Two questions on Fantasy Craft....

[Morfedel]

Wait until Spellbound hits, then you may have to rethink your statement.

Well, we will see. I do hope so.

[Doublebond]

Alex and I have an effects-based system we'll get out there eventually, but it's an entirely separate enterprise from Spellbound, which is specifically spell-based.

If only you guys had more manpower! Then maybe you'd be able to release all these goodies more frequently!

[Crafty_Pat]

Alex and I have an effects-based system we'll get out there eventually, but it's an entirely separate enterprise from Spellbound, which is specifically spell-based.

If only you guys had more manpower! Then maybe you'd be able to release all these goodies more frequently!

We'll get there. One project at a time.

[Morfedel]

Alex and I have an effects-based system we'll get out there eventually, but it's an entirely separate enterprise from Spellbound, which is specifically spell-based.

And that answers my question. I suppose I'll have to retool the True Sorcery character class to more appropriately fit. Effects-based, or something like Ars Magica's Verb-Noun system, or similar, have seemed so much more like what magic would really be.

I mean, while wizards from all books would generate a variety of effects, how often did it feel like they had incredibly diverse options? The closest that came to it before True Sorcery was Arcana Evolved's combination of spells that could be heigthened or reduced, plus have templates added on to them.

So, I suppose short term I can keep with FC's system, but long term I'll have to integrate in True Sorcery... that is, until FC comes out with it's own more flexible magic system.


Of course, that's the wagon before the horse. I'll have to actually GET FC first. Don't quite have the cash yet, and since my wife is struggling with finding a job and we are adopting 3 kids, it might be a few months. Luckily, since my game group dissolved  and the second printing isn't out yet, I suppose I'm not in a terrible rush.

[Doublebond]

Of course, that's the wagon before the horse. I'll have to actually GET FC first. Don't quite have the cash yet, and since my wife is struggling with finding a job and we are adopting 3 kids, it might be a few months. Luckily, since my game group dissolved   and the second printing isn't out yet, I suppose I'm not in a terrible rush.

D=






(I don't care that it's bad form to have such a short reply! It perfectly expresses my feelings at the present moment!)

[Crafty_Pat]

And that answers my question. I suppose I'll have to retool the True Sorcery character class to more appropriately fit. Effects-based, or something like Ars Magica's Verb-Noun system, or similar, have seemed so much more like what magic would really be.

I mean, while wizards from all books would generate a variety of effects, how often did it feel like they had incredibly diverse options? The closest that came to it before True Sorcery was Arcana Evolved's combination of spells that could be heigthened or reduced, plus have templates added on to them.

Personally, we agree with you, which is one of the reasons we have the other system in development. As we frequently say 'round these parts though... Everything in its own time.

So, I suppose short term I can keep with FC's system, but long term I'll have to integrate in True Sorcery... that is, until FC comes out with it's own more flexible magic system.

Of course, that's the wagon before the horse. I'll have to actually GET FC first. Don't quite have the cash yet, and since my wife is struggling with finding a job and we are adopting 3 kids, it might be a few months. Luckily, since my game group dissolved  and the second printing isn't out yet, I suppose I'm not in a terrible rush.

Just an FYI... Second Printing will be out imminently in PDF (very imminently - I'm putting the finishing touches on it and various related files today) and will be available in print at GenCon, and in stores not long after. Not trying to change your mind or anything - just putting it out there.

D=

What does this smiley mean? I see it every so often but haven't yet been able to parse it from context.

[Morganti]

And that answers my question. I suppose I'll have to retool the True Sorcery character class to more appropriately fit. Effects-based, or something like Ars Magica's Verb-Noun system, or similar, have seemed so much more like what magic would really be.

I mean, while wizards from all books would generate a variety of effects, how often did it feel like they had incredibly diverse options? The closest that came to it before True Sorcery was Arcana Evolved's combination of spells that could be heigthened or reduced, plus have templates added on to them.

Personally, we agree with you, which is one of the reasons we have the other system in development. As we frequently say 'round these parts though... Everything in its own time.

So, I suppose short term I can keep with FC's system, but long term I'll have to integrate in True Sorcery... that is, until FC comes out with it's own more flexible magic system.

Of course, that's the wagon before the horse. I'll have to actually GET FC first. Don't quite have the cash yet, and since my wife is struggling with finding a job and we are adopting 3 kids, it might be a few months. Luckily, since my game group dissolved  and the second printing isn't out yet, I suppose I'm not in a terrible rush.

Just an FYI... Second Printing will be out imminently in PDF (very imminently - I'm putting the finishing touches on it and various related files today) and will be available in print at GenCon, and in stores not long after. Not trying to change your mind or anything - just putting it out there.

D=

What does this smiley mean? I see it every so often but haven't yet been able to parse it from context.

Its a big frown.  is big smile =D D= D:.  Frowns

[Crafty_Pat]

I should probably clarify a bit, as I suspect my previous statement may have given you an incorrect impression. We naturally build a lot more customization into our games than most publishers, with feats, tricks, campaign qualities, and other rules tweaking the base spellcasting mechanic (and the mechanics of each spell). Taking another gander at True Sorcery over lunch, I see that a lot of what they built into their system is also possible in ours, though not as blatantly. This will be even more true with the full Spellbound book's release.

What I classify an "effects-based" system is much closer to, say, Ars Magica or Mage: a fully customizable, semi-comprehensive system for building your own spells on the fly. This is definitely not what Spellbound's trying to accomplish.

[Morfedel]

I should probably clarify a bit, as I suspect my previous statement may have given you an incorrect impression. We naturally build a lot more customization into our games than most publishers, with feats, tricks, campaign qualities, and other rules tweaking the base spellcasting mechanic (and the mechanics of each spell). Taking another gander at True Sorcery over lunch, I see that a lot of what they built into their system is also possible in ours, though not as blatantly. This will be even more true with the full Spellbound book's release.

What I classify an "effects-based" system is much closer to, say, Ars Magica or Mage: a fully customizable, semi-comprehensive system for building your own spells on the fly. This is definitely not what Spellbound's trying to accomplish.

Well, I obviously don't have spellbound, but I do have access to FC, and I do have True Sorcery.

FC's doesn't appear to have the same flexibility; with one spell, and absolutely no feats, I can start casting all kinds of weird variations on the spell.

for instance, with Create Energy (Fire), I can throw fireballs, firebolts, raise walls of fire, cells of fire, etc.

But I can also weave it together with other spells. For instance, I once created The Screaming Wall of the Damned. It consisted of Fire, illusion, and fear... it created a burning wall of screaming, tortured faces, while those who even near it are struck with an awful terror.

Sure, I know that FC has its spell feats for modifying spells, but you can't weave together effects the way that True Sorcery does.

However, I do admit I haven't had the opportunity to study FC in excruciating detail yet. It DOES look good, it just doesn't look as flexible.

However, I will be interested to see Spellbound, and even moreso your system you are working on.

[Deral]

I should probably clarify a bit, as I suspect my previous statement may have given you an incorrect impression. We naturally build a lot more customization into our games than most publishers, with feats, tricks, campaign qualities, and other rules tweaking the base spellcasting mechanic (and the mechanics of each spell). Taking another gander at True Sorcery over lunch, I see that a lot of what they built into their system is also possible in ours, though not as blatantly. This will be even more true with the full Spellbound book's release.

What I classify an "effects-based" system is much closer to, say, Ars Magica or Mage: a fully customizable, semi-comprehensive system for building your own spells on the fly. This is definitely not what Spellbound's trying to accomplish.

Well, I obviously don't have spellbound, but I do have access to FC, and I do have True Sorcery.

FC's doesn't appear to have the same flexibility; with one spell, and absolutely no feats, I can start casting all kinds of weird variations on the spell.

for instance, with Create Energy (Fire), I can throw fireballs, firebolts, raise walls of fire, cells of fire, etc.

But I can also weave it together with other spells. For instance, I once created The Screaming Wall of the Damned. It consisted of Fire, illusion, and fear... it created a burning wall of screaming, tortured faces, while those who even near it are struck with an awful terror.

Sure, I know that FC has its spell feats for modifying spells, but you can't weave together effects the way that True Sorcery does.

However, I do admit I haven't had the opportunity to study FC in excruciating detail yet. It DOES look good, it just doesn't look as flexible.

However, I will be interested to see Spellbound, and even moreso your system you are working on.

While that system does allow you to put more/less force behind a spell, it needs to be clarified that a big part of what it's giving you are more like spell bundles (yes I realize it does more than this, but they aren't as wholly unique from one another as it may seem). You only get access to so many Talents, and it's far fewer than the number of spells you would have, you can't compare one spell to one talent any more than you can compare one skill point to one class level, they just aren't the same grade of materials.

That being said, I do love the effects-based magic system of Mage- and I'd love to see more of the out-of-combat-do-cool-lookin-crap-with-magic type stuff in FC.

[Doublebond]

Is it my or would this proposed system of magic have spellcasters being astonishingly more powerful than normal?

[tenebrae]

I'd agree. The best part of FC spellcasting is that it has very strict limits on how many options the caster can have access to (known spells), so other characters can still have their niche.

[Sletchman]

Is it my or would this proposed system of magic have spellcasters being astonishingly more powerful than normal?

Flexibility is power.  As such in most effects based magic systems mages are kings.  Even in FC mages push the envelope, and it's the most balanced game that caters to both mages and mundanes that I can recall.

[Desertpuma]

I'd agree. The best part of FC spellcasting is that it has very strict limits on how many options the caster can have access to (known spells), so other characters can still have their niche.

Exactly why it is currently balanced. Having played Mage, I can generate any effect I need in that game. FC is supposed to be balanced for everyone to play without outpowering someone else.

Basically, some still need to "unlearn what you have learned".

[Morfedel]

But it depends on how powerful that flexibility is. The mages in True Sorcery, for instance, are very flexible. However, they do have difficulty building up effects that have the same powerful as an individual spell in core 3.0 or 3.5 D&D.

In other words, they pay for their flexibility with significantly lower direct, pure power. As such, I think it works well.

But then, that's me.