# Anyone picked up True Sorcery?



## Matrix Sorcica (Jun 7, 2006)

It' available along with True Bestiary at the Green Ronin store.

So did anyone pick it up? Impressions?

Thanks


----------



## JBowtie (Jun 7, 2006)

I'm waiting for it to hit RPGNow - hopefully that will be a week or less. I suspect others may be doing the same for their favorite online retailer.


----------



## Skywalker (Jun 8, 2006)

I note that it is True Sorcery and True 20 Bestiary. True Sorcery is not a strictly True 20 product. It provides an alternate magic system (from Black Company) for use with True 20, Iron Heroes and Thieves World. A lot of people seemed to have it confused despite it lacking the True 20 trade dress and clear synopsis on the website.


----------



## bento (Jun 8, 2006)

I didn't realize it wasn't a True20 endorsed book until a day or two ago.  If you go to the T20 Board, when people have questions or concerns about magic, you hear the common refrain "when True Sorcery comes out that should be fixed." I don't believe any GR personnel made the clarification about the book's intension prior to its release.

I'm a bit disappointed because I was looking for better path definition for the adept - like Blue Rose has in its core rules.  The other T20 book that came out last week (that coverts over most of the SRD classes) really flew under the radar, and perhaps it might be a better book (at least from a character-creation stand point).  But for those of us who are grappling with how to create a Shugenja or Necromancer as an NPC, we're still sifting through the two different systems.


----------



## Pramas (Jun 8, 2006)

This is the info we released about the book months ago and it's pretty clear about what the book is. If people didn't choose to read it, there's not much we can do about that. 

True Sorcery
A Magic Sourcebook for OGL Gaming
Author: Robert J. Schwalb
Cover Artist: Matt Cavotta
Format: 128 pages, softback
MSRP: Print $23.95, PDF $12.00
Product Code: GRR1707
ISBN: 1-932442-71-5

True Sorcery introduces a flexible, dynamic, and innovative magic system that puts eldritch mastery into your hands. Forget slots and spells per day; True Sorcery gives you the power to build spells of your own design, letting you decide how fast, how far, and how potent your spells will be. With these rules, you become the true master of magic. Revised and expanded from the ENnie Award-winning The Black Company Campaign Setting, this system provides new spells, a slew of sample spell effects, feats, and an all-new magic item creation system. The book also includes conversion guides so you can use True Sorcery with Malhavoc Press’s Iron Heroes, d20 Modern, Thieves’ World, and the hit True20 Adventure Roleplaying game. No matter what OGL game you favor, True Sorcery opens the door to a new world of magical possibilities.


----------



## bento (Jun 8, 2006)

Chris,

Thanks for your reply.  While I can't deny that you didn't put the information out there, I have two problems.

1) Posters all over the True20 Boards were wet with anticipation on how this book would impact their True 20 game.  I didn't see either you or anyone else trying to quell their comments on the board by saying that this book was really for D20 rules and would not be the definitive T20 magical guide.

2) The book's title "True Sorcery" added to everyone's confusion.  Why not name it something else?  So far everything for the True20 series had "True" in the title.  Tagging non-T20 specific books with the "True" moniker confuses your customer base and potentially make them feel like they've been misled.

So far I've picked up several books from your company in the past couple of months and have been very satisfied.  I know I'm going to be buying more as I convert my homebrew OA campaing from D&D3.5 to T20.  Anything I have to support this - like the other two T20 books that came out this past week, will keep me a happy customer.  

I look forward to more great books from Green Ronin and other publishers supporting T20.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 8, 2006)

I have it. Bought it to use in my _Iron Heroes_ games, since I didn't like the default Arcanist at all.

My first impression was "WOW! It's perfect!" On further reading, I'm a bit...confused.

The default magic system is basically the same as it was in the _Black Company Campaign Setting_, with new powers and some other things designed specifically to make it more D&D-ish. The default system is...comprehensible, if not totally comprehensive. There's a new advanced class called the "Spellcaster" and a Spellcaster advanced class for use with _d20 Modern._ The powers are great...although there's still a few missing.

The editing is spotty. I've noticed more than a few instances of missing words, missing phrases, bad punctuation, poor math (NOT good when they're giving an example), and incomplete explanations of mechanics.

Just a few examples...

The _Iron Heroes_-specific section is an appendix. It's 5 pages and contains a new class. That new class uses a totally different method of magic balance. It's unclear how its mechanics interact with the default mechanics from the basic system. For instance, it introduces a "Fifth Magnitude" with no explanation of how it works except for one table. It says the Arcanist counts as a Dabbler, but from the tables, it seems that the Arcanist is only considered a "Dabbler" for purposes of Talent access. Mathematically speaking, the bonuses are the "Student of Wizardry" ones.

Also, as I read it, the _True Sorcery_ Arcanist gets "Mana Tokens" which work "sort of, but not exactly like" spell energy in the default system. They provide the same DR against Drain, which makes sense but can also be used to boost his spellcraft check. These tokens grant a casting bonus from +2 at Dabbler and doubling every magnitude to +64 (per token!) at 5th Magnitude. You can use 1 token +1/magnitude you have per spell!

Now while at low levels, these things are more valuable as DR against drain (as the sidebar says), by mid-level, I'd be more than happy to take extra nonlethal damage in exchange for a +48 to my casting checks! However, I can't tell whether the Spellcraft bonuses from Token use count as "Spellcraft bonus" for the purpose of determining how long a spell takes to cast. Or is the casting time done away with? The system is unclear. 

I have to ask...did anybody playtest the _Iron Heroes_ Arcanist in some adventures? The default system was fine. Why mess with the token thing? How was it intended to work? How did it work?

But all that is _Iron Heroes_ specific.

There's muddy math all over. For example, the sample spell under flight doesn't add in the +30 to DC needed (according to the spell description) to actually switch from levitation to "Flight." So the Spellcraft DC is reported at 44, instead of 74. (ouch!) Also, the sample on how to add up DCs to determine DC is...umm...wrong. The table was cut and pasted from _Black Company_ but the rest...I dunno where it comes from...

Secondly, the rules inexplicably reintroduce D&D components which weren't used in the BCCS rules. Which just makes me wonder why, for the love of god, WHY??

Some of the DC adjustments were changed from the BCCS. In most cases, they were done to make spellcasting easier (which makes sense), but there's a few where the DC was RAISED compared to the BCCS (adding damage dice and increasing burst radius come to mind).

And then there's THIS quote...



> You can apply the following augmentations to Figment: Area/Target, Components, Duration, Range.
> 
> For an illusion including audible, olfactory, tactile, taste, and/or thermal aspects, increase the Spellcraft DC by +5 per extra aspect. Even realistic tactile and thermal illusions cannot deal damage, however.
> 
> ...




There's more...but you'll notice that there's an incomplete phrase...

Umm...Chris...anyone? Duplicates that WHAT?

Finally...would it have been so difficult to throw something into Shapeshift to allow for baleful transforms...the archetypal "witch turning someone into a toad?"

So, call me happy...but bemused. Obviously, this system needs some work before I can use it in my games. I expected it would take some...but this...

Sorry for ranting...but I was real happy until I started reading more closely.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jun 8, 2006)

bento said:
			
		

> 2) The book's title "True Sorcery" added to everyone's confusion.  Why not name it something else?  So far everything for the True20 series had "True" in the title.  Tagging non-T20 specific books with the "True" moniker confuses your customer base and potentially make them feel like they've been misled.




Calling True20 T20 confuses the hell out of Traveller fans too I would imagine...


----------



## bento (Jun 8, 2006)

I don't expect too many Traveller players to be trolling this board for posts about True 20 to be confused by me calling it T20.  

Just to be perfectly clear, the next time I refer to True20, I'll call it GURPS, ok?


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 8, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> So, call me happy...but bemused. Obviously, this system needs some work before I can use it in my games. I expected it would take some...but this...
> 
> Sorry for ranting...but I was real happy until I started reading more closely.




i'm in the midst of reading it now. I...like it...conceptually anyway, but there is some confusing stuff. One issue in particular i've come across so far:



> For example, Stacee plays Fetch, a Second Magnitude spellcaster
> with a Concentration +18 and Spellcraft +28. She begins casting
> a powerful Create Fire effect with a Spellcraft DC of 56 (she’ll
> be spending some spell energy to make this happen). Looking
> ...






> Table 2–3: Casting Times
> Spellcraft DC minus
> Spellcraft modifier Casting Time
> 0 or less 	1 swift action*
> ...




Not only is this example somewhat confusing, it doesn't mesh with what is listed in Table 2-3. The numbers seem totally skewed. It doesn't help when trying to decipher completely new game mechanics. 

I think the system will ultimately be workable, but an errated, updated .pdf would be useful at some point.  I will say this, even if the rules were IMPECCABLE and flawless, this is a system for people who really want different magic, not newcomers to D&D. If you like the fire and forget, leave this alone. If you liked Ars Magica or Elements of Magic (or Black Company) then you would enjoy tinkering with this.


----------



## Garnfellow (Jun 8, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I have it. Bought it to use in my _Iron Heroes_ games, since I didn't like the default Arcanist at all.
> 
> My first impression was "WOW! It's perfect!" On further reading, I'm a bit...confused.




Wow. That sounds extremely disappointing. I had planned on buying this PDF tonight, but now I'll hold off a bit.

One of my biggest beefs with _Iron Heroes_ is the half-baked nature of the final product . . . lots and lots of great and promising ideas, but with seriously spotty implementation. This first report on True Sorcery sounds all too familiar.

Perhaps there is some epic level curse on the whole arcanist class?


----------



## jaerdaph (Jun 8, 2006)

bento said:
			
		

> IJust to be perfectly clear, the next time I refer to True20, I'll call it GURPS, ok?




Now that makes sense.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 8, 2006)

> Wow. That sounds extremely disappointing. I had planned on buying this PDF tonight, but now I'll hold off a bit.
> 
> One of my biggest beefs with Iron Heroes is the half-baked nature of the final product . . . lots and lots of great and promising ideas, but with seriously spotty implementation. This first report on True Sorcery sounds all too familiar.
> 
> Perhaps there is some epic level curse on the whole arcanist class?






Now that WOULD explain a few things...

I should caveat with a couple statements. Fire-and-Forget Vancian magic is the elephant in the living room in my enjoyment of D&D. I've NEVER liked it. Yes, it's a sacred cow...but I've said before, D&D magic lets you play one type of fantasy well - D&D fantasy. Since I got into D&D to do Sword & Sorcery, High Fantasy, etc., that's never sat well with me. Secondly, the 3e reliance on magic items to achieve game balance...well...I hated it. The problem is that I always thought the fighter types were the cool ones in the fantasy stories. Almost EVERY D&D game designer (from Gygax to Cook) is not shy that the "best" character to play is the wizard (or if you must, the Cleric - a Wizard with armor). If you don't want to play a primary spellcaster, they're not designing the game for you.

With _Iron Heroes_, Mike Mearls actually TRIED to design a game to let non-spellcasters have the fun. And, for the most part, he succeeded. IH works great. Tokens work great. But the system doesn't work with D&D magic. It NEEDS a magic system, because it's fantasy, but it needs a magic system that supplements the combat/skill classes, rather than overshadowing them. That's a TALL order. One that needs a designer with the skill to make the powerful wizard types...and the desire to restrain themselves so that the class doesn't overwhelm it's neighbors.

Not counting the magic system, I think _Iron Heores_ is VERY well done. Not everyone's cup of tea...but VERY well done. Magic should just have been removed from the final product and done RIGHT. I mean...I suppose NO magic system is another Elephant in the Living Room for a "fantasy" roleplaying game...but considering what Mearls goals were, he nailed 90% of them.

Just my opinion. But as far as magic goes, I agree. This is another system that's _Iron Heroes_-compatible, and yet still flawed. I dunno. Maybe what we want just can't be done. Our group efforts on the IH boards haven't produced a good, properly balanced system EITHER.

The BCCS system is SO close. So was Elements of Magic - Mythic Earth. So is True Sorcery. They're spitting around the perfect magic system for _Iron Heroes_. But they still haven't hit it.


----------



## rjs (Jun 8, 2006)

Curses!

Well, we've caught the big errors now, and we should have a revised PDF posted soon. I apologize for the fumbles. 

Iron Heroes fans, I've also addressed the issue about Mana Tokens, which will be reflected in the updated PDF. The Spellcraft bonus granted by Magnitude is fixed and applies to all Spellcraft rolls and figures into casting time. Mana tokens grant a fixed +10 per token spent. 

Thanks for the keen eyes!


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 8, 2006)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> Not only is this example somewhat confusing, it doesn't mesh with what is listed in Table 2-3. The numbers seem totally skewed. It doesn't help when trying to decipher completely new game mechanics.




This actually was the math error I was referring to. Conceptually, I understand what they're saying.  Let me reprint the quote, with my comments where the errors crop up:



> For example, Stacee plays Fetch, a Second Magnitude spellcaster with a Concentration +18 and Spellcraft +28. She begins casting a powerful Create Fire effect with a Spellcraft DC of 56 (she’ll be spending some spell energy to make this happen). Looking at Table 2–3: Casting Times, she sees it’ll take 6 standard actions to cast the spell effect (56 – 28 = 28 which requires 6 actions).




Actually, no. In the BCCS, this took 6 actions. _True Sorcery_ changed the table so that rather than reading like this:

*Table 2–3: Casting Times*
Spellcraft DC minus 
Spellcraft modifier Casting Time 
0 or less 1 swift action* 
1–5 1 standard action 
6–10 2 standard actions 
11–15 3 standard actions 
16–20 4 standard actions 
21–30 6 standard actions 
31–40  8 actions  
41–50 1 minute 
51–60 2 minutes 
61–70 3 minutes 
71–80 5 minutes 
81–90 10 minutes 
91–100 1 hour 
+10 +1 hour

it instead reads like the one you printed. So, using the *Table 2-3* as printed, that should be a 10 action spell, not a 6 action one. Probably, the errata should be to just go back to the BCCS table. Moving on...



> As she’s Second Magnitude, she can skip a total of 2 actions during the casting of the effect. She spends all of round 1 casting as a full-round action leaving 4 actions to go. The guards spill into the room, so she moves (1 action), and resumes casting (leaving 3 to go). A guard charges her, swings and misses. Fetch lashes out with her kukri and hits, but can’t spend the round casting, so she opts to take a 5-foot step instead and has now skipped a total of 3 actions casting.




You can't attack and cast in the same round, since casting is a standard action. You can't spend JUST a move action casting, so you have to skip 2 actions, rather than just one. 1 action in the previous round, +2 here = 3 actions skipped. Which is one more than a 2nd-Magnitude caster is "allowed" to skip without making a check.



> To keep casting the spell effect, Stacee needs to succeed on a DC 15 Concentration check; with Concentration +18 she can’t fail this first check, but if she skips more actions this will start to get tricky.




And if she's got to get to 10 actions rather than 6, it gets trickier still.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 8, 2006)

Hey Rob...want a list? I've got all the ones noted that I saw...

Happy to help if you're working to make a better product.

Thanks!


----------



## rjs (Jun 8, 2006)

Exactly so. If you take a standard action in a round, you can only take a move action, and therefore, Stacee (my lovely wife) can't cast this round. 

Essentially, if you take 1 full-round action spent casting counts as two standard actions.
You could spend one standard action and move.
Or you could do something else (as standard action), but not cast.


----------



## Garnfellow (Jun 8, 2006)

rjs said:
			
		

> Curses!
> 
> Well, we've caught the big errors now, and we should have a revised PDF posted soon. I apologize for the fumbles.
> 
> ...




This is why Green Ronin is one of my favorite game companies. I feel bad to have doubted ye.


----------



## rjs (Jun 8, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Hey Rob...want a list? I've got all the ones noted that I saw...
> 
> Happy to help if you're working to make a better product.
> 
> Thanks!




Sure! 

Email me at evilronin "at" greenronin "dot" com


----------



## rjs (Jun 8, 2006)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> This is why Green Ronin is one of my favorite game companies. I feel bad to have doubted ye.




Aw shucks...

Now I feel bad about burning myself with a cigarette as punishment (Kidding of course, it was a cigar )


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 8, 2006)

Thanks Rob. Anything I can do to help!

By the way, I crossposted your reply to the True Sorcery thread over on the Iron Heroes boards. Figured you'd want the guys to know. Especially since I'd raised some of the issues I saw there with the guys. I was just after input, but I felt I should correct my impression with your reply.

I'll type that email up and drop you a note.

Cheers!


----------



## Baumi (Jun 8, 2006)

How does it compare to Elements of Magic?


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 8, 2006)

Baumi said:
			
		

> How does it compare to Elements of Magic?




Hmm. You know, i bought EoM but never fully used the system, so my reply probably won't mean a whole lot. Initially, i think i like True Sorcery better. Once some of the errata is fixed that is, and once i can more fully look it over. For some reason the EOM system never fully "clicked" for me. 

One question i have is this: how does the increased casting times (up to 5 rounds i think in the example above, right?) fit into the standard D&D scenario? A mage casting a spell for five rounds is otherwise 4 additional rounds of not casting subsequent spells. How does that impact their usefulness on the battlefield?


----------



## Henry (Jun 8, 2006)

Robert,

Thanks for the dedication to bringing this out. Based on all the times it was sent back for revision, I was beginning to worry.


I'll have to keep checking back to see when that new PDF is released, because I want a copy, but I don't see any reason to buy until the revised PDF is released. I've been looking forward to this product for a long time - about a year and a half, truthfully.


----------



## rjs (Jun 8, 2006)

Very very soon. It could very well be updated today.

Rob


----------



## Henry (Jun 8, 2006)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> One question i have is this: how does the increased casting times (up to 5 rounds i think in the example above, right?) fit into the standard D&D scenario? A mage casting a spell for five rounds is otherwise 4 additional rounds of not casting subsequent spells. How does that impact their usefulness on the battlefield?




In this magic system, you can prepare a limited number of spells ahead of time. If you're familiar with Zelazny's Amber series, it works vaguely like that. That 4 actions of casting time means from start to finish; you can "hang" the spell so that it can be cast at 1 standard action at a later time (assuming you don't take damage, blow a concentration check, and lose it). There's no limit of "spells prepared" or such -- you take a certain amount of drain (drain is different depending on game system used, like D&D or True20) for casting it, and could literally cast yourself into unconsciousness. 

So a mage would hang his most important spells, and then in combat cast much smaller, quicker spells when his big ones were spent. You don't have to cast that 10 damage dice, DC 40 monster; you could cast a smaller, quicker spell that does less, but also is less draining.

Also, your casting time decreases with skill; a high-level spellcaster could toss off something as a swift action, something that would take an amateur several rounds to cast!


----------



## Henry (Jun 8, 2006)

rjs said:
			
		

> Very very soon. It could very well be updated today.
> 
> Rob




Thanks. I'll keep an eye out.

One thing: I'm hoping the examples and the options on spells will be much better explained than in the BCCS. In BCCS, it could be very unclear sometimes what path to take, for instance, to turn a single-target spell into a big, bad area-effect planet-buster spell. I and a number of fellow entusiasts have come up with the same results in a spell before, with very different casting DCs, because of some things I thought needed to be included, but others did not.

Also, I really had some reservations on the "taking extra time" rules, because there were a few loopholes someone revealed to me that created some spells abnormally powerful, in proportion to the level of the wizard casting them. One gamer in another group related an invisible, multiple-round, nonlethally damaging "force cloud" that his 3rd level wizard created to handle multiple foes; he didn't mind "blowing his brains out" for such a spell as long as the party could use it to take down multiple enemies much stronger than they. I'm hoping that clearer examples of what can and can't be done will help this.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Jun 8, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> In this magic system, you can prepare a limited number of spells ahead of time. If you're familiar with Zelazny's Amber series, it works vaguely like that. That 4 actions of casting time means from start to finish; you can "hang" the spell so that it can be cast at 1 standard action at a later time (assuming you don't take damage, blow a concentration check, and lose it). There's no limit of "spells prepared" or such -- you take a certain amount of drain (drain is different depending on game system used, like D&D or True20) for casting it, and could literally cast yourself into unconsciousness.
> 
> So a mage would hang his most important spells, and then in combat cast much smaller, quicker spells when his big ones were spent. You don't have to cast that 10 damage dice, DC 40 monster; you could cast a smaller, quicker spell that does less, but also is less draining.
> 
> Also, your casting time decreases with skill; a high-level spellcaster could toss off something as a swift action, something that would take an amateur several rounds to cast!




You just sold me this book!


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 8, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> There's no limit of "spells prepared" or such



Technically, you are limited to preparing no more than a number of spells equal to your Intelligence bonus at any one time.  You can prepare a million spells in any given day, but no more than your intelligence bonus may be prepared at any one time.  So if you don't have an Intelligence bonus, or have and Int penalty, then you can't prepare spells at all.


----------



## igavskoga (Jun 8, 2006)

While I can't comment specifically on what appears in True Sorcery, I don't have it yet, I have done extensive study of the BCCS system.

What I can say that is true about both, since they come from the same foundation, is that this magic system requires a COMPLETE change in perspective coming from your standard fire & forget mobile artillery that is the Vancian system.

If you try to play a wizard in this system as if they were a caster in d20 -- you will be disappointed, there is no doubt about that.  This system is far more modular, subtle, and flexible.

A good way to start becoming familiar with the system is to create a wizard and just dive in and start making spells.  You will find, often, that spell strategy will shift dependant on level far more than it does in D&D since there are more resources to manage.  There is far more utility to be had at any level, especially the lower ones, beyond "I cast my 3rd out of 4 magic missiles."

Another big thing I noticed was, in trying to recreate some of the hallmark D&D spells, such as fireball with a 5th level caster, is twofold:

1)  It was typically far more effecient AND interesting to do other things than Lightning_Bolt_052.
2)  If I toned down the spell effect somewhat, so I was gunning for a shorter range, radius, and/or damage I could cast the spell more often than the 2 or 3 times a 5th level D&D caster could throw fireballs -- this to me was a more than welcome change, how often do you really throw a fireball at anywhere near the max range?

This was the biggest thing I have taken away from studying the BCCS system.  I am posative it will hold true for what's in True Sorcery.  Expect to look at traditional fantasy magic mechanics a bit differently or expect to be disappointed.  The formula now is subtlety before power whereas in core D&D it is power before subtlety.


----------
One gamer in another group related an invisible, multiple-round, nonlethally damaging "force cloud" that his 3rd level wizard created to handle multiple foes; he didn't mind "blowing his brains out" for such a spell as long as the party could use it to take down multiple enemies much stronger than they.
----------

If this is similar to the post on the Green Ronin Mythic Vistas forum, I am almost 100% posative that the guy was doing the math significantly wrong.  To duplicate the effects he was talking about would've required hitting a DC that was barely castable at best or completely out of reach at worst.  Not to mention that a duration was completely impossible since it would've required blending with a second talent which would've skyrocketted the DC well out of the reach of a 3rd level caster.

I've noticed, at least with BCCS, that if you've created a spell effect and it looks vastly too powerful for the DC you've come up with, then 9 times out of 10 you've missed a calculation somewhere along the line.  Granted, this can be easy to do because, as you've said, what to include and what not to include isn't immediately clear.  There are some instances where this can be done, like using Force to hit a single target with massive amounts of nonlethal, but the actual loopholes like that aren't as many as you think and are easily house-ruled away.


----------



## bento (Jun 8, 2006)

As a GM for a group of novice players and someone who has taken a liking to the True 20 system, I find what's been written about True Sorcery in this post as an indication that the book would be a waste of my money. It's difficult enough to get someone to play a spellcaster because of all the details to keep track of in the D20 system, and now a new book has come out to make it even more complicated.  Huzzah.   

I think Green Ronin missed a great opportunity to expand on the Adept class and instead  introduced (or reconfigured) yet another complicated magic system.  Don't we already get these a couple of times a year from WoTC?  Getting expanded spells, magic feats and new adept character paths was going to be the breakthrough I needed to get my players to convert over to the system, but it looks like I'll have to wait.   

I also get tired of posters explaining to me how easy it is to port things over to True 20.  It might be for you, having played variations of the system for nigh on umpteen years, but for those of us trying to get into a new hobby it's just another barrier.  Why don't you do the work and I'll pay $10 for it on RPGNow?

- bento (the lazy GM)


----------



## igavskoga (Jun 8, 2006)

Complication isn't always a bad word, sometimes over-simplified can be just as unintuitive as overly complex.  Most of the learning curve with this magic system is _unlearning_ the preconcieved notions of the old d20 system.  

That being said, IMO this is the best magic system I've seen in print for d20.  Perhaps when your players get a bit more experience under their belt they'll want something more substantive out of their favorite mechanics -- if so definitely pick this up.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jun 9, 2006)

Rob:

Will those of us who bought the pdf already have to pay again to get the revised version?

If so, will it be possible to post errata somewhere?


----------



## Nikchick (Jun 9, 2006)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Rob:
> 
> Will those of us who bought the pdf already have to pay again to get the revised version?
> 
> If so, will it be possible to post errata somewhere?




Anyone who buys any of our PDFs (whether at RPGNow or at GreenRonin.com directly) get free access to any updates or corrections to their products.  No extra charge.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 9, 2006)

Nikchick said:
			
		

> Anyone who buys any of our PDFs (whether at RPGNow or at GreenRonin.com directly) get free access to any updates or corrections to their products.  No extra charge.



See, this policy just made me into a loyal customer and I've only made the one purchase so far.  Time to seriously peruse your product lines and see what my wallet can afford.


----------



## Psion (Jun 9, 2006)

bento said:
			
		

> I don't expect too many Traveller players to be trolling this board for posts about True 20 to be confused by me calling it T20.




FWIW, I was just about to make a similar comment...


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 9, 2006)

Apparently most of the people in this thread don't play d20 Modern.

Have you wonderful folks at Green Ronin looked at how Drain interacts with the Modern non-lethal damage system?  Characters ignore all non-lethal damage less than their Constitution score, and make fortitude saves (DC 15) to not be rendered unconcious for 1d4 rounds when they do take enough non-lethal to notice.  So a Modern caster could cast infinitely, with no danger, as long as they stick to base effects, or weak enough ones that the maximum possible Drain is less than their Con score.  Alternatively, there is very little reason not to load up a spell with as much effect as practicle when you won't be unconcious for more than 4 rounds.
That system is why forced marches deal lethal damage in D20 Modern.

As a GM of a d20 Modern game, and a general fan of that system, I thought I should mention this incase you have any input for helping myself or others deal with it.  Also, it should be mentioned incase you wish to change it.


----------



## Henry (Jun 9, 2006)

bento said:
			
		

> I think Green Ronin missed a great opportunity to expand on the Adept class and instead  introduced (or reconfigured) yet another complicated magic system.  Don't we already get these a couple of times a year from WoTC?  Getting expanded spells, magic feats and new adept character paths was going to be the breakthrough I needed to get my players to convert over to the system, but it looks like I'll have to wait.




It's true that it's not for everyone; anyone who wants less complexity for their spellcasters probably won't like it. Rather, I like it because the standard slot-based magic system goes against some of my sensibilities - the ones where a wizard shouldn't have a limit on the number of times per day he can cast a spell, and if he does, it's a game-reasoned limit like "that's the most his brain capacity can handle" or "he can't cast another spell without straining himself to unconscousness" and then to actually see game mechanics that demonstrate it. I also like the feel of accomplishment of a high-level caster who can toss off effects that he once struggled with.

Having used it in play, it added immeasurably to the system we used (Grim Tales and Black Company) in creating a very different feel. I loved the difference in play at the table, but there might be only a half dozen people out of the couple dozen gamers I know who would take well to this system. I'm just glad they expanded on it in another PDF, so that I can recommend it to people interested instead of the whole Black Company Book for just that one subsystem. (Don't get me wrong, I love Black Company, but $12 is more palatable than $40.00.)


----------



## Henry (Jun 9, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> Have you wonderful folks at Green Ronin looked at how Drain interacts with the Modern non-lethal damage system?  Characters ignore all non-lethal damage less than their Constitution score, and make fortitude saves (DC 15) to not be rendered unconcious for 1d4 rounds when they do take enough non-lethal to notice.  So a Modern caster could cast infinitely, with no danger, as long as they stick to base effects, or weak enough ones that the maximum possible Drain is less than their Con score.  Alternatively, there is very little reason not to load up a spell with as much effect as practicle when you won't be unconcious for more than 4 rounds.
> That system is why forced marches deal lethal damage in D20 Modern.




Oddly enough, I've never met anyone personally who uses the as-written non-lethal damage system in modern.  However, to counteract it, I would probably have the system deal lethal damage, also - or keep track of the drain in the same manner as non-lethal, so that when your drain = hit points, you go unconscious for an hour, and can't cast anymore for at least 8 hours. That signifies the time a caster would have to wait to get rid of the nonlethal, anyway.


----------



## rjs (Jun 9, 2006)

Or you could just use the Casting Buffer rules described on page 19.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 9, 2006)

> Or you could just use the Casting Buffer rules described on page 19.




Which looks like the best solution to me for _d20 Modern_ games. Actually, it makes a LOT of sense. Of course, an evil GM might use the casting buffer to REPLACE drain...and once the buffer was gone, the character takes LETHAL damage. And you wouldn't have to grant d8's for the buffer.


----------



## hong (Jun 9, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> Have you wonderful folks at Green Ronin looked at how Drain interacts with the Modern non-lethal damage system?




D20M's nonlethal system is kinda goofy.


----------



## Psion (Jun 9, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> Oddly enough, I've never met anyone personally who uses the as-written non-lethal damage system in modern.




I was about to make THAT comment, too...


----------



## jaerdaph (Jun 9, 2006)

Ahem. There are some of us out there that do use the d20 Modern nonlethal damage rules as written. 

Now I'm curious because I'm thinking of picking this up. What kind of drain are we talking about here - temporary ability score drain? If so, then in d20 Modern, the nonlethal rules don't really come in to play.


----------



## Henry (Jun 9, 2006)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> Ahem. There are some of us out there that do use the d20 Modern nonlethal damage rules as written.
> 
> Now I'm curious because I'm thinking of picking this up. What kind of drain are we talking about here - temporary ability score drain? If so, then in d20 Modern, the nonlethal rules don't really come in to play.




The day I meet you in person (at a Gencon, perhaps), then I'll have to change my statement. 

If it's still similar to the BCCS rules, drain is nonlethal damage, in the 3.0/3.5 D&D style. One quirk - in the original system, there's nothing that heals nonlethal damage except time. So, there's only so much you can do before you have to catch your breath. However, because casters regain nonlethal hourly, then it's a different dynamic from D&D, where you shoot your ordnance for the day and you must wait a day, or at least 8 hours. You can make camp and catch your breath a short while, and cast some more; or, a good 6 to 10 hours of rest (depending on bonus hit points from CON) later, and you're full up, again. Also, if you're drained from casting spells near to the breaking point, one good thwack from an enemy sword or rifle butt, and you're out like a light. I'd have loved rules like these when the original Dragonlance Saga was all the rage; I can easily envision Raistlin as a low-level True Sorcery spellcaster with a low con and hit points, who frequently needed rest after casting his spells, because he was physically exhausted. Of course, I could do the same thing with CON ability damage, too, it's just far nastier on the PC.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 9, 2006)

Ok, i've spent the morning rolling up a character and making a spell: Scorching Ray, as per the example on page 67. Initial thoughts:  I am sorta displeased. I'll tell you what i did and maybe i did something wrong.

3rd level character. Stats: 10/10/10/16/10/16

BAB +1, 42 Skill Points

I divived up skill points into the new skills, which put a hurt on basics, like Spot and Search and Listen. That was my choice though, fine. I do like having Detect Magic and Ghost sound as skills though. 

Moving on...

I started with 2 starting feats: Combat Casting and i took Talent: Beast Lore, a spell.
Bonus 1st: Spell Energy Reservoir. I also have Student of Magic which grants +1 spell energy
I also picked another Talent: Light Lore. 3rd level: Skill Focus (spellcraft) +3, my third Talent (spell) which was Light Lore. So i can now cast 3 spells: Beast, Light and Force and all the variations beneath. As my normal 3rd level feat i took Toughness (using my houserule of level +3 for 6 hitpoints)

So, at 3rd level i have 2 Spell Points (Student of Magic +1 and Energy Reservoir +1), 18 hitpoints. (6 + 3 + 3 +6 toughness)

So, i wanted to see what kind of use i would be in a combat situation. Scorching Ray is almost exactly like the one on page 67, but i bumped down the Range to 30', so the DC to cast it is 42. The DC to resist for half damage is Fort 14. The spell inflicts 3d6 fire damage.

I maxed out spellcraft, 6 ranks, +3 Int, + 2 Student of Magic, + 3 skill focus, +2 synergy for 5 ranks in Prestidigation when casting Light spells = +16

The DC for Scorching Ray is 42, minus +16 (I'm calcuating the casting time here, assuming the spell is not prepared ahead of time, i can prepare 3 spells) for 26. According to Table 2-3, prior to errata, this spell will take 10 Actions to cast. 

The non-lethal damage for casting this spell is base 1d8 plus the DC 42 divided by 5 = 8, so 1d8 + 8. This is slightly buffered by my 2 spell points, so effectively 1d8 +6. So hit or miss, i take at least 7 subdual damage, max 14 (of 18 hitpoints)

Options: to hit the DC, i can burn a spell point to add +10 to my Spell Craft, so it would be +26 plus 1d20 to hit DC 42. I would also take 2d8 + 7 (minus the one spell point left) of non-lethal damage. It is still a ranged touched attack, +1 bonus (no Dex bonus for me). 

So, while this system DOES work..........i'm thinking right now that it takes A LOT of thought, maybe more than i'm prepared to invest, much less explain to a busy DM, and the chances of hitting that DC aren't too good, and i could damn well get knocked unconscious, or close to it. This is assuming that I'm at full health. I even used a house rule for Toughness that gave me bonus hit points. Now, the character was not min-maxed. I picked average physical scores and boosted scores that would aid spellcasting. Of course, every score comes in useful pretty much, depending on what you're doing.

Comparitively, here's Scorching Ray from the SRD:



> ﻿Scorching Ray
> Evocation [Fire]
> Level:Sor/Wiz 2
> Components:V, S
> ...




Note that there is no Saving Throw, whereas the other is a DC to cast, a Ranged Touch, and a Save. And less damage. 

Now, i do recall that the precise focus of this book is subtely over power, and that is exactly what is happening here.  I can cast a lot of lesser, safer spells, but the balance of power is 180 degrees from what I - we - are used to. And i'm not sure that's what i'm looking for. 

Furthermore, even tinkering mildly with the augmentations of a spell will suck up game time as I frantically flip back and forth and recalculate DC's. Having a set, prepared spell is fine, but casting spells on the fly will be much more problematic.


----------



## igavskoga (Jun 9, 2006)

> So, at 3rd level i have 2 Spell Points (Student of Magic +1




Student of Magic, which I'm assuming is the equivallent of Student of Wizardry class feature from BCCS, no longer gives Con Mod + 1 in spell energy?



> The DC to resist for half damage is Fort 14.




Also, typically spells that require a ranged touch attack only have a save associated with them if there's alternate effect.  Otherwise its either/or.  Is this changed in True Sorcery?

It can get a bit discouraging trying to replicate old familiar spells, but not all of them are a good fit in this system and not all of them are as efficient.  Light Talent, if I remember right from BCCS, requires a whopping +20 DC to make it deal damage -- not entirely efficient.  You'd be better off whacking them with a force effect or doing something neat with Beast Lore (which isn't in BCCS so I'm very curious as to what it does ).

One thing to be aware of when trying to recreate the hallmark D&D spells is that the levels of efficiency for damage spells are not the same -- as is illustrated here.  Trying to use Light Talent to do a scorching ray isn't entirely efficient until later on than one might be used to.  In your setup, using Force is far better as a combat bludgeon.

IMO, I still think one of the best things about the system is getting away from the X/Day mechanic and being able to tailor things on the fly.  Its staggeringly liberating.



> Furthermore, even tinkering mildly with the augmentations of a spell will suck up game time as I frantically flip back and forth and recalculate DC's. Having a set, prepared spell is fine, but casting spells on the fly will be much more problematic.




This is nothing a little preparation won't fix.  Write up a number of spell effects you think you'll commonly use beforehand.  Consolidate all the augmentation costs on a single page (using word, excel, or even notepad), along with the costs specific to the handful of Talents your character possesses.  This will eliminate a lot of the page flipping.  Casting spells on the fly becomes easier as you get more familiar with the system, just as remembering the save DC or exact range of Melf's Acid Arrow becomes easier the more you use the spell.  There can be just as much page flipping involved with a d20 caster who doesn't prepare adequately beforehand -- only their spell list is a lot larger.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 9, 2006)

igavskoga said:
			
		

> Student of Magic, which I'm assuming is the equivallent of Student of Wizardry class feature from BCCS, no longer gives Con Mod + 1 in spell energy?




my guy didn't have a Con bonus, but i don't see that rule in the book, i might be missing it. Seems like you get SE when taking the Reservoir feat or gaining Magnitude. 




> Also, typically spells that require a ranged touch attack only have a save associated with them if there's alternate effect.  Otherwise its either/or.  Is this changed in True Sorcery?




Here's the table from the book: Could be that it's errata.



> ﻿Scorching Ray
> Spellcraft: DC 44; Component: V; Range: 50 ft.; Effect:
> Ray; Duration: Instantaneous; Saving Throw: Fortitude
> half; Spell Resistance:No.
> ...






> It can get a bit discouraging trying to replicate old familiar spells, but not all of them are a good fit in this system and not all of them are as efficient.  Light Talent, if I remember right from BCCS, requires a whopping +20 DC to make it deal damage -- not entirely efficient.  You'd be better off whacking them with a force effect or doing something neat with Beast Lore (which isn't in BCCS so I'm very curious as to what it does ).
> 
> One thing to be aware of when trying to recreate the hallmark D&D spells is that the levels of efficiency for damage spells are not the same -- as is illustrated here.  Trying to use Light Talent to do a scorching ray isn't entirely efficient until later on than one might be used to.  In your setup, using Force is far better as a combat bludgeon.
> 
> IMO, I still think one of the best things about the system is getting away from the X/Day mechanic and being able to tailor things on the fly.  Its staggeringly liberating.





I do like the concept of tailoring spells on the fly. I really have no hands on experience with this, so the post was just my initial impressions. However, i don't think that tinkering is going to intuitive or fast anytime soon.


----------



## iwatt (Jun 9, 2006)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> Furthermore, even tinkering mildly with the augmentations of a spell will suck up game time as I frantically flip back and forth and recalculate DC's. Having a set, prepared spell is fine, but casting spells on the fly will be much more problematic.





Well, you could include the vocal and somatic components, for an extra +10 bonus to your spellcraft check. Add in material components if you want and you can increase your Spellcraft bonus even more.


I do have a question though: when adding components to a spell, does the bonus spellcraft aid in decreasing the casting time? Because it says:



> To determine the casting time of a particular spell effect,
> subtract your Spellcraft modifier from the spell effect’s DC
> and then consult Table 2–3: Casting Times.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 9, 2006)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> However, i don't think that tinkering is going to [be] intuitive or fast anytime soon.



The same was initially true for the D&D spell slot system with most of my group, including myself.  Since you picked up the product you obviously are willing to go other places with the game than just the core set.

One quick point.  I noticed that you were adding your Int to your Spellcraft checks.  If you're using the as written Spellcaster class then you should be adding your Charisma to such checks.  This would also allow your character to specialize furter in his Cha score, at the cost of some skill points.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 9, 2006)

Here is Deadly Force Hammer from page 60 (non-errata pdf)



> ﻿Deadly Force Hammer
> Spellcraft: DC 49; Component: V; Range: 50 ft.; Effect: Create a force hammer; Duration: Instantaneous; Saving Throw:None; Spell Resistance:Yes.
> As force hammer, but targets struck take 4d4 points of damage.
> Math: DC 10 base, +40 ft. (+4), nonlethal to lethal (+20), +3d4 (+15)




and the basic Force Hammer



> Force Hammer
> Spellcraft: DC 14; Component: V; Range: 50 ft.; Effect:
> Creates a force hammer; Duration: Instantaneous; Saving
> Throw:None; Spell Resistance:Yes.
> ...




Using the same spellcaster from above, my Spellcraft for the spell is +14 (no synergy bonus this time). Let's assume though that i use a material component, a small hammer, and get a +2 bonus so it's still +16. The casting time is now 1 minute, unless i have prepared the spell ahead of time (using the non-errata chart from Table 2-3). Now, to improve the spellcasting check, i can spend more time casting, which ups the casting time 1 degree to a 10 minute interval for a +2 bonus. So i'm up to +18 + 1d20 to hit DC 49 for a ranged touch attack at +1 to inflict 4d4 damage and suffer 1d8 + 7 subdual damage . I could have prepared this spell ahead of time and cast it in 1 standard action however, which would be a very good plan. If, for any reason though you lose consciousness, all prepared spells are lost. 

If i REALLY wanted to get the spell off (assuming a non-prepared spell again) i can burn those 2 spell points and get a +20 bonus. So that's +36 +1d20 to hit DC 49 and suffer 3d8 +9 points subdual damage. Hit or miss.  There is an optional rule that if you roll a natural 20 you can roll again and add that as well. 

It IS hard trying to recreate basic spells, and maybe later on the combat abilities get better, but at least at this level i think they're going to want to shy away from any fighting.


----------



## iwatt (Jun 9, 2006)

iwatt said:
			
		

> Well, you could include the vocal and somatic components, for an extra +10 bonus to your spellcraft check. Add in material components if you want and you can increase your Spellcraft bonus even more.
> 
> 
> I do have a question though: when adding components to a spell, does the bonus spellcraft aid in decreasing the casting time? Because it says:





EDIT:

Also, it's easier using Create(Energy). The sample energy ray (pg 43) has a DC of 33. It is a spell of the First magnitude though.


----------



## Michael Tree (Jun 9, 2006)

I'm curious about the True20 conversion, but am trying to hold off until  the print book comes out.

Does it have a new role for True Sorcery spellcasters, or the adept role from the core book?

How does damage work?  Is it +5 spell DC / +1 damage DC, or something like that?


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 9, 2006)

iwatt said:
			
		

> Well, you could include the vocal and somatic components, for an extra +10 bonus to your spellcraft check. Add in material components if you want and you can increase your Spellcraft bonus even more.




Yes, that would help a lot. I hadn't been including that, but i'd think it's pretty mandatory for hitting some of these DC's. 



> I do have a question though: when adding components to a spell, does the bonus spellcraft aid in decreasing the casting time? Because it says:




I think so. Umm...let me look that up. There was also something about expendable components offering a bonus on page 22.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 9, 2006)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> How does damage work?  Is it +5 spell DC / +1 damage DC, or something like that?




You can increase the damage die and the number of dice rolled by increasing the spellcraft DC. There's a chart for it.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 9, 2006)

iwatt said:
			
		

> Well, you could include the vocal and somatic components, for an extra +10 bonus to your spellcraft check. Add in material components if you want and you can increase your Spellcraft bonus even more.




Actually, reading this section over again, i don't see why you wouldn't have a Focus (+10) for ALL of your spells, and frequently a pocket full of material components and expendable stuff. This would greatly, greatly help reach some of those harder DC's. I wasn't taking those into consideration previously.


----------



## Henry (Jun 9, 2006)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> It IS hard trying to recreate basic spells, and maybe later on the combat abilities get better, but at least at this level i think they're going to want to shy away from any fighting.





As a comparison, from Black Company a Force Hammer hitting multiple targets would be about a DC 38 (40 ft range, fort save half, 20 ft, radius, 6d4 nonlethal dmg, drain 1d8+7). If Student of Magic worked the same as BCCS student of wizardry, that would be about 2 spell energy points just by itself. (well, for my BCCS wizards, more like 4 spell energy points, because I always make sure the wizard has a high CON for this system).

This according to an excellent spell calculator from from one of the Mythic Vistas forum regulars. I wouldn't mind seeing it updated for True Sorcery in the future. 



> Actually, reading this section over again, i don't see why you wouldn't have a Focus (+10) for ALL of your spells, and frequently a pocket full of material components and expendable stuff. This would greatly, greatly help reach some of those harder DC's. I wasn't taking those into consideration previously.




This is one thing I realized with this system early. You only want to cast with no verbal, somatic, or material components when you want to be VERY flashy; other wizards seeing you pull this off on all spells will immediately know you are a wizard of GREAT power and not to be trifled with. It's a marvelous hallmark of this system, kind of like real life, that the most impressive display is no display at all. 

Also, the GM can do marvelous things with material components. I don't know about True Sorcery yet, but on other games GMs have come up with spell components that gave bonuses of varying size to the skill check based on its affinity to certain talents. Dried Zombie Claws give a +6 to fear spells, for instance, or a snoe eel's egg gives a +8 to all cold-energy spells, or powdered stone giant femur gives either a +4 to telekinesis spells, or a +4 to any Earth spells, etc.


----------



## Michael Tree (Jun 9, 2006)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> You can increase the damage die and the number of dice rolled by increasing the spellcraft DC. There's a chart for it.



True20 doesn't have damage dice.   All damage is a DC for the target's toughness save.  I'm just wondering how you calculate the toughness save DC for true sorcery spells.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 9, 2006)

True Sorcery said:
			
		

> Damage: A damage effect starts out at +0 damage bonus and each +1 damage bonus is a +5 Difficulty modifier on the Spellcraft check.



That's from the appendix about using True Sorcery with True 20 games.  I hope it helps you decide on whether or not this product is for you.

Instead of the non-lethal damage system called drain, it suggests the following:


> True20 Sorcery uses the casting buffer variant, wherein spellcasters have a pool of points measuring their spellcasting resources. The casting buffer starts out equal to your Constitution score and each level of adept adds 4 points to it.  It is otherwise as described in Chapter Four.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 9, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> This is one thing I realized with this system early. You only want to cast with no verbal, somatic, or material components when you want to be VERY flashy; other wizards seeing you pull this off on all spells will immediately know you are a wizard of GREAT power and not to be trifled with. It's a marvelous hallmark of this system, kind of like real life, that the most impressive display is no display at all.




A subtle touch not noticeable at first. I like that too.



> Also, the GM can do marvelous things with material components. I don't know about True Sorcery yet, but on other games GMs have come up with spell components that gave bonuses of varying size to the skill check based on its affinity to certain talents. Dried Zombie Claws give a +6 to fear spells, for instance, or a snoe eel's egg gives a +8 to all cold-energy spells, or powdered stone giant femur gives either a +4 to telekinesis spells, or a +4 to any Earth spells, etc.




we've been using this already for a little while, but it is much more pervasive and actually USEFUL in a system like this.


----------



## iwatt (Jun 9, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> Also, the GM can do marvelous things with material components. I don't know about True Sorcery yet, but on other games GMs have come up with spell components that gave bonuses of varying size to the skill check based on its affinity to certain talents. Dried Zombie Claws give a +6 to fear spells, for instance, or a snoe eel's egg gives a +8 to all cold-energy spells, or powdered stone giant femur gives either a +4 to telekinesis spells, or a +4 to any Earth spells, etc.





Now this idea is awesome!! TS uses a circumstance bonus from expendable components that depend on the spell magnitude. But using thematically appropriate components is awesome and great for plot hooks!!!

"I Love the smell of bat guano in the morning"


----------



## Henry (Jun 9, 2006)

iwatt said:
			
		

> Now this idea is awesome!! TS uses a circumstance bonus from expendable components that depend on the spell magnitude. But using thematically appropriate components is awesome and great for plot hooks!!!
> 
> "I Love the smell of bat guano in the morning"




Yeah -- did any of you ever have those experiences in AD&D where you went monster hunting just for the components to make a magic item? They're back, baby!! Only this time, for spells! 

_"A Displacer Beast? FANTASTIC!!! Just wait a minute and let me collect the adrenal gland..."

SPLUT! CRACK!_


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 9, 2006)

Pramas said:
			
		

> This is the info we released about the book months ago and it's pretty clear about what the book is. If people didn't choose to read it, there's not much we can do about that.
> 
> True Sorcery
> A Magic Sourcebook for OGL Gaming
> ...




So does this mean that if you're not running Iron Kingdoms or Thieves World or True20, that it's not going to be compatible?  The whole time along, I'd been hoping it would be able to be used with regular D20....be that D&D, or Iron Kingdoms or Arcana Unearthed or whatever.  I don't know how far Iron Heroes and Thieves World differ from regular D20.

Banshee


----------



## iwatt (Jun 9, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> So does this mean that if you're not running Iron Kingdoms or Thieves World or True20, that it's not going to be compatible?  The whole time along, I'd been hoping it would be able to be used with regular D20....be that D&D, or Iron Kingdoms or Arcana Unearthed or whatever.  I don't know how far Iron Heroes and Thieves World differ from regular D20.
> 
> Banshee





Nah. The base book is completely portable to D&D as is IMNSHO


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 9, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> So does this mean that if you're not running Iron Kingdoms or Thieves World or True20, that it's not going to be compatible?  The whole time along, I'd been hoping it would be able to be used with regular D20....be that D&D, or Iron Kingdoms or Arcana Unearthed or whatever.  I don't know how far Iron Heroes and Thieves World differ from regular D20.
> 
> Banshee



It's for all OGL gaming.  Which means it is for all d20 gaming, especially D&D.  The base assumption is that you will replace the D&D Sorcerer class with the True Sorcery _Spellcaster_ class.  The rest of the system is written with that base assumption, along with advice on replacing any or all caster classes with this system.

The conversion material is just there for those systems that Green Ronin feels that it should be supporting; such systems as True20 (a Green Ronin system), Iron Heroes (which needs a new magic system) and d20 Modern (which would appreciate a new magic system).


----------



## Azgulor (Jun 9, 2006)

Example snipped:


			
				Nebulous said:
			
		

> Now, i do recall that the precise focus of this book is subtely over power, and that is exactly what is happening here.  I can cast a lot of lesser, safer spells, but the balance of power is 180 degrees from what I - we - are used to. And i'm not sure that's what i'm looking for.
> 
> Furthermore, even tinkering mildly with the augmentations of a spell will suck up game time as I frantically flip back and forth and recalculate DC's. Having a set, prepared spell is fine, but casting spells on the fly will be much more problematic.




I think you just made a sale for Green Ronin!  Lesser, safer spells cast more frequently and a focus on subtlety over power - I've waited 20 years for D&D (or one of its variants) to get that right!  90% of all the fantasy fiction I've read works this way.  NONE of it works like D&D magic - hell, even the FR novels usually don't have magic work the way it does in D&D.

Azgulor


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 10, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> As a comparison, from Black Company a Force Hammer hitting multiple targets would be about a DC 38 (40 ft range, fort save half, 20 ft, radius, 6d4 nonlethal dmg, drain 1d8+7). If Student of Magic worked the same as BCCS student of wizardry, that would be about 2 spell energy points just by itself. (well, for my BCCS wizards, more like 4 spell energy points, because I always make sure the wizard has a high CON for this system).




Well, I have both, and it's not a lot different. As of the non-errata pdf, they've made three (IMO) weird changes from the BCCS system. One is that an extra die of damage now adds +5 to the DC. Secondly, the cost to increase burst radius is +5 per 5 ft. rather than +5 per 10 ft. Finally, the time to cast table is slightly altered. From the emails I traded with Rob, I got the impression some of those might be errors.

Using the Force spell in _True Sorcery_ to reproduce the same spell, I get DC 62.

Math: DC 10 (base), +30 ft. (+3), +5d4 nonlethal (+25), area to ranged (+5), burst (+4), +15 ft. (+15).

The difference is in the higher cost for the burst radius (15 vs. 5) and the MUCH higher cost for the extra dice of damage (+25 vs. +10). But there's no saving throw.

Take off those differences, and the _True Sorcery_ version would be DC 27 and drain 1d8 + 5.

Student of Magic class feature grants Spell Energy = Con modifier +1 (Min 1). Dabbler grants Con bonus (min 1).

For the record, the Iron Heroes Arcanist is a little different.


----------



## Fenris (Jun 10, 2006)

Well Henry had me sold on this systme from our GT game. I have been waiting for it for a while. I suppose it is too late for the printed versions though and they have gone to the printer with the errors?

How well would the errata sync with the print version. I dislike pdfs but to get a correct copy that maybe my route.  :\


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 10, 2006)

I assume that everyone is looking at the PDF version right now.  I've been waiting for the print version.  Would it be too much to hope that the errata which is being discussed and gathered right now would be applied to the print book, or will it go to print full of all those errors?  Is it too late to fix it?

Banshee


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 10, 2006)

I get the feeling that the final PDF version, assuming it is finalized by the end of next week, is the version that will hit the printers.  That's why GR is trying so hard to catch all those last minute errors that they've missed, or not had, previously.

Of course, I don't actually know and am probably talking out of my behind.


----------



## Nikchick (Jun 10, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> I get the feeling that the final PDF version, assuming it is finalized by the end of next week, is the version that will hit the printers.  That's why GR is trying so hard to catch all those last minute errors that they've missed, or not had, previously.
> 
> Of course, I don't actually know and am probably talking out of my behind.




You've got the gist of it.  We release the PDF a little early so we can catch any of those last creeping errors before the final print job.  People who buy our PDFs always get free updates to the document whenever we correct or revise the material; whenever possible we also correct the print version as long as we hear about errata before we approve the proofs with the printer.


----------



## Fenris (Jun 10, 2006)

Nikchick said:
			
		

> You've got the gist of it.  We release the PDF a little early so we can catch any of those last creeping errors before the final print job.  People who buy our PDFs always get free updates to the document whenever we correct or revise the material; whenever possible we also correct the print version as long as we hear about errata before we approve the proofs with the printer.




Well that is very good news to hear. I can't wait for the print edition to hit.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Jun 10, 2006)

Nikchick said:
			
		

> You've got the gist of it.  We release the PDF a little early so we can catch any of those last creeping errors before the final print job.  People who buy our PDFs always get free updates to the document whenever we correct or revise the material; whenever possible we also correct the print version as long as we hear about errata before we approve the proofs with the printer.




Yah, that seems like a very good strategy. A hundred eyes from overly-anal gamers can catch a lot more glitches than two eyes from even the best editor.


----------



## nerfherder (Jun 10, 2006)

Nikchick said:
			
		

> You've got the gist of it.  We release the PDF a little early so we can catch any of those last creeping errors before the final print job.  People who buy our PDFs always get free updates to the document whenever we correct or revise the material; whenever possible we also correct the print version as long as we hear about errata before we approve the proofs with the printer.



You know, that's a really smart idea for publishers producing PDF & print versions of their products.  Kudos.

Cheers,
Liam


----------



## Akrasia (Jun 10, 2006)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> I'm curious about the True20 conversion, but am trying to hold off until  the print book comes out.
> 
> Does it have a new role for True Sorcery spellcasters, or the adept role from the core book?
> 
> How does damage work?  Is it +5 spell DC / +1 damage DC, or something like that?




I'm curious about using True Sorcery for True20 as well.

Does anyone who has the True Sorcery pdf thought about using it with True20?

Does it _replace_ the power/magic system in True20, or is it meant to be used in addition to that system?

Does it introduce a new role to be used in place of (or in addition to) the Adept?

How complex/easy is the True20 True Sorcery system in comparison to the default system in True20?

Any overall impressions on the appropriateness of True Sorcery  for True20 games?

Thanks!


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jun 11, 2006)

I am gonna check it out tonight.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 12, 2006)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> Yah, that seems like a very good strategy. A hundred eyes from overly-anal gamers can catch a lot more glitches than two eyes from even the best editor.




That is such a tremendous advantage to this market. Can you imagine how well edited WoTC books would be if they released a .pdf version first to 100 DM's on Enworld? No one would complain about errors again because there wouldn't BE any!


----------



## Henry (Jun 12, 2006)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> No one would complain about errors again because there wouldn't BE any!




I don't know about NO errors, but a heck of a lot less of them, anyway. Editing on a lot of WotC products seem to be hit-and-miss, IMO: Some do pretty darned good, others get raked over the coals for the sheer volume (a la Monster Manual 3).

As for True Sorcery, glad to hear all these things. Question: Does the die-scaling also cost +5 still? In BCCS, you get more bang for the buck by adding extra dice up until about 10 dice or so; then, you're better off scaling the die size up. I know that this would mean that damaging spells would become about 2 to 3 die less in on-the-fly combat casting.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 12, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> I don't know about NO errors, but a heck of a lot less of them, anyway. Editing on a lot of WotC products seem to be hit-and-miss, IMO: Some do pretty darned good, others get raked over the coals for the sheer volume (a la Monster Manual 3).
> 
> As for True Sorcery, glad to hear all these things. Question: Does the die-scaling also cost +5 still? In BCCS, you get more bang for the buck by adding extra dice up until about 10 dice or so; then, you're better off scaling the die size up. I know that this would mean that damaging spells would become about 2 to 3 die less in on-the-fly combat casting.




Well, yeah, i'm sure some would sneak through. You're right. 

Henry, you seem pretty familiar with the system. Is there a way to, for example (i'm trying to think outside the D&D box) if you enter a burning building, to use your magic to either 
A) suffocate the flames by removing Air B) Douse them with sufficient water C) Smother them with Earth D) or other...

in a spontaneous fashion? This is the kind of magic i've always wanted for D&D, where you can apply it for completely non-combat situations. Just a general control over the elements.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 12, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> Question: Does the die-scaling also cost +5 still? In BCCS, you get more bang for the buck by adding extra dice up until about 10 dice or so; then, you're better off scaling the die size up. I know that this would mean that damaging spells would become about 2 to 3 die less in on-the-fly combat casting.



Yes, in the current version it is +5 per extra die and +5 to increase the die type one step.  Extra damage is some of the least efficient use I've noticed so far, and they may be reducing some of these costs in the editting, but I do like that it encourages casters to take on a role besides "artillery platform."


----------



## Henry (Jun 12, 2006)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> Henry, you seem pretty familiar with the system. Is there a way to, for example (i'm trying to think outside the D&D box) if you enter a burning building, to use your magic to either
> A) suffocate the flames by removing Air B) Douse them with sufficient water C) Smother them with Earth D) or other...
> 
> in a spontaneous fashion? This is the kind of magic i've always wanted for D&D, where you can apply it for completely non-combat situations. Just a general control over the elements.




The hardest part, is getting familiar with the area, damage, and range modifiers. You could do ALL of these things you mentioned, but the more of an area, the higher level caster you have to be to handle it, and you have to be REALLY high level (in the 20's and 30's) to handle it on the fly. But all the things you mentioned are free form enough to be able to do it. Want to snuff a campfire by moving the oxygen? No problem. Earth covering it? No problem. But want to do this to a three-story burning building that's about 30' x 30'? Better be packing 16th to 20th level, and 3rd or 4th magnitude, little wizardling.  However, it does require a bit of DM adjudication, but all are explainable, because I really don't think any system could handle total free-form without GM involvement. This is the best one I've seen for it for d20, IMO.


----------



## Soul (Jun 12, 2006)

That would be of course if you wanted to do it all at once, a lower level wizard would be able to do it in smaller chunks no? Like 10 x 10 sections at a time or whatnot?


----------



## Henry (Jun 12, 2006)

Soul said:
			
		

> That would be of course if you wanted to do it all at once, a lower level wizard would be able to do it in smaller chunks no? Like 10 x 10 sections at a time or whatnot?




I suppose he could, but it would be very difficult, with the potential for fires to re-ignite, and (2) he might drain himself silly doing it in such a fashion. The basic idea is sound, though.


----------



## iwatt (Jun 12, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> ...but I do like that it encourages casters to take on a role besides "artillery platform."




That's your Iron Heros' prejudice showing ....


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 12, 2006)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I'm curious about using True Sorcery for True20 as well.
> 
> Does anyone who has the True Sorcery pdf thought about using it with True20?
> 
> ...




Hi Akrasia!

Yes, I've thought about using _True Sorcery_ with _True20._ The Spellcaster can be used either as a supplement or a replacement for the default system. Basically, it's a modification of the adept role.

Firstly, _True Sorcery_ is a separate d20-compatible system that has an appendix for compatibility with _True20._ As such, you'll have to do some conversion of the talents (really just the damage dealing ones) to use them.

_True Sorcery_ is feat-based. Basically, adepts get the Student of Wizardry feat for free at first level. The Magnitudes have to be purchased (like regular feats). The spells themselves are mathematically oriented with spells causing drain (nonlethal damage). Since _True20_ doesn't use hit points, they suggest using the variant "casting buffer" for drain, and as that's depleted, the character is fatigued, exhausted, etc. You could probably implement some kind of mechanic for handling it as a "Toughness Save" against nonlethal damage, but that's not the default system.

Basically, it puts a points system (spell points) back into the game. So if you bought _True20_ to get rid of points (like hit points) entirely, you won't like the system suggested for using _True Sorcery_ with _True20_.

So in sum, _True Sorcery_ is a nice system, but isn't "point-less" like the rest of _True 20._ As such, you might be disappointed in the implementation. But if the points don't bother you, it's definitely worth checking out.

My two cents.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jun 12, 2006)

Here's a question:

Given the complicated nature of figuring out final DCs based on augmentations, has anyone come up with a spreadsheet that does it? Is that even possible?


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 12, 2006)

I've got one that was done for the _Black Company Campaign Setting._ Same basic system.

Tweaking it for _True Sorcery_ wouldn't be THAT hard. The custom augmentations for new powers would have to be added though.

It was a really cool spreadsheet. I'd happily modify it for _True Sorcery_. Unfortunately, my Excel-fu isn't that good.

-John


----------



## Antendren (Jun 13, 2006)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Here's a question:
> 
> Given the complicated nature of figuring out final DCs based on augmentations, has anyone come up with a spreadsheet that does it? Is that even possible?



 I making a bit of JavaScript that does it.  If it comes out an good, I'll share it.

It's requiring that I look closely at all the spells, and in the process I've found a bunch of errors.  Hopefully they'll be fixed whenever that errata shows up.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 13, 2006)

Antendren said:
			
		

> It's requiring that I look closely at all the spells, and in the process I've found a bunch of errors.  Hopefully they'll be fixed whenever that errata shows up.



If you tell Green Ronin about them then they'll know to fix them.  Since that's one of the reasons they released the PDF before the print version, you'e be helping everyone win.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 13, 2006)

I sent Rob Schwalb every error I found (spell by spell) up through the "Flight" Talent.

He was most appreciative. If you have others, I'm sure the Green Ronin guys wouldn't mind getting them. Just email Rob. He posted his email address above. But I think they're being pretty thorough.


----------



## Akrasia (Jun 13, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Hi Akrasia!
> 
> Yes, I've thought about using _True Sorcery_ with _True20._ The Spellcaster can be used either as a supplement or a replacement for the default system. Basically, it's a modification of the adept role.
> ...
> ...




Thanks for the overview, JohnSnow.  

I take it that the 'feel' of the magic system in True Sorcery is quite different than the one in True20?  True20's system feels like a 'psionics' system, or something like it, which I guess is not surprising given that it is based on the system in GR's _Psychic's Handbook_.  My impression is that the system in 'True Sorcery' is quite different -- more 'fire and bang' in character.  

Anyhow, is the old gang still gaming at your digs on a regular basis?


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 13, 2006)

Antendren said:
			
		

> I making a bit of JavaScript that does it.  If it comes out an good, I'll share it.
> 
> It's requiring that I look closely at all the spells, and in the process I've found a bunch of errors.  Hopefully they'll be fixed whenever that errata shows up.






			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I've got one that was done for the _Black Company Campaign Setting._ Same basic system.
> 
> Tweaking it for _True Sorcery_ wouldn't be THAT hard. The custom augmentations for new powers would have to be added though.
> 
> ...




Yeah, if anyone has a spreadsheet they're working on, let us know. That is probably the single most difficult thing i've seen about this system. The incredible flexibility comes with a price. And you should definitely email GR with all the mistakes you've found. They would be very appreciative, i'm sure.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 13, 2006)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I take it that the 'feel' of the magic system in True Sorcery is quite different than the one in True20? True20's system feels like a 'psionics' system, or something like it, which I guess is not surprising given that it is based on the system in GR's Psychic's Handbook. My impression is that the system in 'True Sorcery' is quite different -- more 'fire and bang' in character.
> 
> Anyhow, is the old gang still gaming at your digs on a regular basis?




Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty fair assessment. The magic system in True Sorcery feels like, well, magic. Effects are, for the most part, ephemeral and the Talents are organized in very effect-oriented ways. For example, Beast Lore is a talent that covers all the things one can do relating to animals, except for turning into one, which is covered by the Shapeshifting Talent.

There's a few "missing" effects (there's no spell to turn unwilling people into something, for example), but those would be trivially easy to add. Probably just a DC penalty to make the spell affect an "unwilling" target.

And alas no, the old gang stopped gaming at my place when we all get real busy right before Christmas. It's been a BUSY spring, in terms of me having my evenings free, so we haven't gotten everyone back together since.  I'm still hopeful though. I keep intending to send Steve and Jason an email.


----------



## jcfiala (Jun 14, 2006)

So, where on www.rpgnow.com do I buy this?  I was just on their website, and I couldn't find the book at all?


----------



## Henry (Jun 14, 2006)

jcfiala said:
			
		

> So, where on www.rpgnow.com do I buy this?  I was just on their website, and I couldn't find the book at all?




http://www.greenronin.com/store/grr1707e/

Haven't seen it on RPGNow yet, though.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 14, 2006)

So, i was thinking that the spell build worksheet could use a little embellishment. Mine was filled with scribbled notes, so i added some fields to it. Any more suggestions?


----------



## dalfen (Jun 14, 2006)

One TS question. I was checking the augmentations and i didn't find it. 
There is some way to increase the saving throw of a spell (same that with duration, damage,range,etc...) 
I suppose that I can make a saving throw augmentation table but I don't know how to do the numbers: +2 to the DC modifier for each +1 to the saving throw would be balanced?


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 14, 2006)

dalfen said:
			
		

> One TS question. I was checking the augmentations and i didn't find it.
> There is some way to increase the saving throw of a spell (same that with duration, damage,range,etc...)
> I suppose that I can make a saving throw augmentation table but I don't know how to do the numbers: +2 to the DC modifier for each +1 to the saving throw would be balanced?




There is a feat you can take, Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus that bumps your Spellcraft and DC on a Spell Talent. (and all the iterations of that spell). As written, i don't think there's a way to increase saving throw DC unless you houserule certain spell components. Personally, that is what i would do as a DM. 

On a related note, Arcana Evolved has an Eldritch Magic feat that bumps up the DC for your spells, and allows you to "laden" a spell, i.e. cast two spells levels at once, to further enhance the DC. Similarly, there could be a method in TS to expend more Spell Energy to enhance your spells in such a way.


----------



## Henry (Jun 14, 2006)

Also, keep in mind, if making a house rule, that bumping the DC is a phenomenally powerful thing to do; it's one reason why the various PrC's that boost spell DC's in 3.0 were down-powered when they revised to 3.5. A +2 DC per +1 to saves would be unbalanced, and maybe even +5 DC per +1 to saves would be unbalanced. Personally, I'd start setting it at +5 per +1 and see how crazy the save DCs get; change the number up or down from there.

For example, a rule that said +5 DC per +1 on a ray of force would net you about a +5 save bonus increase for a +25 to the spell. Figuring in the "extra time taken rule," and you could hit a DC of 45 or so pretty regularly for a prepped spell with this bonus. Then again, a DC 20 spell would be pretty weak, so that might be balanced enough. Only playtesting or playing with the hard numbers would tell for sure.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 14, 2006)

Is there any word on the updated .pdf? I wonder how many substantial changes are being made......


----------



## dalfen (Jun 14, 2006)

> +5 DC per +1 to saves




Hmm..  thanks for the advise. When I playtested, I will  post the results. 

Thanks for your quick answer.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 15, 2006)

I had a thought that a caster be able to cast any spell, even the unknown, though at a hefty penalty.  Something along the lines of -(10 * Manitude of Spell + 10) to the Spellcraft check.  So -10 for dabbler spells, -20 for first magnitude, to -40 for third magnitude.  Big enough to be daunting but not so big that it can't be attempted by a caster with enough time and resources.
Having the spell chosen by one of your Talents would mean that you know it, so you wouldn't take the unknown spell penalty on your spellcraft check.

Any thoughts from you folks?  I'm particularly interested in input from those who've used the BCCS system a lot.

(( Yes, this is a cross-post from another forum.  I felt the need to expand my audience. ))


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 15, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> I had a thought that a caster be able to cast any spell, even the unknown, though at a hefty penalty.  Something along the lines of -(10 * Manitude of Spell + 10) to the Spellcraft check.  So -10 for dabbler spells, -20 for first magnitude, to -40 for third magnitude.  Big enough to be daunting but not so big that it can't be attempted by a caster with enough time and resources.
> Having the spell chosen by one of your Talents would mean that you know it, so you wouldn't take the unknown spell penalty on your spellcraft check.
> 
> Any thoughts from you folks?  I'm particularly interested in input from those who've used the BCCS system a lot.
> ...




Last year i adapted Ars Magica 4th edition to d20 rules. It had a mechanic where you could try to cast spells beyond your capability, but it took time, and you needed to expend resources to accomplish it. So yes, i think that such a mechanic is possible in TS. Incidentally, i was thinking about bundling Air/Earth/Fire/Water into a single Elemental Lore talent. Would that still be balanced? I mean, you're still limited by all the subdamage they deal.


----------



## iwatt (Jun 15, 2006)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> Last year i adapted Ars Magica 4th edition to d20 rules. It had a mechanic where you could try to cast spells beyond your capability, but it took time, and you needed to expend resources to accomplish it. So yes, i think that such a mechanic is possible in TS. Incidentally, i was thinking about bundling Air/Earth/Fire/Water into a single Elemental Lore talent. Would that still be balanced? I mean, you're still limited by all the subdamage they deal.




If you keep it limited to the Lore spells (and not the create energy), it shouldn't be too unbalancing. You could give casters all 4 lore spells, but he must choose one elemnt as main. The opposing elemnts takes a -10 penalty to Spellcraft. The other 2 elements would take a -5 penalty. If you want a more powerful (and symetrical) alternative you could go with +5,0,0,-5 instead.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 15, 2006)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> Last year i adapted Ars Magica 4th edition to d20 rules. It had a mechanic where you could try to cast spells beyond your capability, but it took time, and you needed to expend resources to accomplish it. So yes, i think that such a mechanic is possible in TS.



Thanks.  I realize it would drastically alter the tone of magic in the game but I also think that it would be a cool thing to see and do, and I've become increasingly engrossed by doing cool things in game.  Now, my question is, is my proposal balanced or do I need to make it even more difficult?


> Incidentally, i was thinking about bundling Air/Earth/Fire/Water into a single Elemental Lore talent. Would that still be balanced? I mean, you're still limited by all the subdamage they deal.



It all depends on how you percieve elemental casters in your setting.  As is, the system is perfectly arranged for an element-based magic system such as most oriental traditions, including Shugenja, where each caster specializes in a specific element and there are some common overlapping areas.  If you prefer that everyone who messes with elements to be equally capable with all elements then it shouldn't be too much of an issue to lump them all together.  I don't think you should give all four of the persistant bonuses, though.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 15, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> Thanks.  I realize it would drastically alter the tone of magic in the game but I also think that it would be a cool thing to see and do, and I've become increasingly engrossed by doing cool things in game.  Now, my question is, is my proposal balanced or do I need to make it even more difficult?




without actually playtesting, i 'd say it sounds balanced. It wouldn't happen very often as those high DC's would discourage most people from even trying, except for Dabbling a little. This system is great for incorporating magic items and synergistic material components that boost you when you need it. I recall the apprentice from Dragonslayer who could recreate all of his master's magical tricks, but only when he held his master's magic necklace. Otherwise, he couldn't even pull off parlor tricks.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 16, 2006)

I had a thought about failing to cast a spell. In D&D, it is often discouraging to try and do something, and still fail and actually be useless for a round. I thought that highly lessened spell effects, after a check failure, could still produce something at least interesting. A Fire Lore spell could spurt sparks that deal 1hp damage, or a failed Water Lore could dump fog in a huge wet puddle. It would be totally up to DM fiat. Come to think of it, that would be a neat addition to the spell block, consequences of failed castings.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 16, 2006)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> I had a thought about failing to cast a spell. In D&D, it is often discouraging to try and do something, and still fail and actually be useless for a round.



How is rolling a 1 on a casting check any different from rolling ones on attack rolls?  The combat class that rolls a bunch of ones 'wastes' its action just as surely as the caster who's spell fails to cast.  I've heard many complaints about the caster but I've never heard complaints about the combat class (away from the game table); I wonder why that is?


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 16, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> How is rolling a 1 on a casting check any different from rolling ones on attack rolls?  The combat class that rolls a bunch of ones 'wastes' its action just as surely as the caster who's spell fails to cast.  I've heard many complaints about the caster but I've never heard complaints about the combat class (away from the game table); I wonder why that is?




It's not. You're right, it happens all the time. But when a PC rolls a 1 on a combat roll, i always embellish it with a description of what actually happened, even though they were still "useless" for that round. I was just thinking along the same lines with a spellcaster, to maintain a consistent feel that you are meddling with vast and often uncontrollable powers.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 16, 2006)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> It's not. You're right, it happens all the time. But when a PC rolls a 1 on a combat roll, i always embellish it with a description of what actually happened, even though they were still "useless" for that round.



That arguement point worked!   *happy dance* 
I shall have to remember it for future debates.

In seriousness, I don't actually have anything to add to that part.


> I was just thinking along the same lines with a spellcaster, to maintain a consistent feel that you are meddling with vast and often uncontrollable powers.



I see a couple of options, then.  First is to come up with some flavorful descriptors for your mages, just as you do for your warriors ("You speak the final words and a column of flame briefly surrounds the armored warrior.  He steps forward and it disappears into a cloud of ash, flaking off of his cloak.")  Second, you could come up with some sort of minimal mechanical benefits which would do almost exactly the same thing, flavor wise, but introduces the possiblity of destroying a foe with a failed spell.  Third, you could follow one of Mike Mearls's magic systems and have the spell randomly affect a nearby target in the way least beneficial to the caster; so the bull's strength affects the minotaur rather than the barbarian, or gives a -4 penalty to the barbarian's strength, or makes one of the paladin's arms fall off or some other horrible thing.

The third option is one I can't agree with, since it's like having fumble tables again and I've always hated fumble tables, even before I had to roll on one.
The second option would be okay except I don't want a failed casting, that still deals 1 point of damage, to actually drop anyone, not even a sickly peasant.  It's a failed casting and, like a failed attack, that should leave the target unaffected.
The first option is the one I'd like to see more of but most GMs lack either the time or the imagination to do it properly.  Assuming that I'm typical for GMs, probably not valid but I'll assume it for this arguement's sake, it's mostly a matter of not having the time in or out of game to come up with cool descriptors for failed actions.


----------



## iwatt (Jun 16, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> Assuming that I'm typical for GMs, probably not valid but I'll assume it for this arguement's sake, it's mostly a matter of not having the time in or out of game to come up with cool descriptors for failed actions.





It's hard coming up with enough descriptions when someone fails to hit in combat:

"You're sword strikes his shield, deflecting the hit"

and 

"you barely miss his head"

etc..


Coming up with on the fly descriptions isn't one of my DM-ing abilities.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 16, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> The first option is the one I'd like to see more of but most GMs lack either the time or the imagination to do it properly.  Assuming that I'm typical for GMs, probably not valid but I'll assume it for this arguement's sake, it's mostly a matter of not having the time in or out of game to come up with cool descriptors for failed actions.




Hence, why it might be neat to see a blurb under the spell description: WHEN A CASTING FAILS; blah blah blah. And rattle off a few options. It would help GM's anyway add some descriptive text. But actually influencing someone with a failed die roll should be a no-no, unless you somehow have rules for activating critical failures.


----------



## Antendren (Jun 17, 2006)

So I just got an email claiming that the pdf had been updated, but when I downloaded it as instructed, as far as I can tell there's no difference.  Anyone else experiencing this?


----------



## Michael Tree (Jun 17, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> How is rolling a 1 on a casting check any different from rolling ones on attack rolls?  The combat class that rolls a bunch of ones 'wastes' its action just as surely as the caster who's spell fails to cast.  I've heard many complaints about the caster but I've never heard complaints about the combat class (away from the game table); I wonder why that is?



Normally the 'chance of failing' comes from the spell's saving throw.  If a spell requires a spellcasting roll <i>and</i> still has a saving throw, then there's twice the chance of failing.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 18, 2006)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I'm curious about using True Sorcery for True20 as well.
> 
> Does anyone who has the True Sorcery pdf thought about using it with True20?



Now that I have True20 and have had a chance to familiarize myself with it and True Sorcery, yes.


> Does it _replace_ the power/magic system in True20, or is it meant to be used in addition to that system?



Either or.  Replacement, supplement, it will work with either role.


> Does it introduce a new role to be used in place of (or in addition to) the Adept?



 No.  Conintue using the Adept role.


> How complex/easy is the True20 True Sorcery system in comparison to the default system in True20?



 More complex but also more flexible.  More importantly, it feels like a magic system instead of a semi-psionic system.


> Any overall impressions on the appropriateness of True Sorcery  for True20 games?



Very appropriate.  The only difficulty is figuring out a good method for integrating a limiting factor of some sort.  I think a Fatigue save with a DC of 5 + one fifth of the Spellcraft DC (Spellcraft DC/5 + 5) would be the best implementation of the flavor and balance intended from True Sorcery without changing any fundamental aspects of True20 (such as reintroducing points to track).

Apologies for taking so long to provide a meaningful reply, but I've been trying to learn two new systems and not fall behind in life.  I've succeeded though.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 19, 2006)

Antendren said:
			
		

> So I just got an email claiming that the pdf had been updated, but when I downloaded it as instructed, as far as I can tell there's no difference.  Anyone else experiencing this?




Yup. I experienced the same thing. Not sure what's going on.


----------



## hong (Jun 19, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> How is rolling a 1 on a casting check any different from rolling ones on attack rolls?




Saving throw.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 19, 2006)

Same problem here. No idea what's going on. Near as I can tell, the revised version isn't revised.

They certainly haven't fixed the errors in the _Iron Heroes_ section.


----------



## dalfen (Jun 19, 2006)

Yup, maybe they really have the update version, but they didn't update the link


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 19, 2006)

I just dropped Rob Schwalb a note. Maybe he knows. If I get a response, I'll let you guys know.


----------



## rjs (Jun 19, 2006)

Hey guys,

We're aware of the problem and we have our electronic gurus looking into it to see what happened. We should have an update soon. 

Thanks!


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 20, 2006)

Thanks for the heads up, it is greatly appreciated.

For all you "no double failure" folks out there, how about a compromise?


			
				True Sorcery said:
			
		

> Each round, the spellcaster can make a spellcasting check as a standard action (or a ritualcasting check once per minute) and apply the result of the check toward the MT. When the check total equals or exceeds the MT, the spell effect occurs and the caster takes drain as normal (it’s recommended that the casting buffer optional rule described on page 19 be used).



So now the casting DC is a cumulative check, with no chance of failure if the mage is willing to spend enough time on it.  Of course, DMs shouldn't allow checks that can't be successful in one try, unless they want first level characters casting epic spells.

So, how does that idea strike you folks?


----------



## iwatt (Jun 20, 2006)

rjs said:
			
		

> Hey guys,
> 
> We're aware of the problem and we have our electronic gurus looking into it to see what happened. We should have an update soon.
> 
> Thanks!




  My laziness has payed off. I'd put off downloading the update


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 20, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> So now the casting DC is a cumulative check, with no chance of failure if the mage is willing to spend enough time on it. Of course, DMs shouldn't allow checks that can't be successful in one try, unless they want first level characters casting epic spells.
> 
> So, how does that idea strike you folks?




Of course, one could also just require concentration checks to keep going...

Which would allow the characters to stretch...but still make the epic spells totally impossible.

I was pondering something like that for _Iron Heroes_. I think it interacts better with the mechanic for mana tokens than the set casting time based on (DC - spellcraft) thing.

But that may just be me.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 20, 2006)

iwatt said:
			
		

> My laziness has payed off. I'd put off downloading the update




Procrastinate no longer. The update is now downloading just fine. I've replaced both my copies.


----------



## iwatt (Jun 20, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Procrastinate no longer. The update is now downloading just fine. I've replaced both my copies.




Yup.... already got of my lazy behind and downloaded it...


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jun 20, 2006)

What are the changes to the IH section, besides mana tokens granting a flat +10/token to Spellcraft checks?


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 20, 2006)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> What are the changes to the IH section, besides mana tokens granting a flat +10/token to Spellcraft checks?



Go back to the IH board, it's been covered in some detail.  Plus, this thread is supposed to be for more general RPG usage.


----------



## Fenris (Jun 20, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Procrastinate no longer. The update is now downloading just fine. I've replaced both my copies.




So this means it will head to the printers?


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 20, 2006)

You'll have to ask Rob or someone else from Green Ronin that question. For my own use, I'm making use of the pdf's until the bound printing is released. I don't generally print up my own copies of pdf releases.


----------



## rjs (Jun 20, 2006)

Yep, it's at the printers and with luck, we might have a few copies at Origins, though I don't know for certain.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 20, 2006)

Hey Rob, I almost hesitate to ask, but can I assume that Light Lore is supposed to be a Dabbler Talent and not a Student of Wizardry Talent?

I only ask cuz it's on both lists...on the edited pdf. :\

But the spell description labels it as a Dabbler Talent (Base DC 5). So I was assuming the Student of Wizardry thing is a typo.


----------



## zaffudo (Jun 21, 2006)

*Few questions*

Got the updated pdf, which is much clearer (particularly for IH) but there are still a few things that are sort of wonky to me.

1) Create undead says it has a duration of one minute in the spell block, but in the description it says that animated creatures remain so until destroyed.

Later in the description it does mention that the spell can be used to command undead for the duration, so I assumed that is what the duration is used for (though it should be more clear), but then under the sample spells, ‘Call Wraith’ has its duration extended to an hour. 

If the Wraith is permanent, why extend the duration?

2) There is no bookmark for Create Matter.

3) Does the bonus granted by adding components to a spell help to reduce casting time?

4) Can you use the same item as a focus for multiple spells?


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 21, 2006)

zaffudo said:
			
		

> 1) Create undead says it has a duration of one minute in the spell block, but in the description it says that animated creatures remain so until destroyed.
> 
> Later in the description it does mention that the spell can be used to command undead for the duration, so I assumed that is what the duration is used for (though it should be more clear), but then under the sample spells, ‘Call Wraith’ has its duration extended to an hour.
> 
> If the Wraith is permanent, why extend the duration?




It appears that the comment about undead remaining until destroyed is in error. The BCCS book treated "create undead" as a form of "animate object" (lacking negative energy and all). I'd be inclined to switch the duration of the create undead spells to permanent, and have the duration only apply to commanding/controlling undead.

Since you make IH references, I'll say that since it didn't seem game-breaking in default _Iron Heroes_ to let the Arcanist create "permanent" undead, I don't see why that should change with _True Sorcery_.

I'd make the same argument about "animate objects."



> 2) There is no bookmark for Create Matter.




I noticed that too. Call it a glitch.



> 3) Does the bonus granted by adding components to a spell help to reduce casting time?




I think this needs clarification still. Obviously, spell energy can't count, otherwise, as someone pointed out on the IH boards, Table 2-3 wouldn't go above 20.

In BCCS, you compared the DC to "Ranks in Magic Use" + "Magnitude Bonus." Bonuses provided by props and spell energy didn't count. Talent Focus did. In my game, I'm half-inclined to scrap Table 2-3 in favor of the mana-accumulation system from _Thieves' World_ (Appendix III, p. 111).

The combination of the systems from _Thieves' World_ and _Iron Heroes_ is DAMN close (IMO) to what Mac and I were developing on the IH boards, although the talent system is pretty different.

Again, probably a discussion that should be continued over there.



> 4) Can you use the same item as a focus for multiple spells?




Yes. It just has to be keyed. And you risk losing the focus for multiple spells if you lose your focus. For example, a character who uses his staff as the focus for all his spells is functionally similar to an AE-style magister.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 22, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Yes. It just has to be keyed. And you risk losing the focus for multiple spells if you lose your focus. For example, a character who uses his staff as the focus for all his spells is functionally similar to an AE-style magister.




Yes, exactly what i was thinking. I'm currently playing a verrik magister in an AE campaign, and i'm thinking about asking the DM if i can import another character so i can playtest these rules. I don't want to recreate my 6th level magister though, i sort of want a wacky Shaman character, rolling bones, talking to invisible spirits and chatting with animals. I looked over GR's Shaman's Handbook, and while it's good, it's best for providing some thematic material for a True Sorcery character. 

Come to think of it, can anyone suggest some good builds for a 6th level shaman? I'm somewhat unfamiliar with the system. I was thinking about Prophecy, Spirit Lore, Beast Lore, and bundling Fire/Earth/Air/Water into Elemental Lore with +5/+0/+0/-5 spellcheck modifiers.

And i want to rely heavilly on a spellfocus item, not a staff, but maybe a bone necklace or something like that. I also want to keep a separate sheet of spell components. The DM will not have time at all to review this book, although he'll surely let me try it. If nothing else the shaman will come across as a very mysterious, unpredictable, weird character. Who mumbles a lot.


----------



## monboesen (Jun 22, 2006)

While we are on that subject. Can anyone see a reason NOT to have a focus for every spell/talent you know?

There seems to be no drawback at all. You either have it and gain a +10 bonus or don't have it and cast spells as normal, or?


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 22, 2006)

monboesen said:
			
		

> While we are on that subject. Can anyone see a reason NOT to have a focus for every spell/talent you know?
> 
> There seems to be no drawback at all. You either have it and gain a +10 bonus or don't have it and cast spells as normal, or?




I raised the same question earlier. There's no reason not to do it.


----------



## Henry (Jun 22, 2006)

It depends on cost, as set by the GM. I do find it silly if there's no cost associated, and to be honest it definitely syncs in with my "power components" house rules that I and Old One have been using for BCCS.


----------



## zaffudo (Jun 22, 2006)

*Feather Boa?*

Actually, it does say that keying a focus cost 100gp per Magnitude of the spell, Minimum 100gp.That’s not a huge amount, but at least it something. 

I can also see clever warriors under this system catching on pretty quickly that the wizards staff/amulet/feather boa is being used to cast every spell and sundering that thing pretty quickly.

Also, since I don’t think the bonus from adding a focus reduces casting time, there’s a slight advantage to wanting to cast without the focus in many situations.


----------



## KaosDevice (Jun 22, 2006)

<brief thread hijack, nothing to see here move along>

rjs, your icon is the crazy baby mask the torturors wore in 'Brazil' correct?


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 22, 2006)

> While we are on that subject. Can anyone see a reason NOT to have a focus for every spell/talent you know?




In Jim Butcher's _Dresden Files_, Harry Dresden has the following "focus items."

His ring.
His blasting rod.
His shield bracelet.
The silver pentacle he inherited from his mother.

I believe that's it. Each item is keyed to particular spells. Harry can cast without them, it's just a WHOLE lot easier if he has them. He also has his wizard's staff, which we're never quite sure about. He can only use one focus per spell, except maybe his staff. The staff may just be a really obtrusive piece of equipment that's keyed to several spells, giving Harry more of an edge. However, I don't believe he can use it to replace his blasting rod when that item gets broken. But I may be mistaken. I haven't read that particular story in a while.

He refers to it as the "magical equivalent of carrying a howitzer." Take that as you will. The rest of his gear is less obtrusive. Come to think of it, he has some spells that are tied to his duster too.


----------



## rjs (Jun 23, 2006)

KaosDevice said:
			
		

> <brief thread hijack, nothing to see here move along>
> 
> rjs, your icon is the crazy baby mask the torturors wore in 'Brazil' correct?




Yes. Yes it is.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 23, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> In Jim Butcher's _Dresden Files_, Harry Dresden has the following "focus items."
> 
> His ring.
> His blasting rod.
> ...




cool. I haven't read those stories, although i like the gist of it. I think that is exactly how i would implement Foci in TS. And staffs (and other items) would give you Spell Energy bonuses, to expend when you need to.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 23, 2006)

zaffudo said:
			
		

> 1) Create undead says it has a duration of one minute in the spell block, but in the description it says that animated creatures remain so until destroyed.
> 
> Later in the description it does mention that the spell can be used to command undead for the duration, so I assumed that is what the duration is used for (though it should be more clear), but then under the sample spells, ‘Call Wraith’ has its duration extended to an hour.
> 
> If the Wraith is permanent, why extend the duration?



From my reading I've concluded that created undead last forever, and are almost always in your charge; the duration is for _controlling_ undead that you did not create.  The spell is used for both effects and in the description duration is only mentioned during the section on controlling others.


----------



## zaffudo (Jun 23, 2006)

Yeah, that’s what I figured was the intention when reading the spell text, but then the examples caused me to question that interpretation.

I’m wondering, from an IH standpoint (and I post it here cus the thread there seems alittle dead) if it isn’t better to keep the duration. Under RAW IH you can’t create more than a skeleton or a zombie, and it can’t have more then 8 HD.

While I think those limitation are too harsh, even for IH, I’m alittle leery of Arcanists with permanent Wraiths & Shadows in an IH setting. With the fact that the spell no longer has a minute casting time and can be used in combat to immediately animate a fallen foe, what do you think about an IH house rule that keeps the duration?

Also, it seems as if there’s no difference in animating a 20HD corpse as opposed to a 1HD corpse. From what I can tell that means that, regardless of the corpse, you get a standard 1HD skellie or 2 HD Zombie with this spell. 

I think it would have been nice to have the option of animating more powerful skeletons/zombies based on HD if I didn’t feel like a mummy or what-not.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 23, 2006)

zaffudo said:
			
		

> I’m alittle leery of Arcanists with permanent Wraiths & Shadows in an IH setting.



This is why all those commoners keep their torches handy and their pitch forks sharp.
"Go away or I'll eat your souls!"
"Kill the filthy mage!"  Fifty commoners with pitchforks, torches, and starting the fight in melee range can kill any arcanist, even a level 20 one.

Man, I do love IH. 


			
				zaffudo said:
			
		

> Also, it seems as if there’s no difference in animating a 20HD corpse as opposed to a 1HD corpse. From what I can tell that means that, regardless of the corpse, you get a standard 1HD skellie or 2 HD Zombie with this spell.



Look at the skeletons and zombies of non-human corpses.  You want more impressive basic undead?  Raise the corpses of more impressive creatures.

Though a mummy red dragon would be a sight to behold.


----------



## zaffudo (Jun 23, 2006)

But there’s no cost associated with animating a more powerful creature. The DC for animating the skeleton of a 1 HD commoner is apparently the same as animating the skeleton of a 20 HD dragon. 

It just says that you create a skeleton & that’s it.

You can either interpret that to mean that, regardless of the creature type, bones=bones and a single HD skellie is created. Either that, or it means that for the exact same drain and at the exact same DC you could animate the remains of a Gray Render/Dire Bear/Insert big scary monster here.

Now I don’t like the boring aspect of the first interpretation, and I really don’t like the potential unbalance in the second.


----------



## Miln (Jun 23, 2006)

*what about Grim Tales*

What does everyone think about integrating True Sorcery with Grim Tales? Months back there was a lot of discussion about converting BCCS to Grim Tales so it seems that True Sorcery should make that an easier process.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 23, 2006)

Zaff:  Good points.  I suspect that Create Undead will have a host of errata coming for it soon.

I hope they catch some more of those pesky typos before it hits the printer.  I always feel like a book is second rate when I pick it up and find lots of typos, even when I know it's not.  (Most of them are in the various spell descriptions, such as Enhance Object.)

Miln: It will dramatically alter the feeling of magic in your GT games, but it should convert over pretty easily.  Replace the Magical Adept talent with the Dabbler or Student of Wizardry ability, then either resign yourself to introducing Advanced / Prestige classes to Grim Tales or figure out how to adapt the magnitude progressions and the Talent feat into a normal Grim Tales progression.
It's going to be a bit of work but the basic mechanics are very transferable.  The real question is how you choose to implement it into Grim Tales's class system, which is based upon how common and powerful you want your magic to be.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 23, 2006)

zaffudo said:
			
		

> Now I don’t like the boring aspect of the first interpretation, and I really don’t like the potential unbalance in the second.




Which just means that we need to expand the _True Sorcery_ rules to take into account the difference between a humanoid skeleton and a giant/dragon/bugbear one.

How about a cost per HD? Doesn't really sound too unbalancing. Especially if you're not getting hosed on duration.

What? Don't look at me like that...  



			
				ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> This is why all those commoners keep their torches handy and their pitch forks sharp.
> "Go away or I'll eat your souls!"
> "Kill the filthy mage!" Fifty commoners with pitchforks, torches, and starting the fight in melee range can kill any arcanist, even a level 20 one.
> 
> Man, I do love IH.




Me too Val, me too. Although I sometimes look at all the hate for campaigns like that and just shake my head...

We're such freaks. All of us.

*chuckle* I just realized. Combining _Iron Heroes_ with _True Sorcery,_ making the Grey Mouser is a cake walk. That's just cool.  



			
				zaffudo said:
			
		

> I’m wondering, from an IH standpoint (and I post it here cus the thread there seems alittle dead) if it isn’t better to keep the duration. Under RAW IH you can’t create more than a skeleton or a zombie, and it can’t have more then 8 HD.
> 
> While I think those limitation are too harsh, even for IH, I’m alittle leery of Arcanists with permanent Wraiths & Shadows in an IH setting. With the fact that the spell no longer has a minute casting time and can be used in combat to immediately animate a fallen foe, what do you think about an IH house rule that keeps the duration?




First, the way to get that thread going again is to post in it.

I check it on a regular basis, but nobody ever raises anything for discussion over there. Maybe we just all feel that the whole Enworld community needs to hear the gospel of _Iron Heroes?_ Or maybe not... :\

Getting back to your question, I could see a situation where the default duration in IH was permanent. You could require specific circumstances or sacrifices to create permanent wraiths and shadows. To me, those fall into the "dark and scary" undead category. I've thought about making a lot of the _True Sorcery_ spells "Duration: Concentration." For instance, rather than making the character cast "Fly" to last for an hour, it should last as long as he can concentrate on it. That lowers the DC for doing it, but makes it harder to keep it up. Not exactly bad.

Of course, I've got a whole list of campaign-specific tweaks planned for this spell system. I'm looking at a setting that's kind of _Birthright_-esque. Which I think will fit REALLY well with _Iron Heroes_ and _True Sorcery_ magic.

Basically, classic sword & sorcery stuff. Maybe I'll rewatch _The Sword & The Sorceror_ for inspiration.


----------



## iwatt (Jun 23, 2006)

> Maybe we just all feel that the whole Enworld community needs to hear the gospel of Iron Heroes?




Praise the Mearls and his lord Monte....


----------



## zaffudo (Jun 23, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> First, the way to get that thread going again is to post in it.
> 
> I check it on a regular basis, but nobody ever raises anything for discussion over there. Maybe we just all feel that the whole Enworld community needs to hear the gospel of _Iron Heroes?_ Or maybe not... :\




I posted a concern I have with Slay which got a response, but after I replied to that response with a few more concerns I got nothing, so I assumed it wasn’t really getting read. Maybe 6 pages is a bit intimidating, I dunno.

As a topic of more general discussion, Valhalla’s house rule proposal of casting any spell, but with an increased DC if you don’t actually know it.

Looking at what my 10th level Arcanist can do with Dabbler feats like Protection that he doesn’t know, I think the +10 to DC for Dabbler stuff isn’t enough. Even with a base DC of 15 instead of 5, he can do so much useful stuff with them that it gives him nearly no incentive to take those spells at all.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jun 23, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> Go back to the IH board, it's been covered in some detail.  Plus, this thread is supposed to be for more general RPG usage.



I see. So the page-long discussion on arcanists in IH campaigns right above me is "general RPG usage" as opposed to the piece of errata for the document itself that I requested?


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 23, 2006)

*shoves thread back to general use*

Slay is very powerful.  Probably too powerful, since it's a better option than your other major combat spells.

Pretend you're trying to slay a Battle Titan (basically a 28 HD T-Rex trained as a war mount from MM III) then you'll need to have a powerful enough slay spell to affect 28 HD of creature.  For a meaningful amount of damage (say, 15d6) that's a DC 149 spell that you have to deliver from 10 feet away (AoO!). If you'd rather not get eaten while casting it, then you'll need some extra range too; another 40 feet should suffice for a final DC of 153 to either kill the BT or deal 15d6 of damage.
On the other hand, you can get a 30d6 Create Energy spell from 50 feet away (changed from burst to target, so the same ranged touch attack) for a DC of 165.

That's just too good.  Not only does it have the same effect on a successful save but it has better effect on a failed save, is not mitigated by energy resistances and is 60% easier to cast.

+2 per hit die seems too low to me.  If someone can explain how this isn't an issue then I will be very impressed.


----------



## iwatt (Jun 23, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> Slay is very powerful.  Probably too powerful, since it's a better option than your other major combat spells.




Well, the power words always were better than a fireball, and it's those spells it's trying to emulate. For an IH game I agree that it's too powerful. In any case, it really isn't too consistent with 3.5 which replaced save or die with save or massive damage (double dice per level). Check out desintegrate.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 24, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> *shoves thread back to general use*
> 
> Slay is very powerful.  Probably too powerful, since it's a better option than your other major combat spells.
> 
> ...




It's a spell devoted to slaying, and focused on one opponent, right?  Whereas Create Energy could effectively create a fireball couldn't it, and hence affect multiple opponents?  Death magic has always tended to be the most powerful, when used against single opponents....

Banshee


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 24, 2006)

Both of those spell builds are single target spells that require ranged touch attacks and allow saving throws.  Both can be augmented to include large areas and affect multiple targets.

Which one is better?


----------



## Alkiera (Jun 26, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> Both of those spell builds are single target spells that require ranged touch attacks and allow saving throws.  Both can be augmented to include large areas and affect multiple targets.
> 
> Which one is better?






> Not only does it have the same effect on a successful save but it has better effect on a failed save, is not mitigated by energy resistances and is 60% easier to cast.




You also have to account for the beast having a much higher fort save than reflex save.  The Colossus of Thard isn't quite as tough, (25HD), but has a +29 Fort, and +16 Ref.  That's a big difference.  A 20th level caster's spell will have DC of ~25... Meaning Slay is basically a guaranteed save, wheras the Create Energy is only a 45% chance.

Nevermind that the odds of getting either spell off in combat are pretty small.  lvl 20 Spellcaster has 23 ranks in spellcraft, +32 (4th magnitude), +5(casting stat), +3 (skill focus) = +68 Spellcraft mod, compared to DC 154 = (86) casting time of 20 minutes.  You might be able to pump enough spell energy/mana into it to actually succeed at casting; 4th mage has 8+con mod energy points, call it 10...  Spend 8, it's almost a garaunteed cast.  However, that 15d6 Slay is gonna be doing 9d8+30 back at you, and you're down to 2 energy worth of DR.  Call the averages, it'll take ~53 damage, you'll take ~78 subdual(out of roughly 110 hp).

Not a good tradeoff for makeing your friends run around in a circle with the thing for 20 minutes while you wave your arms.

Instead, consider using Create Energy to toss two 8d6 fireballs every round, (DC ~60, so you can cast one as a swift action, and another as a standard action), Say this enemy has a 50/50 chance to save, so say it saves half the time, taking an average 12d6(42 dmg) per round.  You take 1d8+12(-10 for energy/mana DR, so 1d8+2) subdual for each casting.  Even if it has DR vs. your energy type, as long as it's not immune, it's likely to be taking damage faster than you, which is more than can be said for your example.

*Now* which spell is better?
--
Alkiera


----------



## hong (Jul 2, 2006)

iwatt said:
			
		

> Well, the power words always were better than a fireball, and it's those spells it's trying to emulate. For an IH game I agree that it's too powerful. In any case, it really isn't too consistent with 3.5 which replaced save or die with save or massive damage (double dice per level). Check out desintegrate.




Well, to be precise it replaced save-or-die with damage dice, for _one_ spell, ie disintegrate. Everything else is still save-or-die: finger of death, slay living, destruction, etc.


----------



## Gilwen (Jul 3, 2006)

This book sounds great. Is the whole thing OGC or are some parts restricted from reuse?

Gil


----------



## Alkiera (Jul 3, 2006)

*Ogl?*

I believe it's all OGL... lemme check.


> The following text is Open Gaming
> Content: Chapters 1–6, Appendix I, II,
> III, the class advancement table and class
> features of IV, V, and the spell reference
> tables.




Though there are only 4 chapters.  8)  Basically, that's the entire book, with the exception of the cover, intro, contents/index, and the references to Iron Heroes and True20 in Appendices IV and V... but the crunchy bits of those are OGL too, just not the flavor stuff they borrowed from Monte Cook.

I think the idea is 'feel free to use whatever you want from this book, but you can't just xerox the book and pass it out at a con'.


----------



## iwatt (Jul 3, 2006)

Alkiera said:
			
		

> I believe it's all OGL... lemme check.
> 
> 
> Though there are only 4 chapters.  8)  Basically, that's the entire book, with the exception of the cover, intro, contents/index, and the references to Iron Heroes and True20 in Appendices IV and V... but the crunchy bits of those are OGL too, just not the flavor stuff they borrowed from Monte Cook.
> ...




So the spreadsheet mentioned by Henry would be a fair use of the info?


----------



## iwatt (Jul 3, 2006)

hong said:
			
		

> Well, to be precise it replaced save-or-die with damage dice, for _one_ spell, ie disintegrate. Everything else is still save-or-die: finger of death, slay living, destruction, etc.




Doh!!   

My bad. I assumed (and we all know what happens then) that since they'd put the dice damage in harm and desintegrate, it had become a common fix in 3.5. That's what happens when you never get to play/run games past 12/13 level. Also, save or die doesn't get much use in my games (lot's of evokers, conjurers and illusionists) and as a DM I'm not very fond of them either..


----------



## Alkiera (Jul 3, 2006)

iwatt said:
			
		

> So the spreadsheet mentioned by Henry would be a fair use of the info?




As best I can determine, sure.  As would taking the system, making your own modifications, and reposting the whole thing to your website, or book, or what have you; assuming I understand the OGL properly.


----------



## jharn (Jul 9, 2006)

I wanted to thank you guys for your input and contributions to this thread.

I have recently discovered True20 and, comming from the D&D3E world the magic system of True20/True Sorcery was very confusing to get my brain around.  A great deal of he information presented in this thread helped me to better understand the True magic system and how it works.

I liked clerics and the turning ability and sorcerors in D&D3E but found the spells system to be powerful but in someways limiting, I though that the AE Magister was a great improvement but now I think that the True system will be a system that I might like.  It is not perfect but certainly more in line with they way I think magic should be.  

So your contributions have reall helped me to understand the True magic system much better than I did yesterday.  

Thanks.


----------



## rwb (Jul 10, 2006)

*What about Magic Items*

What did they do with this?


----------



## glass (Jul 12, 2006)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> Calling True20 T20 confuses the hell out of Traveller fans too I would imagine...



That was my first thought on encountering this thread.


			
				bento said:
			
		

> I don't expect too many Traveller players to be trolling this board for posts about True 20 to be confused by me calling it T20.
> 
> Just to be perfectly clear, the next time I refer to True20, I'll call it GURPS, ok?



LOL!  


glass.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jul 12, 2006)

rwb said:
			
		

> What did they do with this?



I really don't mean to be flippant, but they wrote an entire chapter about it.  A quick summary follows.
One feat is required for all magic item creation.  From scrolls to rings to weapons, one feat allows a caster to make items that hold magic.
Making the item requires the expenditure of gold, xp and spells, similar to the DMG method, though a spellcraft check is required for the spell; if you permanently expend an amount of spell energy then you don't need to make the spellcraft check.
Magic items were categorized by approximate power level (Least, Lesser, Minor, Moderate and Major).
Least items are the equivalent of scrolls, though they can have any shape; essentially one-time use, caster only items that are relatively cheap to make and useful without requiring a major investment of time, magic or resources.  Use requirements are similar to those of a D&D scroll.
Lesser items are the equivalent of potions, one-use magic usable by anyone; again, they can take on a myriad of shapes and designs though potions and oils are the most common.
Minor itmes are similar to Least items except that they have multiple charges (20).  They usually take the form of wands, rods or staves though they could look like belt buckles if you make them so.
Moderate items are similar to D&D rods and staves in that they still have charges (50) but are useable by anyone that knows how to activate them.  Any save DCs are based upon the wielder.
Major items are similar to D&D wonderous items, in that anyone can use them and that they usually have permanent effects.  Any save DCs are based upon the wielder.  These items are also the most expensive to make, potentially resulting in very rare access.

I hope that helped.


----------



## Fenris (Jul 13, 2006)

The GR site says that this item is "at print" but then says that it's available through their store "available now" but on the page with the book it still says it's pre-order. Can anyone provide some clarification on the status of the print version?


----------



## Pramas (Jul 13, 2006)

Fenris said:
			
		

> The GR site says that this item is "at print" but then says that it's available through their store "available now" but on the page with the book it still says it's pre-order. Can anyone provide some clarification on the status of the print version?




Sure. The book is printed and has shipped to distributors. It should be in some stores this weekend and in wide release next week. You an also order it from our online store.


----------



## Fenris (Jul 13, 2006)

Pramas said:
			
		

> Sure. The book is printed and has shipped to distributors. It should be in some stores this weekend and in wide release next week. You an also order it from our online store.





Very cool. Thanks for the update!


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 23, 2006)

I just picked up the hardcopy of the book earlier today, and am starting to read through it.  Looking at spell durations, is there any way to render a spell permanent like in 3E?  At least from what I can see, it appears possible to get a spell to have a duration in days....but I haven't seen anything about permanency....though I haven't finished reading yet..

Banshee


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jul 23, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I just picked up the hardcopy of the book earlier today, and am starting to read through it.  Looking at spell durations, is there any way to render a spell permanent like in 3E?  At least from what I can see, it appears possible to get a spell to have a duration in days....but I haven't seen anything about permanency....though I haven't finished reading yet..
> 
> Banshee



Nope.  Certain spells include the clause to make them "instantaneous" which is better than permanency, since it can no longer be dispelled, but those are specific options within specific spells.  There is no general option available to make spells permanent.  
However, the 3.X permanency was of questionable balance, since I often see it in the "how to make an immortal caster" builds.  Also, an Ogre Mage's or Rakshasa's eye lash should never be a negligible component.


----------



## Pbartender (Jul 23, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I just picked up the hardcopy of the book earlier today, and am starting to read through it.  Looking at spell durations, is there any way to render a spell permanent like in 3E?  At least from what I can see, it appears possible to get a spell to have a duration in days....but I haven't seen anything about permanency....though I haven't finished reading yet..




Well, sort of...

Look at page 26, "Refreshing Existing Spells":



> If you successfully cast an effect with a duration of 1 day or more, you can spend an additional point of spell energy before the effect runs our to extend the duration for one additional increment (e.g., a spell with 1-day duration could be extended by 1 pay per point of spell energy spent, while one with a 1-week duration could be extended by one week per point of spell energy). This allows you to maintain several spell effects at once, although you're reduced in power.




That gives you a means to keep spell effects going on a very long-term basis, assuming you are willing to continually deplete your spell energy to keep the magic running.

I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to add a "Change from day to permanent" category to the Duration Augmentation table...  It'd certainly require a huge DC modifer and spell energy cost.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 24, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> Nope.  Certain spells include the clause to make them "instantaneous" which is better than permanency, since it can no longer be dispelled, but those are specific options within specific spells.  There is no general option available to make spells permanent.
> However, the 3.X permanency was of questionable balance, since I often see it in the "how to make an immortal caster" builds.  Also, an Ogre Mage's or Rakshasa's eye lash should never be a negligible component.




I wasn't thinking that....I was thinking more along the lines of a mending spell....being able to chant, and the pieces of a broken pot swirl in the air and stick back together, and it's permanently fixed....or you want to turn the prince into a frog for the rest of his life.....doesn't sound like either of those are possible in this system..

Banshee


----------



## rjs (Jul 24, 2006)

Sure it can. See the sample spell Repair on page 52. Permanently fixing broken objects is a feature of the Enhance Object spell.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 24, 2006)

rjs said:
			
		

> Sure it can. See the sample spell Repair on page 52. Permanently fixing broken objects is a feature of the Enhance Object spell.




Haven't finished reading it yet 

But permanently polymorphing someone into a cow won't fly?  Or would I then need to simply create a new "level" of duration for the spell, and associated cost?  Or maybe take a page from Elements of Magic, and make "Permanent Spell" a feat, and require a caster to use up a certain number of XP?

I'm trying to think of what other spell types aren't instantaneous, but need to be permanent..

Banshee


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jul 24, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> But permanently polymorphing someone into a cow won't fly?



Nope.
The only way to polymorph them into a cow, at all, is if they are willing.  You can't change another's shape against their will in True Sorcery.  Mostly to avoid the balance problems of casters who run around 'sheeping' all their enemies, I suspect.


----------



## Pbartender (Jul 25, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> Nope.
> The only way to polymorph them into a cow, at all, is if they are willing.  You can't change another's shape against their will in True Sorcery.  Mostly to avoid the balance problems of casters who run around 'sheeping' all their enemies, I suspect.




I just had a thought...

If you really want to turn an unwilling target into a newt, or a frog, or some other completely harmless creature, just use the Slay spell and describe the effects a little differently.  Instead of killing the person, they are, instead, permanently turned into a small inoffensive creature...  If they succeed at the Fortitude save, then they take the secondary damage from the body-altering changes that _almost_ take place.

Really, _baleful polymorph_ is, in essence, an instant death spell.  So why not treat it that way?


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jul 25, 2006)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> I just had a thought...
> 
> If you really want to turn an unwilling target into a newt, or a frog, or some other completely harmless creature, just use the Slay spell and describe the effects a little differently.  Instead of killing the person, they are, instead, permanently turned into a small inoffensive creature...  If they succeed at the Fortitude save, then they take the secondary damage from the body-altering changes that _almost_ take place.
> 
> Really, _baleful polymorph_ is, in essence, an instant death spell.  So why not treat it that way?



........

 

You, Sir, are a freaking genius.  That's a version of Slay that I could actually see myself using in a game, especially as an adventure hook.  
Mmm, so many themantic and genre-approriate fun things can be done with this idea.

[Bow]


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 25, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> You, Sir, are a freaking genius. That's a version of Slay that I could actually see myself using in a game, especially as an adventure hook.
> Mmm, so many themantic and genre-approriate fun things can be done with this idea.




Of course, the really cool idea would be if the target retains their brain, intelligence, and so forth. No spell like abilities though.

Or, alternatively, maybe you set up two separate save DCs when the transform occurs...the easier DC is "body" and the harder one is "mind." That way, you can have characters that lose their mind...and other ones who only get turned into a newt.

That way, you've got the ability to do the classic Fairy Tale thing of the former Prince who's now a "talking frog" (or Finn Razell - the sorceress/talking shrew in _Willow_).

And that's just cool. 

Another possibility would be to introduce a new talent labelled something like "curse." Possible variants include:

Turn target to stone (or other material)
Turn target to small animal
Put target into suspended animation

I mean think about it. Aren't most of those curses permanent transforms with a special dispel condition? Heck, you could even have one that transformed the person only at night, or only during the day, or...

The possibilities are endless...


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 26, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Of course, the really cool idea would be if the target retains their brain, intelligence, and so forth. No spell like abilities though.
> 
> Or, alternatively, maybe you set up two separate save DCs when the transform occurs...the easier DC is "body" and the harder one is "mind." That way, you can have characters that lose their mind...and other ones who only get turned into a newt.
> 
> ...




Those are some interesting ideas...but veering more back towards Polymorph/Shapechange rather than Slay.

Fantasy is full of incidences of the transformation of beings from one form to another......changes of sex, race, individuality, kingdom (ie. pillar of salt, tree), and species (ie. toad, dragon <Voyage of the Dawntreader>, spider, cattle, dolphin, pig, wolf), etc......and that's just looking at pre-D&D fantasy such as Ovid's Metamorphosis......since more modern fantasy has arrived, there's been other stuff, like svirfneblin being turned into hook horrors, villagers being turned into ogres that rampage through their old towns, etc.

I understand that the lack of that ability is partly a result of perceived (and in some cases, real) balance problems, but unfortunately, it's become a bit of a "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" scenario.

Interestingly, the source material behind the shapechange talent in the True Sorcery book was the Black Company novels.....and in those novels, the Lady threatened to turn another character (unwilling) into a toad....and she herself turned herself into a woman with a different appearance when she was on the Plain of Fear so the inhabitants wouldn't recognize her....and she made reference to the fact that the transformation was permanent until she reversed it.  Yet, taken as written, the system written for the BCCS, which became True Sorcery, wouldn't permit this...

In all honesty, I understand that this is a truly minor point....the True Sorcery system is really flexible, and I really like it because of all the *other* stuff it allows....I just find this lack almost like a minor flaw in the system....like having a pebble stuck in your sandal.

I like the idea of victims of the spell gradually losing their minds....and there's plenty of reference in fantasy literature to that kind of thing.....from the woman who was turned into the creature Scylaa (Sp?) who ended up spending her life pulling sailors out of passing ships and devouring them, to a short story from the Dragonlance Tales novelas about Raistlin and Caramon battling a wizard who turned his opponents into animals, including a cougar, a wren, and others.  Victims of his spell gradually lost their minds and became Int (2) animals unless they were reminded of their true nature by having one of their "human" belongings in contact with their bodies at all times.  That in turn became the plot hook for an entire story.

I think maybe part of the answer is to restore the original "losing your mind" characteristic from Polymorph Other....

Maybe permanent transformations are possible with the Shapechange talent, but if it's a form that is more powerful than one's originating form, the victim must make a successful Will save ever day or begin to assume the personality/characteristics of their new form.....when they go "all the way", they become an NPC.  Turning a person into a different person, or into a weaker being....ie. turning a dragon into a human boy might not have the same effect.  Maybe the victim gets a bonus, or doesn't lose their mind, though they do lose their old abilities...ie. breathweapon, spellcasting, etc......or, theoretically, that dragon would lose all his special abilities, but if he used to cast spells as a lvl 13 sorcerer, he's now a human sorcerer 13, with no other special abilities.

There was a spell in 2nd Ed. called "Change Shape" that caused a victim to gradually morph over a series of days into the new form.  I think the chance of 100% assuming the personality of the new form was dependent upon whether the new form was weaker or more powerful than the original shape.

Just some thoughts to consider....

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 27, 2006)

Ok, so am I correct in calculating this (by memory from my readings this morning..)

If a spellcaster wants to create a Fireball, I need to:

Use Create Energy (based DC 15)
Increase d4 to d6 (+5)
Add 9d6 (+45)
+100 feet range (+10)
+25 ft radius (+25)

So that is to create a fireball similar to what a lvl 10 wizard can create..

This would be a DC 100 effect?

It's based on a skill, which means lvl+3 is your limit.

Let's say you've got a lvl 20 spellcaster.  At *maximum*, he's likely to have:

Spellcraft 23 ranks
Skill Focus +3
Fourth Magnitude +32
CHA 23 (assuming roll of 18 at lvl 1, and all 5 ability raises going to CHA)

That would give him an effective skill of +64.

Is that right?  So at lvl 20, he still couldn't create a fireball as strong as a lvl 10 wizard could?  A roll of 20 would still only give him 84.

He could add components...verbal (-5) and Somatic (-5), as well as an expendable component (Third magnitude ability, -3), for a total of -13

So now his DC is 87......which he still can't hit with a roll of 20.

Am I wrong on this?  Some of these DCs seem *really* high....Hellball has one of 289...that would require like a 220th lvl spellcaster...

Anything I'm missing here?

Banshee


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 27, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Am I wrong on this? Some of these DCs seem *really* high....Hellball has one of 289...that would require like a 220th lvl spellcaster...
> 
> Anything I'm missing here?




Yup. Tons. It's not that you're wrong, exactly, but you're missing a lot of things. First off, there's spell energy.

If you go for uber-kill spells, you need to spend spell energy to make them happen (+10 per point spent). You can blow spell energy to pull off powerful spells, but the bigger discrepancy between spell DC and Spellcraft Modifier, the longer the spell takes to cast. Bad idea. Stick to lower level spells that you can get off more easily. Or prep your killer spell in advance. You can do this multiple times a day, but you can only store a number of spells up to your INT bonus at one time. Think of it as storing your highest level spells ONLY.

So let's revisist, shall we?

Fireball
Create Energy (Fire): DC 65 
Damage: 6d6
Area of effect: 20ft. radius burst
Range: 60 ft.
Math: DC 15 (base) + 50 ft (+5) + 15 ft. burst (+15) + d4 to d6 (+5) + 5d6 (+25)

Make the caster 11th level - Second Magnitude. We'll assume you want a blaster character. He probably focuses on Create Energy (Fire), and most likely takes talent focus. He also probably whips up a focus component for it.

Spellcraft ranks (+14)
Magnitude Bonus (+8)
Knowledge(Arcana) 5+ ranks (+2)
CHA 20 (+5)
Skill Focus (+3)
Add expendable material component (+3)
Add focus component (+10)
Talent Focus: Create Energy (+5)

Seems bad, right? DC 65 vs. +50 Spellcraft? Well sorta...

Casting Time: 3 standard actions 
Spell Energy expenditure: 1 (+10)
Drain: 2d8 + 13 

Now, you need a 5. Not real tough.

And, with a decent CON score (15 say?), said caster has 6 spell energy. And so can throw this spell regularly. If you're willing to suck up more drain, you could add 2 dice of damage.

If you're using this to replace the Sorcerer in a standard game, GR recommends the casting buffer rules (p.19), wherein our 11th level caster here would have a casting buffer of 11d8 + 2 (CON bonus).

As long as you don't try to throw your highest level spells without using spell energy, you're fine.


----------



## igavskoga (Jul 28, 2006)

*Thoughts*

JS here gave a pretty good accounting of the spell and all the associated crunch, I'd just like to point out one thing I stressed in the very beginning of this thread.

Approach this system as if it were a Vancian fire and forget Sorceror and not only will you be quite frustrated half the time, you'll also miss most of the point.  This system is vastly more subtle in play than mobile artillery.  Recreating D&D spells is a good yardstick to get a feel for the system, but nothing more really.

Nasty killer stuff can be done (in some cases nastier), but just because it can be done doesn't mean that, tactically, its the best call to make.  Most of the big boom spells are ones you'll want to take your time in casting and hold them in reserve (mostly because if you prep ahead of time you can take minutes or hours, instead of rounds -- this helps).  They are not the type of thing you whip up on the spot.  If you do, you're likely in trouble.   

If you cast well within your means you can cast much, much more often than the core casters.  This means you'll never be stuck throwing darts and will always have a use for your magic -- no hoarding for the last possible minute, or sighing because you chose not to memorize Knock and the thief you hired bought it 10 minutes ago.  You also have the ability to tailor the spell to the situation.

Do you need 100 feet?  More?  Less?  Do you need a 20 foot burst?  Maybe you're surrounded and a 20 foot emination would work better -- if so those 4 slots of Fireball aren't going to do a damn thing for you.  Hopefully you memorized fly and haven't used it yet.    

Just some food for thought.   As for Hellball having such a high DC, its merely an example of what is possible -- this system scales almost flawlessly well into epic level.  

There is no spoon.  Think outside the bun.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 28, 2006)

I'm trying to get a feel for the system more than anything.  I do really like the concept.  I know there are things that can be done that aren't possible in standard D&D....but then there are some effects that are missing, I think.  In general, most of it's there.

I'm not necessarily wanting a mobile artillery piece with my spellcasters....that's not it....just trying to see what the limits are.

I'll have to go check out the casting buffer rules.  I remember glossing over them, but not reading them in depth.

One of my concerns with using spell energy is that it disappears so quickly, and as it goes, the character becomes a progressively worse spellcaster.

On another note, with respect to prepping spells in advance, I know that it's possible with one spell per INT modifier point.  But let's say you've got your Fireball spell.  You have an INT of 16.  Does that mean if you want to have Fireball prepped, and use it three times in a day, you have to use all three instances of prepped spells for it?  Or once you prep the spell once, can you use it as often as you want?  That would mean you could prep fireball, teleport, and knock, as an example, and  use them as often as you want.

Banshee
Banshee


----------



## CelticCavalier (Jul 28, 2006)

I've picked up a couple of things from my reading.  On the variant Casting Buffer, think of it like spell points, or mana.  Instead of Drain dealing non-lethal damage directly to your hit points, it drains personal energy.

(Question - book says Con Mod plus 1d8 per level.  Is that a one time add of the Con Mod, or is it 1d8+mod per level?  Any thoughts?)

Spell energy is not used in casting, unless you opt to use it.  In most cases, you'd keep it in reserve as a buffer against Drain (subtract current Spell Energy from Drain per spell), and only spend it on the big spells for that +10 Spellcraft bonus.  The caster could keep whipping out small spells all day without using a single point of Spell Energy, as long as they have the hit points (or casting buffer points) to keep from going unconscious.  Drain is the big limiting factor, not Spell Energy.

As for prepping spells, once you use it, it's gone.  You're actually casting most of the spell during the prep time, holding it, and finishing it when you want to.  Think of like cooking - you can either sit down & do everything at one time, or you can do most of the prep work now & cook it later.  You're still spending the same amount of time - the only time saving is when you actually use it.  And of course, once you cast the spell (or cook the meal), you'd have to start over again to repeat it.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 28, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> On another note, with respect to prepping spells in advance, I know that it's possible with one spell per INT modifier point. But let's say you've got your Fireball spell. You have an INT of 16.




For purposes of this discussion, let's take a 5th level caster. In D&D, this guy can throw ONE fireball spell.

Fireball (As cast by Wizard 5)
Components: V, S, M
Casting time: 1 standard action
Range: LONG
Area of Effect: 20 ft. radius burst
Damage: 5d6

If I want to throw this thing in combat, it is the ONLY 3rd level spell I get.

In _True Sorcery_, by contrast, the hypothetical character with the talent Create Energy (Fire) can store up to 3 spells, and has the following stats with respect to create energy fire:

Spellcraft Modifier: +38
Spell Energy: 2 + Con bonus

Math: 8 (ranks) + 3 (CHA 16) + 10 (add Focus Component) + 4 (First Magnitude) + 3 (add expendable material component) + 2 (Knowledge(arcana) 5+ ranks) +3 (skill focus) + 5 (Talent Focus: Create Energy)

Fireball - A Spell Effect of Create Energy (Fire)
Casting DC: 55
Components: V, S
Range: 60 ft.
Area of Effect: 15 ft. radius burst
Damage: 5d6

Looks bad, right? DC 55 vs. +38? (17 pt. difference). That means it takes 5 standard actions to cast and I might blow it. Ah, but if I bump the casting time to 5 minutes (2 degrees), I get a +12 on my spellcraft check. So, I lock 2 of these in memory (still have room for another spell). Drain is 1d8 + 11 per spell.

That's not bad. 

OR in a combat, I can spend a point of spell energy, suck up the extra drain and hope I roll a 7. Or I can spend 2 points of spell energy and KNOW I'll get it off. The drain might hurt though.

Of course, if I still need it afterwards, I can bank it again. 

On the other hand, I could always fall back on this instead:

Cone of Fire - A Spell Effect of Create Energy (Fire)
Casting DC: 43
Components: V, S
Range: 50 ft.
Area: cone-shaped burst
Damage: 4d6
Math: DC 15 base, burst to cone (+4), +40 ft. (+4), d4 to d6 (+5), +3d6 (+15)

That's 1d8+5 drain...and can be cast in one standard action. Whenever you want.

So as you see, you can still be highly effective without any spells memorized. Even for a blaster, this system's good.

Just...be creative.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 28, 2006)

One other example...just to illustrate how flexible the system is.

Let's say I've got an opponent who's going toe to toe with my friend. I want to flame the badguy, but I don't want to roast my teammate, so a D&D fireball is OUT. But this isn't:

Ray of Fire
Spellcraft: DC 43
Components: V, S
Range: 60 ft.
Effect: Ray
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes
You must succeed on a ranged touch attack. If you hit, the target takes 5d6 points of fire damage.

Math: DC 15 base, area to ray (–2), +50 ft. (+5), d4 to d6 (+5),+4d6 (+20).

Of course, if I spend a point of spell energy & take 3 actions to cast, I could make it do 7d6...


----------



## Thomas5251212 (Oct 23, 2006)

I realize this is a bit of a necro at this point, but I wanted to thank various posters for making some aspects of this system more clear to me; I've been trying to read it and was a bit unpleased by a few things.  I realize that this is based on a system where artillery magic isn't the norm, but I still was feeling that for my usage something with at least decent combat application was going to be necessary.  I somehow on my first overview completely missed the ability to "hang" spells and will have to go back and look at it.

However, I had another question that someone touched on; what does and doesn't count in the casting time reduction calculation?  I'm a bit confused, and particularly things like the feat that adds to the Spellcraft value with a specific spell and the components and foci modifiers can make a significant difference here.

Anyone still paying attention that would care to hazard a guess?


----------



## Ahzad (Nov 1, 2006)

one of my players has been going thru the book in preperation to play a True Sorcerer, and has noticed a bunch of errors in the math. curious if these have been fixed in the pdf.

here's an example under the fatigue spell the spell example of drain energy, has a dc 24, but +20 from the augmented effect is missing. almost all the errors he's seen involve forgetting the standard augmentation penalty.


----------



## Pbartender (Nov 1, 2006)

Ahzad said:
			
		

> one of my players has been going thru the book in preperation to play a True Sorcerer, and has noticed a bunch of errors in the math. curious if these have been fixed in the pdf.




Most of them have...  A very, very few haven't.

Errata is not yet available, unfortunately.  When in doubt, build your own spells from the ground up.

Also, check the Green Ronin message boards.  Questions about the mistakes, and the resulting corrections are usually posted there.


----------



## Skade (Dec 6, 2006)

I bought this last weekend, the first d20 product I have bought for a year.  I bought it with the intention of using it to start up a magically focussed campaign, but I will need to do some adaption and hope to see some errata before I start using it full time.  My biggest worry doesnt have much to do with the game itself, its worrying that my players will do the necessary work to understand it.


----------



## srgmitford (Oct 2, 2008)

ValhallaGH said:


> *shoves thread back to general use*
> 
> Slay is very powerful.  Probably too powerful, since it's a better option than your other major combat spells.
> 
> ...





Isn't it supposed to be more powerful if it starts out as a third magnitude talent(slay) as opposed to a first(create energy)? I mean why even bother to pick up other talents at all if yer only in it for the lightning bolt?


----------



## Oates (Oct 2, 2008)

Whoa!!! Highlevel Thread Resurrection!!!!! j/k


----------



## ValhallaGH (Oct 3, 2008)

srgmitford said:


> Isn't it supposed to be more powerful if it starts out as a third magnitude talent(slay) as opposed to a first(create energy)? I mean why even bother to pick up other talents at all if yer only in it for the lightning bolt?



I think you're missing the point of the magnitudes.
The mechanic is there so that the starting balance and level the spells become available are consistent with the rest of the d20 system.

The theory of True Sorcery is that two spells of the same Spellcraft DC should be of equal power (even if they do completely different things).
This isn't true when you compare Slay and Create (energy).

And that's all I'll say about True Sorcery.  It's been years since I tried to make this system work in a game, and just about as long since I looked at it.


----------

