[House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System

[devonapple]

What exactly does adding duration to a maneuver get you, since maneuvers applied with a skill last for the scene unless an action is taken to remove them.

I don't believe that is true of Evocation Maneuvers (though I wish it were). The book example (that dude summoning a wind) specifies it is an exchange-by-exchange duration (I will furnish a page number here if absolutely necessary).

My GM has ruled that an especially good roll may make an Evocation Maneuver "sticky" beyond the original duration, but by the RAW, Evocation Maneuvers charge shifts for duration.

[ironpoet]

What this does is push conviction up the totem pole of wizard skills, so that choosing your pinnacle wizard skills is harder.  Also, you want all three as high as possible, which is one of the real weaknesses of wizards: they usually want three pinnacle skills (Discipline, Lore, Conviction) that have sort limited utility in other situations.  Then, if you want to be a fighting wizard, you have to squeeze in athletics and alertness and ...  But, with the removal of block power being based on your conviction, a wizard really only 'needs' a conviction of 3 for the 4 mental stress boxes.  That leaves him more skill options than a stock wizard.

Hmm...  I would agree with your description of how Wizards currently choose their skills.  I'm not convinced that having three pinnacle skills is an absolute requirement for Wizards to be interesting.

Consider this: Under the current rules, it is difficult to create a High Conviction, Low Discipline Wizard.  That character has access to big shifts of power, but can't control it without spending Fate points or tagging Aspects.  So most of the time they would have to settle for weaker spells.  The Houseruled Wizard could pull off a High Conviction, Low Discipline Wizard a bit better, since screwing up a spell would earn them a Fate point (which they could use on future spells).

I guess my point is, while I acknowledge that these rules would change the baseline for what skill levels a Wizard needs, I don't see why that is necessarily a bad thing (or a good thing, really... I see it as a neutral thing).  From an optimization standpoint, Discipline is more important than Conviction, but so what?

And, of course, a Wizard with Conviction 5 could blow up two zones in one exchange, rather than just one, which is kind of cool.

Anyway, let me ask some practical questions:
1) Would it help if there were more options for "Spell Power"?  Currently, we have two options (Reduce Power by 2/zone, Reduce Power by 2/exchange).  What about adding more options?
- Reduce Power by 3 to add a Maneuver
- Reduce Power by 2 to move the target one zone

2) Would it help if we used Spell Power (Conviction + Specialization) to add duration to a Block?
- Evocation Blocks last Spell Power/2 exchanges

Both of those options might make extra Conviction more interesting.  What do you think?

[ironpoet]

I think you were misunderstanding my example.  You're thinking of a shield style block.  I am talking about a magical obstacle.  For instance, think.... a huge, hot, roaring flame blocking a doorway.  6 shift block that will last for... 6 rounds.  Just blasting that obstacle with an evocation will not get rid of it.  It hast o be counterspelled. 

Hmm... I don't have the book handy, but I didn't think there was any distinction between Blocks.  If I try to Block with Skills (Fists), Evocation (Shields), or Scenery (Hide Behind a Door), once the Block strength is overcome, doesn't the Block go away?  At a minimum, I thought the rules for Blocking in Evocation are pretty clear about that - regardless of what type of Block you're creating (shield/grapple/wall/etc.), it goes away once someone overcomes it.

That sounds more complicated to me than the RAW... lol.

- There's a Wall of Fire (Block:6) in front of you.
- I try to Counterspell it.
- Roll Lore + Focus Items.  Your target is 6.

That's complicated?

(As a minor tangential rant, I always hated the fact that Counterspelling was linked to Evocation.  That limits your maximum Counterspelling strength to, what, 10-12 shifts?  It's fairly easy to cast a spell tougher than that using Thaumaturgy.  And I have no idea if you're allowed to Counterspell using Thaumaturgy, since it's only described in the Evocation section.)

[kamilion]

(As a minor tangential rant, I always hated the fact that Counterspelling was linked to Evocation.  That limits your maximum Counterspelling strength to, what, 10-12 shifts?  It's fairly easy to cast a spell tougher than that using Thaumaturgy.  And I have no idea if you're allowed to Counterspell using Thaumaturgy, since it's only described in the Evocation section.)

There is a use of Thaumaturgy called Enhanced Evocation which I imagine could just as easily be used for large-scale or powerful Counterspelling. In fact, I would imagine that your only hope of Counterspelling a powerful Thaumaturgy spell would be with another Thaumaturgy spell.

In regards to the alternative spell rules, I haven't really taken a hard look at the implications yet, but I'm interested. I've been trying to get my group into playing DFRPG with minimal success, making the magic rules less complicated would help that cause.

[BumblingBear]

There is a use of Thaumaturgy called Enhanced Evocation which I imagine could just as easily be used for large-scale or powerful Counterspelling. In fact, I would imagine that your only hope of Counterspelling a powerful Thaumaturgy spell would be with another Thaumaturgy spell.

In regards to the alternative spell rules, I haven't really taken a hard look at the implications yet, but I'm interested. I've been trying to get my group into playing DFRPG with minimal success, making the magic rules less complicated would help that cause.

You could just eliminate magic too...

Or only allow channeling...

[kamilion]

You could just eliminate magic too...

Or only allow channeling...

True, but I want magic in the game, I just want it to move as quickly as the rest of the rules. I'm thinking of writing up some good clarifications and such instead, with some simplification but not to the extent of these rules. I want to keep the flavor of the Dresden Files in there.

Anyway, I don't want to derail the discussion with my gaming woes. I'll comment on these magic rules in a bit.

[kamilion]

Evocation

Alternate Rule: The player can take a consequence to add that many shifts to Attack/Maneuver/Block Strength.

Stress
All evocation actions cost 1 Mental Stress.

Attack
Roll Discipline + Focus Item
Strength = Conviction + Specialization

• Reduce Strength by 2 for each Zone affected
• Caster can choose to limit the Spell Strength

Maneuver
Roll Discipline + Focus Item
Strength = Conviction + Specialization
Difficulty to Remove Aspect = Strength

• Reduce Difficulty by 1 for each Exchange added
• Reduce Difficulty by 2 for each Zone affected

Block
Roll Discipline + Focus Item

Counterspell
Treated as Thaumaturgy

Rote Spell
Removed

Fallout/Backlash
If you miss, the GM can choose to Compel your High Aspect to cause Fallout or Backlash.

• Fallout effects are up to the GM, and should be influenced by the spell strength.  (The spell hits bystanders nearby. The spell adds a Scene aspect. etc.)
• Backlash means you get hit with whatever you tried to cast (assume zero extra shifts and no defense roll).

Alternate Rule: If Compelled by the GM, the player can choose whether they want Fallout or Backlash.

Philosophy: The main intent here is to streamline Evocation a little bit, to make it play more like the other skills/powers in the game.  This also slightly limits Evocation power, so that it's not quite as overpowered.  And since the risk of Fallout/Backlash is greater, it forces a Wizard to be much more careful about the magic they sling around.

Assuming you use your optional rules, this isn't a bad system. I can understand the desire to remove the complication of comparing strength version control, then determining Fallout/Backlash, etc. Other than that, there really isn't much change here from the RAW, except for explicitly applying Focus items to Discipline and Specializations to Conviction.

I'm in agreement with others here in that I don't see any reason to change the Block rules to rely soley on Discipline + Focus items. It seems like it's giving spellcasters a stronger ability to set up Blocks than your average individual is going to get, with no real downside.

I'm not sure why you would remove Rote spells - I'm assuming you want there to be the opportunity for casters to fail with every spell.

Other thoughts - the compel for Backlash/Fallout gives casters another opportunity for FP gain, not sure that's fair, though the consequences can be... painful. Also, why change Counterspell? Just make it an attack-type action on a spell, Strength vs. Strength, and move on.

Thaumaturgy

Stress
All thaumaturgy actions cost 1 Mental Stress.

Casting

• Difficulty: Calculate difficulty for a spell using the same guidelines as before.
• Casting The Spell: Roll Lore + Focus Item; Target = Difficulty of Spell
• Timing: Casting a thaumaturgical spell takes one exchange.  On the other hand, tagging/invoking enough Aspects to cast the spell successfully may take a bit longer.

Alternate Rule: The player can take a consequence to add that many shifts to the Casting roll.

Fallout/Backlash
If you miss the Target, the GM can choose to Compel your High Aspect to cause Fallout or Backlash.

• Fallout effects are up to the GM, and should be influenced by the spell strength.  (The spell hits bystanders nearby. The spell adds a Scene aspect. etc.)
• Backlash means you take physical or mental stress equal to the Difficulty of the spell.

Alternate Rule: If Compelled by the GM, the player can choose whether they want Fallout or Backlash.

Note that "Thaumaturgy at the Speed of Evocation" is redundant under these rules.

I like the idea that it's the build-up that takes time, where-as the actual casting moves quite quickly, thogh I'm not sure that a single exchange is what I would choose. I'm assuming that in addition to tagging/invoking Aspects, you are also including declarations and assessments.

I'm NOT sure that I'm on board with only using Lore, though I can't come up with a solid argument against it. Only having one thing to worry about sure does make like simpler.
 

Crafting
The Crafting rules are mostly unchanged, with the following exceptions:

• There are no Crafting specializations or Focus Items.
• Add the highest relevant Specialization to the Strength of an Item.

Example: A Wizard with Lore +3 and Specialization: Earth +1 could create an Enchanted Item that created a +4 Block (or Armor:2)

I don't have any issue with this part. I'm assuming you are still on board with using additional item slots to add to strength or frequency on enchanted items?

Summary
I think you've accomplished your goal and streamlined the magic rules. I can't say I'm fond of cutting out Conviction from Evocation Blocks or of using only Lore for Thaumaturgy, though I think only the change to Evocation Blocks makes any real power difference, and I think it makes them more powerful, not less (especially since, as far as I can tell, there is no way to fail them).

I know you said you wanted to take some of the powerhouse out of Evocation, but I really think you have made spellcasters more powerful rather than less. Individual spells make carry a smidge less oomf, but it feels like a lot of the danger of magic has been tamed.

I wonder if you might be better served sticking with the original rules in general and simply clarifying any ambiguities, such as you did with the Focus Items and Specializations, rather than trying to change them. Have you tried playtesting these rules extensively to see where the biggest changes are?

[ironpoet]

Thanks, kamilion,

Assuming you use your optional rules, this isn't a bad system. I can understand the desire to remove the complication of comparing strength version control, then determining Fallout/Backlash, etc. Other than that, there really isn't much change here from the RAW, except for explicitly applying Focus items to Discipline and Specializations to Conviction.

Yeah, I wasn't trying for a complete overhaul - I just wanted to remove as many steps as possible.

I'm in agreement with others here in that I don't see any reason to change the Block rules to rely soley on Discipline + Focus items. It seems like it's giving spellcasters a stronger ability to set up Blocks than your average individual is going to get, with no real downside.

Honestly, I'm not really happy about my streamlined Block rules, but I can't think of a better system that uses both Discipline and Conviction.  On the other hand, spending a point of mental stress for a powerful Block might be a reasonable tradeoff.

I'm not sure why you would remove Rote spells - I'm assuming you want there to be the opportunity for casters to fail with every spell.

Not exactly.  I just wasn't sure what would constitute a Rote spell under these guidelines.  If a Rote spell removed the risk of Fallout/Backlash, would there ever be a reason to pick Rotes other than: Attack Spell w/ Focus Item and Attack Spell w/o Focus Item?

Other thoughts - the compel for Backlash/Fallout gives casters another opportunity for FP gain, not sure that's fair, though the consequences can be... painful. Also, why change Counterspell? Just make it an attack-type action on a spell, Strength vs. Strength, and move on.

The GM wouldn't be forced to compel Backlash/Fallout on every miss.  This just gives them another option to add drama and/or Aspects to a scene.

As for Counterspell, see my "tangential rant" from a few posts back.  Evocation Blocks and Maneuvers can already be dispelled by a regular attack.  The only things left to Counterspell are Thaumaturgy spells (conjured walls of fire, bad luck curses, etc.)  So I thought it made more sense to fight Thaumaturgy with Thaumaturgy.

Thaumaturgy
I like the idea that it's the build-up that takes time, where-as the actual casting moves quite quickly, thogh I'm not sure that a single exchange is what I would choose. I'm assuming that in addition to tagging/invoking Aspects, you are also including declarations and assessments.

I'm NOT sure that I'm on board with only using Lore, though I can't come up with a solid argument against it. Only having one thing to worry about sure does make like simpler.

Yeah, I'm not sure about this one either.  As you said, I can't think of a particular reason it would break, but it's a pretty big change from the existing rules.

I don't have any issue with this part. I'm assuming you are still on board with using additional item slots to add to strength or frequency on enchanted items?

Absolutely.

I wonder if you might be better served sticking with the original rules in general and simply clarifying any ambiguities, such as you did with the Focus Items and Specializations, rather than trying to change them. Have you tried playtesting these rules extensively to see where the biggest changes are?

Not yet.  The next time my group gets together to play DFRPG, we'll try these out (but we don't get together that regularly).  I'll post again when I have actual data to offer!