|
Post by shaungamer on Aug 19, 2010 2:15:12 GMT -5
After many days of organization and frustration, I present you with a Spell Book v3.3. Unfortunately I lost the 3.5 version and this version has been built up from an old document. There are stilll a lot of errors (I didn't realize until I had posted the file that the costs are not right on some of the spells). And there are still a lot of spells missing (Including some of the higher levels). This really is a mishmash but demonstrates what I intend with the spell book and some of the ideas behind it. The School of the Air shows the progression of spells with SPARK, JOLT and LIGHTENING. I think there should be one more DIF:8 spell called forked lightening to round out the set. Comments and feedback would be welcome. I know that people will like to do things differently in this area which is why the spell book is separate. Well her it is: SB_v3.3.pdf
|
|
erf_beto
Artist
Artwork Wizard
Posts: 369
|
Post by erf_beto on Aug 19, 2010 6:52:25 GMT -5
Very Cool! Thanks for sharing, even if still incomplete. And the crafting rules are a nice add-on. I'd just add a minimum MAG or WIT requirement to be an alchemist, otherwise you should visit the town's alchemist to craft the items for you. As for missing things, I noticed some spells do the same thing, but are higher level. Spark and Jolt are practically the same (going from "6 squares" range to "entire tile" isn't much, when you realize most DP tiles are 6 squares long). Should they up the damage or increase the Def penalty as well? Also, the summoned critters stat block headers text (ATK, DEF...) are black, so you can't see them.
|
|
|
Post by shaungamer on Aug 19, 2010 18:23:07 GMT -5
I wanted to get the spell book out to get some feedback. And it has succeeded very well. I agree that a Magic user shouldn't be able to just make an object without some sort of prerequisite. Personally I would like to make it both WIT and MAG so I will start working on that. I was going to demonstrate that the ranges reflect bands of squares around the target square and that those bands were SELF, ADJACENT, 3 SQUARES, 6 SQUARES and ENTIRE TILE. However when I started doing the explanation I realized I was wrong. To use the old system the 6 Squares should have been 5 Squares. However as soon as the caster is not in a edge square then 5 Squares is the same as Entire tile. SO I am going to change the ranges to the following: SELF, ADJACENT, 2 SQUARES, 3 SQUARES, 4 SQUARES and ENTIRE TILE. This can be used to give a bit more variety or allow for differences between schools (e.g. Fire attacks are long range 3 to entire tile and Water Attacks are short range Adjacent to 3.) I will make some changes (maybe add some new stuff) and post a new book. Hopefully middle of next week! Thanks!!! Edit: Timing!!
|
|
|
Post by dan on Aug 19, 2010 19:16:37 GMT -5
I really like the construction in particular. The spell lists all seem promising, looking forward to the new book.
|
|
|
Post by shaungamer on Aug 23, 2010 17:14:28 GMT -5
Designing and pricing spells is proving a lot harder than it looks. I still haven't managed to get a formula that matches the feeling of what the spells are worth. I am afraid I am going back to the drawing board - literally!! So there will be some more delays!
|
|
erf_beto
Artist
Artwork Wizard
Posts: 369
|
Post by erf_beto on Aug 24, 2010 6:00:26 GMT -5
Well, I'm not sure if you already have this, but you can start by sketching a table with base prices per level for both equipment, items and spells, and adjust from there. That table should depend on the rewards given by quests and how much wealth should a character accumulate over each level. Normally, you can say consumable items, like potions, cost a fraction (like 1/5) of the value of a permanent item, like a magic sword. (It's what they do in the 4e of D&D). Here's an example. Lvl.01 :: permanent item: 50g :: consumable: 10g Lvl.02 :: permanent item: 75g :: consumable: 15g Lvl.03 :: permanent item: 100g :: consumable: 20g Lvl.04 :: permanent item: 150g :: consumable: 30g and so on... Spell aquisition could occur from buying Spellbooks (full cost for a permanent magic item). Scrolls are consumables: you can release the spell or pay half the price of a spellbook to learn it. Anyway, I'm not even sure this model can work within DP, but I think it's worth mentioning. Hope it helps And don't worry about delays, Shaun. We have faith! PS: I love your new avatar! Can I have it?
|
|
|
Post by shaungamer on Aug 24, 2010 17:41:01 GMT -5
Yes we do have a bunch of tables and formulas for costings. That is where the trouble is . . . I can get some of the spells to fit using the formulas but when I increase range or target numbers they blow out of proportion. e.g. a +1 ATK spell should be 15-20g and +2 ATK spell should be 35-45g. I am trying to get a formula that will give those results but it doesn't. I am still working on it though!! You can't have my avatar as it is a reasonable representation of me. (And I would like to keep it to myself!!) ;D It is actually a conversion of one of Shadowolf's figures because I can't draw chunky figures and I needed someone with that little extra bulk. ( FAT heroes are hard to find.) I am sure with your talent, you can do something great anyway!!
|
|
|
Post by shaungamer on Aug 25, 2010 0:20:20 GMT -5
OK, I managed to resolve some things about the costs because a spell isn't necessarily going to work all the time. (it depends on your MAG stat for starters.)
I have a new spell book released (Available from the link in the first post) to check it is correct it should have "version 3.3.3" on the first page.
The only schools that are complete so far are Air and Fire.
You will also notice there are DIF 9 and 10 spells. I included them mainly for completeness. Currently your MAG stat augmented with every type of item can only reach a maximum of 15. This means you will rarely succeed in casting these 9 & 10 spells. However I couldn't just leave them out.
The difficulty of a spell is no longer an arbitary number either. Like the cost, it is determined by what the spell does. The DIF used to have an effect on the cost but I couldn't quite see the point of it.
As usual any feedback would be greatly appreciated!!
|
|
erf_beto
Artist
Artwork Wizard
Posts: 369
|
Post by erf_beto on Aug 25, 2010 15:41:27 GMT -5
I'm looking at the new spellbook right now. I'll post some thoughts as I glance through it (hard to do it at work, might take some time to finish this post ) First thing I thought was "WOW! that's a lot of spells!", then I realized most of them are the same, only higer level with better effects, number of targets, area, or dificulty to resist. Suggestion: use a single name to describe them (which makes them easier to memorize!), and add a table to separate the different versions. Teleport The air shimmers around the Character as it disappears from sight, teleporting to squares away from where it was.
D | Range | Target | Effect............... |Res| Cost --+-------+--------+-----------------------+---+------ 1 | touch | 1 char | teleport up to 3 sqrs | 2 | 5 gp 2 | touch | 1 char | teleport up to 6 sqrs | 3 | 10 gp 3 | 6sqrs | 1 char | teleport up to 6 sqrs | 4 | 20 gp 5 | 6sqrs | 2 char | teleport up to 6 sqrs | 5 | 40 gp 6 | 6sqrs | 4 char | teleport up to 6 sqrs | 5 | 55 gp 7 | 1tile | 4 char | teleport up to 6 sqrs | 6 | 65 gp
God, I hate adding tables to posts! Anyway, It's just easier to look up, in my opinion. You could also describe the effects with a math formula: "you cause 3 points of damage, plus an extra 2 damage per increase in difficulty". Something else I noticed is that continuous spells like sleep are very powerfull, because they can take a monster out of the fight indefinetly. Do the monsters get to make a new resist check every round? As for the fire spells, the fireballs don't seem worth it. Sure, they target an area, but the flare can target more than one monster and they do automatic damage, no DEF allowed. If i'm reading correctly. Compare Blaze and Fireball. Both are dif 4, but What are the chances you'll get to hit more than two monsters on a 2x2 block? With fireball, you have to roll for the casting, roll for the attack, roll for the monster defense. While with Blaze you get to hit 2 creatures up to eight squares apart (M---C---M) and automaticaly cause 3 damage (enough to drop most critters). Am I reading this right? Yes we do have a bunch of tables and formulas for costings. ooooooh! I'd love to see those! It would make it so much easier to balance my variant spellbook! That is where the trouble is . . . I can get some of the spells to fit using the formulas but when I increase range or target numbers they blow out of proportion. e.g. a +1 ATK spell should be 15-20g and +2 ATK spell should be 35-45g. I am trying to get a formula that will give those results but it doesn't. I am still working on it though!! Maybe separate the costs into categories, and add them up. range: self - costs X, adjacent - costs 1.5X, 3 squares - costs 2X... target: 1 character - cost: Y, 2 characters - cost: 2Y... dificulty to cast: 1 - cost: -Z, 2 - cost: -1.5Z, 3 - cost: -2Z, 4 - cost: -3Z...
Example spell: Transfer (adj, 1char, dif2) total cost: 1.5X + Y - 1.5Z
Alternatively, you can add up the dificulty based on the costs (like "2 targets" costs 2Y and increase dif+1. Am I making myself clear? :\ You can't have my avatar as it is a reasonable representation of me. (And I would like to keep it to myself!!) ;D It is actually a conversion of one of Shadowolf's figures because I can't draw chunky figures and I needed someone with that little extra bulk. ( FAT heroes are hard to find.) I am sure with your talent, you can do something great anyway!! Awwww Well, suffice to say I reeeealy like what you've done with shadowolf's figure! I actually got inspired to do a DP mini of myself. I already had a "mini-me", but with regular clothing, so I quickly draw one "DP wizard-me" yesterday, but I still need to scan and clean it up (and maybe take away some details, my newer figures are very detailed for their small size). And you're right, chubby characters are hard to find. I did one some time ago, I'll see what I can do (it's a king of sorts). Cheers! PS: I sometimes feel that my posts contain a lot of criticism, I hope you don't take it that way! I'm actually inspired by your work!
|
|
|
Post by dan on Aug 25, 2010 19:29:24 GMT -5
I like the direction, but I do think some of those prices might need some testing. It's hard to say, as I am just going through it in my head, hope to have a chance to try it out soon. It seems like magic/spells are going to need the most playtesting out of all the new concepts to find the right balance.
I would tend to agree on having "levels" of spells with a table of some sort as opposed to different names for all of them. Names are more thematic, but might get a bit confusing.
I was thinking...and this may not be fitting to the theme, but if you include your equations or some kind of worksheet in the spell book, it could allow players to make up spells on the fly, kind of like the item constuction; if they gather an eye of newt, some faerie dust, etc, they could formulate a spell...maybe only very high level casters could do that...again, not sure if that really fits your background; it might be cool, but it also could have a lot of potential for abuse and unbalancing play.
|
|
|
Post by shaungamer on Aug 26, 2010 2:54:44 GMT -5
I will give the table idea a go but I don't want to give the impression that you have to purchase spells in levels or require a lesser spell before purchasing a higher spell. This also brings up some other issues which I will mention in another post later. A monster can use a Resist Action every round on Continuous spells. I probably forgot to mention that somewhere . . . Your next comment about flame and fireball is also a mistake on my behalf (I will blame it on the fact that I was rushing). The way spells are supposed to work is that all ATK spells get a normal DEF roll by default. It is only exceptions to that rule that get written in the spell. (Of course I didn't follow my own rules so now there is a bit of confusion) both the flame and fireball spell sets get DEF rolls One final item to add is the Spell formula as it currently stands: Spell Cost = ( Range+ Resist+ Effect+( ATK x4)+ ( DEFx4))x Target Number rounded to the nearest 5 Range Adjacent & Self is 1 Range Entire Tile is 5 Effect is a generic number relating to the spell e.g. 4 for moving a character 4 spaces - 9 for a Fire Drake. ATK is for each level of ATK A permanent +1 by item is usually +25 so spells are +20 DEF is for each level of DEF A permanent +1 by item is usually +25 so spells are +20 Target Number is the number of targets it effects. The Magic Stat is taken as 5 when used as a value for other STATS This is to give an average over the life of the spell. Usually you will start with MAG 4 or 5 which is really effective against low level monsters. MAG 10 is not very effective against high level Monsters, which is why I have chosen 5 as the Average. All the Monsters on a tile are counted as 6 Monsters for Target Number. Again this was an average that is based on projected Monster numbers not necessarily what exists in the current quests. A summoned monster is equal to the cost of the Monster + Range ; ignore other values in the formula. ( I need to give you the Monster cost formula now!! ;D The DIF of the spell is the Root of the cost rounded down -1. Simple really . . . Well it will be the middle of next week before I get back to this project but I will be keeping an eye out for feedback!
|
|
|
Post by dan on Aug 27, 2010 21:19:16 GMT -5
Ok, I see how levels would confuse the process because there is no set progression...looking at the equation, and how MAG is treated as a variable I see a possible flaw...this may be a bit nitpicky, but it could have an impact on final costs for some, if not all spells: The average of a 1-10 range is 5.5, and generally, if one was going to round, it would be up from .5, so perhaps treating the average as 6 (or even 5.5) when MAG is used as a stat value would allow for more accuracy...the same might be said about Monsters on a tile for the target number...though I suppose that is more of an estimate of a possible average...a very tough one to determine as quests can vary so much.
I am actually thinking the equation and existing spells lead to costs that are a bit low...my reasoning is that higher level spells are more valuable than they would at first appear in comparison to lower level spells because a higher level spellcaster will have more opportunities to use them and use them better, considering they will likely be be better equipped, have more skills, etc, and even a lower level spell may have more potential to a higher level caster...hopefully that makes some sense.
All in all, the more I think about it, the more I am thinking that equations alone won't solve it as some of the spells can't be quantified in the same way that a straight damage dealing spell can. I can imagine how difficult it must have been to come up with even this much...I think I am starting to ramble a bit...
|
|
|
Post by shaungamer on Aug 30, 2010 19:51:04 GMT -5
The average of a 1-10 range is 5.5, and generally, if one was going to round, it would be up from .5, so perhaps treating the average as 6 (or even 5.5) when MAG is used as a stat value would allow for more accuracy...the same might be said about Monsters on a tile for the target number...though I suppose that is more of an estimate of a possible average...a very tough one to determine as quests can vary so much. You are correct. However there is a reasoning for rounding everything down and making it cheaper. It is because Spells are not guarranteed to work. I decided to err on the side of the player. To help him out, I make them cheaper. There is another issue with using the Magic Stat. It peaks at 10 which means a Magic user will only have ATK 10 at level 10 (and less for previous levels). A level 10 Monster may have 12 to 15 DEF which means Magic Stat attacks are great at low levels but pretty appalling at high levels unless used on lesser creatures. That is another reason why I rounded down. As for monster numbers - on a maximum saturation the average is 10.5 (3D6 or any combination that gives 18 Monsters max). But when you look at the monster tables you realize that the maximum saturation is usually only included in 1 or 2 entries. The average number of monsters that will appear in a room is actually quite low. For DOR it is 4. For TTL it is 5. For KW it is 3. For WWW it is 6. WWW is the Quest with the most Saturated entries so far; e.g. Flying Monkey (D4) & Dire Squirrel (D12) And yet your average number of Monsters in a WWW room is only 6. Going by these averages I could count "Entire tile" as less, but I did want to make the cost seem reasonable if you can effect a whole tile. Also we might get quests that have a higher average monster count than 6. I am happy to say the equations didn't solve it. Well not the first ones anyway. I actually had a fairly good idea about how much these spells should cost from playtesting. We generally figured out the costs without a formula as such. e.g. 5pts to heal D4. 20pts to do a 1 point attack etc. So we had the costs based on some flimsy calculations but no really good reason for their costs except for "Gut feeling" - The players felt they were paying an acceptable amount for the effect they got from the spell. When I started the spell book I developed a formula that produced those costs. Unfortunately it did it fine at low levels but the high levels blew them out of all proportion. So I spent a lot of time working out the current formula. It seems to make the mid level spells a little cheaper than what I would like (30pt spells being 25pts) and the higher level spells a little more expensive (60pts spells being 70pts) but it nearly matches the original "Gut feeling " costs my playtesters chose. For the moment that is good enough for me. However, I am more than open to change things if the feedback is negative. So don't feel that my decisions are final.
|
|
|
Post by dan on Aug 31, 2010 19:13:39 GMT -5
Good points about the rounding, makes more sense to me now. I think the gut feeling probably counts for a lot more than the equations. If it feels fair to people, that's probably the best determination...I still haven't had an opportunity to play the new set with anyone but my wife. We moved in June and I don't know if anyone in the area is interested in gaming.
|
|
|
Post by lordzeke on Oct 29, 2010 22:56:54 GMT -5
New to the site... stumbled on it from OneMonk's page as I was looking for paper minis to fill out my hero quest collection for models i didn't have... found DP and was interested. A lot of great stuff is happening around here! I was printing out the rules and noticed the caster book needed a little help so i decided to take a stab at it. While I was fiddling around the the formulas noted above i felt that there needed to be a multiplier on the effect as well as the resist so for my cost i added a x2 to resist and x3 to effect, this allowed for multiple levels of spells by changing just those stats. Second I felt that there were a couple to many schools.. or not enough spell choices per school. I wanted to make a warlock character and my wife was interested in a druid so i combined the earth and nature into one school and the shadow and necromancy. Anyway seems like a great game you guys have here... once it get everything printed and cut out I'm gunna give it a try! Attachments:
|
|