# "Elements of Magic" and other systems



## Bloodstone Mage

I'm interested in Elements of Magic. I was wondering if anyone could give me a brief introduction on how its system works.
Also, I've been searching for it online, and I'm curious. Is it coming to print soon? On many sites, I see different page numbers, which leads me to hoping that it is.
I need a new magic system. If I don't get Elements of Magic or if I don't like that system, I'll probably resort to using a homebrew Final Fantasy 7/8 magic system based on getting spells from draw points that are cracks in the planet's stream of life, or something similar to that.


----------



## Deadguy

A brief supporting interjection. I recently bought _Elements of Magic_ (nicely written book, btw; hats off to Matt Blakeley). And I too would like to know, from those who have tried it, how the system plays out.


----------



## s/LaSH

It works like this: single-purpose spell lists. You learn them once, and ramp up in power with them. There's a heavy elemental configuration aspect, so you could learn Evoke Area Fire or Wall Of Lightning or something. I haven't actually used it, but it seems to do just about everything the core rules can do and fill in a lot of the gaps at the same time (want to cast Frostball? How about a level 8 curse or giving someone regeneration? It's all there). One other thing it's changed is a bunch of spells like divinations and dispel magic; they're now skills.

The book provides a bunch of classes and guidelines on adapting the new magic into old classes like the paladin, and should be compatible with core D&D rules, so you can have both by-the-book magic and Elemental mages (well, they're called mages; there's no distinction between arcane, divine and psionic ability in EoM) running around side by side.


----------



## RangerWickett

Hm.  How timely.  Right now Matt Blakeley and I are busy revising the book significantly.  We figured that since 3.5e was coming out, we might as well use it as an excuse to fix some of the problems in the original _Elements of Magic_ system.  I'm about to go to a game of my own (where I'll be playtesting the revisions!), but I can give you a quick overview of how the system will work in its revised version.

brb


----------



## RangerWickett

Okay, first, there is no difference between arcane or divine magic, or between magic and psionics.  EOM presents rules that can cover any type of magic system you want, and we give guidelines for if you want to have an arcane/divine division, but it's not necessary.  We give you a sturdy skeleton and musculature, and then help you design the flesh you want for your game.

There is a single spellcasting progression, with caster level ranging from 1/2 to 20.  Some classes, like the paladin, get incremental caster level increases, while the primary spellcasting class, the Mage, gets it at a 1 for 1 basis.  The Mage class has access to any type of magic, but few other abilities.  Other classes are restricted to what types of magic they can learn, but gain other benefits to balance it out.  Since there's just one caster level table, levels of different spellcasting classes stack.  You can take some levels of Mage, then a few more levels of paladin, if you want.  On the paladin levels you'll be limited to the types of new magic you can learn, but you can still cast all your old magic.

The actual system of spells uses Magic Points (MP) instead of spell slots, and spells cost from 0 to 20 MP.  A 1 MP spell is about equivalent to a 1st level core D&D spell, 3 MP = a 2nd level spell, 7 MP = 4th level spell, etc.  

Instead of learning specific spells, like Flaming Sphere or Burning Hands, you learn *spell lists*, like Evoke Fire.  When you know a spell list, you can cast it at whatever power level you want (limited of course by your caster level).  Thus, a 5th level Mage could cast Evoke Fire as a cantrip (0 MP) and do minimum damage, or cast it as a long bolt of flame that does 5d6 points of damage (5 MP).  Each spell list is flexible, so Evoke Fire can pretty much handle any sort of damaging fire spell you'd want.

At each level you learn a few spell lists, up to a total of 45 if you're a 20th level caster (this number may change; we're tweaking it).

*Spell Types*
There are 10 (or 11) spell types.  When you learn a spell list, you combine a spell type with an [alignment], [creature], or [element] type.  For example, Abjure Evil is a different spell list than Abjure Shadow.  A Charm Good spell would let you inspire your good-aligned allies, but wouldn't benefit evil creatures in the area, while a Charm Humanoid spell would affect all humanoids, but not any non-humanoid creatures.


Abjure Alignment, Creature, or Element.  These are protective spells.
Charm Alignment or Creature.  These spells influence emotion, causing friendship, fear, rage, etc.
Compel Alignment or Creature.  These spells control behavior directly.
Create Creature or Element.  These spells temporarily create objects or creatures of the chosen type.  We're thinking of splitting it into Create Element and Summon Creature, so this is why there might be 11 spell lists instead of 10.
Evoke Alignment or Element.  These spells deal damage of the chosen type.
Heal with Alignment or Element.  These spells cure damage or other afflictions on creatures of the chosen alignment or element type (for instance, most things are 'Life' creatures, but you have 'Fire' creatures like elementals, 'Death' creatures like undead, etc.).
Illusion Element.  These spells create false sensory effects.
Infuse with Element.  These spells enhance creature's ability scores, and have other related effects.
Move Element.  These spells let you move things through a certain type of element.  Move Air lets you fly or levitate objects, Move Dimension lets you teleport and planeshift, etc.
Transform Creature or Element.  These spells alter shape and substance.

*Elements*
There are 22 elements.
6 cardinal elements.  Life, Death, Air, Earth, Fire, Water.
4 para elements.  Lightning, Ooze, Ice, and Lava.
4 positive elements.  Light, Crystal, Sound, and Mist.
4 negative elements.  Shadow, Metal, Void, and Acid.
4 unifying elements.  These are the freaky ones.  Time, Dimension, Force, and Nature.

Also, you have a few magical skills that handle unique abilities.  Scrying and Dispelling Magic are their own skills, and Spellcraft gain a few abilities that let you detect magic directly if you spend MP.

For instance, one PC that is in my game tonight is based on a druid and has Abjure Animal, Abjure Nature, Abjure Fire, Charm Animal, Compel Animal, Compel Plant, Create Animal, Evoke Nature, Evoke Fire, Infuse with Life, Move Nature, Move Earth, Transform Humanoid, Transform Plant, and Transform Animal.  For each of these spell lists, he has a few specific spells that he uses more often (signature spells), which save time when he might be tempted to spend 10 minutes trying to min-max a spell.  It's been fun so far.


----------



## Bloodstone Mage

Only one thing I can say: awesome.
I love what I've seen! This is _much_ better than any other system that I deliberated using. I can't wait to use it!
I owe many thanks to you, Ranger Wickett! Any chance I might see Elements of Magic in print anytime soon?


----------



## Matt Black

I've run one game using Elements of Magic. I found the system extremely flexible and adaptible to different character concepts. I also really like the spell list idea - spell lists give great guidelines for the power level of spontaneous magic. They tell a mage exactly what he can and can't do. I loved the quirky special powers than magic-users got to choose from. They really help make each different, and give the feel that magic-users are somehow touched by supernatural forces.

Problems, some of which it look like they may be addressed in the next version:

There is some effort made to encourage themed caster types - you have grey, red, green, etc mages which have access to different sets of elements and targets, but because it's so easy to multi-class (your caster level keeps going up), you only have to take a single level of general mage to give your druid teleport and invisibility.

Related to this is the fact that you get HEAPS of spell lists (partially necessary because you have to buy 'charm', 'abjure', etc. for every creature type & element separately. But it does mean that you can easily burn a single spell list or two for a very powerful magic type, which may not be particularly appropriate to your caster type.

There is some encouragement to stick to a smaller set of magic themes - you gain slight bonuses for buying the same spell list for a number of different creatures or elements. However I think that more could be done in this regard - for example, feats might be created to steer casters in a particular direction. If you've spent a feat on becoming a 'master summoner' then you're going to want to invest more spell lists in summoning. Also, you could make it so that it's cheaper to buy spell lists for other creature types or elements once you've invested in your first.

We also found that the system was a little time-intensive. You get so many spell lists at higher levels that high level mages take a long time to create, which can be a pain for DMs. Each spell list implies a large number of individual spells - at least one per spell level, but potentially many more. With dozens of spell lists, magic-users have a lot to choose from. This is mostly good for PCs, but made NPC casters tricky to run. Some guidelines to simplify NPC casters would have been helpful. 

The system works best when the players have  strong character concepts, and are willing to restrict themselves to those concepts when choosing spell lists. Two of my players made a necromancer/death-priest and an artificer/alchemist. These worked well, but even created at 4th level took a while to put together.

A question for RangerWickett: Will the revised version be free to those who paid for V1.0? Really looking forward to seeing it.

MB


----------



## SpuneDagr

I bought the PDF of EoM and I LOVE IT!!! I'm currently playing a mage in my friend's campaign and I love coming up with cool names and concepts for all my spells (which are pretty much just evoke element). It's a lot of fun and allows so much flexibility!

I second the previous question. Will the updated version be free for those who bought the original?


----------



## RangerWickett

The revisions will be available for free, but mind you it won't contain everything you need for a full spellcasting system.  We're including revisions of everything that was in the original EOM, but the lion's share of new material, like rules for magic item creation, prestige classes, really complex spells, and other nifty stuff will be in a sequel book that we're planning, _Lyceian Arcana_.  We won't get the official green light on that book unless people respond favorably to the revisions, but I'm enheartened to see people liking them already.  The revisions will also include a small teaser of Lyceian Arcana.

Oh, and to address the concerns mentioned above, about too many spell lists and the slowness of creating spells from scratch, I think you'll like how we've fixed things.  The new rules use "signature spell" rules.  Normal spellcasting takes a full-round action, but you can have a number of signature spells equal to your caster level plus your Int modifier, which can be cast as a standard action.  

A signature spell is a specific usage of a spell list.  For example, Evoke Lightning 12 could be a crackling cone of electricity, a single streaking missile, or a surging blade of blue energy, and you could choose any of these or numerous others, but casting them would require a free action.  However, you might have the signature spell "Bolt from the Blue," which you can cast as a standard action.  If the situation demands a specific type of spell, you can always take longer and make it, but usually you'll want to rely on signature spells.

*Bolt from the Blue*
Evoke Lightning 12
*Components:* V, S
*Range:* Medium (150 ft.)
*Duration:* Instantaneous
*Area of Effect:* 20-ft. radius 
*Saving Throw:* Reflex half, plus special
*Spell Resistance:* Yes

_Bolt from the Blue_ causes a stroke of lightning to fall from above, dealing 12d6 points of lightning damage to creatures and objects in the area of effect.  Creatures damaged by this spell must succeed a Fortitude save or be stunned for 1 round.  Thereafter, creatures that fail their save must make another Fortitude save each round, until they succeed and break out of the stun, or until 5 more rounds pass.


This spell is about equivalent to a 6th level spell in standard D&D terms.

Additionally, we've reduced the number of spell lists you automatically learn, but increased the options for using new spells.  If you find a spellbook, you'll be able to try to cast spells out of it, even if you don't know them, but doing so takes a long time, costs MP just like a normal spell, and carries a risk of failure.  You know how mages are always getting tempted by dark powers that might be beyond their control?  Well, we have ways of handling that in game.


----------



## Heretic Apostate

So basically Elements of Magic is a spell-seed, spontaneous-casting system.  Cool.

How does it handle:
1) Clerics (domains, for instance; what's the cost/benefit from aligning yourself with a god?)
2) Metamagic feats (do they figure into the system?)

It sounds like it's something I might like.  How much does it cost, and where can I get it?  (Preferably, a method that allows for multiple attempts at downloading, because my connection tends to disconnect.)

And RW, did you ever write up all those cool arcane spellcasters you teased us about, before Tome & Blood came out?


----------



## Henry

Moving to the E.N. Publishing Forum.


----------



## Sixchan

Well, this is going straight to the top of my "Games To Buy" list!

It's just a shame that I have no money after all my bills.  Ah well, I'll be getting a second job soon, with luck...


----------



## I'm A Banana

It's really, overall, a GREAT tome, with some superb ideas...

...I'm interested in the revision, too. Doing anything about the 'sorcerer problem'?


----------



## Cyberzombie

Well, sure, we plan on fixing the sorcerer problem!  As soon as ENPublishing buys the D&D line from Hasbro, we'll start up the revisions on 4e D&D, and sorcerers will be the first thing we fix...

 

Further playtesting has shown that some of the spells, primarily the Evoke lists, are more powerful than they were intended to be.  As we fix that, we will fix most of the balance issues that the mage has against the standard spellcasters.  A mage from the current version will not usually unbalance a campaign if they are the only type of spellcasters used.  The problem comes in when the standard classes are also used.  I fully believe that the mage will be equivalent to clerics, druids, and wizards when we're done.  Sorcerers will still be somewhat weaker, but they are somewhat weaker than clerics, druids, and wizards.

Clerics:  We will include conversions for all of the basic spellcasting classes, for people who want to keep them but have a more flexible spellcasting system.  Ranger Wickett has been working on that so far, so I am not sure what his ideas on domains are yet.

Metamagic feats: We will be going into them in a little more depth for this version.  Some feats, such as Heighten Spell, don't really apply, since the EoM doesn't use the same mechanics as the base rules.

We will be providing the revised rules FREE to everyone who has purchased the original.  We also will be providing a bare-bones version for free use, including only Open Content.  We needed to make some basic changes.  The feel and purpose of the rules is the same, but errata just won't cover the necessary changes.  Those who have purchased the original version won't lose all of their value, however, since we won't be reprinting the roleplaying and campaign advice.  That very excellent chapter was written by Ranger Wickett and has a lot of great information in it.

If you want to get the current version, it is available at http://www.rpgnow.com .  Just go over to the all-time best sellers on the right-hand column.  Last I checked, it was the 3rd all-time seller.

One of the biggest changes we're making is reducing the number of spell lists.  Each list will do more but, with the rules changes we're making, they will also be easier to use.  We're also going to some effort to make sure that spellcasters have an easier time being unique, but not take so long to create.

Print versions: I dunno.  I'm a freelancer, so Ranger will have to answer that question.

If you've asked a question in this thread, and neither Ranger nor I have answered us, smack us in the head and we will.  I tried to cover everything he hasn't already, but I may have missed something.


----------



## RangerWickett

Yeah, the rules we'll be handing out will be pretty bare bones, but since the original book will be a good 7 or 8 months old by the time _Lyceian Arcana_ comes out, we wanted to showcase the new rules to as many people as possible, so new users can just buy the sequel book if that's all they want, while original users can have the full package with both books.

I'm always tickled about how people ask about Clerics so much.  I mean, sure, EOM can handle them just fine, but when I saw Cyberzombie's original plans for the book, my first thought was, "Thank goodness, I don't have to use clerics anymore."  Heh.  I just have a setting where healing magic isn't restricted like it is in D&D.

We're going to have fully reconfigured versions of the core spellcasting classes, but we're renaming them and giving them a few tweaks, so you won't have troubles if one player wants a druid, and another wants an EOM druid.  So we have (tentatively) the Arcanist, Exalten, Faithblade, Godhand, and Longwalker, which replace the wizard, bard, paladin, cleric, and druid, respectively.  We decided against doing another ranger, just because there are too many already.

As for metamagic feats, some of them are pointless.  We don't need Enlarge, Extend, Empower, Heighten, or Widen.  Maximize is a little silly too, and I think we'd rather you just cast a higher level spell to do the extra damage.  We'll still have Still and Silent Spell, and . . . erm.  CZ, what else do we really need?

Finally, about me doing the old Faux Tome & Blood, I never quite finished my penance for that one.  I got about halfway done before Asgard went kaput, so I've been using ideas from there in pretty much everything I've written.


----------



## CCamfield

Cyberzombie said:
			
		

> *
> We will be providing the revised rules FREE to one and all.  We needed to make some basic changes.  The feel and purpose of the rules is the same, but errata just won't cover the necessary changes.   *




_WICKED!_

I bought it but don't really mind because presumbly the money from that is what is allowing you to do a 2nd ed.  I much prefer a "complete" revised package to uber-errata.

But, uh, why should the sorcerer be weaker?


----------



## Blacksad

CCamfield said:
			
		

> *
> But, uh, why should the sorcerer be weaker? *




Weaker from the wizard if you remove its spell scribing cost...

*duck for cover *


----------



## TwoSix

Two questions:

1)  Why make alignment one of the descriptors?  I know Alignment is one of the sacred cows of D&D, but what spells would be I missing out on, since I don't use alignments in my game? 

2)  The heal [Element] spell lists sound pretty weak, except for Heal Life.  Maybe Heal would be better as a magical skill?  Perhaps requiring Infuse with [Element] to work on Elemental creatures?  Just throwing out some ideas for you, I really like EoM, can't wait for vol. 2!


----------



## I'm A Banana

Blacksad's got part of it...a 'mage' is a sorcerer with more versatility and flexability than a sorcerer could ever have, basically. So if you stick a sorcerer next to a mage, the sorcerer is going to be outclassed at his own schtick (casting a few spells a lot of the time).

It's not a HUGE problem...in a system using EOM, you don't have a need for a sorcerer...just replace it fully with mage. But it is part of the design philosophy of the book that Sorcerers are inherently a weaker class, and so overpowering them is not nessecarily a bad thing.

Like I said, not a huge problem, nothing that's campaign-disturbing, just a little something you might want to warn those in your group who adore sorcerers about, if you plan on using it side-by-side...


----------



## Cyberzombie

Blacksad is refering to an argument I had about sorcerers on Nutkinland.  He is a very silly French person.   

As I said earlier, the current mages are more powerful than clerics and wizards, which was not our intent.  We will work to balance them as closely as possible, and try not to overwhelm the sorcerer too much.  As Kamikaze Midget notes, the mage does work well as a *replacement* for the sorcerer.

We're making Alignment a descriptor so that mages can use the alignment-based spells of the core rules.  It's for the convenience of people who want to use rules as similar as D&D as possible.  However, if you're not using alignment, you can simply pull them out and not miss anything.

The Heal lists besides Heal Life are weaker.  However, they are not useless.  Not all spell lists will be as good as each other, but we're going to make them as close as possible.  An area effect Heal Life spell will heal every living creature in range.  If you Infuse the party members with, say, Fire, and then cast Heal Fire, only the party will be cured.  Somewhat specialized, yes, but it would be very useful.


----------



## Kannik

*Just a message of support*

Just a quick message to say 'yay!' to the revisions -- EoM is a great concept, one of the best PDFs (and supplements both e and print) I've ever bought, and even though I am not running a game right now I liked it enough to create a supplementary PDF with a few additional lists/etc (albeit I have since noticed a need to tweak it a bit ), and I'm excited that you're revising it AND doing more work/an additional supplement.  So.  yeah.  }  I completely abandonned a similar project when EoM came out, EoM did all and more, and was more slick too...

Can't wait for the revised!

Kannik


----------



## r-kelleg

the revision sounds good and bad 

First of all, I'm happy to see that the time will be an element (it was my idea    )

my main question is about spell list.
I always found some spelllists too much "all-purpose" (i.e. infuse creature with[element])  
with the reduction of the spellists, shalln't we get even more of those all-purpose list ?

I'm also happy to read that you reduce the power of the evoke [e] lists.

I run a camping with EOM since it came out but I'm currently thinking about coming back to the old magic system, because of those overpowered lists... So I'm quite eager to read the 3.5


----------



## Verequus

Before I write another email  :

Will be Heighten Spell implicitly included? The Cursecraft Spell list, for example, would be crippled, if one can't cast Blindness/Deafness with an higher DC.

Am I right, that the spell lists include now 20 levels (with adapted spell costs)? This seems to foreshadow good news regarding the combining elements - if you use basically my mentioned method... I can't await my copy! I really need a time machine...


----------



## Cyberzombie

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> *Before I write another email *




Ahem.    I'm notorious for my slow email replies.  I haven't emailed my best friend back in three weeks, much less gotten to all of my other email...   

Heighten spell: I'm not sure.  It may be made unnecessary by the way we're constructing the rules.  The Cursecraft list will not exist as such.  You will still be able to do everything in the list, but you won't have to learn a specific curse list.

Spells will range from cantrip up to 20 MP.  So, yes, it will be much easier to combine spell effects.  That will be one of the major improvements to make it easier to simulate Core spells, as well as design new spells to fit your character.

Spell list being all-powerful: Well, yes and no.  It will be much easier to explain once we have it done.  Each spell list will cover more ground, but when you cast a spell, it will be limited in effect so that it isn't overpowering.  A spell list will give you access to choices for constructing a spell: damage, special effects like blindness, range, area of effect, multiple targets, duration, etc.  So, while Infuse will cover a number of different effects, it won't do everything all at once.  So you'll have more choices, but individual spells won't overpower those from the Core rules.

I can't wait for the revised version, either.    Working while I take care of my kids is even harder than I thought, but Ranger and I will get this to y'all asap.


----------



## dhenley

This seems to the best place for my question.I have read through this thread, and the EoM FAQ but haven't found an answer to this yet. 

My group is about to start a new campaign, and we are using EoM as an alternate casting system. I was interested in playing a summoner for my caster, but in looking through the lists the Summon [Creature] spell list seems conspicuously absent. Up above, RangerWickett talks about one of his testers using Create Animal, but I have to assume that is an addition in the errata.

We are making characters on Wednesday, and the campaign will be starting this weekend. We have been playing together as a group for a little over a dozen years, so we can probably work past this issue, but I was hoping that EN would have suggestions on a way to Scotch Tape that spell list in.

Can you provide a rough framework of how to make a Summon [Creature] or Create [Creature] list? Use the HD from other lists makes sense, but I am wondering if there needs to be other limitations or bonuses as I do not know how that would balance compared to the Core Rules Summon Monster line.

Thanks for the time,

D


----------



## RangerWickett

Heh, I've been working on the revisions for so long now that I've started to forget how the original version worked.  The original EoM was set up so that any creature you summoned would either be an outsider or an elemental.  So you could get celestial badgers, or arrowhawks, or any other outsider or elemental creature.  

But you could just as easily have a summon creature list to let you summon non-alignment non-elemental creatures.  I don't see why there should be any difference, really.  The lists ought to be able to work the same way without any unbalance.  Of course, we're fixing things now, so things will likely change soon, but this Scotch Tape fix oughta hold you for a while.


----------



## TwoSix

A question and a comment:

Question:  Will there still be spell lists outside the big 10(11) effects that RangerWickett listed above?  Or are all the miscellaneous spell lists being subsumed?

Comment about metamagic:  Maximize Spell is kind of important, since there are times when you want to make sure you do a certain amount of damage, and just increasing the spell level doesn't give you that kind of control.  Why not a feat that allows you to do maximum damage for double the cost of the spell?  Doubling makes more sense than increasing by a set point amount ( a la PsiHB feats).


----------



## RangerWickett

We've got it down so that pretty much anything can be made from the 10 (11) lists.  Those few things that don't fit are covered by skills, namely Scrying to locate things, Divination to see the future, and Dispel Magic to . . . peel bananas.  Those effects are pretty important and broad, so they don't fit into the whole 'elemental' aspect of the rules.  If you want to be a master fire mage, you learn lots of fire spell lists.  If you want to be a master counterspeller, you spend lots of skill ranks on Dispel Magic.

Regarding maximize spell, I mean, it'd be easy enough to duplicate, but I personally think it's a pointless feat.  I like rolling dice, and rolling dice is part of the system.  I'd much rather have a feat that makes you just take average damage, than one that adds a bunch of levels and maximizes damage.


----------



## Cyberzombie

I think it will probably be 10 lists.  Ranger Wickett persuaded me that the Create and Summon lists can be combined as one.  I think it will be called Summon, 'cause you're not really "creating" something if it's only there for, say, 1 minute/level.

As for Maximize Spell, I say we go ahead and include it, myself.  We don't have to use it, after all, and it will only take up the space of one feat.  I don't think the benefit of the feat is good enough to justify the cost, but I think that for most metamagic.  Might as well include it, so the people who like it can have it.

We'll see what happens as we continue to hash it out.


----------



## Verequus

That raises the question:

If Create [Creature] and Summon [Creature] are the same list, how undeads can be created? Have the higher spell levels permanent and eventually instanteous duration?


----------



## RangerWickett

You can temporarily create undead easily (indeed, I was always fond of villains defiling the corpses of the recently dead by raising them mid-fight to help him out).  For permanent undead, or pretty much permanent anything, you have to use Creation Feats.  Right now we're considering having only four:  Craft Charged Item, Craft Magic Arms & Armor, Craft Permanent Spell, and Craft Wondrous Item.  Permanent undead would fall under 'permanent spell.'


----------



## torem13

Are the creation feat going to be included in the updated EoM or in the second Book to be published later?


----------



## Cyberzombie

torem13 said:
			
		

> *Are the creation feat going to be included in the updated EoM or in the second Book to be published later? *




In the updated EoM.  We're going to have it as complete rules for casting spells.  The second book will have the really neat stuff, like how to play a voodoo priest or a tattoo mage.  The free update will be the dry rules, whilst the second book will have the fun rules to adapt magic to exactly what you want it to be.  Or at least a lot closer than you can with most rules sets.


----------



## RangerWickett

Actually, I'm not sure if the item creation rules will be in the revisions or the sequel.  The streamlining is well-intentioned, but we're certain to run into snags as we try to make sure you can create your +5 Giant Warchicken of Great Weaving.


----------



## Cyberzombie

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> *Actually, I'm not sure if the item creation rules will be in the revisions or the sequel.  The streamlining is well-intentioned, but we're certain to run into snags as we try to make sure you can create your +5 Giant Warchicken of Great Weaving. *




We're talking sideways here.  The *feats*, I believe, will be in the revision.  The item creation rules will be in the sequel, because the revision is going to be long enough as it is.  

BTW, I now own the 3.5 books, so the revision is going to really pick up pace now.  I actually have the 3.5 rules finally!  As I understand it, someone lost ENPublishing's copy of the SRD...


----------



## Verequus

Is it too early to tell when the release probably will be? "You have to wait at least ... weeks" would be sufficient.  

Because in 3.5 is some epic support: Will be there an official Epic Mage?


----------



## Cyberzombie

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> *Is it too early to tell when the release probably will be? "You have to wait at least ... weeks" would be sufficient.
> 
> Because in 3.5 is some epic support: Will be there an official Epic Mage? *




I don't know yet, because we have to go through every spell.  There are a lot of spells.  Then we have to get the PDF put together.  We'll give more updates when the scale of changes in the spells becomes clearer.

If the epic rules are in the SRD, yes.  It will not be difficult to make the mage compatible with the DMG epic rules.


----------



## torem13

*Element of Dimension*

I am playing a mage and use the teleport spell list. I notice dimension will replace this list. Just a suggestion for the name, but you could call it space instead of dimension.


----------



## Buttercup

Holy crap but this sounds cool!  Elements of Magic and its sequel just went to the top of my "must buy" list.

This is just the sort of magic system that I would have built myself, if I had the time, patience and talent to do it.  Based on what I've read here, it sounds like the perfect replacement for the standard D&D magic system, which has always annoyed me a tad.


----------



## baradtgnome

Are there any electronic tools that can build/handle an EoM rules character?

Has there been much discussion on what happens to Wisdom as an attribute, without clerics does it become a 2nd class score?

We don't play often enough for me to 'rebuild' the world around EoM mage, however this is way cool; and how I would have done it.  Any advice on how to 'mix' magic in a campaign (traditional 3 or 3.5 characters and EoM mage)?


----------



## torem13

*Estimated release date*

I am really looking forward to the revised version (especially for 3.5) Do you have a estimate release date fro the new version?


----------



## torem13

*Estimated release date*

Sorry, Double post.


----------



## RangerWickett

I'm currently hoping to get it out in early September, but that might be a little optimistic considering the rest of my workload.  I'll talk with CZ and see if we're up for showing off a one- or two-page sample.


----------



## netnomad

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I'm currently hoping to get it out in early September, but that might be a little optimistic considering the rest of my workload.  I'll talk with CZ and see if we're up for showing off a one- or two-page sample.




So how about and update? 

-NetNomad


----------



## RangerWickett

I haven't heard from Cyberzombie for a while, but I suppose I can handle anything you'd want.  As we wrap up the book and get ready to send it to layout, are there any questions you'd like me to answer?  Want to see a sample NPC?  Perhaps an example scene from a playtest I ran?  Would perhaps some of the playtesters or those I gave preliminary copies to like to post comments?

I'll come up with an EOM sampler by this weekend.


----------



## netnomad

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I haven't heard from Cyberzombie for a while, but I suppose I can handle anything you'd want.  As we wrap up the book and get ready to send it to layout, are there any questions you'd like me to answer?  Want to see a sample NPC?  Perhaps an example scene from a playtest I ran?  Would perhaps some of the playtesters or those I gave preliminary copies to like to post comments?
> 
> I'll come up with an EOM sampler by this weekend.




I want it all!  What can I say? I'm a demanding customer.   The best sample I can think of is a peek at an updated spell list and maybe an updated skill.  How about a peek at one of the new specialist mages? Just something to give me an idea what was changed from the old version to the new one.  

-NetNomad


----------



## meatpopsicl3

*I do have 1 request...*



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I haven't heard from Cyberzombie for a while, but I suppose I can handle anything you'd want.  As we wrap up the book and get ready to send it to layout, are there any questions you'd like me to answer?  Want to see a sample NPC?  Perhaps an example scene from a playtest I ran?  Would perhaps some of the playtesters or those I gave preliminary copies to like to post comments?
> 
> I'll come up with an EOM sampler by this weekend.




Hey CZ, RW,

I'm posting here because I haven't heard back from you sending directly to your e-mail addresses... I'm assuming that's because the e-mail worm must have hit you hard, and my last e-mail had a rather large attachment   

I know you are probably super-busy with EleMag, but I'd really like to move forward with EleMon, but in order to do that I need you to contact me ASAP.  

Thanks a lot.

-Darrel


----------



## RangerWickett

I sent a reply last night saying that I hadn't received anything from you for about a week and a half.  Try sending to rnock@learnlink.emory.edu, since that account can receive files of up to 5MB, and Hotmail craps out after 1MB.


----------



## RangerWickett

I've cooked up a small sampler-teaser for the revised version of _The Elements of Magic_.  It's in .doc format because the boards wouldn't let me upload an rtf, but most people ought to be able to read it.  Please forgive me if there are a few typos or parts that seem confusing; I tried to fix all problems I saw, but in essence I was just copy-pasting material from the book into a new file, so some bits might not fit together clearly.  Feel free to ask questions, give comments, and tell us if we made any mistakes.

I'll also see if I can get Russ or Jason to upload this file and show it on the main page.  But I would prefer something slightly prettier.  My apologies, again.


----------



## Verequus

Wow! Such a great work! It's even better than I could have imagined. So far I read the sampler I didn't found anything, what I utterly despise  , but there are some bits which I don't understand or didn't find explained.

-Why were the intelligence bonus MPs discarded?
-Is the save DC still dependent from Charisma and not from Intelligence although there is no formula for the basic Save DC for magic items, even if one uses the minimum inteligence rule?
-There is no mentioning of 20 spell levels in the revised edition instead of 10.
-Can't Outsiders be charmed, compelled, created or transformed? Why don't Charm [Alignment] lists normally (as it stands in the Faithblade section)?
-Can't Elementals be charmed or compelled?
-In the section of Spell Enhancements it stands, that the spend MPs for "General enhancements and spell list enhancements cannot be greater than your caster level". For me it looks the text like that the caster level is the caster level of the character, not from the single spell lists as in the example.
-It is unclear, what belongs to the General list and what is an General enhancement. At least it looks to me, that there is a difference, because of "For example, if you cast Compel Humanoid 7/Evoke Fire 3/Gen 2, you can spend no more than 7 MP on Compel enhancements, no more 3 MP on Evoke enhancements, and no more than 2 MP on General enhancements.". Does it also mean that the maximum MPs spent on a spell is twice the (rounded down?) caster level?
-Why isn't there a Duration enhancement beyound Long and a Contingency beyound a Week? Has then the Permanent feat to be used? Why has the Range Long 800 ft. and not 750 ft. (30 * 5 * 5)? Do I have to use the Range Long, before I can buy a Range incremen of +500 ft.?
-Is there a description, for which standard classes the magical skills are class skills and which are cross-class ones? Or have we to assume that all unmentioned classes have them as cross-class skills?
-Does a class have Use Magic Device as class skill?
-Can spell lists and magical skills be combined?
-Which type of action are the uses of the magical skills? All standard actions?
-In the Dispel Magic section: "If you succeeded a Spellcraft check to identify the effect, and you know all of the spell lists your opponent is using, you get a +20 bonus to your Spellcraft check." Shouldn't be the +20 bonus received for the Dispel check?
-It isn't clearly mentioned that at an area dispel the subtraction of MPs does increase the DCs of later dispels because of the Low MP-rule.
-Are spell action types more explained in the full text?
-There seems to be an error in the dispel example one: Ursus tries to dispel an armor enchanted with Abjure Nature 10/Illusion Void 2, makes his Spellcraft check and knows the Abjure Spell. The DC is 10 + 9 (caster level) + 0 (he knows Abjure Nature) + 2 (he doesn't know Illusion Void) = 21 and not 28. The penalty of Low MP's is for Ursus roll, not for the DC, and all DC modifiers are already counted in. Worse, in the example Ursus has an effective penalty of -14 and not -7.
-In the dispel example two, Barbara has suddenly only a caster level of 6 and a half, not 9 and a half. Also isn't explained where the caster level of 16 for armor comes from.
-In the section "Dispel Magic and non-EOM magic" there is no MP value for 0-level spells. Also it isn't clear, if divination spells increase the MP value everytime or only, if one doesn't have (enough?) ranks in the Divination skill.
-Illusion spell list: What are the effects of blur on concealment and thus on attack rolls? There is only a skill check bonus. Hide Aura: What does mean "Each type of aura you change must be purchased separately." exactly mean? Have I to cast in the example the Illusion Death spell twice or can I pay only more MPs at once? Distorted Distances: "Also, most attacks through distorted areas should suffer a severe miss chance." needs more explanation. Resisting Illusions: Doesn't turn an invisible attacker automatically visible?
-Sample Illusion spells: All spell should have a total spell level value for convience. Mask of Nothingness: It should include that even Blindsense and Blindsight are useless (also with a successfully check?). Are all MP costs sums identical to the spell total? If not, there should be at the begin of the list the sum listed.
-Faithblade: The table headers aren't all in place.
-At several places are two or more spaces instead only one. Run a search and replace to find all of them.

Also I believe that EoM revised is the first magic system (at least in d20), which allows to use magic easily as sword and shield, so magical combats will be truly exciting!


----------



## Verequus

I forgot these points:

-Where landed Alter Reality? Is it now only a combination effect?
-Do the magical skills provoke attacks of opportunities?
-How about this feat? Too powerful? The Dispel Magic rank too low?

Quick Counterspelling [General] 

You are trained at using your casting skill for defense as well as offense.
*Prerequisite:* Int 13, Cha 13, Dispel Magic rank +6, Combat Reflexes
*Benefit:* When a foe casts a spell and if you haven't used up all attacks of opportunity in the current round, you may make a counterspell instead of an attack of opportunity. You need a line of sight to the foe. The counterspell is resolved as if you had readied an action.
*Normal:* You can normally only counterspell if you ready an action.


----------



## RangerWickett

My first attempt to quote and answer questions was a failure, but I'll try again, saving every once in a while.  I'm going to post what I've typed every few minutes, then edit to add more stuff, because I'm sharing a computer at work and I don't want to lose an hour of typing like I did last time.  



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Wow! Such a great work! It's even better than I could have imagined. So far I read the sampler I didn't found anything, what I utterly despise  , but there are some bits which I don't understand or didn't find explained.
> 
> -Why were the intelligence bonus MPs discarded?




Two reasons.  First, we wanted to have Intelligence modify signature spells rather than MP.  Signature spells represent knowledge, which fits with Intelligence.  MP is just power, and if anything it'd fit Charisma, but we already had Charisma affecting DCs, so we decided we'd just make it easy and let everyone have the same number of MP.  Second, trying to have the table range in increments of 1/2 a level was really clunky, so we decided against it.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> -Is the save DC still dependent from Charisma and not from Intelligence although there is no formula for the basic Save DC for magic items, even if one uses the minimum inteligence rule?




Not quite sure what you mean here.  Charisma modifies spell save DCs.  The DC is 10 + 1/2 MP cost + Charisma bonus.  I don't know what you mean about magic item save DCs, but Intelligence does not limit how 'high-level' (rather, high-MP) your spells can be.  If you're a 20th level Mage, you could have an Intelligence of 3 and still be able to cast 20 MP spells.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> -There is no mentioning of 20 spell levels in the revised edition instead of 10.




It's sort of implied in the text, but yeah, I forgot to be clear.  My bad.  But yes, there are actually 21 possible power levels for spells, from 0 MP to 20 MP, in increments of 1 MP.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> -Can't Outsiders be charmed, compelled, created or transformed? Why don't Charm [Alignment] lists normally (as it stands in the Faithblade section)?
> -Can't Elementals be charmed or compelled?




We switched it so that now to charm outsiders you need a Charm [Creature] spell list, namely Charm Outsider.  Ditto for elementals requiring a Charm Elemental spell list.  Your target's alignment doesn't matter anymore.  We decided against Charm [Alignment] spell lists, because then most people would just grab Charm Lawful, Charm Evil, and Charm Chaos, and they'd be able to handle almost any enemy.  It's more balanced if they have to get 5 or 10 different lists for different creature types.

However, for Faithblades, we thought it'd be interesting to give them this little flavorful power of charming people based on their alignment.  Since Faithblades generally have weak spellcasting powers compared to their level, it's not overpowering.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> -In the section of Spell Enhancements it stands, that the spend MPs for "General enhancements and spell list enhancements cannot be greater than your caster level". For me it looks the text like that the caster level is the caster level of the character, not from the single spell lists as in the example.
> 
> -It is unclear, what belongs to the General list and what is an General enhancement. At least it looks to me, that there is a difference, because of "For example, if you cast Compel Humanoid 7/Evoke Fire 3/Gen 2, you can spend no more than 7 MP on Compel enhancements, no more 3 MP on Evoke enhancements, and no more than 2 MP on General enhancements.". Does it also mean that the maximum MPs spent on a spell is twice the (rounded down?) caster level?




Okay, since I don't quite know what you're asking, I'll go over the whole situation and hope I hit the answer you're looking for.

Your caster level is based on class and character level.  The Mage has a 1 for 1 caster level advancement, so a 10th level Mage has a caster level of 10.  Other classes have slower advancement, so a 10th level Faithblade would have a caster level of 5.  A 10th/10th level Mage/Faithblade would have a caster level of 15.

Your caster level determines how much MP you have, how many spell lists you know, and how much MP you can spend on any given spell.  You cannot spend more MP than your caster level on a single spell (round down if you have a fractional caster level).  Thus a Mage 12 can only cast spells of 12 MP or less.  This 12 MP can be spent on any general enhancement, or on any enhancement from a spell list he knows, but regardless of how many different enhancements he picks from however many sources, the total cannot be more than 12 MP.

Your caster level also determines what modifiers you use when trying to beat spell resistance, or when someone tries to counter your spell.  Even if you cast a spell that costs less than your MP limit, your caster level remains the same.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> -Why isn't there a Duration enhancement beyound Long and a Contingency beyound a Week? Has then the Permanent feat to be used? Why has the Range Long 800 ft. and not 750 ft. (30 * 5 * 5)? Do I have to use the Range Long, before I can buy a Range incremen of +500 ft.?




We decided against having spells last more than a day.  You get your MP back each day anyway, so you can just cast the spell again.  We will include a note that you can just expend the MP again as soon as the next day starts, if you want to make sure the spell never ends (quite useful for things like Move Earth if you're going to be adventuring in the Elemental Plane of Earth for a while).  If you want a truly permanent effect, you'd need to have the right feat and spend XP.  

We also didn't want long contingency spells just for ease of bookkeeping.  I suppose you might want a villain to have laid a trap that would lie in wait for three gajillion years, but that would be fairly rare.  Again, what you'd most likely do would be to get the Craft Charged Item feat and make a trap that could work over and over again with a certain trigger.

As for range, 1000 ft. is about as far away as any encounter reasonably ought to be.  You can also use Move Dimension combined with a spell effect to have a longer distance, but this is only really an option at high levels.  We generally wanted to keep characters from killing things before they even come into view.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> -Is there a description, for which standard classes the magical skills are class skills and which are cross-class ones? Or have we to assume that all unmentioned classes have them as cross-class skills?




By 'standard classes,' do you mean non-EOM classes?  Well, since all magical skills require MP, and core D&D classes don't have MP, but rather spell slots, core classes couldn't use magical skill anyway.  If you want to play a multiclassed Fighter/Mage, though, you could still spend Fighter skill points on things like Dispel Magic, but it would be a cross-class skill.

Of course, I personally don't use class skills, but if you use them in your game, then EOM magical skills should be cross-class for all non-EOM classes (and even some EOM classes too).



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> -Does a class have Use Magic Device as class skill?




No, not directly.  But the Mage and Taskmage do get to choose several 'tradition skills,' to reflect the specific type of spellcaster you want to play, and Use Magic Device could be one of those skills.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> -Can spell lists and magical skills be combined?
> 
> -Which type of action are the uses of the magical skills? All standard actions?




Yes, you can combine a skill and a spell.  You might combine an Evoke spell and a Dispel check to try to remove your foe's energy resistance before you hit them.  Or you could combine an Infuse spell list with a weak Scry for a flavorful spell that gives you mighty senses (infuse to increase wisdom) and allows you to see through walls (scry).

Magical skills are just like spells.  Normally, using them takes a full round, but if you make one a signature 'spell,' you can do it as a standard action.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> -In the Dispel Magic section: "If you succeeded a Spellcraft check to identify the effect, and you know all of the spell lists your opponent is using, you get a +20 bonus to your Spellcraft check." Shouldn't be the +20 bonus received for the Dispel check?




D'oh.  Yep, you're right.  Bad typo.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> -It isn't clearly mentioned that at an area dispel the subtraction of MPs does increase the DCs of later dispels because of the Low MP-rule.




It will be now.  Thanks for pointing this out.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> -Are spell action types more explained in the full text?




Yes, quite.  I think the raw text is about 90 pages long.  Abjure and Evoke have certainly the longest entries, and Heal has the shortest.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> -There seems to be an error in the dispel example one: Ursus tries to dispel an armor enchanted with Abjure Nature 10/Illusion Void 2, makes his Spellcraft check and knows the Abjure Spell. The DC is 10 + 9 (caster level) + 0 (he knows Abjure Nature) + 2 (he doesn't know Illusion Void) = 21 and not 28. The penalty of Low MP's is for Ursus roll, not for the DC, and all DC modifiers are already counted in. Worse, in the example Ursus has an effective penalty of -14 and not -7.
> 
> -In the dispel example two, Barbara has suddenly only a caster level of 6 and a half, not 9 and a half. Also isn't explained where the caster level of 16 for armor comes from.




In this case, you missed a bit of information at the start of the Dispel skill.  Permanent spell effects and permanent magic items have a caster level equal to the MP cost of the spell being used, plus 4.  In this case, Barbara did not make her own armor, but rather got it somewhere along adventuring.  The spell used on the armor is 12 MP, so the caster level is 16.  Thus the DC is 10 + 16 + 2 = 28.

However, yes, I was trying to retype the example last night, because the original version had some extra detail that was extraneous, and I ended up making a few mistakes.  I'll fix them ASAP.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> -In the section "Dispel Magic and non-EOM magic" there is no MP value for 0-level spells. Also it isn't clear, if divination spells increase the MP value everytime or only, if one doesn't have (enough?) ranks in the Divination skill.




Well, a 0-level spell is a 0 MP spell, but I'll clarify it.  I'm not quite sure what you mean about Divination spells, though.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> -Illusion spell list: What are the effects of blur on concealment and thus on attack rolls? There is only a skill check bonus. Hide Aura: What does mean "Each type of aura you change must be purchased separately." exactly mean? Have I to cast in the example the Illusion Death spell twice or can I pay only more MPs at once? Distorted Distances: "Also, most attacks through distorted areas should suffer a severe miss chance." needs more explanation. Resisting Illusions: Doesn't turn an invisible attacker automatically visible?




Attacks against a blurred creature have a 20% miss chance.  Attacks against an invisible creature have a 50% miss chance, and spells cannot be targeted against invisible creatures.

Auras include things like magic items being detectable to magical Spellcraft checks, or the evil aura around outsiders and undead, which can be detected with Divination.  You must pay MP for each aura you affect, but you can affect more than one with a single spell.

As for the distance distortion, I'd intended to putting in exact figures, but I'd lost track of it in the midst of numerous other revisions.  I'll have to work on the exact numbers, but I'd say a -5 penalty for minor, and make melee attacks at all other levels of the illusion impossible.

If an invisible creature hits you, you can see it because you pierce the veil of the illusion.  But the creature doesn't become visible, so other creatures don't necessarily see it.  The text should read:

"Similarly, if an invisible creature deals damage to you, you can automatically disbelieve it.  If an invisible creature deals damage to a creature other than you in your line of sight, you are automatically allowed a saving throw with a +4 bonus.  Also, if you resist a non-damaging spell cast by an invisible creature, you automatically gets to disbelieve with a +4 bonus."



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> -Sample Illusion spells: All spell should have a total spell level value for convience. Mask of Nothingness: It should include that even Blindsense and Blindsight are useless (also with a successfully check?). Are all MP costs sums identical to the spell total? If not, there should be at the begin of the list the sum listed.




You're right, we should have a simple entry of total mp cost.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> -Faithblade: The table headers aren't all in place.
> -At several places are two or more spaces instead only one. Run a search and replace to find all of them.




Thanks for the advice, but it will all be fixed when it goes to layout, so I won't worry about it too much right now.  I know plain text isn't very readable, but I hope it helps you get an idea to the rules.




			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Also I believe that EoM revised is the first magic system (at least in d20), which allows to use magic easily as sword and shield, so magical combats will be truly exciting!




Thank you very much.  Our goal is to make a system that's fun to play and that caters to many different tastes.  I'm glad you were interested enough to comment on the whole file.  Do you own the original EOM, and if so, what do you think about the changes?


----------



## RangerWickett

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> I forgot these points:
> 
> -Where landed Alter Reality? Is it now only a combination effect?




We don't need it anymore.  The other spell lists can cover pretty much whatever you want, and since you can combine spell lists, you'll have a lot of flexibility.  Of course, GMs will always have Wishes available, but basically a wish is just a really complex spell.  



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> -Do the magical skills provoke attacks of opportunities?




Yes.  Any form of spellcasting incurs an attack of opportunity, except casting a quickened spell.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> -How about this feat? Too powerful? The Dispel Magic rank too low?
> 
> Quick Counterspelling [General]
> 
> You are trained at using your casting skill for defense as well as offense.
> *Prerequisite:* Int 13, Cha 13, Dispel Magic rank +6, Combat Reflexes
> *Benefit:* When a foe casts a spell and if you haven't used up all attacks of opportunity in the current round, you may make a counterspell instead of an attack of opportunity. You need a line of sight to the foe. The counterspell is resolved as if you had readied an action.
> *Normal:* You can normally only counterspell if you ready an action.




Actually, we are going to have something similar in the _Lyceian Arcana_ sequel.  In addition to metamagic and item creation feats, we also have tradition feats, which provide nifty abilities related to the type of magic you have available in your campaign world.  The GM should usually come up with one or two feats for each significant magical tradition in the world.  You can only take a Tradition feat if you've studied in the appropriate magical culture.

For example:

*Inquisitor Counterspell*[Tradition] 
*Prerequisite:* Dispel Magic 8+ ranks, Sense Motive 5+, Combat Reflexes
*Benefit:* When someone casts a spell within your line of sight, you may choose to make a counterspell attempt as a reaction.  If you do, next round you act as if you had already taken a standard action.  In effect, you take half your action next round during this round.  You can counterspell this way even if you are flat-footed.
*Normal:* You can normally only counterspell if you ready an action.

They look pretty similar, I guess.


----------



## netnomad

QUOTE=RangerWickett]I've cooked up a small sampler-teaser for the revised version of _The Elements of Magic_.  It's in .doc format because the boards wouldn't let me upload an rtf, but most people ought to be able to read it.  Please forgive me if there are a few typos or parts that seem confusing; I tried to fix all problems I saw, but in essence I was just copy-pasting material from the book into a new file, so some bits might not fit together clearly.  Feel free to ask questions, give comments, and tell us if we made any mistakes.

I'll also see if I can get Russ or Jason to upload this file and show it on the main page.  But I would prefer something slightly prettier.  My apologies, again.[/QUOTE]


Wow!  This is just what the doctor ordered RW.  I though I was being a bit demanding and you came though with flying colors!  Thanks for such a great preview!

So far I really like want I say.  It seems more eloquent and better balanced.  I really like the sample spells. That will make jumping in a lot easier.  I also really like how you a making it conceptually backward compatible with d20 (I.E. the faithblade).  I look forward to seeing the final product.

Rulemaster: Way to go! Keep RW honest! 

-NetNomad


----------



## Verequus

Sorry for the delay, but I wanted to post the reply yesterday. Unfortunately, at first ENWorld wasn't reachable and then I didn't finished my post in time - I wrote several hours for this post... For space reasons I cut text from the quotes, if it isn't necessary for the understanding, and I leaving the clear points out, too. Hopefully my double quotes will be accepted... and triple quoting is sure hell 



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> My first attempt to quote and answer questions was a failure, but I'll try again, saving every once in a while.  ... I don't want to lose an hour of typing like I did last time.




I can feel your pain, because I lost an email two times before I used a text file for saving (then, of course, I had no problems...)  



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> RuleMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! Such a great work! It's even better than I could have imagined. So far I read the sampler I didn't found anything, what I utterly despise  , but there are some bits which I don't understand or didn't find explained.
> 
> -Why were the intelligence bonus MPs discarded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two reasons.  First, we wanted to have Intelligence modify signature spells rather than MP.  Signature spells represent knowledge, which fits with Intelligence.  MP is just power, and if anything it'd fit Charisma, but we already had Charisma affecting DCs, so we decided we'd just make it easy and let everyone have the same number of MP.  Second, trying to have the table range in increments of 1/2 a level was really clunky, so we decided against it.
Click to expand...



Okay, I can understand that you decided against Intelligence as bonus MP ability but you could have used Charisma instead like at a bard. This is the only decision so far I'm not so happy with it but it is probably because I'm accustomed to a bonus since I started to play AD&D. If you don't like this table, how about a feat like Toughness, just for MPs?



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> RuleMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Is the save DC still dependent from Charisma and not from Intelligence although there is no formula for the basic Save DC for magic items, even if one uses the minimum inteligence rule?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite sure what you mean here.  Charisma modifies spell save DCs.  The DC is 10 + 1/2 MP cost + Charisma bonus.  I don't know what you mean about magic item save DCs, but Intelligence does not limit how 'high-level' (rather, high-MP) your spells can be.  If you're a 20th level Mage, you could have an Intelligence of 3 and still be able to cast 20 MP spells.
Click to expand...



Yes, I meant the formula 10 + (1/2 MP cost or spell level in the core rules) + Charisma bonus. Have we to substitute spell level to 1/2 MPs if we have to calculate a DC with the core rules? Also, in the core rules the save DC of standard magic item like a wand has the following formula: 10 + rounded down(1.5 * spell level). But because there is now no dependency between the usable MPs and the Charisma score, a spell has now a lower minimum save DC (5 + 1/2 spent MPs) and so a greater range of possible DCs. This means also that there has to be a new standard formula for setting the DC of a rolled standard magic item. 

In addition, I'm still one of those who want a minimum intelligence score for being able to cast a spell of a certain level. I can't just understand that someone who barely speaks a language can eventually leveling entire towns - especially that he came up with such a plan. If the good old formula 10 + x = needed score to cast spells of level x (of course converted to MPs) doesn't function anymore, I will use a plain minimum of 10. Or do you have a better idea? Instead a plain minimum or regarding why I should use your system in this point...



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> RuleMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Can't Outsiders be charmed, compelled, created or transformed? Why don't Charm [Alignment] lists normally (as it stands in the Faithblade section)?
> -Can't Elementals be charmed or compelled?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We switched it so that now to charm outsiders you need a Charm [Creature] spell list, namely Charm Outsider. Ditto for elementals requiring a Charm Elemental spell list. ...
Click to expand...



Ah, that reduces EoM to a total of 268 spell lists. @Kannik, your new spell lists are now obsolete, because EoM can surely handle weather conditions, earthquakes and such catastrophes, can't it?



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> RuleMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -In the section of Spell Enhancements it stands, that the spend MPs for "General enhancements and spell list enhancements cannot be greater than your caster level". For me it looks the text like that the caster level is the caster level of the character, not from the single spell lists as in the example.
> -It is unclear, what belongs to the General list and what is an General enhancement. At least it looks to me, that there is a difference, because of "For example, if you cast Compel Humanoid 7/Evoke Fire 3/Gen 2, you can spend no more than 7 MP on Compel enhancements, no more 3 MP on Evoke enhancements, and no more than 2 MP on General enhancements.". Does it also mean that the maximum MPs spent on a spell is twice the (rounded down?) caster level?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, since I don't quite know what you're asking, I'll go over the whole situation and hope I hit the answer you're looking for.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...



Oh, there I drew a false conclusion. I thought, if you cast Evoke Fire 3/Gen 0, then you have 3d6 fire damage, which I can enhance further without increasing the "spell level", but I have to pay extra MPs, like the effect of a metamagic feat on a core spell. Please clarify that point.



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> RuleMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Why isn't there a Duration enhancement beyound Long and a Contingency beyound a Week? Has then the Permanent feat to be used? Why has the Range Long 800 ft. and not 750 ft. (30 * 5 * 5)? Do I have to use the Range Long, before I can buy a Range incremen of +500 ft.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> As for range, 1000 ft. is about as far away as any encounter reasonably ought to be.  You can also use Move Dimension combined with a spell effect to have a longer distance, but this is only really an option at high levels.  We generally wanted to keep characters from
> killing things before they even come into view.
Click to expand...



I just wanted to know, why the number for Range Long is 800 ft., because like I calculated it would be more logical to choose 750 ft. Your general explanation is interesting, though. Unfortunately you missed the last question of this section - if no, I would spent 1 MP for short  range and 1 MP for the extra 500 ft. to get a nearly long range for 2 MPs.



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> RuleMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Is there a description, for which standard classes the magical skills are class skills and which are cross-class ones? Or have we to assume that all unmentioned classes have them as cross-class skills?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By 'standard classes,' do you mean non-EOM classes?  Well, since all magical skills require MP, and core D&D classes don't have MP, but rather spell slots, core classes couldn't use magical skill anyway.  If you want to play a multiclassed Fighter/Mage, though, you could still spend Fighter skill points on things like Dispel Magic, but it would be a cross-class skill.
> 
> Of course, I personally don't use class skills, but if you use them in your game, then EOM magical skills should be cross-class for all non-EOM classes (and even some EOM classes too).
Click to expand...



Yes, I mean with standard classes core classes. In German, I associate "core" (while I don't watch Star Trek  ) more with the seed of a plum , so I use "standard" instead. Now to the extra questions: Survived all magical skills (at least their uses - Intuit Direction was 
fusioned with Scry and Sight, for example)? What system of skill point spending do you use personally?



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> RuleMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Can spell lists and magical skills be combined?
> -Which type of action are the uses of the magical skills? All standard actions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can combine a skill and a spell.  You might combine an Evoke spell and a Dispel check to try to remove your foe's energy resistance before you hit them.  Or you could combine an Infuse spell list with a weak Scry for a flavorful spell that gives you mighty senses (infuse to increase wisdom) and allows you to see through walls (scry).Magical skills are just like spells.  Normally, using them takes a full round, but if you make one a signature 'spell,' you can do it as a standard action.
Click to expand...



I hope, "Magical skills are just like spells." will be clear to everyone in the final product. This also means, you can have scrolls of "Dispel Magic". That inspires me to following idea: Can someone use scrolls of basic spells and combine them or known spell lists at casting? How flexible can be used a scroll? If you have Evoke Fire 5 with 3 MPs for damage and two for another enhancement, but you need only the damage, can you "skip" the enhancement? I think that it shouldn't be possible to replace an enhancement until you know the spell list but in that case you wouldn't need the scroll anyway - until you can so break the "Max spent MPs = current caster level". If you can't combine scroll on the fly shouldn't it be possible to use them at least in item creation processes?



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> RuleMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -There seems to be an error in the dispel example one: Ursus tries to dispel an armor enchanted with Abjure Nature 10/Illusion Void 2, makes his Spellcraft check and knows the Abjure Spell. The DC is 10 + 9 (caster level) + 0 (he knows Abjure Nature) + 2 (he doesn't know Illusion Void) = 21 and not 28. The penalty of Low MP's is for Ursus roll, not for the DC, and all DC modifiers are already counted in. Worse, in the example Ursus has an effective penalty of -14 and not -7.
> -In the dispel example two, Barbara has suddenly only a caster level of 6 and a half, not 9 and a half. Also isn't explained where the caster level of 16 for armor comes from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, you missed a bit of information at the start of the Dispel skill.  Permanent spell effects and permanent magic items have a caster level equal to the MP cost of the spell being used, plus 4.  In this case, Barbara did not make her own armor, but rather got it somewhere along adventuring.  The spell used on the armor is 12 MP, so the caster level is 16.  Thus the DC is 10 + 16 + 2 = 28.
> 
> However, yes, I was trying to retype the example last night, because the original version had some extra detail that was extraneous, and I ended up making a few mistakes.  I'll fix them ASAP.
Click to expand...



I saw that Barbara has an enchanted armor in the latter example but I didn't conclude that she had the same armor also in the prior example. But that doesn't matter anyways. I discovered that I like antimagic which is similar in functionality to spell resistance because it represents the principle "There is always someone who can beat you" - stolen from DragonBall  . Also look out for inconsistencies like that Ursus knows a spell list and then not - or at least of the same spell action types.



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> RuleMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -In the section "Dispel Magic and non-EOM magic" there is no MP value for 0-level spells. Also it isn't clear, if divination spells increase the MP value everytime or only, if one doesn't have (enough?) ranks in the Divination skill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...  I'm not quite sure what you mean about Divination spells, though.
Click to expand...



If someone casts "Summon Monster V", then you must know the suitable Create [Creature] spell in order to dispel the spell without penalty (assuming succeeded Spellcraft checks). But because there is no Divination Spell but only a skill you can circumvent only a penalty if the Divination skill counts as a spell. In that case it could be relevant how many ranks you have in Divination but I'm unsure in that point.




			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> RuleMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Illusion spell list: ... Resisting Illusions: Doesn't turn an invisible attacker automatically visible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> If an invisible creature hits you, you can see it because you pierce the veil of the illusion.  But the creature doesn't become visible, so other creatures don't necessarily see it.  The text should read:
> 
> "Similarly, if an invisible creature deals damage to you, you can automatically disbelieve it.  If an invisible creature deals damage to a creature other than you in your line of sight, you are automatically allowed a saving throw with a +4 bonus.  Also, if you resist a non-damaging spell cast by an invisible creature, you automatically gets to disbelieve with a +4 bonus."
Click to expand...



I like the idea of not getting automatically visible - that's something what I wanted the whole time.



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> RuleMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Sample Illusion spells: All spell should have a total spell level value for convience. Mask of Nothingness: It should include that even Blindsense and Blindsight are useless (also with a successfully check?). Are all MP costs sums identical to the spell total? If not, there should be at the begin of the list the sum listed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, we should have a simple entry of total mp cost.
Click to expand...



No comment on the Blindsense and Blindsight statement? 



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> RuleMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Where landed Alter Reality? Is it now only a combination effect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need it anymore.  The other spell lists can cover pretty much whatever you want, and since you can combine spell lists, you'll have a lot of flexibility.  Of course, GMs will always have Wishes available, but basically a wish is just a really complex spell.
Click to expand...



It seems I have to get accustomed first to that flexibility. But I hope one can get still inherent bonis to abilities, probably through a Transform spell, can't I? Oh, how can someone create a ring of three wishes? Is that possible without having to know every 268 spell lists?



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> RuleMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -How about this feat? Too powerful? The Dispel Magic rank too low?
> 
> Quick Counterspelling [General]
> 
> You are trained at using your casting skill for defense as well as offense.
> *Prerequisite:* Int 13, Cha 13, Dispel Magic rank +6, Combat Reflexes
> *Benefit:* When a foe casts a spell and if you haven't used up all attacks of opportunity in the current round, you may make a counterspell instead of an attack of opportunity. You need a line of sight to the foe. The counterspell is resolved as if you had readied an action.
> *Normal:* You can normally only counterspell if you ready an action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we are going to have something similar in the _Lyceian Arcana_ sequel.  In addition to metamagic and item creation feats, we also have tradition feats, which provide nifty abilities related to the type of magic you have available in your campaign world.  The GM should usually come up with one or two feats for each significant magical tradition in the world.  You can only take a Tradition feat if you've studied in the appropriate magical culture.
> 
> For example:
> 
> *Inquisitor Counterspell*[Tradition]
> *Prerequisite:* Dispel Magic 8+ ranks, Sense Motive 5+, Combat Reflexes
> *Benefit:* When someone casts a spell within your line of sight, you may choose to make a counterspell attempt as a reaction.  If you do, next round you act as if you had already taken a standard action.  In effect, you take half your action next round during this round.  You can counterspell this way even if you are flat-footed.
> *Normal:* You can normally only counterspell if you ready an action.
> 
> They look pretty similar, I guess.
Click to expand...



They do, but there a three major differences: Firstly, with Quick Counterspelling you can dispel several spells in one round, secondly the dispels are treated as standard actions and thirdly don't use a part of the normal action. Otherwise is Inquisitor Counterspell nearly identical to Reactive Counterspell from Magic of Faerun besides you give up your next action totally. The second point violates the full round-action rule - how about the change of the prerequisites of my feat to "Inquisitor Counterspell, having Dispel Magic skill as signature spell"? If there is no feat like Quick Counterspell available, then magical combat has good use of its sword, but nothing comparable to a shield - or better only half the possibilities of a shield.



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> RuleMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also I believe that EoM revised is the first magic system (at least in d20), which allows to use magic easily as sword and shield, so magical combats will be truly exciting!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you very much.  Our goal is to make a system that's fun to play and that caters to many different tastes.  I'm glad you were interested enough to comment on the whole file.  Do you own the original EOM, and if so, what do you think about the changes?
Click to expand...



I bought EoM one week after its release. It isn't surprising that I was interested enough to comment the whole file because I wrote CZ already for the original EoM several very long emails which has been already credited in the erratas (I really didn't expect that *great* honor  ). So if you want me to comment the whole revision before its release - I would do it .

EoM revised seems to be the near perfect implementation of a flexible, yet balanced magic system - you and CZ managed to create a self-contained system which allows every theoritical spell with everytime the same effect (prismatic spells need wild magic, like I told CZ, but that's why Wild Spellcraft is in Lyceian Arcana  ). That's all because you separated two extra elements and the parameters like range and duration from the spell lists, you consolidated the spell lists and rearranged the effects - EoM revised is clearly superior to the original EoM and I would recycle my printed exemplar if it wouldn't contain the one chapter which isn't included anymore. Could you please release a separate PDF-file with that chapter, at least to the old customers? So I can print on copy without looking like being separated.

Some new questions:

-Will be a list of converted core spells published?
-In your sampler you wrote in the Summary of Changes, that "a 1 MP Evoke spell will never deal more than 3d6 points of damage". I thought that 1 MP would bring only 1d6 points of damage.
-Is Cursecraft now a use of Transform Spells?
-How is the spell list progression? Do casters get normally 2 spell lists per level but at first (or fourth) level 3 and then every four levels after the first (or fourth) again 3?
-Do you already know a spell which violates Rule 1?
-What happened to Disjunction?
-Is there a possibility to create no save-spells?

Some unrelated questions:

-Is FTCF modern already updated to 3.5? Especially the Damage Reduction power is out-of-date. Has now every ability a boost power?
-How about a book which covers a point-buy system as a replacement for classes? I know of one which uses point-buy with classes but I like to have a system with no classes.


----------



## Verequus

I tried to implement the core spell Animal Messenger with a spell level of 2, which gives 3 MPs for distribution. First a look at its stats:

-Range: Close
-Target: One tiny animal
-Duration: One day/level
-Effect: Allows to use a tiny animal as carrier for a tiny scroll or similar. Directions must be simple or destination must be well-known to the caster. Subject waits until spell expires. Rest falls under minor enhancements.

Implementation: Compel Animal 1???/ Gen 5 (1 MP for close range, 4 MPs for duration one day)

This spell uses the double amount as the core spell and has only a duration of one day at max. This raises the questions: Is the core spell in reality overpowered? Or is in EoM a mitigating factor for MP costs missing? Can spells prolonged, even the caster isn't in range of the original casting (or even on another plane)?


----------



## Haganegiri

I have an interesting question for Illusion spells. Say i use a Complex Force/Space illusion to conjur a giant blue fireball that APPEARS to be 1000 feet away from the target, but really is only 30 feet away, would the target be denied his dex to AC or not get a Ref saving throw if they failed their will save to the fireball (I dunno if attack spells require ranged attack rolls or not. (i mean they think that the harmless ball is hundred and hundreds of feet away, and not be thinking of dodging it when its still so far away.) same goes for an Archery Mage, could i fire an arrow with a space illusion that made them think the arrow was going to their left or something, but really hitting them, therefore they dont dodge the arrow, and no dex to ac. Am i making sense with what im asking?


----------



## RangerWickett

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Okay, I can understand that you decided against Intelligence as bonus MP ability but you could have used Charisma instead like at a bard. This is the only decision so far I'm not so happy with it but it is probably because I'm accustomed to a bonus since I started to play AD&D. If you don't like this table, how about a feat like Toughness, just for MPs?




Yeah, there's the Extra MP feat.  You get bonus MP equal to your caster level.  It's roughly equivalent to the Extra Spell feat from Tome & Blood.




			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> The formula 10 + (1/2 MP cost or spell level in the core rules) + Charisma bonus. Have we to substitute spell level to 1/2 MPs if we have to calculate a DC with the core rules? Also, in the core rules the save DC of standard magic item like a wand has the following formula: 10 + rounded down(1.5 * spell level). But because there is now no dependency between the usable MPs and the Charisma score, a spell has now a lower minimum save DC (5 + 1/2 spent MPs) and so a greater range of possible DCs. This means also that there has to be a new standard formula for setting the DC of a rolled standard magic item.




Well, as far as I understood it, the DC to determine a magic item's save DC was 10 + spell level + the modifier of the ability score necessary to cast a spell of that level, which is, indeed 10 +1.5x spell level.  For EoM, first, a negative Charisma won't reduce your save DCs, kinda like how Paladins with low Charismas don't get a penalty to their saving throws.  Second, the default DC for an EoM magic item will be 10 + 3/4 spell MP cost.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> In addition, I'm still one of those who want a minimum intelligence score for being able to cast a spell of a certain level. I can't just understand that someone who barely speaks a language can eventually leveling entire towns - especially that he came up with such a plan. If the good old formula 10 + x = needed score to cast spells of level x (of course converted to MPs) doesn't function anymore, I will use a plain minimum of 10. Or do you have a better idea? Instead a plain minimum or regarding why I should use your system in this point...




Well, if you want that type of game, with the standard fantasy idea of most magic-users being intelligent, then you certainly can house rule, but there's no balance reason why you can't have a stupid mage.  I mean, there are unintelligent monsters that have magical powers, so if your group is okay with dim-witted people able to harness the powers of sorcery, we give you the option.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> EoM can surely handle weather conditions, earthquakes and such catastrophes, can't it?




It can . . . now that you've reminded me we need to put in a few of those things.  It wasn't one of the options I thought about heavily when I was helping on the revisions, and so there's not really an easy way to create such effects at low level.  You could have a centralized earthquake or lightningstorm or somesuch, which is easy with the existing MP costs for area of effect, but if you just want to have a large-scale tremor or storm, we're going to have to add a little more in.  Won't be hard, though.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Oh, there I drew a false conclusion. I thought, if you cast Evoke Fire 3/Gen 0, then you have 3d6 fire damage, which I can enhance further without increasing the "spell level", but I have to pay extra MPs, like the effect of a metamagic feat on a core spell. Please clarify that point.




All MP costs paid for the spell, including spell list enhancements, general enhancements, and metamagic effects, count toward its MP total.  You cannot spend more MP on a single spell than your caster level.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> I just wanted to know, why the number for Range Long is 800 ft., because like I calculated it would be more logical to choose 750 ft. Your general explanation is interesting, though. Unfortunately you missed the last question of this section - if no, I would spent 1 MP for short  range and 1 MP for the extra 500 ft. to get a nearly long range for 2 MPs.




It's 800 instead of 750 because of whim.  We just wanted a suitably large range, and 800 is more of a round number.  And no, you can't just spend 1 MP for 500 ft., you have to get to long range, and then you can increase the range by 500 ft. per MP thereafter.  Really, you didn't think that you could do it as you suggested, did you?  That'd be silly.


----------



## RangerWickett

I'm having trouble sending long replies.  Maybe a short one will get through.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Survived all magical skills (at least their uses - Intuit Direction was fusioned with Scry and Sight, for example)? What system of skill point spending do you use personally?




There are just the four magical skills - Dispel Magic, Divination, Scry, and Spellcraft.  We considered a few others, but they're not really necessary, and would end up requiring too many skill points anyway.

In my home game, I just don't have cross-class skills.  I'm flexible with character concepts, and so if a fighter wants to tumble and have perform, I don't see any reason why he has a harder time learning it than a rogue would.  But because I know a lot of people still use class/cross-class skills, we'll include them in the book.




			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> This also means, you can have scrolls of "Dispel Magic". That inspires me to following idea: Can someone use scrolls of basic spells and combine them or known spell lists at casting? How flexible can be used a scroll? If you have Evoke Fire 5 with 3 MPs for damage and two for another enhancement, but you need only the damage, can you "skip" the enhancement? I think that it shouldn't be possible to replace an enhancement until you know the spell list but in that case you wouldn't need the scroll anyway - until you can so break the "Max spent MPs = current caster level". If you can't combine scroll on the fly shouldn't it be possible to use them at least in item creation processes?




Interesting idea, which helped me clarify a slight dichotomy of types of magic items.  Charged Items can usually only create signature spells, which means that when you make a charged item, you give it one and only one version of a spell.  In light of what you propose, when we release the magic item creation rules, some powerful items will let their user have access to an entire spell list and possibly bonus MP.  We spent a few months revising the magic system, so please realize we'll need some time to balance and revise the magic item creation system.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> If someone casts "Summon Monster V", then you must know the suitable Create [Creature] spell in order to dispel the spell without penalty (assuming succeeded Spellcraft checks). But because there is no Divination Spell but only a skill you can circumvent only a penalty if the Divination skill counts as a spell. In that case it could be relevant how many ranks you have in Divination but I'm unsure in that point.




Ah, yes.  When countering a magical skill (or a standard D&D spell of the appropriate type), you don't get a penalty if you have at least 1 rank in that skill.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> No comment on the Blindsense and Blindsight statement?




I'll have to reread exactly what blindsight and blindsense say, so I can know if you can defeat them.


----------



## RangerWickett

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> It seems I have to get accustomed first to that flexibility. But I hope one can get still inherent bonis to abilities, probably through a Transform spell, can't I? Oh, how can someone create a ring of three wishes? Is that possible without having to know every 268 spell lists?




Well, no, no wishes.  Maybe we'll put some feat in Lyceian Arcana that lets you pay MP to cast spells you don't know.  As for inherent bonuses to abilities, no, we don't have that option yet.  You can make a permanent enhancement bonus on yourself with the Craft Permanent Spell feat, but we only wanted one system of having permanent magic effects.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> They do, but there a three major differences: Firstly, with Quick Counterspelling you can dispel several spells in one round, secondly the dispels are treated as standard actions and thirdly don't use a part of the normal action. Otherwise is Inquisitor Counterspell nearly identical to Reactive Counterspell from Magic of Faerun besides you give up your next action totally. The second point violates the full round-action rule - how about the change of the prerequisites of my feat to "Inquisitor Counterspell, having Dispel Magic skill as signature spell"? If there is no feat like Quick Counterspell available, then magical combat has good use of its sword, but nothing comparable to a shield - or better only half the possibilities of a shield.




The shield is your three saving throws.  Dispel Magic is more like tripping your foe; it throws them off for a bit, but it's not a reliable defense unless you're very good at it.


----------



## RangerWickett

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> I bought EoM one week after its release. It isn't surprising that I was interested enough to comment the whole file because I wrote CZ already for the original EoM several very long emails which has been already credited in the erratas (I really didn't expect that *great* honor  ). So if you want me to comment the whole revision before its release - I would do it .
> 
> EoM revised seems to be the near perfect implementation of a flexible, yet balanced magic system - you and CZ managed to create a self-contained system which allows every theoritical spell with everytime the same effect (prismatic spells need wild magic, like I told CZ, but that's why Wild Spellcraft is in Lyceian Arcana  ). That's all because you separated two extra elements and the parameters like range and duration from the spell lists, you consolidated the spell lists and rearranged the effects - EoM revised is clearly superior to the original EoM and I would recycle my printed exemplar if it wouldn't contain the one chapter which isn't included anymore. Could you please release a separate PDF-file with that chapter, at least to the old customers? So I can print on copy without looking like being separated.




Thank you for the compliments, certainly.  We're still working on polishing up the final bits (and the Transform list is giving us fits; too flexible), but could you send me an email so I can reply with the current text?  You've been a great help, and it's been great to hear that people are responding well to the revisions.


----------



## RangerWickett

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Some new questions:




-Will be a list of converted core spells published?
No, not in the book.  CZ kept a file of some comparisons, but it got really cumbersome, and after looking at the system for a while, you should figure out how to handle most spells from standard D&D.

-In your sampler you wrote in the Summary of Changes, that "a 1 MP Evoke spell will never deal more than 3d6 points of damage". I thought that 1 MP would bring only 1d6 points of damage.
You'll see.  I don't want to post the whole spell list.

-Is Cursecraft now a use of Transform Spells?
It depends on what you want to do.  Most curses would be reversed infuse spells (to lower abilities), Evoke Death (to cause blindness, etc.), or Compel spells (to restrict actions).

-How is the spell list progression? Do casters get normally 2 spell lists per level but at first (or fourth) level 3 and then every four levels after the first (or fourth) again 3?
6 at first level, 3 more at 2nd, 2 per level thereafter.

-Do you already know a spell which violates Rule 1?
I'm not as much of a powergamer as I ought to be, but I have been a little worried that all high-level Mages will start off every day with Infuse Fire to give themselves a +16 Charisma for higher spell DCs.  We'll have to see how that pans out.

-What happened to Disjunction?
If you want to permanently de-magic an item, you need feat Craft Wondrous Item, and you have to apply a permanent dispel magic effect, which costs XP.

-Is there a possibility to create no save-spells?
No.  I hate spells like that.


Some unrelated questions:

-Is FTCF modern already updated to 3.5? Especially the Damage Reduction power is out-of-date. Has now every ability a boost power?
It's updated, but not yet fully laid-out or released.  DR has been updated, and the ability score boosters were clarified.

-How about a book which covers a point-buy system as a replacement for classes? I know of one which uses point-buy with classes but I like to have a system with no classes.
I've done enough writing on point-buy systems, no offense.  I need a break to something less number-crunch-oriented.


----------



## RangerWickett

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> I tried to implement the core spell Animal Messenger with a spell level of 2, which gives 3 MPs for distribution. First a look at its stats:
> 
> -Range: Close
> -Target: One tiny animal
> -Duration: One day/level
> -Effect: Allows to use a tiny animal as carrier for a tiny scroll or similar. Directions must be simple or destination must be well-known to the caster. Subject waits until spell expires. Rest falls under minor enhancements.
> 
> Implementation: Compel Animal 1???/ Gen 5 (1 MP for close range, 4 MPs for duration one day)
> 
> This spell uses the double amount as the core spell and has only a duration of one day at max. This raises the questions: Is the core spell in reality overpowered? Or is in EoM a mitigating factor for MP costs missing? Can spells prolonged, even the caster isn't in range of the original casting (or even on another plane)?




Well, the option you use is one that is available, but probably unnecessary.  It'd be Compel Animal 3/Gen 4 (we'll say that you should have the animal at hand for the spell to work), which would let you telepathically force an animal to obey your command: in this case, to deliver a message.

The easier option would be to use Compel Animal 3/Gen 0 to allow yourself to telepathically communicate with the animal for a minute, long enough for you to make a Diplomacy check and give it directions.  If you roll at least fairly well for your Diplomacy check, the creature will obey without having to actually be _compelled_.  The Compel list also covers non-linguistic communication, such as when you're talking to a non-sentient animal.


----------



## RangerWickett

Haganegiri said:
			
		

> I have an interesting question for Illusion spells. Say i use a Complex Force/Space illusion to conjur a giant blue fireball that APPEARS to be 1000 feet away from the target, but really is only 30 feet away, would the target be denied his dex to AC or not get a Ref saving throw if they failed their will save to the fireball (I dunno if attack spells require ranged attack rolls or not. (i mean they think that the harmless ball is hundred and hundreds of feet away, and not be thinking of dodging it when its still so far away.) same goes for an Archery Mage, could i fire an arrow with a space illusion that made them think the arrow was going to their left or something, but really hitting them, therefore they dont dodge the arrow, and no dex to ac. Am i making sense with what im asking?




Similar to Rulesmaster's question above about animal messenger, you can do this spell, but it's not the most effective way to do what you want.    Now, from what I'm reading, you want to create an illusion of a fireball (standard visual) that looks like it's far away (complex space), but feels like it's real (complex force).  This is a strange idea, honestly.  If the illusion looks like it's far away, then the force effect would make the target feel it as if it were far away, which would mean no damage.

One thing I'll need to clarify in the text is how much damage an illusion of an attack spell can do, but I'd say not more than the illusion spell's total MP cost, multiplied by 20%, 40%, or 60%, depending on the complexity of the force illusion.

If you wanted to cast an Evoke Fire spell, combined with an Illusion Space to make a real fireball spell look like it's going a different way, then the person would get first a Will save to disbelief, and then if they fail, they don't get a Reflex save to resist.  If they disbelieve, they can make a Reflex save normally for half damage.  Your spell would probably cost a total of 8 MP to do 5d6 points of damage, but it would be an interesting way to harm people with evasion.  But hmm, most people with evasion also have Uncanny Dodge, which would let them still get a save even if they didn't consciously know they were being attacked.

Oh, and as to your question about evoke spells, you can choose to have either aimed effects (like rays) or area effects (like fireballs).


----------



## Verequus

Sorry, but I run out of time, so I post only some points now... @Ryan: I sent the email to your hotmail account today.



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Yeah, there's the Extra MP feat. You get bonus MP equal to your caster level. It's roughly equivalent to the Extra Spell feat from Tome & Blood.




Will be the bonus MPs to the current caster level adjusted or are they frozen?



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> All MP costs paid for the spell, including spell list enhancements, general enhancements, and metamagic effects, count toward its MP total. You cannot spend more MP on a single spell than your caster level.




I looked in the text again - it seems to be worded in the way, as I understood the text at first, not as you wrote here.



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> It's 800 instead of 750 because of whim. We just wanted a suitably large range, and 800 is more of a round number. And no, you can't just spend 1 MP for 500 ft., you have to get to long range, and then you can increase the range by 500 ft. per MP thereafter. Really, you didn't think that you could do it as you suggested, did you? That'd be silly.




Actually I wanted to point out, that it isn't clearly forbidden like in FCTF. I would never allowed myself to use the suggested way, but I didn't word my post clearly enough. My mistake.



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> There are just the four magical skills - Dispel Magic, Divination, Scry, and Spellcraft. We considered a few others, but they're not really necessary, and would end up requiring too many skill points anyway.




No more ordinary skills with MP use like Alchemy?


----------



## Haganegiri

I have a small question, when im choosing my first three spell list, If i choose Illusion i have to choose Illusion: Fire, Illusion: Death, and Illusion: Water as my three list, or do i just choose Illusion?


----------



## RangerWickett

Haganegiri said:
			
		

> I have a small question, when im choosing my first three spell list, If i choose Illusion i have to choose Illusion: Fire, Illusion: Death, and Illusion: Water as my three list, or do i just choose Illusion?




Each spell list is a single combination of one action type and one object type.  So yes, Illusion Fire, Illusion Death, and Illusion Water would require 3 separate spell lists.

You know 6 spell lists if your caster level is 1, or 3 spell lists if your caster level is 1/2 (like a 1st level faithblade).  By the time you reach caster level 20, you know 45 spell lists.

In addition to learning spell lists as you level up, you can also make use of spells you don't know, though in limited ways.  Mages can write down their signature spells in spellbooks, which lets them sell and share spells with other mages.  If you have a spell written down, even if you don't know that spell, you can cast it.  Doing so takes one minute and requires a caster level check, but it gives you a lot of flexibility.

(Compare this to scroll-like magic items, which cost much more, but let you cast spells you don't know as a standard action.)


----------



## RangerWickett

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Will be the bonus MPs to the current caster level adjusted or are they frozen?




The amount of bonus MP you get from the Extra MP feat increases as your caster level increases.


----------



## Haganegiri

Ranger you are my new god, i loved EoM (gave my DM hell tell he let me us it, then he loved it and forced out other party wizard to use it, which didnt make him happy because he though EoM was lame, but now he preaches it too) and i love this new system just 100% better. Thank you for putting up with my ignorant questions, great job and keep up the superb work!


----------



## Haganegiri

hmmm, how about Wisdom for bonus MPs? Wisdom represents interneally learned natural instincts, and magic is more "from within" with EoM so it seems fitting to me.

How about you need 10 int + 1 int per 2 MPs needing to be spent for spells? (i.e. 11 for 2 MP spells, 12 for 4, 13 for 6, ... 20 for 20 MP spells) requires very little math IMO. a 2 mp spell is reoughly equivalent to a 1st level spell.

Although i have yet to see how all spell list work (only the sampler) I am curious if move earth covers earthquakes, and move water tsunamis and whatnot, and what of the old Poison, Fast Heal, and Regeneration lists? and powerwords? can i still fatigue, blind, etc. opponents?


----------



## netnomad

How about certain skills give bonus MP or a skill that gives bonus MP?

If you don't want a new skill you can use concentration as a way to get back MP that have been used since the PC enters a meditate state.  You need to mediate for 1 hour but depending on the DC on the DC determines how many MP you get back.  For example a DC 15 will get you 5mp, a DC 20 will get you 10 MP, a DC 25 will get you 15, etc...

If you want a new skill you can call it Reverie.  Each rank in it gives you the mage class level in MP back per hour if you make a Skill Check DC 15. For each 5 over you make the check you get a +1 MP back.  This skill has a synergy with Concentration +1 for very 5 points in Concentration.

Now this was from the top of my head and will most likely have to be tweaked a bit but hopefully you get the picture.

-NetNomad


----------



## Phaedrus

It's been a while... is there an ETA?

(I'm starting a new campaign very soon and would like to squeeze the new rules in...)


----------



## Verequus

What's an ETA? Estimated Time of Arrival?


----------



## Phaedrus

yep, Estimated Time of Arrival.

(Sorry, work for an Acronym-obsessed company and forget that not everyone is as crazy as we are...)

I'm going to do a campaign with only 2 PC's, a Fighter-type and a Mage.  I want to use EoM to combine the cleric/wizard into one character...


----------



## RangerWickett

I'm sorry for the near complete lack of replies.  My computer's internet died, and now even after I've reinstalled everything it's still giving me troubles, so I can only access the internet from the library, where they don't let you bring disks.  So I can't upload anything to show you guys.  I'm hoping to get this fixed ASAP, but if I can't, I'll hopefully be able to find a friend who'll let me use his computer for a few hours.

Phaedrus, assuming I can get my computer up and on the web, I can send you a draft of the rules.  We haven't gotten to layout yet, but I can show you the raw text.  Send me an email, and hopefully I'll be able to get it to you by mid-week.


----------



## Verequus

Did you receive all my comments? Do you still have a copy? And can I get a newer draft version? I'm curious about the changes.


----------



## RangerWickett

So yeah, my computer's ethernet should be working as far as anyone knows.  Even the official computer folks at my university think everything should be working fine.

So as soon as I make sure all the necessary (read: urgent) files for ENWorld Player's Journal 4 are available online for my coworkers, I'll be able to start copying EOM to floppies and working on it on public terminals.  Not ideal, but I should be able to put up Move for you this Saturday.


----------



## gpetruc

Do I need to get the original Elements of Magic PDF before and the then revision, or there will be a self-sufficient revised PDF ?
After reading the preview I immediatly added this to my "to buy" list, it's really cool and well done !

I just hope it comes out early

It would be nice to have also a "skill only" system, without MP (a la Ars Magica, for a high magic world) ... but probably it is asking too much.


----------



## Charles Gray

*ETA date and OGL material.*

Hi! 
  Two quick questions-- well, two and half.  First of all, will the new elements of magic include more material than the first edition + the upgrade?  I'm not upset-- infact from the released material you've made a great deal of changes, far more than say, 3.5 (cough cough), D&D, so I'd be perfectly willing to buy the second edition outright.
  Secondly, do you have any "in thius  month it'll be out" date? THe reason is quite simple, I work in comics and we have a comic coming out that is going to have a game tie in, and when I bought the first edition, I knew what I wanted to use for its magic system.  However, the second edition sounds like it's greatly improved, so I was thinking of waiting for it.

   Thank you,

   PS:  When the OGL license was first created, this was the sort of thing I'd hoped we'd see more of-- systems building off of the D20 system, but making thier original contributions to it.  This is hands down, one of the best PDF products I have ever bought, and also probably among the top five or six rules sets for D20, in print or otherwise.  
    Also, extra points for using the bookmark feature of Acrobat-- I don't know why so many PDF publishers leave that feature unused.
Good work, and thanks!


----------



## keynup

Hi, Just look to see if the revised version is out, or when it will be coming out?


----------



## RangerWickett

Jason, Russ, should we tell them the news or not?

Well, either way, the full draft of Elements should be done by November 30th.  Where it goes from there is not quite certain yet, but we're all glad with how things are looking.


----------



## keynup

If my vote counts, then I'd say tell us.   

Not being familier with the process, should it be out by Chistmas? or much later?


----------

