Last visit was: It is currently Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:06 am


All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Advanced Spells (one topic)
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:34 pm 

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:36 am
Posts: 1554
Right, you guys are trying to balance one thing on multiple topics and its really confusing to read.

so here are some highlights:

CTN:
over all the goal is to make this harder, and +6 to the CTN seems to do this pretty well ... if you compare it to the way things are done now I think we might be slightly over zealous in how we are doing this.

Range: In the end the only thing that will make this easy to interpret is a single definitive list, I can already see the arguments about how this should be interpreted and im not looking forward to this, if you want to make advanced spells available to all the players, not just the ones that want to argue about things, a single definitive list put pout by an authority is the ideal.

Combining Damage effects: Damage dice
we wrote up a nice rule that covers advanced maneuvers that get multiple dice, why cant it apply to spells?

_________________
--Josh Elliott
Oswald val'Inares V, The Seeker of the Val'Inares
Harvester Lord of the Eastern Fields of Iowa


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advanced Spells (one topic)
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:02 pm 

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:36 am
Posts: 1554
Spell CTNs
right to understand my base objections to spell CTNs just getting a flat +6 for advanced spells ( i think its too much and not enough at the same time) You have to look at the CTNs for existing spells (and not the adaptations yet)

Tier one spells are usually CTN 17 or 18 , Tier 2 spells are usually 20, Tier 3 spells 23, Tier 4 26.

so your saying two tier one spells that are an advanced spell is equivalent to a tier 3 spell?

SO something i keep repeating, is that you guys are making arbitrary changes with out having a set goal in mind.....

Just comparing TN for the original rule (CTN+ CTN-15) vs highest CTN +6)
Tier 1 : two CTN 18 Spells = 21 vs 24
Tier 2 : two CTN 18 Spells = 25 vs 26
Tier 3 : two CTN 18 Spells = 31 vs 29
Tier 4 : two CTN 18 Spells = 37 vs 32
(again that's the original rule vs the new rule )

so in effect your making it easier to to combine higher level spells and harder to combine lower level spells? gosh that seems wrong for a long term campaign.

_________________
--Josh Elliott
Oswald val'Inares V, The Seeker of the Val'Inares
Harvester Lord of the Eastern Fields of Iowa


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advanced Spells (one topic)
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:12 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:40 am
Posts: 2046
Quote:
CTN:
over all the goal is to make this harder, and +6 to the CTN seems to do this pretty well ... if you compare it to the way things are done now I think we might be slightly over zealous in how we are doing this.


My thoughts are that without a complicated equation or a table of specific CTN's, the +6 is a good compromise between ease of use, ability for casters to achieve, and preserve the intent of PCI in terms of spell+adaptation vs. advanced spells. It's not perfect: it means that combining Tier IV with anything under Tier IV is the same CTN but it also means that a Tier IV advanced isn't a CTN 39 like today.

Quote:
Range: In the end the only thing that will make this easy to interpret is a single definitive list, I can already see the arguments about how this should be interpreted and im not looking forward to this, if you want to make advanced spells available to all the players, not just the ones that want to argue about things, a single definitive list put pout by an authority is the ideal.


This one can be accomplished by a table/list, I agree.

Quote:
Combining Damage effects: Damage dice we wrote up a nice rule that covers advanced maneuvers that get multiple dice, why cant it apply to spells?


Because of the way advanced maneuvers do damage (You only get Weapon and Base Attribute once), it makes sense to allow other Attributes to add on directly. Because spells stack base damage already, allowing them to stack primary damage makes them even more powerful than maneuvers/adapted spells.

Example (d8 Weapon, d10 Attribute)
Base Maneuver 1: d8 (d10) Damage
Base Maneuver 2: d8 (d10) Damage + (In) Damage (for an example )

Advanced Maneuver (1+2): d8 (d10) (In) Damage and one Attribute can explode. (You don't double up the Weapon Damage or the base Attribute Damage.)

If Advanced Maneuvers combined the way Spells are being proposed in errata you would have:
Advanced Maneuver (1+2): 2x d8 + (d10)+2 + (In) (Much greater damage potential)

If Spells worked like Maneuvers do currently (d6 Spell Damage, d10 Primary)
Base Spell 1: d6 (d10)
Base Spell 2: d6 (d10)

Advanced Spell (1+2): 2x d6 (d10) +2

Therefore, to allow spells to stack (primary) dice like maneuvers stack different (attribute) dice would likely require that the entire process be the same (Doubling weapon damage like you double up on spell damage).

Do I have an answer? Only that the proposed spell errata seems pretty fair considering how martial maneuvers combine.

John

_________________
- John Bellando

Kelb'Bakari Masalio, Dark-kin Altherian Corsair, Gentleman Archaeologist, and Wandering Bard
"The highest compliment an Altherian can pay you is to shoot you with his flintlock. It means you were worth the expense."


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advanced Spells (one topic)
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:22 pm 

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:36 am
Posts: 1554
My main point is, you have to figure out why you are suggesting a change before your suggest a change, I pointed out above that the math for the +6 CTN rule doesn't work very well.

John do you want to come up with a list for ranges (and spawn another topic there? i think we agree that the rule works its just that we need more)

if we are going to make advanced spells harder to cast in the long run then i think we should go with 2 primary dice, but i thought a lot of this discussion was because pedro wanted more advanced spells cast.

if you want a really easy sliding scale, instead of adding +6 add the tiers of the spells (you then have a range of 2 to 8)

_________________
--Josh Elliott
Oswald val'Inares V, The Seeker of the Val'Inares
Harvester Lord of the Eastern Fields of Iowa


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advanced Spells (one topic)
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:40 am
Posts: 2046
SamhainIA wrote:
My main point is, you have to figure out why you are suggesting a change before your suggest a change, I pointed out above that the math for the +6 CTN rule doesn't work very well.


I'm trying to understand why this doesn't work well?

It was based on Pedro's desire (and I assume PCI's intent) that an Advanced Spell is about as difficult to cast as a Base Spell + 2 Adaptations (Since you generally need 2 Adaptations to achieve the same increase in damage or additional effects as making an Advanced Spell). Given that +3 is a good average for CTN's for an Adaptation, the +6 was based on that.

Since Adaptation CTN adjustments don't change based upon the Tier, it makes some sense to keep the Advanced Spell CTN boost static. Not saying it's 100% the perfect way but it makes sense given the other aspects.

Quote:
John do you want to come up with a list for ranges (and spawn another topic there? i think we agree that the rule works its just that we need more)


Yep, will do.

Quote:
if we are going to make advanced spells harder to cast in the long run then i think we should go with 2 primary dice, but i thought a lot of this discussion was because pedro wanted more advanced spells cast.

if you want a really easy sliding scale, instead of adding +6 add the tiers of the spells (you then have a range of 2 to 8)


Technically, Tier III and IV Advanced Spells are easier to cast in the long run with the proposed changes, Tier II Advanced Spells are about the same difficulty to cast with the proposed changes, and Tier I are a little harder (+3 CTN harder).

Personally, I like your suggestion of adding Tiers together and I'd thought about it. However, it makes Tier I Advanced Spells trivial to cast (+2 CTN) and Tier II Adv. Spells easier than today and easier than the proposed changes (+4 CTN vs. +6 CTN. Tier III Adv. Spells are about the same as they are with the proposed changes and Tier IV are harder than the proposed changes but easier than today.

Comparison with the Add Tiers CTN method:

Code:
Tier / Tier = Adv. CTN / Current CTN / Errata CTN
1 / 1 = CTN (20) / 21 / 24
1 / 2 = CTN (24) / 24 / 27
2 / 2 = CTN (25) / 27 / 27
1 / 3 = CTN (28) / 27 / 30
2 / 3 = CTN (29) / 30 / 30
3 / 3 = CTN (30) / 33 / 30
1 / 4 = CTN (32) / 30 / 33
2 / 4 = CTN (33) / 33 / 33
3 / 4 = CTN (34) / 36 / 33
4 / 4 = CTN (35) / 39 / 33


It's actually an elegant solution, but compared with the cost of Base Spell Adaptations, it makes those obsolete for "damage boosts".

So, perhaps the answer is that the cost to boost damage die is too high? I don't know on that one.

John

_________________
- John Bellando

Kelb'Bakari Masalio, Dark-kin Altherian Corsair, Gentleman Archaeologist, and Wandering Bard
"The highest compliment an Altherian can pay you is to shoot you with his flintlock. It means you were worth the expense."


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advanced Spells (one topic)
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:16 pm 

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:46 pm
Posts: 1352
Code:
Spell CTN Spell   CTN   old  highest + tiers
  1    17   1      17    19        19
  1    17   2      20    22        23
  1    17   3      23    25        27
  1    17   4      26    28        31
  2    20   2      20    25        24
  2    20   3      23    28        28
  2    20   4      26    31        32
  3    23   3      23    31        29
  3    23   4      26    34        33
  4    26   4      26    37        34
               
Each Adaptation costs +1 CTN               


Ok, what if adjusting the CTN is done by taking the highest CTN + the total of tiers.
Add +1 CTN to each Adaptation applied as it's more difficult to adjust combined spells

The increased cost per adaptation applied will make it more difficult to do a combined highly adapted low tier spell, and higher tiers are likely to have less adaptations given the higher starting CTNs.

Thoughts?

With a sweep of his hat,

Paul


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advanced Spells (one topic)
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:22 pm 

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 4:12 pm
Posts: 1037
For consistency, I'd prefer damage spells to follow the new general rule (roll all attribute dice but only 1 explodes) but I understand the switch to +2 (thanks John for the math on that in the other thread).

I understand where the +6 came from (Pedro's comment about wanting it to be as hard as 2 adaptations) but I fundamentally disagree with it. By making T1+T1 advanced spells that hard to cast, I see advanced spells as pretty much useless until well into T2 (in general, the main reason to create an advanced spell is to apply an adaptation so you're looking at an additional est avg +3 CTN).

It seems to keep coming back to the damage. If the problem is the damage increasing adaptations then I'd much rather see a simple errata like "all adaptations that (only?) increase the damage of the spell, are 1 (2?) less CTN than listed" and make T1+T1 advanced spells easier to cast (24 is way too high).

I do like the highest+tier+tier method (not sure if that makes T4 advanced spells too hard or not).

_________________
Steve Wilcoxon
Ss'kethis - Expert Holy Champion of the Fire Dragon 3.1
G'hyu'thyh Sungha - Martial Templar of Illiir 1.7
Eryk Bauer - Martial Awakened 1.2


Last edited by wilcoxon on Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advanced Spells (one topic)
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:40 am
Posts: 2046
Hat wrote:

Ok, what if adjusting the CTN is done by taking the highest CTN + the total of tiers.

Paul


That's what Josh suggested and what the first column in my Matrix represents. I assume Tier I CTN is 18 as that's very common and goes with the +3 / Tier essentially.

John

_________________
- John Bellando

Kelb'Bakari Masalio, Dark-kin Altherian Corsair, Gentleman Archaeologist, and Wandering Bard
"The highest compliment an Altherian can pay you is to shoot you with his flintlock. It means you were worth the expense."


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advanced Spells (one topic)
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 5:17 pm
Posts: 24
SamhainIA wrote:
Spell CTNs
right to understand my base objections to spell CTNs just getting a flat +6 for advanced spells ( i think its too much and not enough at the same time) You have to look at the CTNs for existing spells (and not the adaptations yet)

Tier one spells are usually CTN 17 or 18 , Tier 2 spells are usually 20, Tier 3 spells 23, Tier 4 26.

so your saying two tier one spells that are an advanced spell is equivalent to a tier 3 spell?

SO something i keep repeating, is that you guys are making arbitrary changes with out having a set goal in mind.....

Just comparing TN for the original rule (CTN+ CTN-15) vs highest CTN +6)
Tier 1 : two CTN 18 Spells = 21 vs 24
Tier 2 : two CTN 18 Spells = 25 vs 26
Tier 3 : two CTN 18 Spells = 31 vs 29
Tier 4 : two CTN 18 Spells = 37 vs 32
(again that's the original rule vs the new rule )

so in effect your making it easier to to combine higher level spells and harder to combine lower level spells? gosh that seems wrong for a long term campaign.


I agree with Josh and think that it is just too much and not enough. It should be inherently more difficult to combine higher level spells and the difficulty should increase from low tier to high tier not become easier than it currently is. The spells are tiered for a reason, they get slightly more (most of the time) than you can get with adaptions either in range, CTN, speed or strain in lower tiered spells.

You could simply make it the following formula Highest CTN + (Highest Tier)*3

Which makes it roughly the same as before, which honestly I thought was a pretty good way to do it.
Tier 1 : two CTN 18 Spells = 21 vs 21
Tier 2 : two CTN 20 Spells = 25 vs 26
Tier 3 : two CTN 23 Spells = 31 vs 32
Tier 4 : two CTN 26 Spells = 37 vs 38

If that is not high enough Then try
CTN + (Highest Tier)*4

Which makes:
Tier 1 : two CTN 18 Spells = 21 vs 22
Tier 2 : two CTN 20 Spells = 25 vs 28
Tier 3 : two CTN 23 Spells = 31 vs 35
Tier 4 : two CTN 26 Spells = 37 vs 42


An advanced Tier 1 spell is not equal in difficulty or effect to a Tier 3 spell the Current +6 CTN rule makes it harder to cast an advanced Tier 1 spell then a Tier 3 spell and it makes it trivial to combine a Tier 4 spell.

I agree with Josh the +6 CTN change is not good for long term planning and health of a campaign. The long term goal or what we want to accomplish in my book is that it should be inherently more difficult to combine higher tier spells and the difficulty should increase from low tier to high tier.

_________________
Paul
Marcos Dovatoni - Dark-Kin Templar of Larissa
Mycroft val'Holryn - Former Priest of Illiir - Sacrificed at the first Arcanis Con


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advanced Spells (one topic)
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:47 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:40 am
Posts: 2046
SamhainIA wrote:
SO something i keep repeating, is that you guys are making arbitrary changes with out having a set goal in mind.....

so in effect your making it easier to to combine higher level spells and harder to combine lower level spells? gosh that seems wrong for a long term campaign.


The first statement isn't entirely accurate. The changes submitted were done to make Advanced Spells about as hard as using 2 Adaptations on a Base Spell. That's where +6 came from on average. The number wasn't pulled from the air.

As for the 2nd statement, I see little wrong with that personally. At Tier I you're still learning and the need to use extra adaptations is lower. By Tier V, you're a pro at spellcasting and you'll likely want to use more and more adaptations, which will increase your CTN's.

However, I also understand what others are saying. The problem is that with anything less than 2 Adaptation cost, I see Pedro's point of Base Spell Adaptations becoming quickly discarded for all Advanced Spells. Maybe that isn't a problem for many people, it's hard to say, but why would anyone cast Elemental Bolt adapted for 2 Die Bumps (Doing d10 (Primary)) for +6 CTN you could just combine it with another damaging spell and do 2d6 (Primary)+2 [Or 2d6 2x(Primary) if the other suggested change goes through] for +3 CTN?


John

_________________
- John Bellando

Kelb'Bakari Masalio, Dark-kin Altherian Corsair, Gentleman Archaeologist, and Wandering Bard
"The highest compliment an Altherian can pay you is to shoot you with his flintlock. It means you were worth the expense."


Top
Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Moderators: james.zwiers, PCI Eric, PCI_StatMonkey Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Theme created StylerBB.net & kodeki