Goodman Games

I was personally hoping fireball and fly would not exist in DCCRPG. Oh well.

Thanks for talking with Joseph! i would like to see a wiz spell and a cleric spell, if possible, rather than 2 wiz spells. That way we can playtest a little longer and we have an idea of how a 2nd level spell should differ from 1st level ones. So that we can maybe create our own if we need to.

A good evocation or necromantic spell (since spells for wiz are dark magic, coming from demons etc..) such as Lightning/fireball or Fear/Command(or create) Undead would be nice for wizards

Something on the lines of Restoration / Raise Dead would be cool for clerics.
...

But anything you can give away is fine

Marv, I think Fireball and Fly would be good choices to have a look at - even though I'd rather they weren't in the core rules.

Fireball because we can then see how it scales as a combat spell in comparison to Magic Missile. How wide is the area of effect at higher rolls ?

Fly is one of the module-breaking spells (like Teleportation, Invisibility, Time Stop, Polymorph etc) so I'm interested to see how it's handled - is it a condensed Feather Fall/Levitate/Fly and what's the speed/duration like ?

So where is this reflected in DCCRPG? Obviously these "psychic powers" do not have anything to do with the corrupting effects of external forces/beings.

A cool psychic class would be much more interesting than the silly cleric. This just makes seeing "fireball" and "fly" much more annoying, in terms of "Oh, it's just D&D with the numbers filed off."

{Total aside} I forgot to comment earlier on Howard: Couldn't even make a short except like that without running into that wonderful Sword and Sorcery term "thews", could you? Can we replace strength with "thews"? Oo, how about we have ability score titles which are just as silly as the class titles? So someone with a 6-8 Strength is a weakling. And someone with an 18 Strength has "Mighty Thews". The word thews needs to be in the rulebook.

Maybe the "haste" like spells could be all part of a fly-themed spell. At low results, you just get to reduce attrition with the ground, and move quickier.

I'll start with Fireball now, then add another one later. I kind of like the suggestion of posting a cleric spell. Have to ponder it further.

Fireball

Level = 3

Range = 100’ or more, exploding in a sphere of 20’ radius or more

Duration = Instantaneous

Casting time = 1 round

Save = Reflex vs. spell check

Manifestation: (1) a flaming ball that catapults into the target and explodes in a fireburst, (2) a stream of liquid flame that douses the target in a raining cloud of fire, (3) a singularity that appears at a point in space then explodes into a flowering burst of fire, (4) a collection of spinning, whirling, fiery seeds that bounce forth to the target point, where they explode in flames.

General: The caster points his finger at a target, speaks a magic Word, and throws a jet of flame that explodes at the designated point. A fireball fills a sphere of 20’ radius, affecting all creatures within the target point. All creatures take damage unless they succeed in a Reflex save against the spell check DC, in which case they take half damage. Objects take damage according to their nature, which flammable objects automatically catching fire.

1-15 Lost. Failure.

16-17 The wizard launches a fireball up to 100’, doing 3d6 damage.

18-21 The wizard launches a fireball up to 120’, doing 4d6 damage.

22-23 The wizard launches a fireball that skips 1d4+1 times. The first target must be within 50’, and that target takes 5d6 damage. The fireball then skips to a second target, which takes 1d6 damage in a small explosion that only affects that single target. The second target must be at least 20’ away from the first – that is the minimum “skip” distance. If there is a third target, it in turn must be another 20’ away, and it takes 1d6 damage. And so on. The fireball must skip the indicated number of times – if the wizard runs out of targets, he may be skipping it against inanimate objects.

24-26 The wizard launches a fireball up to 160’, doing 6d6 damage. The fireball arcs up like a catapult to a point 40’ above ground at its peak. As such, it can curve around or over intermediate obstructions.

27-31 The wizard launches a spray of small fireballs. The wizard designates three targets, and 1d4 small fireballs flare out toward each target. The targets can be up to 200’ away. Each of the mini-fireballs does 1d6 damage.

32-33 The wizard launches a single fireball up to 200’, doing 10d6 damage. The wizard can choose an area of effect ranging from a single human-sized target up to the full sphere of 20’ radius. The fireball arcs to a height of 40’ at its peak, and as such can avoid intermediate objects.

34-35 The wizard launches a fireball up to 500’, doing 14d6 damage. The wizard can choose an area of effect ranging from a single human-sized target up to a sphere of 30’ radius. The fireball can arc as above. Additionally, the wizard can choose to call the fireball down from the heavens. Instead of projecting from his fingertip, it falls from above like a meteor strike, exploding in a fiery mass. The wizard must still have line-of-sight to his target, but he can cast around obstructions in this manner. For example, he may be able to view the target through a periscope, or via a crystal ball of some kind.

36+ The wizard launches a fireball at a target up to 1 mile away, doing 20d6 damage. The wizard can choose an area of effect ranging from a single human-sized target up to a sphere of 40’ radius. The wizard need not have line-of-sight to his target. He can choose a geographic point of which he has knowledge (such as a specific hill, tree, or room), or a target of whom he has a physical trace (such as a lock of hair or fingernail). The fireball explodes at the designated point.

Yeah, Howard's idea of wizardry is very different than Leiber's idea, and both of them differ from Moorcock's idea, and all three of them are wildly divergent from Vance's idea.

So while I think that DCC does a decent job of Leiber simulation with Corruption and a decent job of Moorcock simulation with Patron Taint, I don't know that there's any way to squeeze Howard's ideas into DCC.

Of course, the creator of DCC has probably read every Conan story, so he should be able to make a definitive judgement on this.



Psychics would have to be much less powerful than the wizards in Howard to preserve class balance.
[url]
http://corolopsis.wordpress.com/2011/06 ... s-limited/[/url]
http://corolopsis.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/khemsas-sorcery-was-based-on-hypnotism-as-is-the-case-with-most-eastern-magic/
Howard's People of the Black Circle has wizards with the following characteristics:
* They start out as common humans, but can accumulate more-than-godlike powers by living for thousands of years.
* They have at least three styles of telekinesis:
-a- they can smash things with massive telekinetic forces;
-b- they can summon telekinetic whirlwinds for long-distance travel;
-c- they can rip the hearts out of living, armored enemies.
All of these styles of telekinesis seem to require no incantations, just an instantaneous effort of willpower.
* They have super-telepathy and super-mesmerism.
* Powerful wizards can turn themselves into unkillable giant snakes.
* Wizards can animate objects: e.g. a carved bronze snake statue can turn into a giant living bronze snake.
* Even wizard-students have spells and artifact weapons that can devastate armies.
* Wizards fight like martial artists; their bare-handed slaps can stun Conan and break the necks of lesser men.

Conan had a massive advantage against willpower domination due to his Cimmerian racial characteristics, but Conan only survived that story because he had a massively powerful anti-magic defense belt. Even then, he didn't manage to kill the bad guy; Conan says that (powerful) wizards have a dozen lives. Even a low-level wizard was able to survive a fall that would kill a lesser man by dint of his indomitable willpower.

In D&D 3.5 terms, I suppose Conan's belt was giving him +20 to saving throws versus magic, possibly along with additional effects.

It isn't clear whether these "small" fireballs get the 20' radius explosion or not. Assuming they don't then for a 5th level a 28-29 result on magic missile gives you 3-8 missiles that can hit different targets for 1-8+5 damage each, or an average of 5.5 missiles, each potentially on a different target for 9.5 damage while fireball gives you exactly 3 targets doing 8.75 damage each.

The effect at the lower level results (e.g. 15-19) is clearly better with the higher level spell, but the risk of losing the spell entirely on casting is of course increased by 20%.

I'm also noticing the various "arc 40' in the air" elements to these spells. I think that there needs to be some general guidelines in the magic descriptions of which effects are mandatory, and which are wizard discretion. That line makes attempting to cast a fireball in a dungeon pretty dangerous if it mandates that your very high successes cause it to crash into the ceiling above you engulfing the party. The implication is that it probably should say "may" in this case. My understanding is that after rolling you don't get the chance to select a lesser result from the table, although that would also make sense in some contexts.

Also, there is no Save against Magic Missile.

I cannot decide whether I love the sheer gonzo of this spell (especially the Dambuster style skipping effect and the singularity manifestation) or whether it confirms my fears for the caster as one-man-army, and whether that matters

Then just imagine if you have more than one spellcaster in the party, and they get to 5th Level and start chucking 2 Fireball spells/round each at the enemy.

I imagine the high level fish-headed tentacled wizard freak having a collection of fingernails of rival, VIPS and foes. Maybe there's a black market for locks of hair of heirs to the throne....

They aren't going to be human for very long

So, it's actually Rubber Firebal. Or (Follow the) Bouncing Fireball.

The 1-15 Lost, failure at the top confirms a lot of details about what spell level does and how redundant it is.

Thanks Finarvyn that's really going to be useful. Now we have two example for offensive spells, like Magic Missile & Fireball. Creating something stronger or in between the two won't be that hard.

You have Scorching Ray too, from the playtests:

Great! Thanks for this Geordie!

Hmmm i can't help but notice that Scorching ray seems to have a shorter list of effects... which is not bad. I think that's the right length, about 6 or seven effects total, not 10-12


ADMIN EDIT: Fixed the quote.

No, spell level still regulates which spells the wizard has access to - so he's only able to cast Fireball at 5th Level - even though with a bit of spellburn and a lucky halfling, he could be napalming his way through the land at 1st Level.

Balancing ability by limiting access is totally necessary, or it becomes a game where if you're playing a wizard you're actually playing a completely different game to other classes. They're playing low-level Warhammer, you're playing Exalted.

The thing with Fireball is that I'd probably prefer to use Magic Missile instead - unless fighting another caster (who might have Magic Shield cast), unless I require area effect, or if I'm eliminating foes who take extra damage from fire.

In DCC a 1st level WIZARD knows only 4 spells, and gets 1 more per level (so 8 spells at 5th level). They also stated at the beginning of the Magic chapter that spells are rare resources, arcane knowledge kept secret by those who have it. Therefore, the DM controls exactly which spells a WIZ gets to know. It's not like in 3E where at 5th level you instantly know Fireball and Dispel Magic. The DCC judge will hand out a grimoire with some spells in it. Maybe 1-2 spells per book, not more! He could have the players find a book with Fireball and Summon Animal in a 1st level adventure... if Fireball is the only offensive option he has, the wizard is not overpowered imho.



thing is, you don't get to pick spells at level 1 (you randomly pick them); at higher level, i think it depends on what you find. Even individual research might not bring the results wanted.
(maybe you wanted a spell to "give a giant's strength to a target" (as in Bull's Strength) but you devise a spell that enlarges the target (as in Enlarge Person) )

I actually think that the 'pick 1/2 your spells if the initial 4 are useless' guidance in the picking and rolling section on page 100 will come into play quite a lot - as players will argue their way into getting the spells they want.

Once this hits the 22+ range I'm not sure I like the results. Too ridiculous (though maybe it plays better than it reads).

He knows. He's just continuing to pummel an expired equine.

With the skipping fireball - can the 3rd target be the same as the 1st target, to allow for the 'pinball richochet in a small enclosed area ' effect ?

1st target : Evil Bob
2nd target: Wall
3rd target: Evil Bob
4th target: Ceiling
etc

Or can each target only be struck once by the fireball ?

Is that really the case? I guess I'm just looking for some explanation/reason that spell level is necessary here. It seems like some higher level effects are actually better for the first level spell than the third level spell. Is it because the mid-range (16-20 or so) rolls are better for fireball? Is it because the highest effect is stronger for fireball?

I may be beating the dead horse, but it is only because I've yet to see anything I find convincing that suggests spell level is either driven by the theme, story, or game mechanisms or intent. For example, I'd love to see this tied into corruption as so:

Leave a natural 1 always a fumble.

Have corruption occur on a modified spell casting result at the bottom of the spell table, variable by spell.
So a simple spell like Cantrip causes corruption on a result of 3 or less. Fireball causes corruption on an 8 or less, etc.
This of course means that fumbles will often cause corruption as well, although not necessarily for a higher level wizard.
Likewise, the threshold for any successful effect gets higher with more powerful spells (like the fireball example).
Have the wizard roll a class die (much like the warrior does) when casting a spell, so that their positive modifier is not always a fixed amount.

I think that would be a thematic and interesting system.

Now, personally, I think keeping the Level system for Clerics would be fine, the tradeoff for not risking corruption when casting spells, and recognition that they need to advance in some deities regard or hierarchy before gaining more powerful boons.

"Necessary" is tough to quantify. What spell level does is limit the options of the spellcaster so that not all spells are possible for all wizards. It gives the wizard a way to "grow" instead of just getting better numbers. I don't think anyone has said that it's necessary, only that its traditional and that it works well.

I've seen several people talk about getting rid of spell levels but I haven't seen any good explaination/reason that makes spell levels a bad thing. Only that you can work around them in other ways. Seems like both ways achieve the same goal, only some like one and others like the other.

I'll have to ponder the ramifications of your system, but I should point out that what you've done in essence is to divide spells into those which are simple (corruption 3 or less) versus those which are complex (corruption 8 or less). This is in effect a spell level system whether you want to call it that or not.

The big difference is that you suggest that anyone can attempt to cast anything at any time, with the danger that harder spells can have bigger drawbacks.

Philosophically, the question becomes: do we want all wizards (of any level from the lowest apprentice to the greatest mage) to have access to all spells?

I don't have "the" answer to this, but DCC (Joseph) will have to decide and then the game will follow that path.

Totally fair call-out. I'll endeavor to describe my perspective and why I'm pushing for this. I'll note up front that I get caught up in these sorts of design discussions because I want to make things 'better' from my point of view, and help. If Joseph comes on in ten minutes and describes why he knows he absolutely wants a spell level system I'll just drop this and flow with it. The last thing I want to do is push anything towards a designed by committee type outcome.



I'm not against levels of power, and the intended implication is that a system something like this would allow fine gradations, so that low threshold might be 4, 5, 6, etc. or even higher.

So, let me take a step back and give my larger wizard perspective.

As written right now Wizards get a majority of their spells at first level, particularly if they have any intelligence bonus. These spells are randomly selected from a list and off you go. The magic system implies danger associated with magic, but the selection is binary. Either you cast a spell and thus risk the danger, or you cast no spell.

I'd like to emphasize two aspects of the game and adventure world. One is to make the quest for arcane secrets a larger and more important portion of the Wizard's life. The second is to make the dangers of magic or more active decision. By making all spells potentially accessible to Wizards at any level you say "go find this spell, and you can attempt to cast it, if you are crazy enough to do so, but the risks are extreme."

So, I'd like to see a system where arcane spells are designed by complexity/power, but not explicitly linked to class level. I'd also like to see lower level Wizards get one or two fewer spells, and the capability to gain a few more spells than currently listed as you go up in level*. I could see a system where there is a short starting list of wizard spells to roll against, but the overall list of available spells is available for learning/use when you go up in level, if you have found the proper grimoire. And I dearly like the notion that a low power wizard can attempt very powerful magic at high risk.

Spellburn may need re-visiting in what I'm proposing, but I'm not convinced that it doesn't already. I think having a limit of spellburn per spell based on character level might be appropriate.

A missing piece in all of this is exactly what roll making and reading scrolls is intended to have in the game. Is reading a scroll just like casting a spell you don't otherwise know? (I.e. you just make a spell check) or does the writer of the scroll make the spell check when recording it? The thief description implies the former. Can you read scrolls of higher level spells than you can learn in the current system? Is there any penalty for attempting to do so beyond normal casting of a spell?

* Two factors within the current system could potentially address my thoughts.
One is that it could be possible for Wizards to copy grimoires to make scrolls of spells that they do not "know", either through some spell or other ritual. Although this brings us back into the question of can you currently read a scroll of higher level spell than you can know, and what are the risks? And if you can, why not allow the player to "learn" that spell with the same repeated risk of casting?
The second is that perhaps there is a mechanism for "forgetting" spells and learning different ones, again I assume at the interval of going up a level.

Bottom line, I'd rather see Wizards start with a limited set of more mundane/common spells and feel genuinely driven to seek out more powerful magic, and be able to take the risk reward of dabbling in it 'before they are ready'. In traditional D&D magic-users would obtain pretty extensive spell lists. I'm just not seeing the same incentive here, both because you can only learn a few new spells in your career, and because even the starting spells are mega-powerful when you start getting very high results rolls.

Yes, I agree. As I said in the other spell thread I have no problem with there being no spell levels as long as we use corruption and the scalable range of the spell to limit it being comfortable for lower level casters to pull off extreme high 'level' effects.

Even if we got rid of spell levels - the spells the lost/failure range (1-11 for 1st Level, 1-13 for 2nd, 1-15 for 3rd**) already acts as a buffer against 1st level casters automatically picking Fireball over Magic Missile. The 3rd Level spell is much more risky to cast, and less likely to end up with a high range result.

**If we had 1-17 for 4th and 1-19 for 5th, then anything more powerful was a Patron-awarded spell that would me cool IMHO.

What if wizards gained some abilities with class levels out side of the spells?

EX:
Level 1 Clairvoyance/Clair-audience = intelligence score + wizard level in yards (indoors) & in miles out doors...
Level 2 Mesmerism = opposed Willpower saves between wizard and target & wizard adds his level
Level 3 Levitation = self only: Wizard can move freely in any direction by force of will & move speed = the wizards intelligence score + level. Eventually scales up to full-flight by 5th level (assuming 5th level is cap)
Level 4 Scrying = Wizard has gained mastery of some form of scrying device. Roll d5:(1) Tarot cards; (2) Runes; (3) Crystal Ball; (4) reflective surfaces; (5) Astrology. this allows for extending a wizards level 1 powers as well as gaining access to new information streams; and gaining maximum benefits from the spell results tables.
Level 5 Telekinesis = [[the wizards intelligence score + level] x 100lbs] lifted and moves 10ft/rd but requires all of wizards concentration. Alternately, a # of items = the wizards intelligence score + level may be hurled at 1 or more targets. the items total weight follows the same equation for lifting & moving. ex: 5th level wizard w/ 18 INT can throw 23 items with a total combined weight of 2300lbs.

Teleportation should be a ritual involving the setting up of expensive networks of some kind. i.e. beacons set out around the Empire/Kingdom that the wizards dial up... and off they go.

I'm choosing arbitrary numbers, so someone better at crunching numbers could make this scale better.

any thoughts?