Makers of Award-winning Role Playing Games › Forums › Arcanis: The Shattered Empires › Arcanis: Rules & Rulings › Proposed Errata/FAQ Discussion › Advanced Spells v2.1
- This topic has 21 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by Anonymous.
- AuthorPosts
- March 21, 2014 at 4:52 am #151011AnonymousInactive
I just noticed a technical error that my brain skipped in the previous discussion (that will only affect the Strain).
Speed & Strain: Use the slowest spell’s Speed cost and apply the faster spell’s Speed cost as additional Strain. In cases which both spells possess the same Speed, use the spell with the highest Strain as you base speed/strain.
Should be:
Speed & Strain: Use the slowest spell’s Speed cost and apply the faster spell’s Speed or Strain, whichever is higher, as additional Strain. In cases which both spells possess the same Speed, use the spell with the highest Strain as you base speed/strain.
Adds about two points of Strain on average to the previous discussion.
March 21, 2014 at 11:56 am #260470AnonymousInactiveThat new rules are meant to mirror the same rules as Martial Techniques, so the errata is correct.
You take the Slowest Spells’s Speed (Using Highest Strain to break ties) and Strain and add to that Strain equal to the Faster Spell’s Speed.
Combining a 5 (4) spell with a 5 (3) spell gives a 5 (7) spell (Not a 5 (9) spell as you proposed)
Combining a 2 (5) spell with a 4 (2) spell gives a 4 (4) spell (Not a 4 (7) spell as you proposed)
This method makes sense conceptually as well as mechanically. You’re transferring the speed of the 2nd spell into strain, so the faster the spell would have been, the less added strain there is.
John
March 21, 2014 at 1:57 pm #260496AnonymousInactiveHaving the process work the same mechanically for both advanced spells and advanced maneuvers should help make life easier on players.
With a sweep of his hat,
Paul
March 21, 2014 at 2:52 pm #260499AnonymousInactiveHaving the process work the same mechanically for both advanced spells and advanced maneuvers should help make life easier on players.
With a sweep of his hat,
Paul
I just keep thinking the CTN is too damn low… hell you posted in another thread that a Tier 2 player can easily make the CTN for a Tier 4 spell
![\":?\"](\"{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_confused.gif\" "\\"Confused\\"")
March 21, 2014 at 2:56 pm #260501AnonymousInactiveYes, the base CTNs appear low… but the real grunt comes from the Adaptations (which still add up very quickly to unreachable CTNs) and the Adaptations don’t get a discount on the CTN.
March 21, 2014 at 3:09 pm #260505AnonymousInactiveJust a question for thought…
I saw a few posts where someone did the math on CTNs. Taking two T1 spells @ -15, then two T2 spells, then two T3 spells, etc. And they showed how it becomes very difficult to cast some of those further up the chain. Well… Just as a general guideline, it seems to me that casting an advanced spell which is comprised of two T1 spells should be roughly equivalent of a T2 spell. That’s probably an acceptable idea to everyone.
What about an advanced spell comprised of two T2 spells? Should that be roughly equivalent to a T4 spell or a T3 spell?
What about one made up from a T2 and a T1 spell? Is this roughly equivalent to a T3 spell or is it little more difficult to cast than the T2 spell that made it up?
Lastly, I ask you how difficult should an advanced spell comprised of two T4 spells be? Conceptually, should it be roughly equivelant to a T5 spell or a T8 spell? (Or somewhere in between?)
That concept needs to be nailed down before the math can be made to work.
Scott
March 21, 2014 at 3:34 pm #260520AnonymousInactiveI think attempting to equate a custom advanced spell may be an issue
the combinations you can create never seem to take place in higher tier spells…
two Tier IV spells (TN: 26) in the current (-15) system would be 37 which is a bit high (with 31 being average for a Tier 4.5 hero… 2d10(d12)+15)
two Tier I spells (TN:18) end up being 21, which for a Tier 1.5 character is not all that hard (average roll on 3d10+6)
On average I would want to see an advanced spell be the equivalent of two adaptions when two spells of equal tier are added together…
March 21, 2014 at 3:35 pm #260522AnonymousInactivemaybe highest CTN + X/Tier of the lower tiered spell?
March 21, 2014 at 4:43 pm #260559AnonymousInactivemaybe highest CTN + X/Tier of the lower tiered spell?
This would give the following if X = 2 (The maximum it can be I believe without going back to the -12)
Assuming a Caster that has d10 casting die and +3 Casting Stat and adds +3 / Tier:
2 Tier I spells (CTN 18) = CTN 20 (Avg Arcanum Result: 18-21)
– Compare with: 2 Tier I Adaptations: CTN 242 Tier II spells (CTN 21) = CTN 25 (Avg Arcanum Result: 21-24)
– Compare with: 2 Tier II Adaptations: CTN 272 Tier III spells (CTN 24) = CTN 30 (Avg Arcanum Result: 24-27)
– Compare with: 2 Tier III Adaptations: CTN 302 Tier IV spells (CTN 27) = CTN 35 (Avg Arcanum Result: 27-30)
– Compare with: 2 Tier IV Adaptations: CTN 33John
March 21, 2014 at 4:48 pm #260566AnonymousInactiveStill too low at low tiers
:::grumbles:::
March 21, 2014 at 4:52 pm #260571AnonymousInactiveThen just make it “CTN equals the highest CTN + 6” Fixed.
March 21, 2014 at 5:09 pm #260579AnonymousInactiveThen just make it “CTN equals the highest CTN + 6” Fixed.
Crushes Low tier + High tier spells..
March 21, 2014 at 5:10 pm #260581AnonymousInactiveJust a question for thought…
I saw a few posts where someone did the math on CTNs. Taking two T1 spells @ -15, then two T2 spells, then two T3 spells, etc. And they showed how it becomes very difficult to cast some of those further up the chain. Well… Just as a general guideline, it seems to me that casting an advanced spell which is comprised of two T1 spells should be roughly equivalent of a T2 spell. That’s probably an acceptable idea to everyone.
What about an advanced spell comprised of two T2 spells? Should that be roughly equivalent to a T4 spell or a T3 spell?
What about one made up from a T2 and a T1 spell? Is this roughly equivalent to a T3 spell or is it little more difficult to cast than the T2 spell that made it up?
Lastly, I ask you how difficult should an advanced spell comprised of two T4 spells be? Conceptually, should it be roughly equivelant to a T5 spell or a T8 spell? (Or somewhere in between?)
That concept needs to be nailed down before the math can be made to work.
Scott
bump and bolded and underlined the most important point
March 21, 2014 at 5:28 pm #260585AnonymousInactivePersonally, I think 2 T1 spells should be roughly T2, 2 T2 spells should be roughly T3, 2 T3 spells should be roughly T4, and 2 T4 spells should be roughly T5. Extrapolating from that T4+T1 should be very slightly harder than a T4.
Personally, I think CTN 20-21 is just about perfect for an advanced spell consisting of 2 T1 spells. As someone else said, making it advanced does nothing to make adaptations easier and adaptations add up fast.
March 21, 2014 at 5:28 pm #260586AnonymousInactiveTrying to understand the concept before the math…
I think attempting to equate a custom advanced spell may be an issue
the combinations you can create never seem to take place in higher tier spells…
two Tier IV spells (TN: 26) in the current (-15) system would be 37 which is a bit high (with 31 being average for a Tier 4.5 hero… 2d10(d12)+15)
two Tier I spells (TN:18) end up being 21, which for a Tier 1.5 character is not all that hard (average roll on 3d10+6)
On average I would want to see an advanced spell be the equivalent of two adaptions when two spells of equal tier are added together…emphasis mine.
Then just make it “CTN equals the highest CTN + 6” Fixed.
Crushes Low tier + High tier spells..Okay…
So, we know two things. First, you’re looking for “the equivalent of two adaptions”. Define what an adaptation amounts to. From my experience, they run the gamut of values between no CTN and say, +6 CTN. This is an abstract target that changes too much. Second, if one static value makes the CTNs good for low tiers but bad for high tiers and a different static value makes the CTNs bad for low tiers but good for high tiers, then this means that you must have a curve in mind. We can’t be talking about linear progression. And in order to find a formula that uses non-linear progression, you’re probably looking at using exponents rather than addition or multiplication.So, with that in mind, I suggest more clearly defining the target numbers for not only Tier X + Tier X advanced spells, but also for Tier X + Tier Y advanced spells. That will help to frame the problem, which will help define the solution.
Scott
- AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Proposed Errata/FAQ Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.