[Mage Blade]: Spell Building

[Lance D. Allen]

Okay!

Once I have managed to get past this, I will really have no excuse to not finish and begin playtesting the hell out of my game. The magic system and character generation are the two major mental blockages that have stymied my efforts for years. I'm so stoked about the idea of being past this that I am stalling getting started on it. So let's begin!

As I stated in the Spellcasting thread a Spell built should have the following stats:

Fireball
Effect: 5 damage with fire effects
Range: single target, LOS
Duration: instantaneous
Force: 5F
Casting Time: 2 rounds
Drain: 4

My previous struggles with this have involved the following components:

Power Level: How strong the effect is
Duration: How long the spell lasts
Volume/Area: The area of effect of the spell
Range: How far away the spell can target
Complexity: How difficult it is to form the spell

Obviously, Power Level is expressed in the Effect. Volume/Area and Range are expressed in Range. Duration is Duration. Complexity isn't obviously expressed anywhere.

The "costs" of casting a spell are Force, Drain and Casting Time. All of the 5 components should interact in such a way that they can be combined into those three costs.

The old, overly simplistic system was very easy, and to my mind, quite boring. Force = Casting Time = Drain. Likewise equal was Power Level. So a Force 5 fireball took 5 rounds to cast, required 5F Force, and had a Drain of 5. I loathed it, despite its ease. Casting a Power 5 fireball shouldn't be the same as summoning a Power 5 fire elemental. So I added complexity. A fire elemental was pretty damned complex, where as a fireball was fairly simple. Suddenly, things are getting weird. I set Power and Complexity as two stats with a maximum of 5, so they could add up to a maximum 10 Force, the highest Force attribute a player can have. All of a sudden, my potential spell mightiness just got nerfed! Another idea on the scrap heap.

So here's where I'm at right now.

By default, Power and Complexity somehow combine into Force. Somehow.
By default, Volume/Area, Range and Duration combine into Drain.
By default, Casting Time is affected by.. something.
Theoretically, you can increase any of these to lower others.

As you can see, that's not much of a system.

To toss in a few more bits and parts, these are the general categories of spells I want to be able to cast:

(Simple elemental spells involving single elements, or mixes of two of the 4 primary elements)
-  Transformations: transforming one thing into another, usually turning something into an element
-  Manipulations: Moving or shaping an element or combined element
-  Infusions: Adding an elemental quality to an object (blade of fire!)
-  Invocations: Adding a simple elemental quality to a person or being (fists of fire? Water-breathing!)
-  Summoning: Calling up an elemental spirit
-  Evocations: Calling up a raw element

(Void elemental spells, involving the mixture of one of the 4 primary elements with Void)
-  Switches: changing the "polarity" of an existing energy (life to death, thought to madness, destruction to energy)
-  Transmutations: Changing a quality that falls within one polarity of a combination
-  Infusions: Adding a complex quality to an object (does not include flesh) (making a wand of healing, etc.)
-  Invocations: Adding a complex elemental quality to a person or being (healing, decay spells, mind control)
-  Summoning: Calling up a conceptual spirit (a spirit of empathy, or death)

So our Fireball spell above would be an Evocation/Manipulation spell, for example.

That's enough information to start with, I think. I hope I've made my goals and my problems clear. I'm going to let this stew overnight, and go to bed.

[brianbloodaxe]

So here's where I'm at right now.

By default, Power and Complexity somehow combine into Force. Somehow.
By default, Volume/Area, Range and Duration combine into Drain.
By default, Casting Time is affected by.. something.

I would have thought that Power=Force and Complexity=Casting Time. That would mean that your Power is the immediate effect, Drain is determined by the scale of the magic and the complexity simply extends the time required to build the spell.

[David C]

I don't know how your master system works, so this might not fit at all, but how about something like this?

By default, Power and Complexity somehow combine into Force. Somehow.

Power + Complexity = Force. 

Force = Casting Time = Drain

Force = Casting Time + Drain

While this at first seems very simple (and an idea you've already considered), think about it like this.  With 8 force, you can cast a (complexity 1, power 7) fireball or a (complexity 3, power 5) fire elemental.  Roughly, those two spells are equal. 

Suddenly, things are getting weird. I set Power and Complexity as two stats with a maximum of 5, so they could add up to a maximum 10 Force, the highest Force attribute a player can have.

Don't.  Complexity 9 spells should be able to exist, at least in theory.

All of a sudden, my potential spell mightiness just got nerfed! Another idea on the scrap heap.

Why should a complexity 5 spell be able to be pumped up to power 10, and the fireball not be able to be pumped up to a comparable level?

Force = Casting Time + Drain

How about you let players choose this?  If I have plenty of time, I'll spend it to drain less.  If I want to cast a fire elemental, and I want to cast it now, I can spend extra mana.  You could make it so that it always costs at least X mana, where X is complexity. 

By default, Volume/Area, Range and Duration combine into Drain.

Area + Range + Duration + Complexity = Force.

So in review, if I was casting a fireball, it'd go like this.

Area 25' = 0 force
Range 50' = 0 force
Duration 0 = 0 force
Complexity 1 = 1 force
Power 5 = 5 force

6 force to cast this spell. I have to spend at least 1 drain to cast it. I can spend up to 5 turns casting it. If I cast it sooner than 5 turns, it costs me 1 extra mana per turn.

Is this going to be a framework that your players use, or one that you are using to make a list of spell effects?

[Lance D. Allen]

Simon,

Just a quick clarification: Force 10 should be seen as a soft maximum for spellbuilding. I say soft because there will be times that you will be able to cast a more powerful spell, but those are advanced rules. For the purposes of coming up with a system, no spell should ever have more than Force 10, because then it could not be cast by a person.

Bear with me. Didn't get much sleep last night.

So if I make Force a direct addition of any two stats, then those stats must be limited to 5 each, or some uneven combination adding up to 10.

The original concept has always been intended to include spells with a power level up to 10. It only seems fair that Complexity should have an equally free range (though really, what's fair? it's not like these concepts are people whose feelings might be hurt...)

How about you let players choose this?  If I have plenty of time, I'll spend it to drain less.  If I want to cast a fire elemental, and I want to cast it now, I can spend extra mana.

This is basically what I want it to do. I need to come up with a baseline for creating the spell, then rates of exchange for increasing one cost to decrease another.

Really, I think Force is the least flexible of the costs. The only thing raising Force should do is make the spell more powerful/effective and harder to resist with Aegis. Lowering Force should make the spell less powerful/effect and easier to resist with Aegis. At the same time, I think that a raised force (hence more powerful/effective) should result in higher drain and/or casting time.

Is this going to be a framework that your players use, or one that you are using to make a list of spell effects?

Mostly the former. The players will use this set of rules to make or modify spells on the fly. I will use the system to create a short list of ready-made spells to help demonstrate what is possible, and also as a proof of concept. I need to show myself that the system works, and I'll provide the proof to the players as examples.

I'm going to get into the nitty-gritty of the spell-build components, briefly.

Area/Volume: this is a hard one to actualize. Mage Blade isn't going to support a battle grid, so using units of measure like meters and yards isn't all that important. I want to use intuitive, conceptual measures. Examples for Area might include.. point target, arm's reach, stone's throw. Examples for Volume (or size) might include: Small animal, humanoid.. I dunno.

Duration: flash (meaning it's there, it happens, it's gone, like a fireball), sustained (meaning you're actively focusing on keeping it going), empowered (meaning you've invested it with some amount of power of its own, so it's self-sustaining) and permanent (meaning that it's effect requires no power, or it draws from another source)

Ranges: Self, touch, bow shot, LOS

Complexity: No bloody idea. Well, no good ideas, anyway. Lots of spinning-in-the-wind ideas have occurred to me over the years.

[7VII7]

You know you could have power + complexity = force and just say that force can't excede 10, that way you could have complexity 9/power 1, complexity 1/power 9, or any other combination.

[Lance D. Allen]

Damnit. I wanted to let this steep overnight, and overnight my internet decides to disappear for 12+ hours.

I also just realized that David C, not Simon C, was the previous commenter who I was replying to. I feel like a dick, now.

7s,

The problem with that is that highly complex spell is by necessity weak, and a strong spell is by necessity simple. There's no way I could cast a strong, complex spell. In some systems, that'd be an acceptable trade off, but I want flexibility that allows for both, hence the addition of the other costs (drain and casting time)

As I read and re-read this thread and the other, I find that Brian's simple idea for dealing with Complexity and Casting time might be the key I need. If it's ever occurred to me, I don't recall. If it hasn't, I can't imagine how, as it's so very simple and fairly obvious.

By that token, someone should be able to basically rapid-fire simple spells, assuming they're willing and able to deal with the Drain.

So how simple is simple? I'm thinking that the type of spell should factor heavily into Complexity.

(Simple elemental spells involving single elements, or mixes of two of the 4 primary elements)
-  Transformations: transforming one thing into another, usually turning something into an element
-  Manipulations: Moving or shaping an element or combined element
-  Infusions: Adding an elemental quality to an object (blade of fire!)
-  Invocations: Adding a simple elemental quality to a person or being (fists of fire? Water-breathing!)
-  Summoning: Calling up an elemental spirit
-  Evocations: Calling up a raw element

(Void elemental spells, involving the mixture of one of the 4 primary elements with Void)
-  Switches: changing the "polarity" of an existing energy (life to death, thought to madness, destruction to energy)
-  Transmutations: Changing a quality that falls within one polarity of a combination
-  Infusions: Adding a complex quality to an object (does not include flesh) (making a wand of healing, etc.)
-  Invocations: Adding a complex elemental quality to a person or being (healing, decay spells, mind control)
-  Summoning: Calling up a conceptual spirit (a spirit of empathy, or death)

As mentioned, fireball would be Evocation (calling the fire into existence) and Manipulation (movement). My gut says this is complexity 2, simply because there are two elements involved. On the other hand, summoning an elemental spirit feels like it should be more complex by basic nature, as do invocations and infusions. I'm pretty much certain that all Void mixes will be a minimum complexity of two.

I think, with that small suggestion and some of the other questions being batted around that I may be able to work this out. Any other comments, questions and suggestions are welcome, though. I'm not considering this thread closed just yet.

[David C]

I would think complexity would be based on how powerful the spell is, for game balance reasons. It tends to match up with how complicated that spell actually would be, too. For example, your torchlight spell is low complexity (easy to do and not powerful), a fireball is medium complexity (harder than torchlight, more powerful as well) a fire elemental high complexity (a thinking being is harder than an explosion, more powerful than the explosion.

What I was driving at earlier, Lance, was that I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. I'm not sure if I didn't explain myself clearly, or if there's some blurry idea in your head trying to break out. 

[Lance D. Allen]

David (got it right this time)

I actually wasn't sure what you were driving at, to be honest. Some of your comments appeared to be misinterpretations of what I said, others appeared to contradict what you'd already said. Instead of addressing all of your points individually, I addressed the ones that stood out to me, and tried to clarify what I'd said for the rest.

I definitely see what you're saying, but I don't think you're thinking it through all the way. An elemental is going to be complex no matter how you slice it.. But a little Force 1 fire sprite should be as possible as a massively powerful Force 10 elemental. Fireballs are also meant to be cast in varying Forces, from a Force 1 singe to a Force 10 conflagration. Some spells, you're right, probably won't have a wide variety of Forces... Torchlight, for example may not need (or it may not be safe!) to have a Force 10 variant.

Are we speaking on the same wavelength now, or is there still static?

[Simon C]

(Simon for real this time)

So I guess my question is the same as in the other thread.  What do you want putting a spell together to feel like? What decisions is the player going to make?

At the moment, it sounds like there's a tradeoff between power and complexity, but I'm not sure what the mechanical implications of that are.  Why would you want a Fire Elemental over a Fireball? What does a complex spell give you that a simple one doesn't?

On to a few specific things:

I don't know if this fits with the rest of your system, but a fun way of combining Power and Complexity into Force could be by having Force be a dice pool, where power is the size of the dice, and Complexity is the number of dice in the pool.  That might work for Drain if it doesn't work for Force.

I really like the descriptions of the different types of spell.  But what reason would you have to use one over the other? What does the player base their decision on?

[Lance D. Allen]

Simon (for real this time):

Last question first:

But what reason would you have to use one over the other? What does the player base their decision on?

Circumstance mostly, but also aptitude and preference. A fire elemental will be able to do a lot of things a fireball can't. It's a thinking being, after all. But it being a thinking being can have downsides too, not to mention it's a more complex spell, and almost certainly will require a sustained, empowered or even permanent duration. You'd use a fireball over a fire elemental in the same circumstances you'd use a bullet over commanding a soldier.

Aptitude I say because you may have gone to a water-based school, or maybe simply because of your Prime Sphere, you may be able to setup to cast a windburst faster than a fireball. Also, something I intend to institute a bit later in the process is that you'll be able to purchase elemental effects with margin of success on your casting roll. Fire might allow you to ignite things, where lightning might allow you to ignore metal armor. So there will be reasons to cast a particular spell over a similar spell.

So I guess my question is the same as in the other thread.  What do you want putting a spell together to feel like? What decisions is the player going to make?

There y'are with that "feel" word again. Do you want a similarly fiction-based answer? I think I'll really have to ponder on that one a bit, if you do. I'll skip to the next question for now.

Tactical decisions in building a spell or modifying one on the fly will be based on how much Drain you're willing to take -vs- how long you're willing to wait for spellcasting. It's also a matter of how powerful you want the spell to be. If you have 7 in your Force attribute, you can cast a Force 7 fireball, but that means that all of your Force has to be allocated to Fire. If you then want to cast a different spell with different elements, you'll have to wait to redistribute your Force. On the other hand, you can cast a Force 4 fireball, and already have 3 points allocated to Earth for the Stoneshield spell you want to line up next.

[Simon C]

So it's a risk/reward decision? That seems cool.

Here's what I don't understand at the moment:

Power and Complexity go into Force. and Duration, Area and Range go into Drain, right? So does that mean that Force doesn't contribute to Drain?

It sounds to me like you need a system where Complexity, Power, Duration, Areas and Range all add together to create a difficulty score for Drain.  Does that seem right?  The question is just how each part contributes?

[Lance D. Allen]

Simon,

I'm strongly considering detaching Complexity from Force and attaching it to casting time.

Also, I don't really see Complexity going into Drain. Power, Duration, Area and Range, definitely.

Drain, remember, is a damage rating that the spell does to the caster. Mana is a way to minimize that damage, mechanically.

Damage has two components: Rating and level. Rating is how many points of attributes are reduced by the damage. Level is for how long.

Negligible is short term, fading even during a single conflict. Subduing fades over the course of hours. Lethal heals over the course of weeks, and Critical converts a small part (1/5th) of Lethal damage into permanent damage. I'm figuring most spell drain will be, by default, Subduing damage.

(my internet has gone down in the middle of writing this post. Great... If the post is overly long, it's because I got to keep typing for a while before the internet came back up.)

I want certain things to shift the damage level, but this should be a fairly big deal. Mostly, I want the drain rating to be affected.

As a for instance, let's start with the base drain rating being Power/2 (round down). This would make a Force 5 Fireball drain 2. Probably range self, area point and duration flash wouldn't raise the drain any. Fireball requires range beyond self though. Touch is also pretty much out, so let's go with bowshot. If we assume 1 drain per level of range, that brings drain up by 2 to 4. Duration and area don't need to change.

Coincidentally, this is almost precisely the spell I created for an example.

Fireball
Force: 5F
Effect: L(ethal)5 damage w/ fire effects
Range: Bowshot
Area: Point
Duration: Flash
Drain: S(ubduing)4
Casting Time: 2 (assuming casting time is equal to complexity)

Let's try to build another spell, Silverwind, and see what happens.

Complexity: It requires an Invocation, because we're adding the ability to see air to a person. That's obviously a minimum of 1 complexity. Maybe 2? We'll go with 2, until we can come up with a formalized system. We're going off of "feels good" for now. So complexity 2 means casting time of 2 rounds.

Range: self. Easy. No addition to drain.
Duration: Hm. Let's make it sustained. In this case, I'm thinking that you'll periodically make new drain tests, so it shouldn't add to drain, should it?
Area: Interesting question. Do we consider the area to be the person it affects? Or the range he can see? I'm gonna go with the range he can see, 'cause that feels good. LOS obviously, which is certainly much farther than you can shoot a bow. I'll call it... 4 drain.
Power: We'll give it a Power 2, meaning it's numerical effect is +2, and drain is now base 1. Let's see what we've got, shall we?

Silverwind
Force: 2A
Effect: You can see the air as a silvery shimmer, allowing you to see air currents and movements
Range: Self
Area: LOS
Duration: Sustained
Drain: S5
Casting Time: 2

Not bad. Maybe we can up the casting time to reduce the drain, some, as 5 points of drain is moderately nasty for such a simple spell. Unless the drain is reduced, you're looking at 5 hours to recover all your losses. Of course, outside of combat, 2 passes is negligible, so upping it won't do much to you. This is a balance issue I'll have to play with to make it work.

Overall, I think I might have it. There are still a lot of little details to work out, but the basic system seems to be there.

[Geethree]

It sounds like you've put the cart before the horse and decided on less essential things like terminology than you have on the more important, conceptual ideas. You've already come up with a slew of mechanical keywords, but (correct me if I'm wrong) you don't seem to have more than a vague idea of how they relate to each other.

I would take a step back and consider your spellcasting system in a more conceptual way. Don't throw out your ideas, because they're not bad, but instead of thinking within the concrete terms that you've made, think in more general terms and let the numbers come later. You can force numbers to work around a system, but you can't force a system to work around numbers. Like Simon said, what should casting a spell feel like?

That is not a fluffy "fiction-based" question. You can answer that question with even the number-crunchiest games.

Once you've thought a little about how spellcasting should feel, try and work out a much simpler mechanical system that achieves a basic form of what you're trying to achieve.

So let's say you're trying to get this "recipe-based" system where players take core spells and then modify them freely based on the strategic needs of the situation. It sounds like you've already attempted this, but I think you should keep at it. Don't worry about whether the system is insufficient for what you ultimately want to achieve. The idea is that you try and tease out compelling mechanical ideas that you want to incorporate into your larger game.

In short, ignore the fire elementals and complicated spells like that. Don't try and work out a system that incorporates all of your preconceived mechanical keywords. Try and work out a basic system that lets you cast fireballs, lightning bolts, and other basic spells in a way that's essentially satisfying to you. Maybe in the end you'll find that you don't even need "drain." Maybe you don't need "complexity." Maybe some of these ideas will manifest in other ways. Step away from the keywords you've developed. Those ideas will still be present, but right now I think they are hindering your progression because you're devoted to them in a way that I do not think you need to be.

So, in other words, look at what you are trying to achieve conceptually, and then build as simple a mechanical framework as you can that allows you to do these things.

To me, here are the concepts that I feel like you're trying to achieve. I may be off-base, but that's not really the point. You can adapt this for your own needs:

• Players take basic spells, i.e. fireball, and then modify them based on their strategic needs
• Players should be able to achieve stronger or faster versions of the same spell in a simple way
• Players should be able to add elemental effects to a spell, i.e. a fireball with lightning properties, for strategic effects

Once you build a simple framework that lets you do this with some basic spells and numbers, I think you'll have a much easier time building back up to the level of complexity you want.

I hope this doesn't sound too critical. I am working on a spellcasting system right now and I know how tough it can be

[Lance D. Allen]

Hello Gee,

I gotta say I had a brow lifted reading through your entire post. I don't know where you're getting your impression from. The terms are just terms. I actually dislike a lot of them, but they'll do for now. The vagueness of many of the things I've said in this thread are because I'm NOT mentioning all the things I've considered, then discarded because they didn't do what I wanted.

The concepts, on the other hand, I've done a lot of thinking about. I've tried various other systems, but none of them have done what I want. What I don't want is to come up with lists of spells. I did that. Some of them were pretty damned cool, like the Silverwind spell. What I want is a system where I can conceptualize a spell, then go through and the spell ends up coming out pretty much like I thought it would.

To me, here are the concepts that I feel like you're trying to achieve. I may be off-base, but that's not really the point. You can adapt this for your own needs:

1. Players take basic spells, i.e. fireball, and then modify them based on their strategic needs
2. Players should be able to achieve stronger or faster versions of the same spell in a simple way
3. Players should be able to add elemental effects to a spell, i.e. a fireball with lightning properties, for strategic effects

1. Not exactly. I want them to build their own spells for the most part. There will be some spells in the book, but not nearly enough to be relied upon. They are to be used mostly as examples, though obviously they could be used as a basis for variants, as well.
2. Absolutely.
3. Oh, no, no, no! It's a fireball, why in the world would I want it to have a lightning effect? It will have FIRE effects. Things like igniting clothing. These things won't be basic parts of the spell, they'll be elemental effects that can be added.

A system that allows me to cast fireballs et al. was what I had originally. Fireballs, lightning bolts, etc. are EASY. I want a system that's robust and flexible, which is why I created something different. I want a system that allows fireballs, lightning enchantments on swords, shields of crystal, and abruptly raised bulwarks of stone. I want a system that allows me to create the spell I conceptualized when I was just making lists of spells... One where you can call lightning down on yourself and vanish, then reappear where lightning strikes next.

Grf!

Sorry if I came off kind of abrasive, but your basic assumption is that I haven't put a lot of thought into the concepts. That's way, way off. I've been working on some variation of this magic system for a decade, so believe me, the concepts have been covered. It's just the specific mechanics of execution where I'm currently struggling. It didn't help that you came in with this right when I'm thinking I may have found the core of a workable system.

Of course it's heavily imperfect. It's just a beginning. Like a block of stone, it's gonna take a lot of chiseling (and maybe some spackle) to get it to where I want it. If you've *specific* criticisms, I'll be overjoyed to discuss them with you. At this point, a generalized critique isn't helpful to me. Even if you're absolutely certain my entire system is ass, even if you're right, you're gonna have to explain why you think so, rather than tell me that I should go back to formula.

Oh, yeah... Welcome to the Forge!

[Geethree]

3. Oh, no, no, no! It's a fireball, why in the world would I want it to have a lightning effect? It will have FIRE effects. Things like igniting clothing. These things won't be basic parts of the spell, they'll be elemental effects that can be added.

Sorry, looking back I misread this:

Also, something I intend to institute a bit later in the process is that you'll be able to purchase elemental effects with margin of success on your casting roll. Fire might allow you to ignite things, where lightning might allow you to ignore metal armor. So there will be reasons to cast a particular spell over a similar spell.

At first I thought this meant that you would be able to add elemental effects to spells that otherwise don't use that element. My bad.

A system that allows me to cast fireballs et al. was what I had originally. Fireballs, lightning bolts, etc. are EASY. I want a system that's robust and flexible, which is why I created something different. I want a system that allows fireballs, lightning enchantments on swords, shields of crystal, and abruptly raised bulwarks of stone. I want a system that allows me to create the spell I conceptualized when I was just making lists of spells... One where you can call lightning down on yourself and vanish, then reappear where lightning strikes next.

Right. What I mean is, I think you'd benefit from coming up with a simpler system for the time being that lets you perform some "prototype" spells. In my experience, I've always found it helpful to take a couple of things you want your system to be able to accomplish, and then parsing out the components. In other words, take some of the examples you just listed (fireballs, lightning enchantments, bulwarks of stone), and then figure out the components that let you cast those spells using one system.

Sorry if I came off kind of abrasive, but your basic assumption is that I haven't put a lot of thought into the concepts. That's way, way off.

I'm sorry I came off that way because I didn't mean to. It's obvious you've put a lot of thought into this system. What I meant was that I got the impression that you've finalized less important concepts than more essential ones. As I read this thread, the only things that sound really decisive are the terms you've used (i.e. drain, complexity, etc.). Regardless of whether you like those terms, those are the only concrete things that I can really talk about. The actual gameplay, what your goals are, how these elements connect to each other, sound more nebulous. Which is fine! Obviously this is First Thoughts and you're not near a finished product. But it just sounded like you were getting wrapped up in particulars at a phase when you wanted to be thinking more generally. I'm always wary when people throw around a lot of numbers when it's not clear what those numbers even mean.

At this point, a generalized critique isn't helpful to me. Even if you're absolutely certain my entire system is ass, even if you're right, you're gonna have to explain why you think so, rather than tell me that I should go back to formula.

I don't mean that you should erase everything you have and start at square one. What I mean is, right now it's hard to be specific because your system isn't complete and you're still not sure how all of these elements connect. Which is, of course, fine. But it's hard to give specific critiques when I don't know how any of this stuff functions.

What I am saying is that it would be helpful if you came up with a simplistic spellcasting system that fundamentally does what you want it to do, even if it's imperfect and doesn't do everything you want it to do. It's okay if it's nowhere near complete, but I feel like that would give us a better idea of your goals and how you want your spellcasting system to basically work. If you can post some kind of prototype (a few example spells, how spells are resolved, etc.), then I feel like we'd be better able to discuss this. Because it's obvious that you have thought a lot about this, but your thoughts are spread out over 2 threads (that I can see) and it's hard to piece it all together.

Plus, then we (as readers) can try our hand at building a spell or two, and you can see how other people approach the process and what sorts of questions and problems they have.