or whatever, a -3 bonus. The -50% bonus should be for just those that take the hook: Cannot cast without a focus. With the magic casting rules above, even a [1] mage could, after a long time, create a focus. I would think that all starting mages would have a focus, just like starting warriors have a weapon and armor.

I don't like the rules for Safe Haven, because you can spend money and build something like that. However, if magic locks, walls, etc were to be built I could see it happening (i.e. you hire a magic order to reinforce your walls, locks, etc...) but I find it unlikely.

Concerning Hold spells... I would surmise that with the new rules under consideration, the mage could outline the parameters of her spell and figure out her TN (duration being critical) and make her roll. The target would get a resist roll since you are not trying to do damage and subtract his cliche roll from the mages roll and if the resultant is equal to or higher than the TN, the spell works. i.e.

Keesha the insanely beautiful, vivacious, ajami sorceress casts Hold on a withered, disgustingly repulsive, Hag:

Casting Time: instant -- 10
Duration: 1/2 hour -- 2
Range: 5' -- 2
Area of Effect: 10' --2

TN 16. But if the Hag rolls 4d6 and gets a 12, Keesha would need a 28 to succeed. This is without any modifiers by Keesha. Say she has a spellbook or scroll out, speaking the words, making gestures and even uses a material component (okay'ed by the GM), or a Focus. With those modifiers, she could get her TN down to around 9, so she would need a 21 to succeed then. Changing the parameters of the spellscould help too... if she didn't mind touching the thing and also changing the area of effect to only affect the Hag, it would still be lower. All in all, I like it.

What I do NOT want to see is the player saying "I cast wind wall. What do I need to roll Mike?" This makes more book keeping for Mike and I know Mike, this is not what Mile wants... I want story from Mike, so we must not give Mike more rules looking up, etc...

What I would like to see is when a mage casts a spell, he highlights everything he or she is doing and then summarize it in the TN table above, for example:

Waleed was scared out of his mind, he was always afraid of clowns and then the cannibal clown was coming at him, his teeth reddened on the blood of dead cats, Waleed proceeded to cast his spell 'Death to Smoochy'. Pulling forth his scroll, he began to read aloud, gesturing the arcane symbols in the air with his magic wand and aimed the spell at the smiling atrocity coming to eat his funny bone.

Casting Time: instant -- 10
Duration: instant -- 0
Range: 5' -- 2
Area of Effect: 10' -- 2

Scroll -3
Reading Aloud -1
Gestures -1
Focus -3

TN = 14 - 8 = 6.

Now this would only do 1 point of damage. There are no instant death spells in Risus, which is probably a good thing. I think however, if a spell were pumped, then 3 points of damage could be done, but you could run the risk of botching....

Botching revisted... how about Botches for when spells are pumped (all mages must purchase mage skills as double pumped, hence they are more powerful) and they fail... make sense? No botches for non-pumped spells. Yes botches when they are and fail...

Okay, time for me to go to something else...

[Gamemaster]

We're on the same page- there's only a few pieces of that magic system I'd like to use. Mostly the "Base Difficulty Table" (I haven't read all the rules yet)

I'm not interested in Botched spells- perhaps if the mage was trying to create a magic item or something, but not in day-to-day adventuring. That's like a warrior cutting himself with his own sword. Cheesy.

And I'd never be interested in the Tokens & Nodes- boring!

What I don't like on the table/rules he suggests are the three modifiers for knowing a spell really well (-3), somwhat well, etc... it's pretty suggestive, unless during the course of gameplay Mike comes out and says, hey, you've cast that spell enough you know it pretty well... but that makes for more book keeping. How often do you have to cast a spell to know it well? Can I just sit one night and keep casting a spell until I know it well? See, don't like it, it's too subjective.

I agree- you know it or you don't.

I do like the other modifiers for using spellbooks, etc... those are cut and dry. You want to get a bonus for using a spellbook, you have to pull it out and read from it. I like that.

So a mage can commit a few spells to memory in the morning, and then if needed or time allowed he could pull out his book and cast (read) it from there? e.g, he commits Dust Devil, Whispering Wind, and Feather Fall spells to memory but later the party runs out of water and he pulls out his spellbook and casts the Dust to Water spell he found exploring the Ruins of Jabar City?

And, if during a long battle she's already cast the spells she had committed to memory so she pulls out her spellbook and starts reading them from there?

I do think that mages that specialize, like elementalist, should get a -3 bonus for casting spells in their element cause they cannot cast spells outside their element.

Makes sense to me. That would allow a player who wanted to have the Risus style freedom to cast whatever spell comes to mind, while giving a bonus to those players who focus on (specialize in) an area.

I do like the idea of a focus, like a wand. it should be a permanent magic item made for that purpose. You can't just pick up a stick and call it a focus. I however think that if you lose it, you can still cast normally, just without the -50% bonus, but that may be too powerful. Of course you could make a focus, like a wand or whatever, a -3 bonus. The -50% bonus should be for just those that take the hook: Cannot cast without a focus. With the magic casting rules above, even a [1] mage could, after a long time, create a focus. I would think that all starting mages would have a focus, just like starting warriors have a weapon and armor.

What would be the benefit of the focus?
I agree it belongs as a hook- and perhaps the penalty for not having the focus would be the loss of the bonus give by the hook, ie, the bonus die.

[Waleed Ibn Alurah]

Gamemaster said:

I'm not interested in Botched spells- perhaps if the mage was trying to create a magic item or something, but not in day-to-day adventuring. That's like a warrior cutting himself with his own sword. Cheesy.

I think I like "Botching" if you pump a spell or mundane action if you get to also do 3 die of damage. (see under HP's)

And I'd never be interested in the Tokens & Nodes- boring!

Damn straight!

So a mage can commit a few spells to memory in the morning, and then if needed or time allowed he could pull out his book and cast (read) it from there? e.g, he commits Dust Devil, Whispering Wind, and Feather Fall spells to memory but later the party runs out of water and he pulls out his spellbook and casts the Dust to Water spell he found exploring the Ruins of Jabar City?

I think "commiting to memory" is too D&D'ish. I would assume a mage would know all of his spells, though some better than others. The only reason they would consult their books is if they were using it as a study guide to make sure every nuance of the spell was properly done. Also, there might be a 1 turn delay if they have to pull out the spellbook, or thumb through the pages to find the spell. Having it open and to the appropriate page can be done only with proper planning.

And, if during a long battle she's already cast the spells she had committed to memory so she pulls out her spellbook and starts reading them from there?

No, too D&D'ish. I don't think you would forget a spell once it's been cast. If you memorize a speech, or poem, do you automatically forget it after saying it? I do think there is only so much you can remember unless you spend all day, every day reading your spellbook and therefore not having any time to adventure, so a limit of how many spells you've "memorized" well without the need for a spellbook to cast from might be in order. But we come back to memorizing specific spells instead of using magic and words of power to bend nature to our will.

Personally I would like to see no "memorization" of spells. Cast what you can and if you feel you need the mods for using a spellbook, make it work in the story, keep it in character.

Or... make a rule that says a mage must mandatorily study their spellbook each day for an hour to be able to cast spells without the use of a spellbook. If they miss out on study time, they have to use the spellbook that entire day until they do.

Same with a cleric if we had clerics in the game. They would have to pray and read their "bibles" for an hour to call upon their gods power to channel through them without the use of a "bible" or hymnal.

What would be the benefit of the focus?
I agree it belongs as a hook- and perhaps the penalty for not having the focus would be the loss of the bonus give by the hook, ie, the bonus die.

I think a focus should give a -3 modifier. It makes it useful and to make a permanent focus would require a masterwork piece to attune to the user. Only one focus can be in existence at one time and it has to be able to coordinate with the type of magic being used, i.e. a mentalist might make a cap a focus, to spread out his mental energies but that would be very limiting or a headband with a stone on it to make the energies more directional to affect one person instead of a mass of people with the cap. A fire mage wouldn't have a cap as a focus, cause he wouldn't be able to point it in a particular direction unless it was a pointy cap and then his enemies would die of laughter first as he kept bending over to point his pointy cap at them to fire off a fireball or two. Hence, this is why wands, staves and rods were used for directional magic because they can be pointed, and rings, cloaks and such were used for personal protective magic because they encircle something.

Okay, I'm tired

I have an old game called Chivalry and Sorcery that really went indepth about Foci and what to use to make one, etc... it's interesting reading.

[Keesha]

Waleed said:

The target would get a resist roll since you are not trying to do damage and subtract his cliche roll from the mages roll and if the resultant is equal to or higher than the TN, the spell works. i.e.

Keesha the insanely beautiful, vivacious, ajami sorceress casts Hold on a withered, disgustingly repulsive, Hag:

Casting Time: instant -- 10
Duration: 1/2 hour -- 2
Range: 5' -- 2
Area of Effect: 10' --2

TN 16. But if the Hag rolls 4d6 and gets a 12, Keesha would need a 28 to succeed. This is without any modifiers by Keesha. Say she has a spellbook or scroll out, speaking the words, making gestures and even uses a material component (okay'ed by the GM), or a Focus. With those modifiers, she could get her TN down to around 9, so she would need a 21 to succeed then.

I have no problems with limiting a bit the magic system / making it a bit more complex ... but basically on the proposed mode it looks to me that on an average roll against two equally powerfull characters (e.g. say 4 dices cliche each) the average chance of getting your spell to work will be zero %. (average of #d6 + difficulty is always higher than the average of #d6 of original skill).

[Waleed Ibn Alurah]

That is true...

How about a spell cast successfully requires a TN roll, say in this case a HOLD spell needed a 16. Keesha rolls an 18 and successfully casts the spell. It hits the Hag and she gets a resist roll on her highest cliche. She rolls a 15 and because it does not equal or exceed Keesha's roll of 18, the Hag fails and is over come by the HOLD spell.

That sounds better...!

[Keesha]

Waleed said:

That is true...

How about a spell cast successfully requires a TN roll, say in this case a HOLD spell needed a 16. Keesha rolls an 18 and successfully casts the spell. It hits the Hag and she gets a resist roll on her highest cliche. She rolls a 15 and because it does not equal or exceed Keesha's roll of 18, the Hag fails and is over come by the HOLD spell.

That sounds better...!

Indeed that is more in line which what I was thinking, basically to replace the 5-10-15 by TN based on the spell complexity.

Of course we need to make sure the levels are right (e.g. a simple slow or sleep spell doesnt get a TN of 25 or a complex summoning gets a TN of 5 after all modifiers are applied)

For an example:

Light according to table
Instant +10
Duration 1 hour +3
Range touch +1
AEffect +3 30 feet

we ended up with a TN of 17!! for a simple light spell.. say 14 after applying verbal, etc..

without the modifiers for "very simple spell" you would basically need a mage rolling a 14 to cast it, a feat which requires at least a 3 cliche mage.

[Keesha]

I will check a couple of typical situations when I get some more time and see what TN we get, then we can adapt as necessary

[Gamemaster]

When a spellcaster casts a spell at an opponent, continuing with the Hag and the hold spell, does the spellcaster lose a cliche die if the hag succesfully "resists" the attempt?

I don't recall where or if we'd discussed this...

[Waleed Ibn Alurah]

I guess it depends on how they are resisting... dodging, and resisting by counterspell are two different things

Apr 30, 2008 14:34:10 GMT -7 Gamemaster said:

When a spellcaster casts a spell at an opponent, continuing with the Hag and the hold spell, does the spellcaster lose a cliche die if the hag succesfully "resists" the attempt?

I don't recall where or if we'd discussed this...

[Ya'qub]

Also, in Risus, the resist action could make it then a combat, so then the two would roll to see who won that particular combat; the one cast the hold spell, and the one actively (poss. magically?) resisting.

If the Hold-caster won, then that person gets to declare the result of the action, i.e., the Hold spell 'took' and the victim is incapacitated;

If the Resister won, then she might declare that she 'felt a heaviness in her limbs,' but shook it off.

The GM could then declare that all cliche dice lost are restored, or that they are restored, except for a penalty, or what have you.

[Waleed Ibn Alurah]

I thnk it depends on what the attacker and attackee want to do. Example, lets say Waleed's group won initiative..

Waleed wants to do harm, attackee wants to go invisible.
If Waleed wins, harm is done, attackee doesn't go invis.
If Waleed loses, no harm, attackee goes invis

What about this...
Waleed wants to do harm, attackee wants to harm Yaqub
If Waleed wins, harm is done and attackee's actions are halted.
If Waleed loses, no harm and attackee makes Yaqub roll to see if he is harmed and if his action succeeds.

It all depends on what you're trying to do. If Waleed and the Woman were attacking each other (intentions/actions are announced b4 init rolls for both sides), then Waleed would lose cliche dice if he lost in his attack on her cause she is fighting back against him.

May 1, 2008 8:32:55 GMT -7 Ya'qub said:

Also, in Risus, the resist action could make it then a combat, so then the two would roll to see who won that particular combat; the one cast the hold spell, and the one actively (poss. magically?) resisting.

If the Hold-caster won, then that person gets to declare the result of the action, i.e., the Hold spell 'took' and the victim is incapacitated;

If the Resister won, then she might declare that she 'felt a heaviness in her limbs,' but shook it off.

The GM could then declare that all cliche dice lost are restored, or that they are restored, except for a penalty, or what have you.

[Ya'qub]

hehehehe!

Who says that Risus can't handle this kind of stuff!

You just provided perfect examples of how its simple mechanic can cover at least three different actions.

I love this game!