Just to let you know, I've finished a rough draft of a conversion of the Ars Magica magic system to The Riddle of Steel. The mechanics will be quite similar to TRoS, but using the Technique+Form system of Ars Magica.
Also, it reduces the penalty for failing to resist the bad effects of magic (fatigue instead of aging), makes powerful magics more difficult, so you get the power of the Ars Magica wizards, and their ability to do things like fireballs (grin), without getting the cheese of D&D magic.
Last thing I'm going to do is create a new damage table, for magic that can truly kill via doing non-generic damage.
All this above is a theory, however. Hopefully the rest of you will help me "debug" it once I'm done.
Morfedel, I would be extremely interested in this sort of thing. I started with Am way back in 1st edition, loved the 2nd edition ('one true edition'), got disgusted with 3rd edition's focus on demons on pins, and have enjoyed nearly everything about 4th edition except the whip's domination in combat and that armor increases the damage done to you.
So please forward me your work!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no reason to forward it, as I'm going to post it here. I just need to finish the damage table and its done and will be posted in this thread.
I await this breathlessly, Morfedel.
That would be extremely helpful, Morfedel. I tried to do the exact same thing months ago, but didn't have the time it required to do justice to both systems. I believe I still have a few hand written notes on the subject that I'll have to go find to see if I was even close. I anxiously await to read your work.
The best magic system in gaming meets the best sword combat in gaming.
S'like chocolate and peanut butter...
Count me in and watching (and USING)
And one more thing...
Will it be simple to change your take on it from fatigue to aging?
You mean, switch it back to the aging rules?
It should be. My changes really aren't very significant. At least, to my eye.
Basically, I've changed the formula a tad. You still assemble the formula as per the original rules, but the meaning of the numbers were altered slightly, so that to get the more powerful effects, will need to go a bit higher; effects were a bit more generalized, and therefore disassociated from the vagaries directly.
In exchange, each spell has to be composed of one technique and one form; you assemble the spell with the altered formula as above; including the slightly more generic Effect value. The technique and form creates a permissive; you cannot even begin to cast a spell whose resultant CTN is higher than the technique + form.
So, if you wanted to be a master fire mage, or a Flambeau mage in AM vernacular, you could, say, take an A in vagaries and put all 14 in Ignem, fire magic, and be able to cast almost any kind of fire sorcery you can imagine... but be almost worthless at everything else.
Or, you can spread them out a bit more evenly. The more diversified you are, the less power you will have, but the more flexible you will be, etc etc.
The rules may need some revision: I am just writing them down without testing, so I will need the lot of you to help me test them and find out what tweaks or changes it will need.
Ars Magica, the TRoS Way
I apologize fo the sloppiness of this document: I'm at work, and should be working on something else instead of this, but having promised work on Taveruun by this evening, I thought I'd be sneaky and get this done fast.
It isnt entirely complete, and it rambles a bit, but it is the core of what I'm working on (and need to reformat, clear up, etc).
So, forgive my ramblings, and let me know what you think so far. I suspect there may be flaws here, but since I dont have a playtest group, I'm just not sure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This document is intended to represent a conversion of TRoS' magic system to the Ars Magica format, while keeping its own strengths. It isn't intended to totally explain the old system, so knowledge of Ars Magica is required; however, you can download the 4th edition from rpgnow.com.
Magic is same as before: you have 5 techniques, and 10 forms. Every
spell is composed of one technique and one form.
The process of determining the level of the spell is as follows:
Target(s)
Volume
Duration
Range
Level of Effect
You will notice that these are the same as before for TRoS. However, the numbers and meaning of each have been changed.
Target(s): This represents the number of targets, rather than the type. It
is used most especially when you are trying to avoid using an area of effect that could effect allies and foes equally.
1: Self
2: Other (one target outside yourself)
3: Three (3)
4: Handful (around 5 or 6)
5: Dozen (around 12)
Range:
0: Self
1: Touch
2: Reach (around the distance of the longest of melee weapons)
3: Distance (the distance a man could run in several seconds; the range
of a thrown rock/dagger, etc)
4: Range (Bow shot distance, line of sight, etc)
5: Any Distance (some taretting method, such as scrying or an arcane connection is required; an arcane connection could be a hair from the person, or nail clipplings, or their True Name in game worlds were True Names are used)
Duration: durations longer than months are possible, but special circumstances
0: Instantaneous/Concentration
1: Rounds
2: Minutes
3: Hours
4: Days
5: Weeks
Beyond this point are special circumstances, meaning I may just throw them out, hehe
6: Months
7: Years
8: Decades (Effectively permanent, except for the immortal fey, at this point)
9: Centures
10: Millenia
Volume(in radius): Volume and Targets are Mutually Exclusive.
0: Self
1: 1 yard
2: 4 yard
3: 9 yards
4: 16 yards
5: 25 yards
Effect:
1: Minor Effect: minor discomforts (damage in pain and shock is # of successes); changes, control, other alterations, also minor. Apprentice level magic.
2: Lesser Effect: attacks become more serious, using generic damage chart; alterations and effects are of low degree, but not inconsiderable. Novice Level Magic
3: Moderate Effect: Damage becomes serious (use revised sorcerous attack rules); effects are considerable and significant. Journeyman Level Magic
4: Greater Effects: Damage can be deadly and debilitating; effects are
awe inspiring and have few flaws. Master Level Magic.
5: Flawless Magic: Attacks can kill instantly. Effects are complete. Archmage Level Magic.
As you can see, with the numbers changed, levels of spells will be higher. A caster wanting to cast spells on himself will be having a level of spell of
2 before any other factors for Apprentice Level Effects..
Levels of effects are determined by a judgement call from the Seneschal, based on the power level he wishes in the game. However, suggestions, example spells, and the revised sorcerous attack rules are forthcoming in a later post.
To cast a spell, the character makes his rolls as normal, with the following changes:
Since effect levels are now disassociated from the vagaries, the vagaries now, insead, act as permissives. Each spell is composed of a single technique (the verb) and a single form (the noun). A spellcaster cannot cast a spell with a CTN that is greater than his Technique + Form.
So, for instance, if a sorcerer with a Creo of 3 and an Ignem of 5 wants to hurl a blast of fire, his best CTN he can manage is an 8.
As he is casting a spell, a sorcerer must still divide up his sorcery pool into two groupings. Instead of aging, however, the number is the amount of fatigue levels gained, rather than the number of months aged (And using this system, fatigue effects ALL pools, instead of just CPs). Note that using spells such as Mana 1 also delivers fatigue... but one may not refresh their mana pool by a level that would increase the pool beyond the dice pool allowed after fatigue.
When casting magics, one must modify the CTN of the spells based on the aura of their surroundings. Magical Auras reduce the CTN of the spell by their aura; fairy auras reduce the CTN of the spell by half their aura, but sometimes have strange effects; divine and infernal auras increase the CTN of the spell by their aura strength.
Sorcerers can resist spells better than others. When the target of a spell, a sorcerer adds his score to the dice pool being used to resist magic - and even if a spell is not normally resisted, a sorcerer can still attempt to resist with the raw form. So, a sorcerer targeted by a Pilum of Fire can roll his Ignem score to resist the attack. This makes forms valuable for resisting hostile effects; since techniques influence more spells (only 5 techniques vs 10 forms) this makes them more valuable for spell combinations.
The idea behind the system as listed is that it will make magic a bit weaker, while still allowing for impressive magics. It was meant to capture the feel of the Ars Magica system to an extent, while still keeping the core ideals of the TRoS system intact. By the same token, however, because fatigue is used rather than aging, magic may be used more often with less fear of permanent consequences.
I originally planned on using the effect system similar to how it is already done, by adding in effect based on vagary level; but with 15 schools, and the technique + form combination, it made it more complex; I figured this permissive approach would work better. You be the judge.
Spells of the greater levels of effect was designed to be more difficult to cast; furthermore, non specialists will have a real problem generating staggering magical effects (heck, even specialists will have troubles getting a 5 in all areas and still casting, as they have to have the permissive levels in technique and form, PLUS be able to roll the number of successes....) However, generalists will be able to work with a greater degree of materials, and be able to resist more varieties of magic.
Spells of Three/Many: These are now spells that add multiple techniques or forms. For instance, a spell that transforms a man to a beast would be Muto-Corporem/Animal. You use the lowest of the scores in form, and the lowest of the scores in technique, for determining permissives. Spells of even one technique and one form may be researched and formalized as ritual magic instead, if the Seneschal allows.
This system suddenly makes formalized spells significantly more valuable. If you have a Creo Corporem combined score of 6, and there is a spell that is normally a 7 or 8 ctn, you wont be casting it nonformulized. However, if you know a sorcerer who has it formulized, and you have something in exchange....
In upcoming posts, I will be adding in the Sorcerous Damage system, several example spells the way I see it, and some other Ars Magica methods imbedded, such as studying, making permanent magic, etc.
I hope you like.
For those who don't know Ars Magica, rather than my explaining it in detail, just download it; they are working on a 5th edition, and decided to make 4th edition available for FREE download at RPGNOW.com. Head there, download it, read it. Then this will make more sense to you.
------
Post Script: I just added this in last second as I was thinking of something while pasting this in....
Character building, I considered doing similar to Ars Magica for the techniques and forms (henceforward called the Arts). This I'm not certain of, but reviewing my rules above, if you spent proficiency points 1 for 1, you will have to make a diehard specialist, or be exceptionally weak. To counter that, I was thinking that every "proficiency" point converted to purchasing Arts would be multiplied by 10, so putting 14 points in would amount to 140.
Then the arts would be purchased just as in Ars Magica: 1 pt for level 1, plus 2 pts for level 2 for a total of 3, plus 3 pts for level 3 for a total of 6, etc. But, the numbers in this system are lower than in Ars Magica, so maybe multiply by 5 instead. So, 14 points would net 70 points; allowing you to purchase 8 at level 3, the rest at level 2, having an average spell level possible of 5 to 6 if you go an A in proficiencies and generalize, while getting the highest score in a single techique and form would be an 8 and a 7, a possible 15 CTN spell at best, but very focused.
IF you went with a C in prof and an A in attributes, you will have a much higher potential sorcery pool, but will be a poor generalist or mediocre specialist by comparison. But with lots of natural ability.
Techniques
-----
Creo - Create
Intellego - Percieve
Muto - Transform
Perdo - Destroy
Rego - Control
-----
Forms
-----
Animal - Animals and Beasts
Aquam - Water
Auram - Air
Corporem - Body (human body)
Herbam - Plant
Ignem - Fire
Imagonem - Images
Mentem - Mind
Terram - Earth
Vim - Power
One quick example spell while I have the chance:
The Heartbreaker's Caress (Perdo Corporem)
The caster reaches out and lightly touches the victim; once done, the victim must make a HT resistance roll, or his heart simple stops, and he dies.
Target: 2 (one other)
Range: 1 (touch)
Duration: 0 (instantaneous)
Effect: 5 (Instant Death)
CTN Total: 8
And a second, The same spell a
Whispers of Death: Spell of Three (Perdo Corporem and Perdo Vim)
Having the hair, or a true name, of a victim makes assaults from great distances far easier. Same as above in effect, but it is performed at a long distance; it requires an arcane connection or a method of scrying the target; attempts to destroy any magical protections the target might have; and ends their life:
Target: 2
Range: 5
Duration: 0
Effect: 5
CTN: 12
And a third version:
Reaper on the Wind: Spell of Many[Ritual spell] (Perdo Corporem, Perdo Vim, Intellego Corporem:
Spell does not require an arcane connection; instead, it "Searches out" the target, as it contains a scrying component (Intellego Corporem):
Target: 2
Range: 5
Duration: 0
Effect: 5
CTN: 12
-----------------
Note that I didnt make it clear what defines a spell of 3 versus many in my iteration. If a spell contains a single technique and a single form, its a spell of 1. If it contains more than one of either ONE of them, and three or less overall effects, it is a spell of 3. IF it contains more than one technique AND form or if it has more than 3 effects, then it is a spell of many.
(just a quick thought I hadnt considered, so this was not well thought out yet; I needed a way to fit this system into the 3/many scheme, and it doesnt so well... :/ heh)
Another Spell:
Pilum of Fire: Creo Ignem
The Caster hurls a "spear" of fire from his hands at the target. The Caster must roll to hit, and the target may evade, like normal. Standard resistance is not possible.
Damage functions as per the upcoming sorcery damage chart *grin*
Target: 1
Range: 4
Duration: 0
Effect: 3 (uses sorcerous damage)
CTN: 8
Dousing the Flame: Perdo Ignem
A spell to douse candles, torches, and other small flames; a spell originally taught to Flambeau apprentices in learning their arts.
Volume: 1
Range: 2
Duration: 0
Effect: 1
CTN: 4
*listens to the chirping of crickets in the night....*
That bad, eh? :/
Heh
the one problem i could see, is that somehow the magic got even stronger that base line TROS.,... at least in baseline, you couldnt throw a fireball... now you can.. .lol
In the baseline, you could kill someone with a mere few points in a single vagary - say, 3 pts in sculpture. Now it can't be done as easily.
And yeah, fireballs can be thrown - but thats how it worked in Ars Magica. IT isn't D&D, but if you remember, even Gandalf hurled a bit of assault magics; I remember one scene where he had a fire throwing out sparks that ate their way through Goblins; and there are plenty of other non-cheesy fantasy with similar attributes.
And this is how Ars Magica does it - it has fireballs, and if I'm doing an Ars Magica to TRoS port, doesn't it make sense you should be following a similar path?
Furthermore, all total, I think this makes magic weaker overall, not easier. For 3 pts in a single vagary, you can do quite a bit, and thats not so true here; furthermore, there are 5 steps in each formula rather than 3, making a CTN potentially higher than before.
Perhaps I'm wrong though?
im not saying you are wrong, or that your conversion was wrong, im just saying, for all the people who have something against the strength of the baseline magic system, they'll have a bigger beef against this one... thats all
Besides, I remember seeing here on the boards and, perhaps, in the book, that you shouldnt use science to explain how magic works, to try and come up with a scientific explanation for a fireball.
But then, you go into the book and read the explanation of the Fold spell, dissassembling your molecules, etc etc. I was rather amused! :)
Quote from: Morfedel*listens to the chirping of crickets in the night....*
That bad, eh? :/
Heh
Personally, I like it. I like the TROS system, but I thought about creating a system with all formalized spells. My initial attempts used the different branches of magic from AD&D (i.e. Abjuration, Divination, Illusion, etc). I thought I'd call it Wizardry and keep it at lower power (I thought about putting in an aging roll when a new spell was created--that is "formalized"--and then using fatigue when spells are cast).
Anyway, all my ramblings aside, I really like your system and plan on compiling it into a Word document sometime this weekend...
Steve Reich
Hope you're posting the damage system, etc. soon...
Steve Reich
Yeah; I will do that tonight or tomorrow. I was juggling with the idea of either modifying the generic damage chart, or... well, the other solution is harder to decribe than to implement... I'm crunching a few numbers to see if A) my other method will work and B) if it is efficient.
I'll have it within the next couple days, max.
Sorry this has taken so long. Life, etc.
Ok, based on the above formula, this is how damage works:
At Effect-1: The number of successes is the number of shock points caused. That is it - spells of this level are rarely more than minor irritations.
Effect-2: Use the generic damage table, as normal.
Effect-3: The level of injury is also how much "blood loss" the individual gains. In other words, using the generic damage table, acheiving 3 levels of injury on the table nets the shock and pain, and additionally 3 points of "blood loss." Note this may not be actual blood loss, but represent a person slipping into shock. Alternatively, a spell duplicating a correct effect may instead use one of the other damage tables. For instance, a spellcaster casts a Rego Herbam spell to cause a tree to reach down and strike at a knight on a horse. In this case, it would use the correct blunt damage table.
Effect-4: At this level, damage becomes dangerous. Effects are as per effect-3, as above, but additionally, a roll is made with the current number of successes plus the number of "blood loss" points caused by magic against the target's health as a TN. Each success causes a drop of 1 pt in health. Alternatively, an immediate, non-fatal but serious effect can be generated. Example: a sorcerer casting The Arm of the Infant, a muto corporem spell that transforms a single arm or leg into that of an infant's would fit into this category.
Effect-5: At this level, a spell can be instantly fatal. As Effect-4 above, but even a single success is fatal. An example. The Clench of the Crushed Heart, a Perdo Corporem spell in which, if successful, immediately crushes the target's heart.
Note: Spells are delivered in two varieties, projected or invasive. Projected spells use some kind of medium; for example, a Pilum of Flame would be a small "spear" of flame hurled from the caster's hand. Meanwhile, the aforementioned Clench of the Crushed Heart is invasive.
Projected spells cannot be resisted, but only dodged - or interfered with like any other projectile would be. This does not mean such spells can break through erected defenses, but it does mean that one's natural defenses are ineffective.
Invasive spells are the reverse; they cannot be dodged in any traditional manner, but are instead resisted by one's natural defenses.
Note also: Intellego spells can often be used to scry information on the target. In some cases, resistance to stop the effects are reasonable, but other times, such resistances may not make sense; in these cases, a resistance, particularly sorcerers with appropriate scores in the form being used, may use their resistance to realize they are being scried upon.
Again, these havent been playtested. I'm sorry this took so long to come out with, but I'm hoping now you guys who were wanting to see these earlier will now have some feedback for me? :)
Wow.
I've had 0 feedback. Had lots of people interested in what I was doing, and now nothing. Is it that bad? :(
Quote from: MorfedelWow.
I've had 0 feedback. Had lots of people interested in what I was doing, and now nothing. Is it that bad? :(
Sorry, I've been pretty busy--but I really like what you've done. I probably won't get to playtest it any time soon, as I'm not currently running (or even playing in) a TROS game. At the very least, if I ran TROS I'd use your system as a basis for a second type of magic (wizardry or magistry?).
Keep up the good work and keep us (or at least, me) informed of any additions, changes, or fine-tuning you do.
Steve Reich
Been busy. Your stuff Morfendel, is tres kewl.
But what about EXPERIENCE. Can you provide TRoS with a time based experience system like Ars Magica?
Meaning, advancing scores per season like AM does?
Quote from: MorfedelMeaning, advancing scores per season like AM does?
Yes!
I have this dream of running Ars Magica again. I just can't deal with their garbage combat system anymore, much less the exploding d10 dice rolls for skill checks. I don't like system-monkeying (I'm much more a world builder these days), so your doing this is a godsend to me.
Sure. Look for that this weekend.
I promised this a bit ago. Sorry it took so long getting to it.
In order to advance an Art, you spend experience just as you would to improve a vagary.
However, you don't actually advance at that time. The advancement does not occur until you have studied sufficiently to gain the improvement.
Study is done in one of several methods.
First, by book: the book must be about the art in question, and it must be of a score at least equal to, if not exceeding, the value you are trying to raise up to. If so, then each seaon of study, roll MA versus a target number = to the new score you are trying to achieve. Each success lowers the target number for a next check; once it reaches 0, your score goes up.
Vis: Pure magical power. Studying enough pawns of vis as if it were a book has the same results. Vis, however, is burned per success gained.
Regions of Power: Should you find a region with a sufficiently high magical aura, particulary if it has an aspect similar to the art you are studying, its aura rating can count as a book.
Research: Sometimes, there just isnt anything else available, and you have to forge your path on your own. This details trying to discover the next level of power via labwork in conjunction with all of the above methods, postulating new theories, etc.
For research to work, the Sorcerer begins by gathering other materials. he takes the highest score of either his best book, vis source, or region of power. For each other source that is within MA of the highest source, he may add 1 to the score of the highest source. If this source reaches the level needed, he may begin the research, with one additional season added as the first season where no rolls can be made; he spends the first season gathering, combining, and cross referencing his sources.
When this is all done, he will be done with his research, reached his score, and have a new book representing his notes. Although a sorcerer's personal books may be coveted by others, many sorcerers are loath to either loan them out (because they may need them, and who knows what the other sorcerer will do with the knowledge), and because he can use this new book to help him with his next bit of research.
Note: A sorcerer may only use one book of his own; to reach new pinnacles of knowledge, cross-referencing other sources to trigger new tracks of thought is necessary.
I hope this works. Let me know what you think!
Just to let you know, I LOVE this idea and at present we are going to playtest it in the next few weeks.
I will post our playtest results here after our first session.
BTW Morfedel I would like to thank you for the work you have done. My group loved Ars Magica for the Magic, but thought the rest of the game was lacking. Now we have the perfect fantasy setting, TRoS with the magic system of AM..... And I will do my best to help you make it work. :)
Thanks! And please DO let me know how playtesting goes! As I said, I wrote the rules here with no chance of my OWN to try them out; sometimes, what looks good in theory doesn't work so well in implementation. So, I'll be thrilled to see the results!
Any chance you could just link us a word document or something so I could look at this all in one place? I am very interested in this, and it seems like you've got most of it figured out. The fact that the TROS magic system was "almost like Ars" was part of why I bought it!!!
No, not yet. As time permits, I will create it as a Word document. That might be a week or two before I can get to it, though, and any really pretty layout or formatting will be nonexistant - I just have too many demands on my time right now.
OK DOK, I may do it for you (grin)... I really, really like the idea of folding the AM magic system in. As much as I love TROS for the Skill/Combat/SA systems, I find the magic system to be a little thin, and almost an afterthought. Maybe I just like cheesy D&D style stuff, but I WANT a system where the players live more than one or two battles, where monsters exist and are defeatable, and where magic is real, and works, but has consequences. TROS magic system gets almost all the way there, I think the Verb-Noun system combined with the TROS methods is PERFECT>....
Great to hear! Please let me know how it goes! :)
OK, here's a link to a word document I started working up. I've made some tweaks:
http://www.nadig.com/Personal/arstotros.doc
Here's my big issue, and it's on damage. The way it is right now, effect level is determined. So "BrainSqueeze", a spell that squishes someones brain out through their ears, would be TN 8 (Other, Touch, EL5). This is just way to easy for instant death. Rolling a SINGLE 8 is just way way to easy, and it would require "only" a 1 in corpus, and a 7 in perdo.
A few modifications I thought of: first, a spell can never do more than it's stated EL of damage, so you can cast a wimpy Pilum, or a deadly Pilum, but extra successes on the wimpy one don't make it deadly. Second, make the number of successes requred for full effect = the effect level. So, in my example, BrainSqueeze would still be a TN of 8, but you'd need 5 successes to actually pull it off. Anything under that, and it scales back, one level per lack of success.
Not perfect, but at least the chances of rolling 5 8's out of a pool of 10 are a lot lower than the chances of rolling 1!!!!
Another thought I had was to make it that the maximum EL you could achieve on any spell (not just damage) could be the LOWEST of the Technique or Form in question. This prevents what we used to call "perdo munchkin" - someone who puts 1 point in most forms, and ALL their other points in Perdo, so they can be the master of disaster. In the case of brainsqueeze, we now need someone with BOTH a perdo and a corpus of 5, needing 5 8s to enact instant death. Now we're talking, I think.
Using the point system from this discussion (which I included in the doc) that would mean a starting character would have to spend 32 points (equivalent to over 6 vagary points) on this level of specialization. Not bad. I think maybe we need to ramp the points even higher past level 3 though.
Thoughts?
In reading through the Ars book again, the damage issue is really sticky. Perdo Corpus instant death is an Ars level 50 effect - incredibly difficult to acheive. Perhaps we need more than 5 levels of effect? I know, I know, everything in TROS goes in sets of 5, but perhaps we need to use something like 7 levels of magnitude (ala Ars) instead?
Alternatively, we can kick the requirements to get higher level magics way up. Maybe 1/3/6/10/15/21/28 for the Art score desired (as we had it before) but only give starting characters proficiencies/2 to start with.
This would mean a maxed proficient character would have 28 points to spend, letting them get a maximum specialization of 5,4,3 (say, five in perdo, 4 in creo, 3 in corpus) - this would be the super specialized healer/destroyer, and they would just BARELY be able to pull off the touch-ranged death spell I discussed above, assuming the TN of 8, the damage restriction on the Perdo of 5, needing 5 successes to kill.
Any feedback?
Quote from: grotHere's my big issue, and it's on damage. The way it is right now, effect level is determined. So "BrainSqueeze", a spell that squishes someones brain out through their ears, would be TN 8 (Other, Touch, EL5). This is just way to easy for instant death. Rolling a SINGLE 8 is just way way to easy, and it would require "only" a 1 in corpus, and a 7 in perdo.
So? Thats also touch range. Remember, that spell is going to take 8 seconds to cast, and as it is invasive allow a health or toughnes resistance roll.
So, first of all, in that 8 seconds, you will have a potential 8 sword attacks from this target; that's enough for possible instant death there too. Furthermore, he may well resist it - dont forget, I did add a resistance component into the spell mechanic.
Let me know what you think of this, and then I'll answer the rest.
Quote from: Morfedel
So? Thats also touch range. Remember, that spell is going to take 8 seconds to cast, and as it is invasive allow a health or toughnes resistance roll.
So, first of all, in that 8 seconds, you will have a potential 8 sword attacks from this target; that's enough for possible instant death there too. Furthermore, he may well resist it - dont forget, I did add a resistance component into the spell mechanic.
Hrmm... OK, hadn't thought of that. That does pass the "bullet to the head test" - meaning, if you sneak up on a sleeping person, any idiot should be able to kill them. So if you are unconscious, and a theif puts a knife to your throat, you should die, regardless of the skill of the wielder. Same applies here I guess.
I guess my issue is with situations where you have "one success equals instant death." How do you invision natural resistance working?
I think the long term answer is with a magic damage chart like the one you started - an EL 1 spell will never do anything more than shock, an EL 5 spell can kill. But one thing I want to capture is the disparity between harm and aid inherent in Ars - bind wounds causes real aid as a level 10 spell, but there is no level 10 spell you can cast that causes actual damage.
I have two hours trapped on a train tonight to think about this, I'll see what I can come up with. 95% of the document I posted is just your stuff formatted, if you didn't notice.
Bah! Taking liberties with MY rules, are you?! :)
I don't have a problem with it, considering that 5 wounds in TRoS is death too. An EL5 spell is effectively causing an instant level 5 wound, for all intensive purposes.
The way I envision natural resistance working is, if the spell is of an invasive nature, such as the spell you described, it has an all or nothing effect; but the person resisting can roll a health roll to resist the effects, at a TN = to the TN of the spell; and each level he gets is one success taken away from the sorcerer.
And you need to remember, that although we are trying to simulate AM, we are still doing it in the TRoS paradigm, so certain liberties must still be made.
Regardless, I think the spell you described, as per my rules, is just fine. Here's why:
[list=1]
- The 8 seconds casting time, esp at range of touch, can be quite dangerous to the CASTER
- He still has to succeed, as well as resist weariness.
- The person who is the target still gets to resist.
- As both Ars Magica and TRoS (and Ron Edwards; I'm assuming it says this in sorcerer, although I haven't read it), magic SHOULD be powerful. The fine line is what is powerful, and what is too powerful.
[/list:o]
I think that therefore this spell is well balanced and fine. At least, without trying it out in play. Actually try this out with your group before nixing it - and if it still doesnt work, we will discuss it. I will be trying it with mine, after they get over the learning curve (I made them all start out as regular humans for their first characters, but since two of them took bloodthirsty berserkers, two new characters should come pretty fast, hehe)
and who knows, I may agree with ya once I try it out myself. But remember also this, in regards to specialization: a sorcerer's ability to resist hostile spells stems from his forms. If he is focused on one form, that leaves nine forms that he will be far less resistant to.
After self testing this yesterday on the train for a long time, I agree with you. TRoS is a DEADLY world, and the "oh crap a wizard!" effect is common to both TRoS and AM.
Here's the latest greatest doc from me.
http://www.nadig.com/Personal/arstotros.doc
and browsable:
http://www.nadig.com/Personal/arstotros.htm
It's up to 8 pages, with examples. I've added rules for twilight, lab work, item creation, and spell mastery, and a direct translation for AM spell levels in the effect table which I think works about right.
I also think the issue about how many points of proficiency = how many to buy Arts is something that could be very Seneschal tweakable. I think I'd run it where it's 1=2, using the ramped buy system, but you could go as high as 1=4 without it being completely insane. And in fact, if you ran it in a "magic is forbidden" type setting from Ars, would be good rollplaying fun.
Would love some feedback.
Changes I'd make:
For levels of effects, I'd raise them a bit (level 1 magic is low even for AM. Make it level 5 at the bottom), and also make it a bit vague, so GMs are given more flexibility:
Effect 1: Level 5-10 spells
Effect 2: level 10-20 spells
Effect 3: level 20-30
Effect 4: level 30-45
Effect 5: Level 45-60
There were some spells in AM that was over even level 60, and I think characters should be just as capable of reaching those in TRoS. But you can make it vaguer, and let the GM decide. "Ok, this spell is around 35, but it seems to me that effect 3 is reasonable...."
Obviously, they can do this ANYWAY, but I'd rather give vague and flexible guidelines for GMs to tweak rather than hardcore, as GMs twist it into their own vision....
The twilight you explain looks pretty darned good, but I think it needs to be expanded. How many dice exactly are they rolling? How much potential twilight? etc etc. I'm at work, so I dont have the AM rules. If you do, feel free to beat me to it. Otherwise I'll download the AM rules during lunch and give my own thoughts.
Under resisting magic, you have it saying "the sorcerer adds his score." This is vague. It should be the score he has in the FORM of the hostile magic. (then again, if thats my text taken ver batim, its my fault, heh). Anyway, we should word it "The sorcerer adds the score he poessesses in the Form that the hostile magic uses to any dice rolled to resist hostile magic; and even if that magic is normally unresistable, a wizard can roll the raw dice equal to the form of magic used to resist."
I'm not sure I agree with you on your decision on point conversion. I'd suggested a different scheme, as you recall. Why dont we instead mention that you get a number of points per proficiency spent based on what your GM decides, and list what different conversions entail (going 1-to-2 would mean a modest wizard, while 1-to-5 would mean a far more powerful one).
The reason i'm sayiong this is I think your scheme is going to make wizards too weak - barely higher than apprentices unless they REALLY specialize - and yes, I know some people will specialize, but they will be nearly one-trick ponies then. Many people will want to branch out a bit more, and this scheme will make them incredibly weak.
Example: with 28 points, I could buy ONE point in each art; that leaves 13 points left, buying a second level in 6 more arts, meaning I could cast spells with a CTN of 3. This is incredibly low! You cant even cast a spell on anyone but yourself at this level (target one other = 2; range touch = 1; effect 1 = 1 ==TN of 4)
By the same token, I could then, trying to get over this, put the points in all the techniques: but you cant take even 3 levels in all the techniques, as that would end up costing 30 points.
And if you specialized in one technique and one form? you are left with level 4 in one level 5 in the other, with a CTN of 9, and nothing else. You are incredibly specalized.
This scheme will make wizards pretty feable. Fine if the GM wants starting wizards to be apprentices, but they wont even be able to hurt anyone with anything but a touch spell for a few measily shock points unless they ultra specialize. There was a reason I put 1-to-5; I'd strongly suggest returning it to my original suggestion, OR instead changing it to the variety option of listing choose any kind of conversion, and the meanings based on which kind you use are x, y, and z.
With your scheme, characters are limited to either becoming specialized just to accomplish anything, or else casting spells that effect them only, for very meager effects; remember, a spellcaster cannot cast a spell with a higher CTN than his Technique + Form - which reminds me, maybe I missed it, but did you put that part in? I didnt see it).
With that in mind, you also rewrote my exp and study system. :P This has the same problems as the proficiency system above.
(you've been having a lot of fun rewriting my stuff, havent ya ya bastich? hehe)
No offense, my friend, as you have done a lot of hard work, but I did put a lot of thought into this and numbers crunching. I could be wrong, but I'd suggest trying out my stuff as is first; as I've pointed out, I had a good reason for putting the spellcasting damage levels as it was, and I did the same for the 1-to-5 scheme; to give mages a strong amount of magic without making them overpowered (I originally was going to do 1-to-10 but then when I ran the numbers, I saw it would be way too high).
Hm. Reading my idea on studying an Aura is flawed. Maybe.
spell mastery: hm. I think the experience expenditure needs to be clarified, but it looks interesting. I think I like it, if we can clarify the cost to advance it.
Enchantment and Item ceration: cool, looks good, except - why 6 pawns of vis? And, the two extra seasons? I think I know why, but some clarification could be in order.
And take out that comment of selling his item to the local thief. I dont think either an Ars Magica wizard nor a TRoS one would sell his items for mere gold unless desperate, and had no other means; remember, this is taking A) Vis, B) time, and also recall, that magic in this setting is really powerful. We aernt talking about TRINKETS here, we are talking about MAGIC! And someone selling something like that would be desperate.
Talismans: why extra dice? why not lower TN instead?
Spells:
Bind wound: may be a TAD too powerful. Not sure yet. Maybe make it 5 BL per success? I dont know, I'd have to think about it.
However, why did you put bleed at 10 wounds per 3 successes? I'd make it, say, 5 BL per success.
Haha! I love smack! :D
All in all, good work. I think it needs some revisions (in particular, in some cases reversing it back to its original, ahem, heh), but you did a great job, and your work on twilight and enchant items looks fairly solid after some clarification and such.
Excellent comments in general, i must say.
I agree with you on the points-per-art thing - 2 is probably low, 5 is probably high. This is definately the place where the seneschal should do the tweaking based on the presence of magic in his world setting.
Didn't mean to imply that you had whipped stuff off. Here's one of the issues though with effect level vs. skill level in each art. I guess what I really need to playtest in a group is the whole resistance and failure probablity thing, and how much fatigue resistance will matter. Note I took your damage stuff pretty much verbatim - I think it works after rolling the dice on it.
Yeah yeah yeah (on the thief thing)...
The item creation in terms of pawns and time is EXACTLY from the Ars rules on item creation. I didn't want to just copy in ALL the rules, but I will work on fleshing out the examples a bit.
Twilight I do need to flesh out more, no question about it. But I love the twilight mechanism vs. aging in terms of long term impact, and I like using fatigue instead of aging on a roll by roll basis - makes sense - if you want to cast something out at the edge of your abilities, you either need to take a big risk, or a big drain.
On experience, I didn't rewrite it! I just added one line tying it to the point buying system!
On spell mastery, I see there being two paths we could follow. First, you could just make it "one point per spell" in which case it's probably a little expensive. Maybe not though, extra dice help a fair amount, and reduced casting time can be critical. Alternatively, we could do it a bit like skills, where you could just make a check for every time you use it, and after 10 checks, it gets "mastered"...
Talismans (and spell mastery for that matter): Statistically, extra dice are far more fine grained a hack then lowering TN. For example. If I have a 10 dice roll for a TN10, I have 35% chance of failure. If I lower the TN to 9, I now have an 11% chance of failure. This is a MASSIVE increase. If I just add one die, so I have a pool of 11, and a TN of 10, I now have a 31% chance of failure. A much tighter control of the pro/con. I also like dice, because, true to the system, it gives the player a decision to make. It doesn't just make everything easier, it gives him more options.
Come to think of it, on spell mastery dice, those should just go into general pool so the player can decide as well.
Working a new version, I'll post ehre when it's done.
http://www.nadig.com/Personal/arstotros.htm
http://www.nadig.com/Personal/arstotros.doc
OK, new versions up, I took pretty much all of your suggestions. I have a sort of compromise level of effect system in there. I feel pretty strongly that a level 1 effect should be an Ars 10 effect. There are many Ars 10 spells that are more than just minor - Crystal dart, fist of shattering, rusted decay, trackless step, theif of stollen breath. These are key spells in many situations.
But I agree at level one you should be able to do things like Unseen Arm and eyes of the cat with just an EL of 1. I think I've got a good compromise in there, and of course, a lot of this can be situational.
One issue we haven't talked about is minimum TN. If I take Eyes of the Cat, (Self, Minutes, EL1, in this example) with a TN of 4, if i now formalize this to a TN of 2, are we cool with that? What about if I do it for concentration, making it TN2 to start with, then formalize it. It's now a TN0? Can I suggest that we set a minimum TN of 2 in any case? I looked, but it seems the book is silent on minimum TN. My feeling is that magic can't be WITHOUT any risk... it should never be completely automatic.
We had a discussion of a min TN on another thread, and it was split on the subject; I THINK that Jake and Brian said in effect "Why not have a TN of 0? It IS magic after all."
I think we should specifically mention both scenarios and leave it up to the GM to decide for his or her game. Personally, I dont have a problem with TNs of 2; if a spell is easy and simple enough, its easy and simple for a reason. I can do 2+2 in my head, after all, a spell that is simple enough for even a rank apprentice to do should be a snap for a sorcerer.
and as for a TN of 1 or 0... I'm kinda torn. I could go either way. Which is why I suggest leaving that to the GM of an individual game. What do you think?
The beauty of TRoS is that it's so EASY to leave these things up to the GM. It's a system that's MADE for customization, it seems.
I'm trying to get as close to AM as I can. In Ars, you can always blow it under stress, and the chance is always 1% to botch. I don't want to start trying to translate AM's "simple, quality, stress" distinction on these things. Perhaps we can just say that under controlled circumstances, TN's can go down to 0, meaning they automatically succeed, but still require the momentary use of 1 SP die. Given that these refresh at one per hour, its not like you can just rattle off 100 simple spells at the bar. That sounds about right.
Then, under a stressful situation (combat) the seneschal can say that the TN minimum is 2 - because casting under pressure should always have a LITTLE risk associated with it. Now you have 2 fatigue to worry about fighting, and at least one die to get the spell off, meaning the minimum you can use to cast it clean is 3 dice. Again, seems about right.
Hey, the document is looking much, much better!
I still have a few comments; for one, I'd take out the 2 successes in smack. I'm generally of the opinion that multiple successes should not be required for a spell to do anything, barring overcoming resistances.
Second, I havent looked at AM for awhile, but wasnt there a vis cost for implanting spells and effects as well? If so, that needs to be accounted for; if not, well, my poor memory. I'd have to look it over tonight.
(Just as a side note, I was playing around with the idea of editing the range and the duration charts a bit; I was thinking of how they did durations such as Sun. That might be rather fun. Let me look at it and get back to you on it).
You know, going back to the whole TN and formulized spells, it occurs tio me we could just take out the -TN; since you are getting extra dice anyway, that would be an important component. The extra for -TN may not be needed... but I'm not sure. I think it would work though, since formulized spells got a -2 to TN and spells of three got the exra dice in the original TRoS material.
So, just remove the whole concept of spells of three/many, and remove the -2 for formulized spells. Then, formulized gets the bonus dice, and ritual even moreso.
I like it. I like it a lot, heh. And I think you did that, this time, so there you go, a change you made that I liked, hehe! :)
With that in mind, a comment on spells. We might want to edit Mana 1/2's TNs, add in Mana 3.... I'll look at the TRoS book and contemplate it.
We also need to discuss using multiple arts, when there is overlap, although I think saying you use the smallest of each pre requisite would be fine.
And I have another one to add:
Parma Magica: Magical Shield (Creo Vim) [Ritual]
(originally a skill, I have edited it to a spell)
Prerequisites: Perdo, Intellego
Target: 1 (self)
Duration: 3 (hours; this is why I was thinking of Sun instead)
Effect: 1-5 (varies based on level learned)
TN Total: 5-9
Creates a magic shell around the caster that attempts to detect and neutralize incoming hostile magics. The Parma Magica can only effect magics that is of an Effect Level equal to or less than it; it lasts for a number of hours equal to its successes rolled, the number of successes rolled is added to the number of dice rolled in any attempt to avoid or resist any incoming hostile magical attacks.
ex: Johnathan has ignem 4 and has cast a Parma Magica with an effect level of 5 and 4 successes, which means it lasts 4 hours. During a battle, a Flambeau mage targets him with a Pillum of Fire; Johnathan can choose to dodge, and gains four bonus dice for his successes against the attack for his dodge attempt; however, even if struck, he gets to roll 4 dice to resist the attack (due to his ignem score) and 4 dice for his successes for parma magica, for a total of 8 dice to resist the attack.
That reminds me. We need to add a section on maintaining spells with dice too. Ala TRoS.
Reposted all files...
Quote from: MorfedelI'd take out the 2 successes in smack. I'm generally of the opinion that multiple successes should not be required for a spell to do anything, barring overcoming resistances.
Reload, i caught that too, that was a remnant from an old version. An error.
Quote from: MorfedelSecond, I havent looked at AM for awhile, but wasnt there a vis cost for implanting spells and effects as well? If so, that needs to be accounted for; if not, well, my poor memory. I'd have to look it over tonight.
Another error. I had in there a line about "1 pawn of the appropriate art per EL of the spell" and must have deleted it. Fixed.
Quote from: MorfedelYou know, going back to the whole TN and formulized spells, it occurs tio me we could just take out the -TN; since you are getting extra dice anyway, that would be an important component. The extra for -TN may not be needed... but I'm not sure. I think it would work though, since formulized spells got a -2 to TN and spells of three got the exra dice in the original TRoS material.
So, just remove the whole concept of spells of three/many, and remove the -2 for formulized spells. Then, formulized gets the bonus dice, and ritual even moreso.
I had tossed out the one/three/many thing from the get go, replacing the pool modifiers with spont/formulaic/ritual. I see your point on TN, but I really, really like the idea that a formulaic spell lowers the "gating" factor. That is, if I have CrIg of 6, I can only cast a TN7 spell if my master writes it down for me. We could make it just -1TN - as I showed before, a 1TN drop is a LOT in probablity space. My inclination was to leave it as TRoS, since we're already smacking Jakes creation around an awful lot.
Quote from: MorfedelWith that in mind, a comment on spells. We might want to edit Mana 1/2's TNs, add in Mana 3.... I'll look at the TRoS book and contemplate it.
I wasn't attempting to make an exahustive list, I assumed Mana3 was there... Mana2 was SUPPOSED to have an EL of 2, that was just an error on my part. So Mana 1 = TN2, Mana 2 =TN3, Mana 4=TN4....
One harder than TRoS I believe, but also gets you one extra die per success.
QuoteWe also need to discuss using multiple arts, when there is overlap, although I think saying you use the smallest of each pre requisite would be fine.
Agreed. I'll make that explicit. Parma added. Reposted the files, work from the new ones.
Quote from: grot
Quote from: MorfedelYou know, going back to the whole TN and formulized spells, it occurs tio me we could just take out the -TN; since you are getting extra dice anyway, that would be an important component. The extra for -TN may not be needed... but I'm not sure. I think it would work though, since formulized spells got a -2 to TN and spells of three got the exra dice in the original TRoS material.
So, just remove the whole concept of spells of three/many, and remove the -2 for formulized spells. Then, formulized gets the bonus dice, and ritual even moreso.
I had tossed out the one/three/many thing from the get go, replacing the pool modifiers with spont/formulaic/ritual. I see your point on TN, but I really, really like the idea that a formulaic spell lowers the "gating" factor. That is, if I have CrIg of 6, I can only cast a TN7 spell if my master writes it down for me. We could make it just -1TN - as I showed before, a 1TN drop is a LOT in probablity space. My inclination was to leave it as TRoS, since we're already smacking Jakes creation around an awful lot.
Lets keep it as the -2 TN after all. I was thinking of something else, but it makes the spells easier to learn, in addition to easier to cast. And that was the entire point. :)
As I said, I did like your replacement of the one/three/many. See, I'm very reasonable at times! :)
You are doing great work, thanks for the effort.
New files up.
http://www.nadig.com/Personal/arstotros.htm
http://www.nadig.com/Personal/arstotros.doc
One last little change: Vis Pumping... Here's a cut and paste:
----------
Vis Pumping
Casters can use raw Vis (magic in physical form) to aid them in casting spells. It must always be Vis of the form or technique of the spell being cast.
Spontaneous spells can be pumped to give you extra dice. 2 dice per pawn seems about right.
Formulaic spells have an additional option, the caster can either take two extra dice, OR, he can raise one attribute of the spell WITHOUT CHANGING THE TN. So, for instance, a caster wishing to throw a really nasty Pilum of Fire, who can normally only cast a CrIg of 8, could use a pawn of Ignem Vis to up the damage level of his formulaic spell to EL4, up from EL3.
Some amount of Raw Vis is required for ritual spells, and is required for any magic which causes permanent changes (like regrowing an arm). The amount is left up to the seneschal, but a good guideline is 1 pawn per level of effect.
Looks pretty good.
I'm going to look over the AM ranges and durations one more time, and see about a possible revision on range and duration based on that; I'll decide one way or another this weekend, but barring that, I"d say this looks pretty good, and we should call this an almost complete first draft for playtesting.
At which point we should see if we can get Jake to link it, and get redcap to link it as well.
great stuff guys...I haven't gotten TROS yet, but I love Ars magice, except for the combat....I love what i see that TROS did with combat....
combine the two :)
Great stuff!
Marc
Well, it was either change TRoS' magic system or change Ars Magica's combat system.
TRoS was the easier way to go, heh!
thanks for the compliment. Get TRoS, it does for combat what AM did for magic. Then, plug our magic system in! Playtest it for us and tell us whatcha think? :D
OOoooh, I like it, I bastardized so much of Morfedel's work that it's now "ours" (grin)....
Seriously, the CONCEPT of Ars was what was so awesome, but frankly, I never even liked their dice mechanics.
The beauty of the TRoS system (for any kind of die roll, not just combat) is that it forces/allows the player to make actual meaningful decisions that are both relevant and realistic to the situation at hand.
Frankly, whomever is revamping Ars for the 5th edition should just license TRoS. It's combat system is VERY much in keeping with the intent of the Mythic Europe setting.
Actually Grot, you didnt bastardize it that much; only a couple minor issues, so intellectually the work is still primarily mine.
But you did a great job of assembling it into a word document and laying it out (I'm horribly disorganized), and you did have a gerat idea or two, and you put it on the web, etc etc, so from the standpoint that you did some good work on it too, yeah, I guess a "we" could qualify.
I'd call it:
Morfedel - Creator and Designer
Grot - Editor and publisher
or something like that
lol.... yeah, we better make sure we come to a financial arrangement for all the money we're gonna make off it too!
I'll try to add
Marc Hameleers: playtester
asap to that list :)
haha! Ok, we each get 105.4 % of the profits. sound good? :)
deal. I'll by dinner at Gencon next year too!
I'll want to be in one of the TROS/Ars games at Gencon. I wanna play.
Jake
I might have to visit my american in-laws during convention season next year...:)
Marc
Jake,
A good friend of mine (whom you met with our group when you demod for us, pic here: http://www.nadig.com/?page=Writing/Genconphotos.html) is planning on running a full blown campaign for us starting in early 2004. He ran a wonderful Ars campaign for our group for a little over a year I think, and we wept when he had to shut it down for a while.
I think he'd be DELIGHTED to run a one shot at Gencon, especially for the designer!!!!
If not, I'll commit to doing it myself.
so would I actually.
I can only make it to either Origins or Gencon, and I was PLANNING to go to Origins, primarily because my SFB tournaments I attend are bigger at Origins.
But, for if i were wanted to run a Riddle of Magica game :D I'd seriously consider it.
My only problem is I haven't run a con game before. I consider myself at least a good gm, but I have never run a short one shot con scenario, as I do long term campaign stuff; I'd have to sit down and really think how I'd run it.....
Hm. The Riddle of Magica? TRoM? :D
Practically all I ever GM are one-offs - I live too far away from my core group of gaming buds to have a solid schedule.
IMO, the key to oneoffs is:
1: Pregens. While character generation is cool, having the right characters ahead of time saves valuable time. It also lets you, as GM, ensure you have a group of characters that has the right skillsets for the adventure at hand, and the right motivations to work together (or NOT, depending on what you set up.)
2: Linearity. In a campaign, you have all the time in the world, literally, so if your party says "you know, I'm tired of fighting off slavers, let's head south and see what's in the swamps" and you can wing it until you have time to react. Good one-offs should START with a setup from the GM that puts them right in the middle of the action.
For example, in the Demo Jake ran for Gencon, we all played characters who we're at a Royal tournament, and the first words we got to speak we're our reactions to "you see smoke on the horizon, Viking Raiders! What do you do?"
No elaborate rituals about finding the other characters etc, just jumping right in.
I've also done succesful one-offs where the setup was literally mid-battle. The GM handed out char sheets and pulled cardboard off the minis set up. Turning to me he said "Maldor, you have 4 skeletons in front of you, but you hear a scream from behind you. You turn to look and see a rotting corpse errupt from the ground beneath you. In turning, you get hit for 8 points of damage from the skelleton on your right."
So think of Con Games as being the CLIMAX to what you might already do in a campaign. You just need to work the storytelling up to that point.
Just a quick note to say that I like what you've done so far, and that the word doc is corrupted. You can download it, but not open it. The HTML works though.
I'll have a proper read and come back with some questions.
I like the idea of an alternate magic system to use with TROS, just for the hell of it. I've been tossing around the idea of porting over Sorcerer style magic into TROS too (i.e. all magic is actually done through the summoning, bhinding and controlling of demons) but have never really had the chance to flesh it out much. Again, just for the hell of it.
Brian.
Oops. Didn't ftp it right, it appears. Should work now.
I hope no one is offended that we've done this. None of it's a slam on TRoS magic. I think that TRoS just appeals so naturally to people who are really into AM. And AM is cool, but very hard to tinker with and with a suck combat/dice system. It's just such a NATURAL.
A sorcerer conversion would be cool as well.
How about a "kill puppies for satan" conversion?
I thought that, despite all the arguments I've heard for it, that Sorcery is a bit too powerful. And I dont mind powerful characters; AM characters are powerful; I just thought that TRoS can go too far, for a variety of reasons.
I liked AM's magic better. But TRoS had the advantage in most other areas, and TRoS is more easily fiddled with. Hence, this decision. And while it hasnt been tested yet, I think it shows a lot of promise.
I havent played sorcerer; I'm seriously considering picking it up, but A) my money dice pool is severely limited, so I have to allocate wisely, and B) many of my players are very strong christian types, who dont happen to think that roleplaying is evil, but from what I understand of the premise, summoning demons for fun and profit may be going a bit TOO far for them.
Now that I think of it, I loved what Palladium Fantasy tried to do with magic over D&D; it was still not an ideal system, but a PFRPG conversion to TRoS could be really fun.
FWIW, we're just starting character development for a local game using these rules right now. Probably playing in a few weeks. Note, we're probably going to use the AM conversion "lite" - that is, not using any of the Vis/Lab/Advancement rules - JUST the spell system modification.
My next project on this is to do a little "borrowing" from the old Iron Crown books and come up with some damage tables for various types of magical damage. I'll post here when/if I get around to that little challenge.
Grot,
I'll look forward to hearing how your TROS/AM game goes.
Brian.
Ditto; keep us apprised and give us playtest reports! :)
I would myself, but my group voted that they wanted to play Palladium Fantasy for our fantasy game (we have an OLD campaign we played for 3 years way back when they wanted to resurrect, and felt converting it to any other system would see it lose a lot of the flavor); and our non fantasy game is going to be Godlike, so I'm without my TRoS fix for now, sigh....
Well, as soon as i can afford Tros, i will restart6 my pendragon campaign..using Tros with the Am modification for magic... Can't wait till i can afford it!
Marc
Awesome! Let us know what you think!
My guess is i will love it...sadly, I probably cannot Afford Tros until Spiel in Essen...Hopefully i can pick it up there!
ZBought to many rpg stuff of late,,,and i have a LOTR TCG habbit that needs a regular fix as well :)
I've been toying with an AM Saga for a long while...(I picked up the 3rd ed book at a friend's "going out of gaming" sale, and was intrigued).
I agree that the AM combat system is a horrible one (I'm not fussy about WW dice mechanics in any iteration, especially regarding combat). I think that the ROS/AM merge is a great idea, and the wheels are currently spinning like mad in my Gee-emerbellum.
However, there is a minor sticking point to my masterful scheme...
I was also surprised to see that there was relatively little background work on their setting -- atypical of most WW games.
Anyone have suggestions on good avenues of research?
Thanks
I'd be interested in seeing you Palladium conversion. I'm well versed with Palladium magic but I really haven't gotten comfortable with TROS magic yet... and I'm about to look into AM. Hopefully I can pull something together, but I'm thinking I might just get comfortable with TROS first in an Ice and Fire spin-off and work magic into it like the series does past book three.
sorry, hadnt been on the web site in a bit. I'll play around with a Palladium conversion and get back to ya.
Anyone try these live yet? I havent had the chance, I dont have a group that wants to play this, as right now, after spiderman and a couple other movies they want to play superhero games. Which is fine with me, cuz I love those too, but it makes it darned hart to adequately test my own experiment here! :P
I've just started a TROS game that's had a couple of lurches since its inception, but we're planning on using the conversion in a couple of weeks. I'll post the info here if you want; the player of the sorcerer is real excited about it and is reading over the document I printed. I'll let you know what we find after a couple of games. :)
Thanks, BTW, for the conversion. My old group started to really like the TROS system of magic, but since we dispersed my new group wants to try TROS the Ars Magica way. Very cool of you guys to do.
Charles
Yes, please do post! I need feedback from actual playtesting to see how it pans out!
And I suspect it will take a number of sessions before a clear picture forms, but every little bit, you know....
Big old bump here.
Did anyone ever actually test this out? Any feedback on it?
We'll be playing again this weekend. The first signs of sorcerous activity should start to pop up then with some NPCs... I'll keep you posted...
Thanks. I am anxious to see how well these rules work and how much tweaking I might have to do to them. :D
Hey..
we've been using the Ars to TROS rules for a couple of sessions now so I'll give some short feedback
- The players love it, the rules seem a lot more inuitive than the TROS Sorcery rules to the players
- While they love them, they're frustrated by the limitations or i should say, boundaries imposed by the effect levels. I guess this stems from reducing 60+ effect levels down to 5. Perhaps this could be looked at giving more fidelity or what have you.
- something i noticed with normal TROS sorcery... your skill at sorcery just allows you to learn fancier spells or vagaries at a higher level, but has no implication on your ability to cast the spells, beyond the "gateway" effect.
What this means is, while you may become more learned in your Arts, you don't get any more powerful until such time as you start bumping your attributes up. I'm not sure I like this and the distinction between the way power is up'ed in Combat, versus Sorcery is somewhat grating. While Combat Proficiencies have the Gateway effect as far as certain maneuvres are concerned, your effectiveness is given a two-fold boost from raising attributes and also your skill levels (Prof levels having a more direct effect than raising a single stat)... I'm not sure how I feel to be honest, it seems to be a little bit of a slap in the chops for Sorcerers. As this is applicable to standard sorcery and the Ars conversion, what do people think about it? It seems as though Sorcery Pools will stay stagnant for the most.
- lastly, the Fatigue rules... OUCH! .. this is a real biatch. As Fatigue isn't returned too easily its immediate short-term effect is a hell of a lot more pronounced than say aging in the TROS sorcery rules. I'd suggest cutting a little closer to the Ars bone and making spells generally easier on casters, with Twilight Point roll-offs instead of Fatigue Rolls, with casters able to use Fatigue to power up spells or something instead..
anyways
more later
Jason
Thanks for the feedback!
I'm glad you found things you like! As for the things you dont... I'll give it some thought. In the meantime, if you guys stumble on any options YOU like, feel free to post them here!
I'll think about it and get back to you in about a week once I have an idea of how to address those issues.
Again, thanks for the feedback!
Note with the objections to the difference between the Combat Pool makeup versus the Sorcery Pool makeup, that is more to do with TROS itself than the conversion which uses Kaa and Form as the basis, just as TROS does. What was the rationale behind this difference in system? Just curious...
Looking forward to your ideas..
cheers
jason :)
I've just recently found TRoS and am going to be demoing a game of it shortly to get a proper feel for it, beyond just an academic understanding of the rules. I have also read the ArM conversion, as I am very much an Ars Magica fan.. *dances for 5th ed*, and it looks good from what I understand academically of the game so far.
I was just curious if there had been any more work on this conversion, either to further edit it, or playtest it further?
Thanks,
Jeff
Hi there,
I can't speak for the creators of the conversion but I've been using the Ars to TROS conversion in my game for the last err four sessions. So far its been a mixed bag. We've found that its all fine and good if the player has formulated spells already worked out or has a spontaneous spell that he's worked out previously. The headaches start when you begin to start to really do stuff on the fly. FREX: in our last session we had a scene whereby the caster was engaged in a flashback scene to an incident where he encountered an Astirax (a demon that sniffs out magic users and magic rich areas for the Big Bad in Midnight) at a nexus point within an ancient forest. Now this scene was supposed to be *his* moment, a time where the player (an Ars Magica nut) could let loose with the magics and really test the limits. We had a lot of atmosphere built up, the pacing was just right, there were winds blowing, clouds gathering, an old-fashioned magic-using creature vs wizard showdown, the magic lake in the middle of this forest was swirling, the natural arcane winds whipping the water up and around, the place fairly throbbed with magic...then "Hang on.. just gotta work out the TN..." ...the cd track played through a couple of times... "Just go for it dude.. cast the spell..." .."But i gotta get the TN right..." more replays of the cd track...
Now this might be a problem of the player grasping onto the system too much in a scene that really required more of a, dare I say, Narrative play-through. It really drained all colour out of the scene and left us yawning as he tried to figure out: a) what the spell target number was going to be b) figure out if he could even cast it c) reformulate the spell so that he could cast it .. in the end he just solidified the earth around the feet of the Astirax and then made the solid bits spike up into the beasts chest. Somehow I was hoping for something more. Perhaps with the right player this would have been easier. He was however, familiar with the system and the conversion.
Something else I've noticed is the factors that go into determining the TN. The AM values for Range, Duration etc are really cool, they have flavour and are just that little bit vague at times to give people license to go really whacko with their spells. I think perhaps the Converted parameters are a little bit dry... We'll be using the AM versions from now on and eyeball the effects this has on TN etc...
Consider it a playtesting session within a campaign... so far the jury is out though it looks promising should these little bumps get ironed out :)
cheers
jason k.
Thanks for the summary.. I think i'll stick to the native TRoS system for a while then, and probably just modify the aging roll to be a "twilight"/Paradox roll (depending on your prefered magical system), so that you may not age, but strange shit will hit you. I can understand the PoV where the aging just isn't a real factor in even a long term game. But acquiring temporary Twilight or Paradox can be much more effective in the long term, and can help to explain why people don't like mages, as they also manifest wierd shit around them as a consequence of their magics. After all, no one likes milk instantly curdling when someone walks past. ;)
Thanks much,
Jeff
I think customising the cost factor of magic to your world is pretty essential. I'm currently considering using Resonance factor equal to 1 mile per TN. This works especially nice in Midnight where spellcasters are hunted down and slain.
Tonight we played a game of actual Ars Magica and I came to some conclusions regarding that system. Firstly, part of the attraction was the ability to cast spells on the fly, spontaneous that is. Unfortunately the base level of ability isn't taken from Spontaneous spells (as it is in TROS and indeed the conversion) but from Ritual or Formulated spells. You just get a hell of a lot worse after that (twice as bad for spontaneous spells if you're using fatigue to fuel the spell, five times as bad if you're not using any Fatigue!). Its probably obvious to those familiar with Ars but the games basically geared towards wizards who sit in towers and do bugger all but study and make up spells (formulated) all day. That engenders a certain type of campaign play. Unfortunately that doesn't match up with the style that I'm currently in favour of, ie the blood-opera/dark-epic tragic hero style.
I'm currently working on a nice open sorcery system without the headaches associated with Ars "Can I cast this spell.. no damn, lets refigure that" and the TROS science angle. Something that allows for a nice descriptive effect in a more narrative style, instead of the number crunching style. I'll post it in another thread when I do have something digestible.
cheers
jason k. :)
Mmm.. Resonance.. that is nice.. *kicks that about a bit*
Hi; this is James, the creator of the Ars Magica to TROS conversion.
It certainly isn't flawless: but then, i haven't had much of a chance to try it out myself, as getting these players here to play anything but D&D is a real pain in the backside.
Which is why I posted it all here: I needed playtest feedback.
This weekend I'll look it over again and see how I can tweak it. I'm going to compare it side-by-side with AM as well this time.
Could you give me more specific examples of where it fell apart?
Thanks!
Ok first I'm not sure "Falling apart" is quite the right description. Certainly it didn't seem to fit the requirements of the moment on more than one occasion and certainly took a lot more time to create a spell than I had expected. This is due in no small part to the player's insistence on being "correct". I usually take a more liberal approach to whether or not something can be attempted and indeed with most rules interpretations. The player in question however tends to be the kind of person who has to get things absolutely 100% correct (he's an engineer...go figure)
Interestingly we ran another session, this time without the aforementioned AM player (he's left to build chemical weapons factories in Pakistan or Dubai or something ;) ) and using the TROS sorcery rules and I'll have to say the magic that did come up seemed to run a lot smoother. Obviously I was running NPC magic and with my more liberal, narrative approach things went smoothly (i am after all the GM ;) ).
Specifics regarding the AM system that seemed to not gel were the orientation (as mentioned before) of Rituals being the base level, then you get worse as you get quicker/spontaneous, as opposed to the TROS magic where Spontaneous seems to be the base and you get better as you go go up. That might seem weird and in my mind it is. Its a frame of reference thing and perhaps more to do with psychology than mechanical deficiency. I think perhaps the AM rules would work fine if the player has an extensive list of predetermined, formalised spells at his/her disposal. Creating things on the fly was a bit tedious/involved (I actually think its not the systems fault but the player)..
anyways I'll try to think of actual problems and stop repeating myself ;)
cheers
Jason K.
Thanks Jason!
If you could get someone to try it out who isn't an engineer, it might be nice to see! If it is a systems problem, i want to tweak it, and if its a player's problem... well, I cant tweak him, heh.
James
Hi,
I'm pretty new to TRoS, been lurking the boards for a while and just got my copy delivered last week <Yay!>. I really think the combat system is amazing, and wedding it to AM magic ought to make for a very cool game. Great job on the conversion, by the way!
I have one suggesting that might simplify on-the-fly spell crafting. Rather than having Tech.+Form gate the max CTN, how about having it gate the max effect you can produce like in TRoS magic? That way you wouldn't have to figure out the whole spell to see if you can cast it.
You could make each art range from 1-3, and tweak the effect table to something like:
Effect
1. Minor effect (AM 1-10)
2. Novice level effect (AM 10-20)
3. Apprentice level effect (AM 20-30)
4. Journeyman level effect (AM 30-40)
5. Master level effect (AM 40-50)
6. Archmage level effect (AM 60+)
This is more of a style thing, but I'd also go with the AM ranges, targets, and durations because they have a more mystical feel. And you can then ditch the Volume table (since it's already sort of figured into the AM targets) and have one fewer thing to factor into a spell. I suppose this would increase magics power level, but probably not radically.
Thanks for the reply!
I have finally started my own campaign... I'm going to run a few weeks with the regular magic system, then a few weeks with my conversion, etc, and see whats what.
So hopefully in a few weeks, the creator of the conversion himself will have his own feedback. :D
I've been giving it a lot of thought. It may be that my original system is perhaps a tad complex.
I've been thinking about how to simplify it. I'm running my own TROS game now... I denied anyone putting anything other than F in race/sorcery in the beginning, as I decided I wanted to get a true feel for campaign play and mechanics with everything else before opening that can of worms.
So, now I'm taking another look at the system for converting AM's magic system to TROS, considering feedback I had, etc, and it may be too complex.
So, i've begun cobbling together a new mechanic.
The big problem is going to be to figure out how to determine damage, since there are no damage lists for things like Ignem spells that can actually kill.
In the meantime, just to give you an idea of where I'm heading:
Use AM to determine the actual level of a spell. Then divide taht level by 5, rounding up. That is the new level of the spell.
Proficiency points are used, 1 for 1, to purchase levels in the techniques and forms. The cost for purchasing the arts increases just as it does in AM. In other words, 1 level in Ignem costs 1 point; 2nd level costs 2 more points, for a total of 3; 3rd level costs 3 more, for a total of 6, ext.
The maximum level of the spell one can cast equals the technique + form; so, if one has 2nd level in creo and 2nd level in ignem, you can cast a level 4 creo ignem spell, which is equivalent to 20th level spells in AM.
I'm working on how the sorcery pool should with the spell system of AM, how to resolve damage from non-obvious sources, etc. I'm hoping by the end of the weekend. I just wanted to give you guys some heads-ups on my attempts at simplification.
Then i can playtest it myself now that I have a group :)