D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Mar 3, 2013 9:57:59 GMT -8
Ahoy Bastards!
So I'm playing a weezard in my friends PF game and we have become a bit frustrated with the "mundaneness(?)" of the spell list in Pathfinder. The main gripe we have is the tendency for magic in PF to develop a VIDEO GAME feel where the spell caster is in the mode of "I Fireball! I Magic Missile! I Flaming Booger!"
My goal is to have a wizard be "mysterious/strange/bizarre" a.k.a. Fucking Magical! I want spell components, gestures, words to be a very relevant aspect of his spell casting. I've been mining call of cthulhu magic spells/GURPS/Dresden to bring some more of this in but any other suggestions ?
Example:
WEB: My character keeps a large orb weaving spider in a glass jar, the spiders name is Clarice. I talk to her, feed her and scribe runes/symbols on her jar. When it comes time to cast the spell I have to give Clarice a drop of my blood, and then I agitate her by shaking the jar and then release her out into the air where she sprays webs all over the place. I've included an arcane failure check just because I want the spell to often produce variable results and just be more interesting.
Unseen Servant: This "servant" is actually a lesser demon that does what I say, but often at a price. I carry a painted rat skull that is used to confine him to the material plane to do my bidding and have to be very careful that the skull is never damaged less the unseen servant should suddenly become seen...
Thoughts ?
Cheers,
Curt.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Mar 4, 2013 7:27:04 GMT -8
I think this is a great idea. Unfortunately, Pathfinder doesn't really lend itself to this sort of thing. GURPS, Hero and Savage Worlds are more built this way, but it then falls on the players and the gm to be descriptive about what's going on.
JiB
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Mar 4, 2013 8:29:17 GMT -8
My first thought was AD&D 1e - though in terms of system, I would suppose it could be done as flavour even in 3.5. If you are looking for a system reward to reinforce drama, my intuition suggests some benny system.
In 3.5 includes AC bonus from Dex for the whole duration of your spell, even while you focus on casting. This leaves little wiggle room for rewarding/reinforcing drama because there are no penalties. In 3.5 not only does the caster cheat loss of dex but he also gains a concentration check. These baselines mean reinforcement goes in the wrong direction.
Anything I can think of as an in-game mechanic benny off the top of my head would overpower you and anyone following your lead – without the segments/casting times tied to rounds, the hand-waving of resource management, and the standard lengths of casting times for spells, not only is your whole shared fantasy rather very individual and personal at the table but it is also hard to manage 3.5 system-wise.
You’ll have to work things out with the GM, more work for the GM, if you want more than personal flavour in your game. I think you’ve got a great imagination!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2013 8:56:50 GMT -8
I would say you could describe it however you wanted and then just roll to hit/damage.
|
|
|
Post by rickno7 on Mar 12, 2013 11:05:33 GMT -8
D&D 2nd edition had this kind of information. Spells came with components lists, and most told you if you had to use verbal commands, hand gestures and what not. Complete Book of Wizards had some good stuff on that too. I know its not Pathfinder, but its a blood relative so you might find some stuff you can use there.
As teenagers playing 2nd Edition, we pretty much ignored all this information. So when 3rd came out and said "just assume the caster keeps the components of any spell that is prepared on hand", we did not object. Being older now, I can see how it could be used to create some very interesting characters.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Mar 13, 2013 5:57:14 GMT -8
As a rule I've taken the stance that "normal" stuff is either (a) readily available or (b) carried about their person. For more involved spells or more ritualistic spells that would likely change.
Savage Worlds (on the subject of ammunition) takes the view that unless it's dramatic or serves the story somehow don't worry about whether the characters have ammunition, just assume they do unless or until it's dramatic for them to not. An example being when they're pinned down by bad guys it's dramatic for the ammo to start running low.
The same works pretty well for spell components. If it's dramatic or serves the story for them to need a rare spell component weave it into the story.
JiB
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2013 17:26:21 GMT -8
D&D 2nd edition had this kind of information. Spells came with components lists, and most told you if you had to use verbal commands, hand gestures and what not. Complete Book of Wizards had some good stuff on that too. I know its not Pathfinder, but its a blood relative so you might find some stuff you can use there. As teenagers playing 2nd Edition, we pretty much ignored all this information. So when 3rd came out and said "just assume the caster keeps the components of any spell that is prepared on hand", we did not object. Being older now, I can see how it could be used to create some very interesting characters. Those are the parts of 2nd ed i miss the most. I keep my old books handy to sometimes use the ecology section of a monster or a spell component or other flavorful thing that 3.x/pathfinder lacks
|
|
|
Post by The Northman on Mar 14, 2013 4:23:55 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure PF lists the material components for all the spells, as well as whether it requires verbal or physical semantics. It's really just GM fiat from there to decide how ritualistic you want each and every spell to feel.
Even then, "Be the change you wish to see in the world." The information is all there in front of you - start describing the act of casting without using the spell name.
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Mar 14, 2013 13:41:55 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure PF lists the material components for all the spells, as well as whether it requires verbal or physical semantics. It's really just GM fiat from there to decide how ritualistic you want each and every spell to feel. Even then, "Be the change you wish to see in the world." The information is all there in front of you - start describing the act of casting without using the spell name. Agreed! The problem with descriptive "magical/mysterious" spell casting is similar to the problems of descriptive combats. They are often the first to get shoved by the wayside when a game gets long. "I swing/I hit/I do x damage/I fireball/ I casts Jims magic missile". When there aren't mechanics in place like hit locations and random spell results things can become bland too easily. It's a question of what resolution level do you want have in your games. I want to see a fantasy setting that constantly reinforces the fantastic. I feel like the minute the non-caster pcs start yelling at me to cast spell x then the magic is no longer magical. It's a constant, a given, known quantity and kinda boring.
|
|
|
Post by The Northman on Mar 15, 2013 5:46:42 GMT -8
You can try using humor to introduce the point to them. "Fire...ball? Oh, you must mean the ancient incantation perfected by Vicerex of Turin, in which the ambient heat of the environment is drawn forth and coagulated into an explosive burst of flame. Men have fought and died for such ancient knowledge, and you reduce it to a 'fireball.' I am surrounded by infants." Or whenever they use an out-of-game name for a spell, cast it with them as the target...
In all seriousness, I blame the GM (apologies to whomever that might be). If you're losing all flavor because combats are boring, enact a bonus for descriptive moves (or a negative for pooping out dice whenever your turn comes up). Hell, make it a bonus to damage so you're off-setting some of the added time. I'm not as high on the "play with someone else," idea as other people because one of my groups is made of long-time friends who I'd hate to lose touch with if not for our sessions. With that in mind, sometimes more pressure falls on the GM to make sure everyone is having fun and contributing to the game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2013 7:33:25 GMT -8
Using spell components in 2nd Ed were a mixed deal. As a DM, I assumed players had most of their reagents needed for minor spells. I did, however, require listings on their sheet for spells above 5th level and for minor ones like Identify. Loved the flavor of the 2nd Ed Mage with the required gestures and incantations. Nothing like seeing a party's face when the enemy wizard began to chant for the first round. Even though the Pathfinder rules do not incorporate spell components and the like, would be easy to pull ideas from previous supplements and use them to flavor your character.
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Apr 20, 2013 9:06:20 GMT -8
Pathfinder does utilize components and I've recently discovered the 3rd level spell circle of protection which not only requires a copious amount of powdered silver but if time allows a really detailed circle can be drawn making the protection even more powerful. Last session our cleric was desperately reaching for the powdered silver praying intensely, and trying to scribe the best damn circle he ever could before the sixth wraiths made it to him to drain his constitution right down to zero...one of us...one of us!! It was an epic moment. More of that!
|
|
|
Post by fray on Apr 20, 2013 11:36:46 GMT -8
It really depends on how the GM and players want to treat spells components and verbal requirements. I've been in games where the spell components list is pages long for several PCs and even the non-casters carry them in case they are needed. Other games, it's fireball - roll damage. Next round Haste. Etc... It's flavor.
Now if you play something like AMBER then it's ALL descriptive all the time.
Play it how you like and talk to the other players.
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Jun 4, 2013 3:44:41 GMT -8
I suggest you check out the mercurial magic, spell result tables, and magical corruption tables from DCC RPG.
They have done a fantastic job making magic mysterious and... well, magical.
To quote the book , "low level wizards are powerful, high level wizards fear for their souls."
|
|
|
Post by The Northman on Jun 5, 2013 4:30:58 GMT -8
I had a GM once who was big on small bonuses for refraining from game terms when casting spells as an equivalent for the bonus he gave for descriptive combat. It worked pretty nicely.
|
|