Topic: Additional cost for Spell Mastery

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I know that your example was just one pulled out of a hat, but, I quite like my players trying to be inventive and I'm not a great fan of spells a la Canon, so if they come up with an idea then I'm not going to penalise them for being clever and trying to think outside the box. And that is basically exactly what is being suggested by adding an additional PP cost..

Charging them extra PP to power effects that are MORE powerful than the normal spell that they are altering is not punishment, it is balancing the increased effect by reducing a resource pool accordingly.

They are already getting a bonus/advantage by being able to alter the spells to begin with...

And they are already paying through the nose in DP to get that benifit, if there were an economic way to increase the PP that a caster can purchase then I might agree. There isn't, it is strictly based on level, you either buy a rank or you don't. PP useage eventually makes the caster tired and increases the chances that the spell caster fails and in the long run reduces the viability of playing an interesting magic-using profession in the first place, rather than just a battery.

Some systems that use Power Point systems actively reduce expenditure on lower level spells as the character advances in skill. I see Spell mastery as a very similar concept, except rather than decreasing the cost, the caster has the ability to increase the effectiveness with the same amount of PP.

The big difference between say HARP and RM is the risk factor associated with scaling a spell.

What is being proposed is an increase in PP cost with no reduction in risk.

How can this not be penalising a player?

In my eyes part of the reason for the risk in the first place is because an attempt to economise has been made and get more for less. The other is that, I fervently believe that the spell lists are simply scratching the surface and are the simplist (easiest to learn) and most common versions of the spell. Spell mastery, strips away the fat, allows short cuts...and re-directs the surplus to boost the spell but is more risky and difficult to achieve.

[Temujin]

"I cast Waterwall True, and use spell mastery to give it a round shape around me and make it move with me as I walk through the flames.."

Err, do you realise how hard it is to achieve such effects?  A round waterwall would be basically changing it into a radius spell, which is -50, and then a -30 to make it move 10' per round with concentration.  Who's insane enough to make a roll at -80?  Even with average realm stats of +8 (average of 96 stats...), magician class(+10) and 20 ranks you'd roll at +34 which gives you 40% chance of failure(which can be explosive if you implode), 25% chance of taking 10 concussion hits, 20% chance of taking an extra round to try again, and 15% chance of success.  Have fun...  Spell Mastery is not for the faint of heart or the inexperienced!

[Dark Schneider]

I always think that spells in spell lists are the basic form, but you really need 'spell mastery' to use that power correctly.

It is true that increasing the effects (range, ratio, etc.) is not easy as the base modifier is -20.

"I cast Waterwall True, and use spell mastery to give it a round shape around me and make it move with me as I walk through the flames.."

The problem is to assign difficulty to that, but, why not?. I like that idea, if you can use water spells, why not use them for fire protection?. Many times, I am sure, players ask 'why not exists a spells that do something?', with this skill it exists, but you need to create it from a base spell. I don't know why should be limits for manipulating the effects you have learnt (in this case water) if you are enough expertise in it.

I don't like it, an additional target is an additional target, halving the effect is complicated. For a single firebolt is simple, but what if I want to add another target to my Teleport III?

Obviously there are effects than can only be used at 100% (success), and that there are spells that are better for some effects, sleep and teleport are not the best for 'extra target' effect, you have 'teleport IV' 
Tehre is big change between 'sleep XX' and 'sleep word' with 'extra target. 1st allows to sleep 21 lvls (sleep XXI) and the 2nd allows to sleep 2 targets of any lvl.

Seriously, SM isn't that difficult, provided that you don't roll a failure, even if you score a Partial Succes means that you have succeded in 20% of your action, you just have to keep rolling over 75 until you reach 100%...

Not really, for 76-90 results there is no description about rolling again, yo do only 20% and no more (multiply the parameter by 0,2, so a 10' radius is changed, if try to double it, to (2*0,2)*10' (added) + 10' (original) = 14'). And you lose 10 HPs.

IMO there is no need to change it, if you want to limit it use the 'character law' version (no damage modifier), with -20 penalties steps (-20, -40, -60...). That, added to that you need to roll a SCSM is enough. You are exposed to double failure (skill failure and spell failure in SCSM) and can make you cast spell in more time (SCSM result 1 extra preparation round), that can be deadly in combat situations.

[mocking bird]

IMO there is no need to change it, if you want to limit it use the 'character law' version (no damage modifier), with -20 penalties steps (-20, -40, -60...). That, added to that you need to roll a SCSM is enough. You are exposed to double failure (skill failure and spell failure in SCSM) and can make you cast spell in more time (SCSM result 1 extra preparation round), that can be deadly in combat situations.

And it is the damage modifier that tips the scale to charging more.  This gets even more out of whack when the mages have PP multipliers.  Up the damage on ball spells, or bolts for that matter, and fighters essentially become porters for the mages. 

[Marc R]

I agree. The example given of the moving waterwall sphere, actually pushing the spell beyond it's normal boundries to do something you can't normally do, seems perfect spell mastery use, but merely up-damaging or up-radiusing the spell seems like you're just casting it as a higher level or casting it multiple times at once. . . the problem of x5 shock bolts and the like gets out of whack really fast.

[Temujin]

I agree. The example given of the moving waterwall sphere, actually pushing the spell beyond it's normal boundries to do something you can't normally do, seems perfect spell mastery use, but merely up-damaging or up-radiusing the spell seems like you're just casting it as a higher level or casting it multiple times at once. . . the problem of x5 shock bolts and the like gets out of whack really fast.

If you're capable of reliably making a check at -60, I wonder why you're only using Shock Bolts in the first place   I do agree that upping damage can be powerful, but then again, that only puts the magician on an equal footing with other offensive spell users like Sorcerers, who at high level will instead be using that spell mastery for extra targets, using instant-kill or disable spells.  And you really need to be really high level and have a lot invested in a particular list to start making more than x2 or x3 on a reliable basis.

[mocking bird]

Not really - x2 is only a -20 SM roll.  x5 would be a bit much (-50) but x3 concussion on a ball spell for only -30 is a lot more common and much easier, especiall if you only take SM in one offensive list.

One of the more creative uses of SM was having a healer move all his self ranges to touch, or farther, eliminating the use of the (very messy and very expensive) wound transfer spell.

[Marc R]

And one of the popular abuses was reversing the transfer spell. . . .

I feel iffy on Sorcerers stretching a RR vs death spell from 1 to 2 targets the same way. . .that's casting the spell twice in one round. . . .

I've done all the above and worse, but at this point, I'd only allow that kind of fun-n-games in a very high end magic game. . .I can't recall anyone suggesting a skill like "Weapon Mastery" which allows you to double concussion hits, attack two targets at the same time, or anything of the like with weapons. . .even the styles in the MAC and the CC don't offer combat flexability on anything like the scale that unfettered SM offers. . .and I never thought core RM (any version) was biased so much in favor of Arms that the poor spellcasters needed a nice elastic corner of "Bend/break rules here".

[Grinnen Baeritt]

And it is the damage modifier that tips the scale to charging more.  This gets even more out of whack when the mages have PP multipliers.  Up the damage on ball spells, or bolts for that matter, and fighters essentially become porters for the mages. 

In that case, why not remove those options from the Spell Mastery discription altogether, and re-introduce the optional rules from RM2 where ANY caster can simply expend a multiple of PP to do a multiple of damage without resorting to Spell Mastery to do so.?

And the suggested amendment still makes the fighters porters, because the Mages will simply be exhausted faster...and need to be carried everywhere  .

The disparity in power levels of the various professions at various levels aside (in which the balance is reversed at mid to low -levels from fighter to spellcaster), I feel that Spell Mastery is the Spell casters equivilent of Combat Manuevers for the Arms classes. It adds interest for the player and encourages imaginative use of spells. Magic is meant to be imaginative after all.

While it is true that the power levels are adjusted upwards it should not be forgotten that the character has sacrificed other safer options in order to effectively specialise. That character will be weaker in some areas, which is the balancing factor.

At lower levels it is an extremely risky proposition (close to suicidal...) to even attempt the simplist things (let alone with any penalties). At mid-levels some of the simpler modifications become managable (but even then no certainty).
At high levels (Lord Level) some of the modifications could threaten to be come easy... but by that level the base damage of Fireballs and Bolts hasn't changed noticably from when the caster could cast them for the first time and by that level the foes tend to ignore such piddling spells.

My earlier suggestion (one that I use myself) is that if the targets/radius is increased then the overall effect (mainly damage) be reduced proportionately does work well. True, it doesn't work with Non-damaging spells quite as well, but they really aren't that much of a problem, at least according to the responses here.

Example: a Magician casting a Fireball at x2 area (-20) does half normal concussion damage. (I also lower the effects of any resulting criticals as well, perhaps a penalty of a step (from B to an A, A to A-25) or more depending upon the magniture (eg x3 would be a 2 step decrease) . If the Magician wants to do the same damage as a normal fireball then he would have to accept a further penalties in order to increase the damage.

The thing to remember is that to achieve this supposedly unbalanced ability that caster would have diverted considerable resources throughout their career in order to reap the rewards at a higher level. If a GM allows a Pro-rated 20th level character this option, then THAT is the problem, since the player simply hasn't suffered for his art. This sort of thing leads to the powergaming munchkinism that gives the Spell Mastery skill a bad name.

[Marc R]

thing is. . .you buy SM once, for one spell, and can do whatever with it. . .you need to buy each and every maneuver seperately.

i.e. if Spell mastery were "Extend Spell Range" as one skill, then "Extend Duration" as another, then "Alter Area of effect" as another. . .you would then come closer to where you could compare SM to combat maneuvers. . . .

Comparing them to MA styles. . .SM is like buying a MA style that has all possible meneuvers and options included for one cost (one skill.)

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I can't recall anyone suggesting a skill like "Weapon Mastery" which allows you to double concussion hits, attack two targets at the same time, or anything of the like with weapons. . .even the styles in the MAC and the CC don't offer combat flexability on anything like the scale that unfettered SM offers. . .and I never thought core RM (any version) was biased so much in favor of Arms that the poor spellcasters needed a nice elastic corner of "Bend/break rules here".

Perhaps someone should.. (IIRC think martial artists are allowed to attack multiple opponents)

1. Combat Manuever (Mighty Blow) If a fighter accepts a -20 penalty to thier OB then the concussion damage is doubled from a successful hit.
2. Combat Manuever (Sweep) If you are toe-to-toe with multiple combatants a fighter can accept a penalty of -20 to their OB and divide their remaining OB amongst as many combatants as they wish. (those to the flank/rear are attacked at a penalty equal to the bonus that they would recieve.

Of course, to make this totally fair, the fighter should also take 10 hits from a near success and be sucked into a nearby void on an abyssmal failure..

[Grinnen Baeritt]

thing is. . .you buy SM once, for one spell, and can do whatever with it. . .you need to buy each and every maneuver seperately.

i.e. if Spell mastery were "Extend Spell Range" as one skill, then "Extend Duration" as another, then "Alter Area of effect" as another. . .you would then come closer to where you could compare SM to combat maneuvers. . . .

Comparing them to MA styles. . .SM is like buying a MA style that has all possible meneuvers and options included for one cost (one skill.)

However, with the exception of Two-Weapon Fighting (which does allow two attacks in the same round but with specified weapons) all of the combat manuevers can be used with different weapons/mounts/etc... I'd say that makes them equal  .

I'd say the Martial arts Style with 1 rank get a +5 OB, try any manuever from that style at increasing penalties. No difference. I agree it's similar, but it doesn't exactly prove that Spellmastery is in any way overpowered.     

[Temujin]

And one of the popular abuses was reversing the transfer spell. . . .

Its a utility spell.  Utility spell cannot affect a target without their consent.  So I wouldn't have a problem with a healer transfering a wound from himself to someone else via spell mastery, but it wouldn't work unless the recipient was willing.

I've done all the above and worse, but at this point, I'd only allow that kind of fun-n-games in a very high end magic game. . .I can't recall anyone suggesting a skill like "Weapon Mastery" which allows you to double concussion hits, attack two targets at the same time, or anything of the like with weapons. . .even the styles in the MAC and the CC don't offer combat flexability on anything like the scale that unfettered SM offers. . .and I never thought core RM (any version) was biased so much in favor of Arms that the poor spellcasters needed a nice elastic corner of "Bend/break rules here".

Stack Tumbling, Swashbuckling, a Weapon Style allowing 2 Weapon attack + defence and Adrenal Strenght, and you've got a potentially more potent combination often capable of being used with multiple weapons, whereas spell mastery has to be developped independently for each list.  Not to mention that fighters can benefit from Weapons that do triple concussions and add a critical and allows you to defend yourself at full BO while you're stunned NP, whereas spell users don't benefit much from similar effect.  An item that constantly doubles the area effect of your spells is much tougher to enchant than a weapon that doubles your concussion damage and adds a crit at the same time.  A fighter can benefit from Haste and Two-Weapon fighting, potentially making 4 attacks at full BO in a round, a spell user can only cast a single spell in a round, no matter if its an instantaneous one.

A semi-spell user or a pure arms has as much capacity to be increasingly nasty at high levels as a pure spell user or hybrid has.

[Dark Schneider]

If you read complete:

if you want to limit it use the 'character law' version (no damage modifier)

So if you don't have the damage modifier, how can you use it?. We quickly remove it after using some time.

This gets even more out of whack when the mages have PP multipliers.

This is relative to your world, in our world multipliers are very harder to create than adders (special materials and others, more time required, etc.), too the multipliers are not x2, x3...we use 1+0,25s, so they are x1,25, x1,5, x1,75...
We don't have any multipler yet, they are really rare, so having adders +2 or +3 you can't abuse.

Not really - x2 is only a -20 SM roll.  x5 would be a bit much (-50) but x3 concussion on a ball spell for only -30 is a lot more common and much easier

Remember, use -20s (so x5 is -80) and remove the damage modifier.

One of the more creative uses of SM was having a healer move all his self ranges to touch, or farther, eliminating the use of the (very messy and very expensive) wound transfer spell.

Yes, but as you need to develop it for any list, you pay many more DPs for those lists. If you pay DPs, I see no problem. I see it interesting, there can be different types of healers, those who want to save PPs and those who want to develop more skills (with DPs used in SM for healing lists), what is the problem?, that enrich the game.
If there is 1 thing that I like in RM, and at any moment more (with new skills, talents, etc.) is that there isn't 2 equal characters.
In a world is very interesting that 2 characters with the same base profession could be very different.

[Arioch]

They are already getting a bonus/advantage by being able to alter the spells to begin with...

I completely agree, and I think that this is a big advantage, even if you have to pay a few extra PPs to do it, in addition to buying the skill.

"I cast Waterwall True, and use spell mastery to give it a round shape around me and make it move with me as I walk through the flames.."

Err, do you realise how hard it is to achieve such effects?  A round waterwall would be basically changing it into a radius spell, which is -50, and then a -30 to make it move 10' per round with concentration.  Who's insane enough to make a roll at -80?

The character that has done this is a 20th level Wizard with more or less 150 of Spell Mastery bonus in, let me see... Seven lists. 150-80=70, he just have to roll over 5 not to fail. 

Not really, for 76-90 results there is no description about rolling again, yo do only 20% and no more (multiply the parameter by 0,2, so a 10' radius is changed, if try to double it, to (2*0,2)*10' (added) + 10' (original) = 14'). And you lose 10 HPs.

That's another way to do it (from where comes the 10HPs rule?), or you can interpret the result of the static manuever table as: you have completed only the 20% of your manuever, you can stop now or you can continue and accumulate % of success until you reach 100% or fail.

If you're capable of reliably making a check at -60, I wonder why you're only using Shock Bolts in the first place

To do up to 90 points of damage spending only 2PPs!
And basically that's what I want to avoid. Not for the damage, nor because I don't like creative use of SM, but because I don't like to see the skill used as a simple way to avoid spending PPs!

[Grinnen Baeritt]

All in all it's your decision as to whether to include it in your games, assuming the players agree. (Else you won't have any Spell Mastery skill at all...and probably no Magicians either.

A 20th level caster? Humm... economical DP expenditure 40 ranks = 100 +10 (Profession) +30 (stat...highly unlikely) = 140.

Cost = 80 Dp (about a levels worth of DP!) and that is a profession that gets the skill as Everyman. With Seven lists (as per your example) he'd have spent 560 DP....(let that sink in folks...)

To get the same bonus at 20th without everyman you'd need to spend at least another 100 DP for each list!!!

With the SAME mage doing multiple damage or bolts..

Add to the above cost of DS: Shock Bolt to get it to the point where you could near guarentee a hit 100% of the time and you are talking a serious amount of long term investment... 30 ranks in Cat & 40 Ranks in Skill gives +100 +30 (very generous with Stat bonuses again.. ) +10 profession = +140 (still not a certainity in my experience).

Cost = 2/5 = 7 pts. (20*7 + 10*2) = 160 points (Category)
Cost = 2/5 = 7 pts. (40*7) = 280 points (Skill)

440 points...

So... assuming he only purchased the Spell Mastery in ONE list, after investing a total of  80 +440 = 520 DP (not including PP development and purchasing Spell Lists), which is about SIX levels worth of DP, the 20th level Mage in question gets to cast a spell that has the capacity to do a multiple of damage (the damage of which isn't also guarenteed) which hits with reasonable certainity with a minimum of PP.  Gee, I should hope so!

If you are allowing your players with getting away with making multiple rolls without suffering the penalties on the Power Manipulation Table then I'm hoping you are at least making them delay a round for each partial they get.

[Arioch]

A 20th level caster? Humm... economical DP expenditure 40 ranks = 100 +10 (Profession) +30 (stat...highly unlikely) = 140.

30 ranks = 95 + 55 of category bonus.

So... assuming he only purchased the Spell Mastery in ONE list, after investing a total of  80 +440 = 520 DP (not including PP development and purchasing Spell Lists), which is about SIX levels worth of DP, the 20th level Mage in question gets to cast a spell that has the capacity to do a multiple of damage (the damage of which isn't also guarenteed) which hits with reasonable certainity with a minimum of PP.  Gee, I should hope so!

Yes, he spent a lot of DPs, and that gave him the capability of changing how spells works, which IMHO is not something to understimate, as it greatly increase the flexibility of the character.

[mocking bird]

An item that constantly doubles the area effect of your spells is much tougher to enchant than a weapon that doubles your concussion damage and adds a crit at the same time.  A fighter can benefit from Haste and Two-Weapon fighting, potentially making 4 attacks at full BO in a round, a spell user can only cast a single spell in a round, no matter if its an instantaneous one.

x2 concussion & crit of equal severity each take a 25th level spell - weapon IV.  I don't recall what levels are needed for x2 range or area, or any spell enhancements really, in the treasure companion.

So a fighter has four attacks in a round meaning he can attack two opponents, perhaps four.  Meanwhile the mage is taking out dozens with a 20' radius ball, x2 concussion for a SM roll of -40.  (AC/DC song comes to mind).

But this is digressing to 'in the defense of non-spell casting classes' that has been discussed earlier.  In the end mages are definitely more powerful than fighters, spell mastery just makes it much more apparent.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

A 20th level caster? Humm... economical DP expenditure 40 ranks = 100 +10 (Profession) +30 (stat...highly unlikely) = 140.

30 ranks = 95 + 55 of category bonus.

Oh... take away the profession bonus of +10, and you are saying that the magician has stat bonuses equalling 45, so each of the three stats has a +15 bonus!!

If thats the case, well, its no wonder why there is a problem..... but I honestly don't think its with the use of the skill, rather the character, or at least the example you gave.

[Arioch]

A 20th level caster? Humm... economical DP expenditure 40 ranks = 100 +10 (Profession) +30 (stat...highly unlikely) = 140.

30 ranks = 95 + 55 of category bonus.

Oh... take away the profession bonus of +10, and you are saying that the magician has stat bonuses equalling 45, so each of the three stats has a +15 bonus!!

If thats the case, well, its no wonder why there is a problem..... but I honestly don't think its with the use of the skill, rather the character, or at least the example you gave.

Wizards get a +15 to Power Manipulation category, other bonuses come from stats and/or background, etc (Having a high power manipulation bonus is not uncommon in arcane users, since Em In and Pr are in their prime requisites...).

But the problem is not really this character, which I took only as an example. It's rather what I see as a possible abuse of the intent of a skill. IMHO spell mastery was not intended to be used to cast spell cheaply (otherwise they would have called it "PPs saving"...  ), but to give to expert casters the opportunity to modify spells in an unusual and improvised way.