#Magician Class

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

fair terrace
#

Thinking of how to make a distinctive arcane class from the Elementalist, which, in my limited knowledge base and personal biases, seems to feel more like a Druid than a Wizard

Which is leading me to a “Meta Magician” concept in which the class learns arcane “terms,” “gestures” or “glyphs” and combines them in unique ways to generate dynamic effects

For example, they could learn elements of lists of [VERB], [ADJECTIVE], and [NOUN] and then use their resource to combine them (or make more powerful, ie “upcast”)

For example, they could learn the verb [SPEW], the adjective [CAUSTIC], and the noun [FIRE]

[SPEW] would mean “cone area of effect”
[CAUSTIC] would add a persistent effect
[FIRE] adds fire to the damage type

A Magician could then use their resource to cast a basic (1 verb or noun), advanced (2 choices from their lists of verb, noun, or adjective), or expert (combination of verb, adjective, and noun). Using the list above:
Basic - cast [SPEW] to inflict a cone of untyped magic damage to enemies in the area
Advanced - cast [SPEW] [FIRE] to inflict a cone of fire to enemies in the area
Expert - cast [SPEW] [CAUSTIC] [FIRE] to inflict a cone of fire that causes persistent burn/(or bleed) damage

Trying to see if something like this has legs, or is just ridiculously complicated

Thanks for reading!

latent shale
#

It's kinda of funny, because Matt Colville actually wanted to do something extremely similar for a wizard class. Combining different words to create unique spells. Possibly also having the words, or the ways you cna combine them, change every fight so you can't just use the same ones every time.

#

The framework wouldn't work at all with the standard leveled ability increases (3 cost, 5 cost, 7 cost, etc.), but I think it does have legs. I think you just need to have various effects at price points, then staple them together into a spell

#

I think you probably need to have multiple "damage chasis" across the levels, which have both increasing base cost and increased ability to hold the other effects

fair terrace
latent shale
fair terrace
#

I agree with both your other points, too, and that’s the way I was thinking

The 3- 5- etc cost abilities would probably be riders that for example, could magnify the example spell to do more damage in the same area (boost [FIRE]), increase the range (boost [SPEW]), or increase the severity (boost [CAUSTIC])

latent shale
#

I'm actually leaning in a bit of a different direction I think

fair terrace
latent shale
#

in my mind the single word abilities are in effect the "signatures" of the class

#

or would be

#

adding more words to create the custom effects would spend HR

fair terrace
#

Yep, that too

latent shale
#

But you could make an ability of any cost

fair terrace
#

Exactly! Yeah, it’s that sort of spell mutability that to me is THE “wizard” - formulaic manipulations of the weave to create new effects

latent shale
#

I think the biggest thing is that there needs to be some regular shift in it. Otherwise you just find the "best" combinations, and only use those.

fair terrace
#

And then have another subclass that is the exact opposite:
“Practice Makes Perfect”
Once per turn, when you cast a spell that uses the exact same combination as the previous spell, you gain +1 Attunement

latent shale
#

I like the class idea, don't like the subclass one

#

I'd make it a unique keyword, rather than just a different combination

#

that way it forces a bit more customization, while still being easily understood

#

as for practice makes perfect, I think the variety is essential to the class being interesting to play, and we shouldn't undermine that.

fair terrace
#

Three Magician “Fields of Study” off the top of my head:

  1. Dynamist “It’s a lot more fun when abracadaba ends with a BANG!”
  2. Illusionist “Now you see me, now you don’t!”
  3. Conjurist “Here’s a rabbit, happy now?”
latent shale
#

I think the main vehicle for a spell should probably be a "form". So like you might have a "Bolt" form that's a basic single target strike. Or a "Ball" form that's a 3 cube Area ability. Etc.

#

I do worry a bit that it might be tying too much into the Form though

#

since I think it would need to also be damage, give that damage is closely related to number of targets

#

I do think making the [VERB] the base is probably better than making the [NOUN] the base though

#

since a [NOUN] base would be a bit too similar to the elementalist potentially, being mostly element keyworded

fair terrace
#

It’s like making a grammatically-correct sentence, but using Arcana

You need a subject and verb (at least in English) to say something coherent

Like, if the Magician cast [FIRE], there’s no defined control - I’d imagine that it could (accidentally) end up being anything from using your thumb as a lighter to turning your arm into a flamethrower

latent shale
#

Interesting, I kinda like that restriction

#

bonus points if you "allow" the mage to cast improper grammer spells, but basically anything can happen

fair terrace
#

Which makes me think that maybe subclasses get a “free” verb (or can cast without a verb?) if the noun came from a specific subclass list

Eg Dynamist gets this if using [FIRE], Conjurist could get this if using [WALL], Illusionist could get this if using [SHADOW]

But there’s way too much overlap… hmmm

latent shale
#

I think to maintain distance from the elementalist, it shouldn't be focused on the element

#

so Dynamist gets a free [Throw], the Conjurist gets a free [Create], etc.

fair terrace
#

That’s better - make the specific verbs free for each subclass

latent shale
#

ooh ok Idea I had

#

So three lists of words: verbs (form of spell), adjectives (various modifiers), nouns (element type and main effect)

#

what if it was a thing where every fight, you rolled a number of d# (equal to the size of the table), and those were the words you had available that fight?

#

if you roll the same number twice, you get a free pick

#

Maybe you get to choose one of the types of words to select all of them directly.

#

I want to specifically avoid a "You get to choose one from each category" type effect, because that allows having a 'favorite' you grab every time.

fair terrace
fair terrace
latent shale
#

@untold mulch since you mentioned being curious as to this sort of thing and if it can be done....

untold mulch
#

!

latent shale
#

literarly trying to creative the volatile word based spellcaster XD

latent shale
#

So you might start with only a d4 for each type at 1st level, by level 10 probably a d12

fair terrace
#

On one hand, don’t want to fall into “here I go casting [blank] again,” and on the other, don’t want to take away a PCs toys, ya know?

latent shale
#

And keep the funnest "toys" as class effects they always have access to, rather than words

fair terrace
#

Could get a class-specific maneuver “look up” that costs a HR to change out a word

untold mulch
#

Sorry for just joining a thread and then suggesting something super left field so feel free to disregard this; but, should this be a "class" so to speak? I ask because I wonder if an Elementalist player would ask "hey why can't I do this stuff?" and I wouldn't super have answer for them lore wise

latent shale
fair terrace
#

I think the class fantasy diverges on the “use the spells that are known” vs “make up your own spells”

latent shale
#

Theoretically you could try making it as an overhaul of the elementalist, rather than a uniquely flavored class? But I think the unique flavor is better IMO

untold mulch
#

perhaps

fair terrace
#

Lore wise, I’d say it depends on the magic system, right?

The elementalist can summon a tree, right?

But it’s mechanically always the same tree

What if it could mutate based on what was needed - that’s when you need the Magician

untold mulch
#

but you're forgoing element tags right? is that entirely or just as subclasses?

fair terrace
#

If damage type is separate from element tags, then yeah

untold mulch
#

apologies, I don't want to throw off your guys' vibe; I think the idea is solid, I think I'm just getting caught up on the idea of "If a wizard can create dynamic spells, can that create full stable spells" which I think is core to the (my) fantasy but would not be necessary to create a fun class out of this concept

latent shale
#

And is your core fantasy answering that "yes" or "no"?

untold mulch
#

like, the elementalist casts spells, who created those spells? Ars Magica deals a lot in what a wizard is and on top of improvising tag based spells in the moment, it also has a focus on "creating" spells through study, as in, stuff that is practiced, rote, and teachable. I feel like that desire is not specific to Ars Magica.

#

Almost like adding to the collective knowledge of the field of magic, like a PHD student almost

#

that's my vibe at what a wizard is at least, and again that's what's holding me up, you definitely don't need this to create a fun class with the mechanics you have here

fair terrace
#

I think the point is that this class wouldn’t have “stable spells” or (as I’m interpreting it) “predefined effects” per se -

they would have grammatical formulae to plug in the keywords they know to create the effects they need

untold mulch
#

yeah totally, I think being able to make stable spells ruins what you're going for here

#

and I do like what you're going for here

#

even if it doesn't tick all of my boxes, an "improviser" of sorts is cool. It just sorta speaks to me in the way a wild magic sorcerer does more than anything else

remote mortar
#

Coundn't you get a lot of the way there if you made a new downtime activity that was "create new spell" and recreate some system like in Strongholds and Followers?

untold mulch
#

I think that's more my vibe, but this is something different at this point from the topic of this thread

#

could totally steal whatever spell tag system is made here though if developed and if I or someone else decides to do the latter

fair terrace
remote mortar
#

I mean is your goal to create the vibe/ the gameplay of a wizard or do you just like the mechanic? Or rather what picture do you have your head when you hear that mechanic? Because it seams to obviously inspire you

fair terrace
#

Hmmm…
The “wizard” I picture (since there’s no one agreed-upon definition) has the feeling of combining arcane symbols (think a glyph, rune, or gesture) together like you would words in a sentence to create a very specific magical effect

Which can certainly be flavored to most caster classes

But instead of having the “specific magic effect” be what this class knows, the class learns the vocabulary of arcana, and mechanically makes magical effects by combining them together

I think “Epic Spell Wars” does this, as it was mentioned multiple places

latent shale
#

I do think you could probably steal the main systems of this for a "create spell" downtime action though

#

since HR should be balanced across classes

remote mortar
#

Of course the way you play your game does not have to be from the perspective of a camera

#

And of course I might just be wrong

fair terrace
#

The how a PC casts definitely is that cinematic views

Think a Green Elementalist putting her fingers into the dirt to enervate a tree or a Void Mage pulling out a special dagger to rend space time

The details of how are left up to the player, as they really should be, IMO

I’m looking into the what are they casting

latent shale
#

@fair terrace So assuming that the [Verb][Adjective][Noun] is the format, lets try to lay out some initial ideas for all of those lists. Do you think it's ok to have an "of" in there? e.g. [Cone] of [weakening] [cold]. Or should they all be able to be just the three words?

remote mortar
#

Yeah you guys go on. My theory crafting has kinda gotten me away from the idea of the thread

latent shale
fair terrace
#

So, to cast a “cone of weakening cold” I’d imagine it’d be [SPEW] [SAPPING] [ICE]

latent shale
#

like I don't think I'd [Spew][Sapping][Wall]

#

but I guess "noun of" sort of works as a replacement for [verb]

#

hmmm

fair terrace
#

To start with verbs, I think a chunk would derive from the areas of effect a/o lines of action for damage - possible examples:

  • An Aura effect is [EXUDE]
  • A line effect is [TRACE]
  • A ranged targeted strike is [HURL]
  • A ranged burst is [LAUNCH]
  • A melee strike is [INFLICT]
  • A self burst is [RADIATE]
    Or something to those effects
latent shale
#

Radiate might be Aura?

fair terrace
#

That’d work, yep

latent shale
#

maybe Unleash for burst?

fair terrace
#

Adjectives start with the conditions, [SAPPING] is causing the weakened condition, [BLINDING] is causing the blinded condition, etc

And then add in a few for more damage like [VOLATILE] or [CAUSTIC]

latent shale
#

I also do think we need some higher level verbs. So like we've got the basic single target attack, but also a high level stronk single target attack.

#

[Imbue] could be used for buff spells

#

[Channel] would be an alternative for an aura ability

fair terrace
#

Better verbs could cost HR

latent shale
#

[Absorb] for a triggered action type ability?

#

[Absorb][Repel][Transform][Unravel]

fair terrace
#

[CONJURE] for a bunch of abjurative measures like [SHIELD] or [BARRIER]

latent shale
#

well barrier is more of a noun?

#

[Fortify] could work

#

[Project] for a line ability

fair terrace
#

Sorry; meant [CONJURE][BARRIER] as the full spell

#

To ward off an aoe as a triggered action

latent shale
#

...actually now I really hope you can, because that sounds hilarious

fair terrace
#

Maybe? Dunno what’d it do

fair terrace
latent shale
#

[Erupt] for a strong ranged AoE effect

#

[Scatter] for a wide AoE effect (could be burst or cube)

fair terrace
#

[HURL][BARRIER] - send an orb or arcane energy across the battlefield to encase an enemy

#

[BARRIER], for example, could be defined to be “a projection of arcane force that can be used to ward an area from magical damage” or something

Maybe it works with [HURL], which changes the effect to offensive and thus the ward reflects in to prevent the enemy from casting spells out

latent shale
#

I think the Noun needs to know what it does for each type of attack

#

rather than Hurl transforming things into damage

fair terrace
#

Yeah, that’s probably right…. Hmm

latent shale
#

I think we should make a document, and sort the Verbs we do have already

#

before it gets out of hand

fair terrace
latent shale
#

ok so we have a fair number

#

Ok so based on levels and when classes get abilities, I think something like this probably works.
1 - d4, 2 rolls
2 - d6
3 - 3 rolls
4 - N/A
5 - d8
6 - 4 rolls
7 - N/A
8 - d10
9- 5 rolls
10 - N/A

#

...although since there are three seperate tables, I actually think the dice size increase the rolls on that table should probably increase at the same time

#

and just spread when you get which tables to different levels

#

maybe even have a thing where you pick the table you get an increase on

fair terrace
#

Can you walk me through the rolling dice aspect again?

latent shale
# fair terrace Can you walk me through the rolling dice aspect again?

The idea is you'd have three lists of words, one for each category. So for example your Verb list might look like this:

1 [Create]
2 [Inflict]
3 [Launch]
4 [Radiate]
5 [Erupt]
6 [Forge]

Then at the start of a combat, you'd roll a d6 three times. Whatever the three numbers you get, those are the verbs you have available for the fight.

#

Repeat for Adjectives and Nouns

#

At higher levels I think you'd get access to say four more options for verbs, and you'd pick two of them to add to your list.

#

the number of times you roll is always half the length of your list, so you always have half the list available.

#

(this is important so that leveling up doesn't feel like a punishment, making your favorite words harder to get).

latent shale
#

Even ignoring the reaction Verbs, we have 20 verbs. Which is enough if the hero picks 2 from 4 each time, and end up with a total of 10.

fair terrace
#

I like the randomness aspect, but I think the Verbs should be less variant - perhaps each subclass gets 1 automatically and then rolls a 1d3 on the remaining 3 they’ve selected in advance

#

I think a lot of the room for expansion and power is going to be in the adjectives/modifiers

and a little more will be in the nouns

latent shale
fair terrace
#

I was looking at what the elementalist and other “casters” could do at level 1 and it seemed to be mainly the range 10, melee 1-3, cube 2-3 sort of idea

I’ll compile a list of what “Signature Abilities” can do to inform further

latent shale
#

Burst 3 only shows up at 5 cost

#

Cube 4 is only on 9+ costs

#

There is a single 7 cost 5 cube, the rest are 11 cost

#

5 wall is a signature (admittedly with no damage or bonus effect), 10 wall is a 7 cost, 15 wall is 11 cost.

#

some 5 Bursts at as low as 7 cost, but also up to 11 cost. Just depends on the amount of damage

hollow eagle
#

If I'm being honest, I think the idea of "building your own spells" and "randomly only being able to use some of your learned words each encounter" are opposing dynamics. Randomness doesn't seem to match the class fantasy described earlier. Also, it seems a bit like you've hand waved the heroic resource generation which is the hallmark of a DS class. Does your HR engine actually work? What are you spending it on? The idea that gaining attunement comes from using a variety of spell constructions means that as an encounter progresses it becomes more and more difficult to gain attunement. Your spell construction concepts sound very intriguing. But, it may all fall apart if the class doesn't have a reliable heroic resource engine.

rich granite
#

Hi all, late to the party here. Just curious if the thematic goal of this class is to do everything the elementalist can AND more, or what things its willing to sidestep. Just wondering if the difficulty is trying to add more functionality than 1 class normally has?

hollow eagle
#

I'm doing a lot of speaking for people who's idea it is (not mine).....but.....after rereadiing all of the posts, another source of tension, I think, is the core idea (build your own spells from words which I think could work) becomes really unwieldy if you aren't completely divorced from the massive list of available spells idea from d20 fantasy.

hollow eagle
umbral herald
#

I like the idea of building your own spells, but I wonder if it makes sense to make that a whole new mechanic completely disconnected from the existing mechanics in Draw Steel.
I think there's an angle here to connect the complexity of spells you can cast to your heroic resource. It might work similarly to rage or discipline, but model your awareness or understanding of the current situation, and thus your ability of forming magic phrases that precisely affect this situation. Basically: More awareness means more words per spell.

#

Another idea I had was a number of maneuvers that modify the next spell cast. That in itself might go a long way of modeling the flexibility of a spell system with individual words.

rich granite
clever sky
#

Maybe I missed this earlier on, but would an interesting HR source be mimicking the keywords of other abilities in an encounter? Similar to an Elementalist tracking if a damage type occurred, would a Magician track if an Area keyword like burst or 3 cube happened, and thus get more HR?

fair terrace
#

Hello everyone! Awesome discussion points!

Yes, the class fantasy is “learning” arcane building blocks to craft a spell on the fly

For the HR “Attunement” (placeholder name), the current concept is “Never the same Trick Twice” where when you use a different keyword to (any or last?) spells in the encounter, you get an HR

HR could be spent on more powerful keywords (meaning that using some keywords would be free but others would cost 1 or more HR, [HURL] vs [LAUNCH], for example would add more range and/or an AoE), or adding one or more modifiers, which also might cost more HR (eg [BIG] being 1 HR vs [MASSIVE] being 3 HR, but massive affects a bigger area)

Clearly it’s in the brainstorming phase, but there are some vague outlines

fair terrace
rich granite
#

I suppose if you had effects tied to keywords, you could have powers with based effects, keywords that add effects, and then your maneuver is used to apply keywords to your next power?

#

Then, have the keywords cost HR to apply, based on their effect

fair terrace
fair terrace
rich granite
#

A bit, but yes. Maybe instead of signature abilities, you just have free strike feature. When you use it, you add one keyword for free, or can spend a maneuver to add another. But you only know x keywords at level 1, and learn new ones later on

fair terrace
#

I think that melds with what we’re getting at, yeah

#

Example, perhaps:
the Dynamist has the [HURL] keyword, which allows their action to be a targeted range 10 magic strike which does 2/4/6+R untyped damage
As a Signature Ability, they can add [PROJECTILE], which boosts the damage by 1/1/1 and applies bleed 1 (for example)

For 3 HR, they could add the modifier [EXPLODING] and change the damage to fire and apply the effects to a nearby target

fair terrace
# rich granite Hi all, late to the party here. Just curious if the thematic goal of this class ...

I started with the elementalist as a class to jump off of (to reverse engineer the power scaling, basically), and yeah, the “AND more” comes from being able to create combinations the elementalists don’t have

I think one thing that would get trimmed is the inherent ward/enchantment/kit mechanic (although it may be possible to replicate the effects of one, albeit temporarily, by casting the right combination of keywords…)

hazy blade
fair terrace
hazy blade
#

Sounds good, I think the fury and null both generate some through their subclasses

clever sky
#

Passive HR benefits, yeah

fair terrace
#

I think the general rule is 2 or 1d3 at start of turn for base HR gen

fair terrace
#
  • Censor, Null, Tactician get two instances of bonus +1 per round
  • Elementalist, Talent, Shadow get one instance of bonus +1 per round
  • Conduit can take a maneuver to get extra and has a chance for +2 once per encounter
  • Troubadour has opportunity for +2, +2, +3, and +10 during encounters
#

I think Magician would fall into +2 per start of turn and one chance for a +1 per round - rewarding playstyle behaviors that fit the class

hazy blade
#

Troubadour also gets a similar ability to the conduit at higher level but that might be outside of the first 3

fair terrace
#

Looking at level 1 characters at the moment to get bearings

hazy blade
#

I think if the idea is control over chaos then 2 is ideal

#

And for the concept pitched a single thing to pay attention to is a good idea as the build a spell is going to be extra work for the brain

rich granite
clever sky
#

It's interesting that the Conduit and Troubadour get ways to gamble on their HR, but the Fury and Shadow don't

fair terrace
latent shale
#

We could possibly do both "When you use an ability with a word you haven't used this fight" and "When you use an ability that shares no words with the last ability you used", as two HR gains. But I think it's probably better to only use one of them and keep it simple

#

personally I prefer the "word you haven't used" so as to incentivize using the full spectrum of words the class gets access to

latent shale
# hollow eagle If I'm being honest, I think the idea of "building your own spells" and "randoml...

If we gave a player a "build your own spell" class with no limitations/restrictions, is that the player finds a few combinations they like, and they stick with them. I think that would make the class boring. So I'm doing my best to both prevent players from being able to "save" a favorite spell, and to incentivize mixing up the choices they do make even in the span of a single fight.

As for the HR generation, it's less that we've hand waved it and more decided to not do anything radical. The modular spell system is already a complete overhaul, so it's best to keep the HR mechanics as simple as possible. You get two per turn, there's a trigger you can do once per round for extra, it goes up the same way the other classes do.

Admittedly the spending of HR is something we haven't covered yet, but that's more because we need to first figure out if the spell system even can work, before we start figuring out where the prices go.

You mention that as the fight goes on, there are less and less ways to gain attunement. Both the conduit and the troubadour work with resource mechanics in that fashion, so I don't think it will be an issue.

latent shale
latent shale
# umbral herald I like the idea of building your own spells, but I wonder if it makes sense to m...

My vision is that each word would have an associated HR cost. There would also be a maximum HR that a spell could be, either from the [Verb] (which is effectively the body of the spell, is it a bolt, a wall, an aura, etc.), or something that increases as you level.

So Casting a spell might look something like this.

[Inflict][Caustic][Inferno]
Inflict (0 attunement): action, melee 1, targets one enemy/object, deal 2/4/6 damage
Caustic (1 attunement): Applies M < weak/average/strong bleeding (save ends)
Inferno (3 attunement): +6 damage. The target and adjacent squares light on fire, dealing 2 damage to enemies who move or start their turn there.

With the final result then being:

Inflict Caustic Inferno (4 attunement)
Melee 1 one enemy or object
Tier 1: 8 damage; M < weak bleeding (save ends)
Tier 2: 10 damage; M < average bleeding (save ends)
Tier 3: 12 damage; M < strong bleeding (save ends)
Effect: The square of target and adjacent squares light on fire, dealing 2 damage to enemies who move or start their turn there.

latent shale
clever sky
#

They keywording is inconsistent to that effect, but yeah

rich granite
hollow eagle
#

"If we gave a player a "build your own spell" class with no limitations/restrictions, is that the player finds a few combinations they like, and they stick with them. I think that would make the class boring. " Who thinks this (besides you)? Why would the player using his favorite combinations find it boring? If they found using the same spell all of the time boring, then they wouldn't do it (assuming they have equally useful alternatives). I really don't get this particular point that keeps being stated without any real justification or support (imo).

clever sky
#

I agree with Tamwin. A player may find a combination and consider it the ideal loop, thus optimizing themselves out of the fun of exploring and reacting to challenges, and then they get a feel-bad response when their perfect loop doesn't work. It's the warped perception of having "solved" a class with a combo, such that even if there are other viable approaches, their golden one must be right, and nothing else could have achieved as good an outcome. That's a good reason to inject incentive to stay dynamic, in my opinion.

#

I'm also considering the experience of other players at the table participating in the fantasy of the character. It's more "cinematic" to my mind if the "build-a-spell" class is constantly trying new things

hollow eagle
#

More assumptions. "A player MAY find a combination and consider it the ideal loop..." Why, how, this makes very little sense. What would make it optimum? What are they optimizing it to? If their perfect-loop doesn't work, then how is it perfect and optimized? No amount of incentive is going to help someone whose head is so far up their own posterior that they think in the way you described.

#

I apologize if I'm sounding more antagonistic than I intend. I just struggle with your hypothetical situation.

clever sky
#

It's approaching the scenario from player psychology. Players try to optimize their characters and turns to some ideal (set by a table culture, themselves, influences by the game style, etc) and the optimization is a component of the game to them. Even players who would profess to ignore mechanical optimization for character narrative are still just optimizing towards a different goal. Optimization tends towards a reduction in options by minimizing risk and uncontrolled circumstances. Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of the game, and Draw Steel is still a game.

hollow eagle
#

Perhaps putting it a different way will be clearer. The class design should support the fantasy of the exploring/reacting to challenge with my toolbox of arcane words not incentivizing someone with a psychological flaw and warped view of optimization to change their ways.

clever sky
#

I'm not saying anyone has a "psychological flaw", geez. It's normal human psychology.

hollow eagle
#

In retrospect that sounds harsh. The human psychology you describe is really a spectrum of attitudes and approach to problem solving. I would posit that your hypothetical worry is on the extreme end of that spectrum. But, apparently I'm in a mood, perhaps I should take a break. My apologies. No harm intended.

rich granite
hollow eagle
#

So, the experimentation you seek is disconnected from the tactical/strategic nature of a specific encounter?

clever sky
#

I don't think so, I think they could be in tension with each other

hollow eagle
#

And that's the class fantasy?

clever sky
#

As I understand it

hollow eagle
#

Fair enough. Do you have any examples of this type of magic wielder in other creative works? Maybe that will help me get a better picture.

clever sky
#

The first thing that comes to mind is the magic language from Eragon, but it's still early and the coffee hasn't kicked in yet

hollow eagle
#

I know OF it, but not ABOUT it. So, there's tension/expectation/benefit to use different spells within each battle?

clever sky
#

I think we're talking past each other. The class fantasy, as I believe was hashed out up-thread by SardonicFox, Tamwin, and others, is that of a "build spells from Verbs, Nouns, Adverbs, Adjectives, etc" fiddly choice system. The wizard knowing arcane words, whose combination through complicated (in-world) syntax produces grand and flexible magics.

The game aspect of this is constraining a grammar system into a series of levers that a player can engage with reasonably well during combat, to have something interesting to manage which produces dramatic spikes in action. Because of the combinatorial nature of the class fantasy (swapping out words a la Epic Spell Wars) the balance is partially introduced via turn-over of available tactics (Gloomhaven also does this by discarding and burning cards with abilities as you go). Draw Steel doesn't want attrition centralized to class mechanics, so rotation is the next best option, preventing any singular combination of words from being the local minimum of class strategy.

In literature, it's rarely interesting for the reader to see the same tactic used every single battle, and it doesn't tell us anything more about the character using the magic. In a combat wargame, there can absolutely be tactics which (even after balancing) take up an inordinate amount of space for players seeking to tap into a class's power. This could be from a cool experience the player had their 1st time trying it out (like me, I love forced movement in Draw Steel partly due to a fantastic introduction in early playtesting) or from a whiteroom optimization formula (I do the most damage if I do X into Y, followed by Z if an ally does Q). For Draw Steel to strike a balance between the tactical game, and the cinematic story, you need to marry these mindsets through a ruleset that encourages turning one into the other.

hollow eagle
#

Thank you for clearly dividing the class fantasy vs the game mechanics. I think we generally agree on the class fantasy. I see an emphasis on flexibility but not necessarily variability. I do acknowledge that a flexibile magician would naturally be using a variety of spell constructions, both within an encounter and more likely between encounters. But, I feel the fantasy leans more in the I CAN do a variety of things rather than I SHOULD do a variety of things. Since the focus of the class is flexibility, I would be very careful in choosing game mechanics that induce variability at the cost of flexibility.

#

It should go without saying, but clearly that's just my opinion 🙂

fair terrace
fair terrace
latent shale
fair terrace
#

Initial HR expending and Keyword concept:
Heroic Resource abilities would be adding Modifiers at a base cost 1 + “complexity level”
Complexity Levels:
Amateur (2), Advanced (4), Expert (6), Master (8), Epic(?) (10)

The key is that multiple “lower complexity” modifiers can be added together to go over the (implied) 3/5/7/9/11 HR caps (unique feature to this class)

Added Modifiers are limited by level: Level 1 can add only 1 modifier to their spell, regardless of complexity. Level 10 can add up to 10 modifiers to a spell!

Leveling up gives access to a choice of new words or more powerful words, eg boosting [Hurl] to [Shoot]. “Upgraded” nouns and verbs would cost more HR, but provide some benefit like a modifier would, eg [Create] basically adding the [Persistent] keyword to [Conjure], but without counting against the modifier cap!

fair terrace
#

I think it’d be pretty epic for a level 10 character expending 21+ HR in one go to cast [Create][Blazing][Thundering][Dazing][Caustic][Debilitating][Sapping][Ensnaring][Ominous][Scattering][Massive][Maelstrom] as a huge risk/reward play

Risk - you’re tapped out of HR
Reward - ultimate battlefield control

hollow eagle
#

Well, y'all are on the same wavelength. Hope your class comes together well for you!

latent shale
#

I think the way you get the massive HR spends is by using expensive options for all of the three words

#

So you have something like [Unleash][Ultimate][Armageddon], with the costs being 3, 5, and 7 for a 15 point ability.

fair terrace
#

Wide vs tall philosophy on spell crafting design…. Hmmm…

I like the concept of multiple modifiers bc it allows for multiple effects, which (AFAIK) aren’t seen with other abilities/spells too often

I also like the massively powerful spell options (encoded in having modifiers that cost 2/4/5/8/10 HR to add) bc that’s fun

I think we agree that part of the core fantasy is being able to spend more HR than the implied 3/5/7/9/11 caps, the difference is going wide vs tall to get there

latent shale
fair terrace
#

Perhaps the modifiers can be categorized, and no more than 1 per category can be applied
Examples:

  • Applying a status effect (eg Dazing)
  • Expanding area of effect (eg Huge)
  • Increasing range (eg Distant)
  • Increasing damage (eg Enhanced)
  • Adding targets (eg Twinned)
  • Adding persistent (eg Sustained)
  • Adding Damage Type (eg Blazing)
  • Adding special effect (eg Destructive could create difficult terrain in the area)

So that way can maintain flexibility without having to add in more verbs/nouns for every level of intensity, per se

#

Modifiers in each category would act on a specific element of the “Generic Spell Form”:

  • Keywords: eg Magic, Ranged, [Damage Type]
  • Distance: {Melee X, Ranged X, Cube X within Y, X burst, X aura, Self (optional)}
  • Target: {X Creature or Object, All Enemies, Self, Self or Ally, Special, Other}
  • Type: {Action, Maneuver, Movement, Triggered}
  • Power Roll + Attribute (optional): eg Damage, Damage + Attribute, Damage + move, Damage + effect (eg Slowed, Restrained, Dazed), Targets, Teleport Distance, Others
  • Effect: eg Persistent, Ignore immunity, create difficult terrain
latent shale
#

I think some status effects would come from the Noun

#

Because the Verb is already defining the major shape of the spell

#

so we have two words that split most of the modificiations

#

It's also possible to chain multiple things together on one word, which is useful for balance purposes

#

As a random example, maybe Restrain is a bit too strong to have as a one cost modifier, but a bit too weak to have as a two cost modifier

#

so maybe we make it part of a 3 or 4 cost trait with some other effects

#

I also don't think we need every possible modifier, or to have multiple versions.

#

like I think [Distant] will just be the only modifier that increases range.

#

and it gives something like +2 to a melee spell, or +5 to a ranged one

fair terrace
#

[VERB] should primarily affect distance and target, which by extension would inform some of the power roll attributes
Default type is action
[NOUN] would inform the power roll further (ie add damage type) and possibly apply a baseline basic effect

#

Currently looking at the signature abilities of Elementalist for how to break them down into combinable parts…

latent shale
#

I think Verb also needs to cover basic damage

#

because like, a burst 5 AoE should have very little damage, while you might have a Cube 2 with decent damage

#

now, I think you can have effects wich play around with that damage. Like one which converts it entirely to force movement, for example.

fair terrace
fair terrace
latent shale
fair terrace
#

Currently putting together a formatted Class Document that outlines the basic rules as we’ve discussed

latent shale
fair terrace
fair terrace
#

Here’s what I’ve got for an alpha V0.0: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1698_5zHAVhjyTzTmMoPXeXaFzqivln_As3VSanIsKCQ/edit

Putting the concept into natural language is tricky

Google Docs
The Magician Class Formatted

The Magician You speak the language of arcana and know the grammar through which to create unique fantastical effects. As a Magician, you combine together Components of a Magical Effect like a puzzle to create a tailored solution to your specific problem. Or a really big fireball - fire usually...

latent shale
#

Actually speaking of magician

#

I think that Objects should have a set list of effects

#

depending on the targetting of Form

#

I think a good split is maybe:

  • single target
  • area
  • terrain
  • buff
#

so for example, for [Fire], it would be:

  • +4 damage
  • +2 damage
  • Sets terrain on fire, dealing 2 damage to anyone who enters or starts their turn there
  • gives 3 surges
#

and I think that should allow it to cover all effects

#

or at least, a wide enough spread to suffice for the class.

fair terrace
#

Btw, all of the work going on in the “ability math… analysis” thread is directly pertinent to figuring out stuff over here

latent shale
fair terrace
#

General concept I’ve been noodling on breaking up the Elementalist abilities:

Spell form:
Form [Throw]: Range (10) strike against single target with default 2/4/6 untyped damage
Object options

  • [Projectile]: Adds +R baseline untyped damage
    Modifier options (0 HR):
  • [Split]/[Twinned]/[Doubled]: Removes +R, adds second target
  • [Exploding]: adds push 2/3/4
  • [Interfering]: adds weak/average/strong Slow (save ends)
  • [Grasping]: You slide one creature within 10 squares of the target up to 2 squares
  • [Restoring]: Ally can end an effect
    Subclass considerations:
  • Dynamist able to add Fire to untyped damage
  • Conjurist able to add Corruption to untyped damage
  • Illusionist able to add Psychic to untyped damage
  • Subclasses get different [Noun] that are compatible with [Hurl], or different [Verb] for the same effect that is more thematic?
    For “free”:
  • All classes get [Throw]
  • Dynamist gets [Spew]
  • Conjurist gets [Conjure]
  • Illusionist gets [Bestow]
    Starting at level 2, can take the Basic FORM of another Subclass, and will get the Improved FORM of their Basic for free
#

Basic Spell Forms:
[Throw]: Range 10, Target 1 creature or object, type action, power roll 2/4/6
[Inflict]: Melee 1, Target 1 creature or object, type action, power roll 3/6/9
[Launch]: Range cube 2 within 10, all creatures or objects, power roll 2/4/6
[Unleash]: 1 burst, all creatures or objects, power roll 3/5/7
[Radiate]: 2 aura

latent shale
#

Split/Twinned/Double will be an interesting one to balance, because we need to have it working for signatures and 7 costs the same.

fair terrace
#

I think some of the modifiers will have to be restricted or HR-based

Like, twinned might double the HR of advanced Forms or Objects

Some might be only usable on certain forms, etc

latent shale
#

Yup

#

like I don't think you can twin a Burst AoE

fair terrace
#

Yeah. That doesn’t make sense, ha

But a form with a single target should be twinnable, with a reduction in potency, I think, and with higher cost for higher complexity forms or objects

latent shale
#

the idea of reducing potency is interesting, but might not be required

#

there are AoE abilities with potency effects