Combat magic vs Pure melee

User avatar
Bosper
Posts: 634
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:38 am

Re: Combat magic vs Pure melee

Postby Bosper » Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:36 am

Thorgarth wrote:Bosper actually at level IV they will not run anywhere... Hell, they won´t even be able to move since they turn "Catatonic" ;).

In any case I will introduce a Courage test in this mechanic. Failure WILL result in cowering or running away. In either case they will be unable to act in any rational way. Of course on levels 1 and 2 there will be bonus to the check. On level 3 there will be a mild penalty. On level 4 this results will be automatic.

In the one side this sounds reasonable but it would be the only effect that could reach max impacton lower QLs . you would have to introduce the same mechanic for paralysis or pain or the spell would be OP

Thorgarth
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 1:58 pm

Re: Combat magic vs Pure melee

Postby Thorgarth » Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:42 pm

Bosper wrote:
Thorgarth wrote:Bosper actually at level IV they will not run anywhere... Hell, they won´t even be able to move since they turn "Catatonic" ;).

In any case I will introduce a Courage test in this mechanic. Failure WILL result in cowering or running away. In either case they will be unable to act in any rational way. Of course on levels 1 and 2 there will be bonus to the check. On level 3 there will be a mild penalty. On level 4 this results will be automatic.

In the one side this sounds reasonable but it would be the only effect that could reach max impacton lower QLs . you would have to introduce the same mechanic for paralysis or pain or the spell would be OP


... and stupor. Every condition should have a direct and specific effect in case of a failed courage check and a passive basic penalty in case of success, like the rules state.

Thorgarth
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 1:58 pm

Re: Combat magic vs Pure melee

Postby Thorgarth » Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:52 pm

And I´m not even going to address the inane rules that impose a permanent loss of AE to create such simple items spell storage artifacts or even self charging-artifacts, which of course I will NOT apply. Those "permanent" AE pants will be changed to "temporary" status, which means the Mage will not replenish them until the spells are cast, and the used AE freed (for self-charging the AE will be lost again at the moment they are charged once again, with the artifact sucking the AE out of the Mage´s pool till such time as it´s released again).

Alenvire
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 11:44 pm

Re: Combat magic vs Pure melee

Postby Alenvire » Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:35 pm

@Thorgarth I just see it as the same as purchasing the magic items creation. Same as D&D 3.5. Of course that was one of the most hated things in D&D. Which is why Paizo removed it. Its a small amount to purchase the AE back... But, spellcasters already pay a premium just to have a tradition. 120+ just for a tradition and then purchasing a profession... spellcaster and a tradition just to have spells that are extremely limited in amount of castings. It feels really harsh honestly. But, for how popular the Dark eye already is they must be doing something right. I will give it a chance as is.

Thorgarth
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 1:58 pm

Re: Combat magic vs Pure melee

Postby Thorgarth » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:08 pm

Alenvire wrote:@Thorgarth I just see it as the same as purchasing the magic items creation. Same as D&D 3.5. Of course that was one of the most hated things in D&D. Which is why Paizo removed it. Its a small amount to purchase the AE back... But, spellcasters already pay a premium just to have a tradition. 120+ just for a tradition and then purchasing a profession... spellcaster and a tradition just to have spells that are extremely limited in amount of castings. It feels really harsh honestly. But, for how popular the Dark eye already is they must be doing something right. I will give it a chance as is.


I understand you but with that kind of reasoning we would all be considering such mechanics in D&D as AC (as opposed to soaking mechanics like those in TDE) to be smart. After all D&D is terribly popular (and the term Terribly is used with full meaning :) ). I tend to analyze everything with a critical but pragmatic eye, and I´m a bit impervious to trends. I really don´t care if something is popular if looking at it I find it at fault. I take in what is good, and change the bad. IF and when I judge it not to be worth the trouble I put it aside and try something better, even if it´s the number one selling RPG. I really find this rule to be inane...

Flash
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 1:39 pm

Re: Combat magic vs Pure melee

Postby Flash » Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:10 pm

Well magic items where always super rare in TDE and the permanent AE loss reflects that. So the rules makes sense when you take the history of TDE in context but is rather bad when I look at is as a pure system mechanic.

Thorgarth
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 1:58 pm

Re: Combat magic vs Pure melee

Postby Thorgarth » Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:30 pm

Flash wrote:Well magic items where always super rare in TDE and the permanent AE loss reflects that. So the rules makes sense when you take the history of TDE in context but is rather bad when I look at is as a pure system mechanic.


Flash I understand very well that the setting parameters, in this case regarding magic and it´s rarity (at least in terms of artifacts), may have an impact on the mechanics level, but this is totally out of proportion. We are not talking about super powerful artifacts, capable of wreaking havoc to countless lives. We are talking about artifacts that simply serve to store spells cast in advance to be released later, for instance. Having this imparting a permanent loss to a mage is not reasonable, at least in my mind.

If artifacts were to be rare there are many other, more reasonable and proportionate, options. Make such rituals VERY HARD to learn, needing very expensive and rare ingredients, steeper penalties to the ritual check unless cast in the utmost positive conditions, make the recovering of AE used to power this rituals harder, with a much slower rate... e.g. 1 every 1d6 or 2d6 regeneration phases, or a mechanic like I mention in my other post... e.g. the AE points "permanently" lost, =10%, would only be temporarily lost, recovered as soon as the spell stores was released (in case of self-chartable said AE would again be sucked from the magician at the time of charging, and so on).

User avatar
Lambert
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 2:13 pm
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Combat magic vs Pure melee

Postby Lambert » Tue Jun 28, 2016 1:14 am

I personally think that the mechanic suits the world. Also it keeps the power level in check and stops rich mages from positively dripping with powered items.

Mages are already incredibly useful and the fact that their AE is so limited and recovers slowly stops the Dark Eye from developing Caster Supremacy found in oh so many Fantasy games.

I love the way the rules make it believable why there are so few magic items in the world, and hence make every magic item special.

Alenvire
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 11:44 pm

Re: Combat magic vs Pure melee

Postby Alenvire » Fri Jul 01, 2016 5:03 pm

The only problem I see with removing the permanent AE cost is even if you have them commit the AE loss temporarily, its still increasing their possible expenditure of spells 5 fold. I don't remember the cost, it was either 10 or 20% permanently lost but, if its not lost you can just pre cast everything a month in advance of a adventure and have those very powerful spells ready 5 or 10 times the normal amount.

I'm tired so hopefully that all made sense. If your going to have them commit the AE cost instead of expending it permanently you may consider increasing the committed amount to maybe half. I am thinking about doing that myself. Give the option of committing half or having the permanent loss that they can pay off. I dunno, thoughts on that anyone?

Thorgarth
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 1:58 pm

Re: Combat magic vs Pure melee

Postby Thorgarth » Fri Jul 01, 2016 5:25 pm

Alenvire wrote:The only problem I see with removing the permanent AE cost is even if you have them commit the AE loss temporarily, its still increasing their possible expenditure of spells 5 fold. I don't remember the cost, it was either 10 or 20% permanently lost but, if its not lost you can just pre cast everything a month in advance of a adventure and have those very powerful spells ready 5 or 10 times the normal amount.

I'm tired so hopefully that all made sense. If your going to have them commit the AE cost instead of expending it permanently you may consider increasing the committed amount to maybe half. I am thinking about doing that myself. Give the option of committing half or having the permanent loss that they can pay off. I dunno, thoughts on that anyone?


I agree with you. I´ve been thinking about this and I think the best option is to have a dual magical system in this regard, maintaining the mechanics introduced by the core system but also giving the players the choice to opt for another magical mechanic to invest a spell into an artifact. That is, the Mage can opt to permanently sacrifice a small percentage of his AE, as per the rules, OR opt to temporally loose 50% of the spell AE cost (till it´s released) and a slower replenishment of the other 50%, at a default rate of 1d6 per 1d6 regeneration phase (instead of the 1d6 per Regeneration Phase). In the case of this new mechanic I would also impose a higher ingredient cost of the artifact that is to store the spells, on a per spell basis. e.g. gold powders, crystals, meteorite, etc...


Return to “Rules Questions (TDE)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests