I was wondering if anyone has developed some interesting spells for TROS that are relatively low in CTN... say 5 and lower. With successful gesture and dialogue checks, and formalization, the CTNs acould be brought to ridiculously low levels, which is what I think any Arcanist without a deathwish would do... use the least amount of force to achieve the greatest possible effect.
Any takers?
-Mark
Hmm.. how about these (off the top of my head, so maybe a bit rough):
T3 (human), R1 (touch), V1 (skull), D0, L0 (Growth 2, -2 for formulisation).
Total CTN5, targets skull shrinks to a tenth of it's former size, crushing his brain and killing him instantly. Of course, you have to touch him. Far better to make it CTN6 and then it's line of sight and still only takes 6 seconds to cast (less with gestures etc).
Or:
T1 (inanimate object), R1 (touching it), V1 (small stone), D0, L0 (movement 2, -2 for formulisation).
Total CTN3, stone flies out of casters hand and drives itself through targets skull at a speed of 1 mile per second (or thereabouts). Insert squishy sound effect here. In this case I would make the caster use his MP to actually hit with, but if you added say vision 2 (making the CTN5) it could be guided to its target. Of course then it's a spell of three so it takes 50 seconds to cast, so it's not as useful.
Then theres:
T3 (human), R1 (touch), V0, D0, L1 (Conquer 3, -2 for formulisation)
Total CTN5, targets mind is instantly and irrevocably wiped. Hope you have some nappies handy. By making the TN6 you can make it be line of sight and thus negate the need to actually touch him.
and finally:
T3, R1, V0, D0, L0 (Conquer 2, -2 for formulisation)
Total CTN4, target stabs himself in temple. He's not happy about it, but he does it. Make it TN5 for line of sight, yadda yadda yadda.
Brian.
The skull-shrinking spell is easier if you do it to a helmet instead (assuming he's wearing one). Drops the TN by 2.
Jake
QuoteThe skull-shrinking spell is easier if you do it to a helmet instead (assuming he's wearing one). Drops the TN by 2.
Ah, my favorite use of the 1st level Reduce spell from D&D that pissed off more than a few people. Also good for boots, belts and codpieces depending on the gear and your viciousness.
Chris
Quote from: Jake NorwoodThe skull-shrinking spell is easier if you do it to a helmet instead (assuming he's wearing one). Drops the TN by 2.
Nice!
And, of course there's even a better benefit than the lower CTN - if you cast it on his head, he gets to resist it (and the lower the CTN, the lower the TN to resist), but he can't resist it if it's on his helmet (except with countermagic, perhaps) so he's squishy.
Nice Jake, very evil.
Brian.
Then there's a few self-conquer spells. CTNs 1,2, and 3, respectively. Good for a sorceror who needs to be really brave for a few moments, or simply doesn't want to remember something.
Banishment is also usually really low in terms of CTN. A Banishment shield around the sorceror is CTN 3, to drain someone else's magic is CTN 5 at most.
Conquer spells (when done on someone else) are always high target numbers (range 2, target 3 = 5 + Level), because they effect another person directly. Glamour, on the other hand, can be very easy. A simple illusion of an empty corridor is TN 3 if you can touch the area of the illusion. A more complicated illusion is only 1 TN higher.
Vision spells, of course, can be *REALLY* easy. Looking into one's own future or past is only TN 1-3, determined by how far you need to see.
This is why I've always been a fan of magic that works by defining the result and leaving the FX up to creative description rather than a system that defines the FX and then allows you to resolve the effects from that.
Example of spell where FX is defined and results derived:
Reduce: Defined FX: Object shrinks some pre-determined volume in some pre-determined amount of time. Used against worn helmet. Derived Result: skull crushed...huge effect from minor spell.
Example of spell where results are defined and FX is derived:
Reduce: Defined Results: Target suffers Level 2 wound. Derived Effect: cast on a helmet which shrinks in size just enough to inflict a level 2 wound....cast directly on someone's skull, inflicts level 2 wound...cast on someone's boot, inflicts level 2 wound.
The advantage of method two is that result and "cost" are so much easier to balance in game terms. Want to kill someone instantly, you'll need to cast a spell capable of inflicting 5 (or 6) levels of wounds...regardless of whether the FX is a stone being flung from the hand, a shrinking helmet, a bolt of fire, or ravageing disease. Avoids the whole "hey I found a way to destroy an entire city for virtually no cost at all" min-maxing effect.
QuoteThe advantage of method two is that result and "cost" are so much easier to balance in game terms. Want to kill someone instantly, you'll need to cast a spell capable of inflicting 5 (or 6) levels of wounds...regardless of whether the FX is a stone being flung from the hand, a shrinking helmet, a bolt of fire, or ravageing disease. Avoids the whole "hey I found a way to destroy an entire city for virtually no cost at all" min-maxing effect.
Very true, although I think part of the appeal of wizard type characters is using innovative tactics to acheive goals, as opposed to the brute force method. Although I think in the case of ROS this kind of thinking fits perfectly with the style of play intended.
Chris
I love how people always focus on whacking folks with magic. OK, we know that can be done. What's the most impressive constructive thing you can imagine being done with a low CTN? What can you do with, say a 5? Now that's a challenge.
Mike
Define constructive. i.e. in what manner?
Do you mean like this:
T3, R1, V1, D0, L0 (Growth 2, -2 formulisation) = CTN5, target plate of food (up to 20 pounds of meat, say) grows tenfold, feeding a great number of people. Maybe this is what Jesus did to the wine and fishes...
Or
T2, R1, V1, L0 (Growth 1, -2 for formulisation) = CTN4, target door grows just enough to wedge itself in its frame, meaning that the baddies on the other side can't force it open (and whatever size you don't use can increase the thickness, making it harder to chop through).
Or
T3, R1, V0, D0, L0 (Repress 2, -2 for formulisation) = CTN4, target loses all memory of a traumatic event in their past. Primative psychology at work.
Those kinds of things?
Brian.
Sorta. I'm thinking of stuff with permenant effects. The second example is right out (actually damages the door). The first example solves the hunger only temporarily. The last one is permenant but not very physical. You don't see the results.
I'm looking for something permenant, creative, and really felt by a lot of people.
Mike
T:0 V:0 R:0 D:0 L:4 (Conquer 3 + Summoning)
You summon a Demon into yourself. Now THAT'S gonna be felt by a lot of people!
Sigh.
Quote from: Mike HolmesSigh.
I think that Mike's posed an excellent question. I want to hear more on it. Answer, monkeys!
;-)
Jake
Ohhh... you said constructive... I didn't see that earlier. My bad.
Well, the most constructive thing I can think of is, well, construction. You take movement and make a stone wall out of a bunch of stones, then use Sculpture to meld it all into one big stone. The movement spell is TN 5 (Target 1, Range 2, Volume 1, Level 1) unless you formalize it to TN 3. The sculpture spell will be even easier (TN 4) because you'll be touching the wall (presumably). Of course, these take time, but they are seen or felt by lots of people, it's something that not everyone does, and the effects will last much longer than the average PC's lifetime. You can use this to build a wall, a tower, a house, or even a castle.
Quote from: Mike HolmesSorta. I'm thinking of stuff with permenant effects. The second example is right out (actually damages the door). The first example solves the hunger only temporarily. The last one is permenant but not very physical. You don't see the results.
I'm looking for something permenant, creative, and really felt by a lot of people.
Mike
Well, as you know, making anything permanent would defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which is physics, and therefore, something magic can't defy.)
But you can make things relatively long-lasting and impressive.
But most of those are high CTN spells.
You want things around CTN 4 or 5.
And it seems you want physical things as well, which means using Movement, Growth, and/or Sculpture.
Hm.
*Thinking*
I can't really think of anything that fits those many descriptions, aside of the "make a wall" spells proposed earlier (which would make an awfully small wall, IMHO)
Destruction is easier than creation. An amusing restatement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
If you ask for easy spells, you're bound to get simple, dirty, destructive spells. And a few constructive ones of less effect (as you've seen.)
That was exactly my point Bob. The talented Sorcerer is one who can create. Any fool sorcerer can destroy stuff. Takes little talent to make an effective spell there.
Let's bump it up a CTN to 6 can I create anything cool there?
Mike
Hmm.. something lasting and impressive.
OK, how about:
T1 (stone), R1 (touch), V2 (200 lbs), D0, L4 (sculpture 3, Vision 3). Total CTN: 8, reduced to 6 for formulisation.
Sorceror takes 200lbs of unworked stone, and uses vision 3 and sculpture 3 to refashion it molecularly into diamond (or cheese, or whatever, but diamond is more impressive), and physically to make a statue of Xanar Shard-Finder.
Impressive? Check. Lasting? Check. Will be stolen in seconds? Check.
As far as I can tell from Jake's comments, it's permanent without further effort. However, the question arises as to whether Sculpture 3 along with Vision 3 will allow you to manipulate molecules so as to change their composition, adding or subtracting electrons from atoms to change one type of matter into something else, but I assume this is possible (Concept 2/3 seems to make this OK). Jake?
I would probably also make the sorcerer roll a MA/Craft: Artist or similar to make a good job of the statue, but lets face it - a life-sized diamond statue is pretty good either way :-)
Brian.
Sounds good to me. The "permanancy" limitation is really to keep sorcerers from covering themselves in invisible armor that doesn't hinder and never goes away. And the like.
Jake
Quote from: Jake NorwoodSounds good to me. The "permanancy" limitation is really to keep sorcerers from covering themselves in invisible armor that doesn't hinder and never goes away. And the like.
If I had a goofball sorceror player in my game who did that, I'd tell him that he could no longer eat (unless you take your armor off. What's that? Can't do it? Too bad) or something similar. That would be hilarious.
Oh, and the wall spell wouldn't be a necessarily small wall. It would take a while to build, perhaps multiple castings even, but two TN 4 or so spells are nothing compared to one TN 7 spell. Especially if done via Spell of Three.
So perhaps to clarify permancy, what is meant is that any physical changes are indeed permanent, but magical effects that continue to defy natural law are not permanent? For example, changing the statue into diamond is fine, since diamond naturally exists. Whereas changing the statue into a glowing spectral energy construct would not be a permanent, since spectral energy isn't a physical substance just lying around.
Is this correct, Jake?
Chris
What I think Jake will say: Yeah, that's about right.
What I know that I say: That's pretty much how I play it. If you build a bridge, the bridge stays. If you make the bridge glow, then either the glow goes away or you lose sorcery pool -- permanently -- to keep it glowing. Normal objects don't shrink, glow, grow, or be animated by magical means. Use your common sense.
Quote from: BankueiSo perhaps to clarify permancy, what is meant is that any physical changes are indeed permanent, but magical effects that continue to defy natural law are not permanent? For example, changing the statue into diamond is fine, since diamond naturally exists. Whereas changing the statue into a glowing spectral energy construct would not be a permanent, since spectral energy isn't a physical substance just lying around.
Is this correct, Jake?
Chris
Yeah, that's about right. As I see it it's very much an issue of Social Contract (what does your group think it should be) and "natural" versus "obviously mystical" effects, like the glowing bridge. TROS magic is really pretty ambiguous...and that's on purpose.
Jake