Redefining and Reviewing

You mean 2012 Mike? 2112 is an awfully long time away.

Stephen
 
I thought you were just being facetious.
 
He's been playing a mystic wood elf for too long is all.

Scott
 
Ok so we have some suggestions for how to better organize and visually represent our rules.

Any further suggestions as to how to further simplify the rules set and make it easier for a new player to grasp?
 
This isn't an organization issue, but make the damage of a spell something you call at the end of the incant. It doesn't have to be a rule, but it should be a very strong suggestion listed in the book. Half the time, NPCs and PCs alike have to ask how much damage evocation spells do anyway. "I call forth a lightning storm 30!" gets it out of the way early.
 
if we move to a more standardized incant for spells, it should be universal. get rid of the concept of "bolt/storm" form the incant... hell, do what someone suggested a while back and make evocation selectable at the time of casting similar to the way elemental blast works.

level 1 shard of evocation = 5 points of (element) dmg chosen at the time of casting - "i call forth 5 flame"
level 2 shard of evocation = 10 points of (element) dmg chosen at the time of casting - "i call forth 10 lightning"
and so on...
 
"I call upon the earth to heal 2 body"
"I call upon chaos to consume 2 body"

I remain torn between loving the poetry of the old incants, and the utility of streamlining them, though.
 
jpariury said:
"I call upon the earth to heal 2 body"
"I call upon chaos to consume 2 body"

I remain torn between loving the poetry of the old incants, and the utility of streamlining them, though.
Click to expand...

Me too... and I never played with the unique incants. They just sound cool.

I could never have played a caster though... I'd have screwed them up.
 
What if the call for a spell has 2 parts: an in-game portion that are the magic words you say, and an OOG portion that are the effects it has? I'd rather not say '2 body' or "5 stone" in an IG incant.
 
The OP was suggesting rules revisions that simplified things and made them easier for everyone to understand.

Some of that can be fixed by expressing things easier. But, that doesn't mean that there are some rules that can be streamlined/simplified. The damage/healing component of spells is one area that has potential.

I like Robb's idea quite a bit actually.
 
To be clear, I am very much for including a number with the damaging and healing spells. There should be no reason to have to memorize those numbers if you're not casting. I just don't want a number to be part of the incant. Simplifying the evocation spells to one of 4 incants (depending on element) would probably help in the initial understanding area. Same with healing and chaos spells.

"I call forth a flame burst! 15 flame!"
"I call forth a lightning burst! 25 lightning!"
"I call upon the earth to heal you! 2 earth!"
"I call upon chaos to harm you! 5 chaos!"


On a slightly tangential note, a lot of new players say "fire" instead of "flame". Is there a good reason we say "flame" here?
 
because fire is not correct. fire burns things... flame is an eldritch energy that does not burn anything... it is just eldritch force summoned from elemental flame.
 
also.. i don't see the benefit of what you're saying about the damage being called after the incant versus including it in the incant. inclusion is cleaner. your way makes the incant harder.
 
Because you are saying the incant in-game, and I'd like to avoid the additional suspension of disbelief needed when you are saying something in-game which refers to units that don't exist in-game, only in the game mechanics. My suggestion makes the required verbal longer, but I claim not harder in any real way, and it divorces the in-game incant with the out-of-game effect declaration.
 
in my mind, longer is harder. but regardless, i don't understand your point about suspension of disbelief considering you are still saying the words... you're still adding the unbelievable OOG dialogue.
 
Blarg, I kept deciding I could explain that better and re-editing my previous post. You say, "2 normal, 2 normal, 2 normal" when swinging your weapon, but that's not your character saying that, that is just the player saying what effect those swings have. When you say, "With mystic force I bind you", that is your character saying that. If you change an incant to, "I call forth 5 flame", your character is saying that, but is referring to 5 whats? In reality, he's referring to 5 body, but these are not units that exist in the world, just in the game mechanics. If you separate the incant and the effect size, you're no longer saying "5 flame" in-game, it's just that everybody observes that that's how much it would hurt to get hit by it.
 
no i get that... you're saying that the veil between IG and OOG is breached too much by including the numerical value in the incant. I see what you're saying... and I don't have an answer for it. My argument was more "you're saying it anyway, so my belief that this is all a real world experience where my incant really is calling forth the eldritch force is blown by the number being verbalized regardless, so we might as well make the incant simpler"
 
I think it's still worthwhile to maintain a separation between things your character says and things your player says. Saying OOG words in the incant, to me, makes it no longer an in-game incant.

I suppose one could interpret the number to mean 5 individual strands of flame. "I call forth 5 flame bolts!" That doesn't evoke (har har) the right imagery to me, but it does mean the number is referring to something in-game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top