Loading Facebook Comments ...

15 thoughts on “Spell System Fail

  1. Are you trying to reverse engineer the existing spells ?
    I would be very curious how many published spells you may find are “too good” or “too weak” šŸ™‚

  2. says:

    Not really, i just wanted to compare two similar spells and have them come out differently.

    If they had not computed to the same level, i would have been happier about it.

    The end result is a mechanical process for the basic effect (do damge, heal, teleport, alter) and then a more narrative part for the description (4 green flamomg skulls, a box appears releasing weird elementals that dissolve the flesh off a victim revealing a stone statue beneath.)

  3. Remember, magic missile is often identified as “best of first level”. That whole “can’t miss, and hits incorporeal” thing.

    Try costing them out in Hero System, magic missile is crazy expensive.

  4. says:

    Keith J Davies That’s what I’m finding. I used The Black Hack version, then went down to the B/X D&D version. Maybe I’ll try two different ones.
    Jesse Cox Getting more arrows per x number of levels. If it didn’t grant you more arrows, the difference would have been much larger.

  5. Can you show me the framework you’re building on? I haven’t been paying close attention and don’t know what you’re working with, and I’m quite interested.

  6. says:

    Keith J Davies its rough, but i should be able to later tonight. It based off OpenD6’s values and measurements tables, but not their rules.

  7. says:

    As a point of interest, ACKS reverse-engineered the B/X spell list to get a spell building system, and Fireball and Lightning Bolt come out as 5th and Sleep as a 3rd level spell before they’re corrected to their legacy levels. Just a feature of not all the original spells being perfectly balanced against each other.

  8. says:

    Dave R That’s true. I also know that the narrative part of the process in my head would have all kinds of unbalancing secondary effects.

    It’s good to be reminded that ot doesn’t have to be perfect. I was interested in the ACKS method because of the novel use of multiplication, but I’m opting for something more EABA-ish.

Comments are closed.