Magic and Alchemy - the essence of a compromise

On that point I agree. I am just not a huge fan of extremism from either side. Your implication above is to completely, utterly, throw out reagents.

I totally get the PITA that they bring to virtual space. I have developed software for 30 years, reagents are the equivalent (data and code) to variables. More variables == more PITA edge cases and weird emergent behavior.

However, on the flip side, emergent behavior is not a bad thing per se. Again, its a PITA because you want the depth and rich interactions they bring, but must manage that fine line of balancing them from being abused or overpowered.

I am in favor of downplaying their role in "omg everything must have a reagent"... I too favor a more a verbal and somatic type of magic, less a material component one.

Perhaps if reagents, which tend to be alchemical, were treated more like initiators and leveraged more in complex spells, i.e. ritual summons, potions (obvious), cantrips?

I definitely think it is unfair and unrealistic to require them at every turn, and that every spell can be augmented with them.

They have a place, just not a spotlight, unless you want to highlight alchemy as a large branch, just not directly linked to magery.

 

Well, not to break up your PITA party, but I didn't actually intend at any point to do away with reagents altogether, nor did I imply such. If you inferred it, try going back and really reading my post instead of just lighting on fire at the first sentence.

I actually am strongly in favor of Alchemy being able to use reagents to create effects that other methods, especially reagent-less methods, cannot. This gives a reward to the time and effort (not to mention in game monies) that alchemy will inevitably cost. I like the idea that a professional Alchemist can not only brew up a fireball spell, or a summon undead spell, using reagents, but that his version will be better than an on the fly cast.

Allowing Alchemist spells to be stronger makes them valuable. This gives the alchemist real market power. Yes, if they can prepare and sell spells at ALL there will be a market for them, but to get into the really big money, to become a thing that high end players care about, Alchemy spells will have to be special in some way.

Now, being able to cast a spell you didn't invest skill points in is definitely a big chunk of special. But my experience is that player populations will adapt, and find a way to minimize the need for such purchases, focusing on covering as many needed bases themselves as possible, and then filling in the last few gaps with purchased spells. Then we discover that the optimized builds all leave the "purchased" powers in a very narrow band, and the market for those specific spells blooms while all other spells wither. Next thing you know, Alchemists specializing in that specific type of spell production multiply, and that specialized market gluts.

This in turn creates a niche for gold farmers, who will then further tilt the balance, until an honest alchemist wanting to make a living with Alchemy is effectively forced to grind harvest a specific set of reagents, refining them into two or three specific spells, and then posting them in bulk at depressingly low prices just to compete.

I would MUCH rather that every single spell that an Alchemist could produce has a market value greater than the mats that made it, so that an Alchemist COULD make money just running between an auction house and his lab. In that way, the Alchemist's skill adds value to process. I've seen far too many systems wherin the act of consuming mats to make a salable item actually DECREASES the value, which is a sign that the game devs missed something. Using up raw materials to make something, something useful and in demand, that required skill to make, should INCREASE the net value of the raw materials.

If Alchemy spells were inherently stronger (5%? 10%?) that would be the case.

However, I also do not want low end magick users to be slaves to the vegetable market. My character shouldn't shut down and become helpless because he's out of bat guano. Partly that will be my responsibility as a builder, but also partly the game devs responsibility in designing a system's reliance on reagents.

Here's my suggestion: Spell Effects Enchanted into items do not require reagents to continue to function. Limit what spells can realistically be enchanted into a weapon ( a reusable throwing dagger of Death Field is probably a no no, a staff that can shoot firebolt is probably ok) or other item (a shield enchanted with Fire Aura? Gauntlets enchanted with Death Touch?), and then let the players show you where the imbalances are. This is, after all, the testing phase of the game.

 

You are right, you did not imply anything.

 

Nope. Didn't IMPLY a damned thing. As I said, I'll use a reagent based system. I don't have to be a fan in order for Portalarium to include a feature, but I AM entitled to voice my opinion OF said feature.

Y'oughta be more careful how you use those dots, @Joveix. You literally responded to my comment on rereading my entire post instead of lighting on fire at the first sentence, by flaming me back with the first sentence whilst editing out the second.

A casual reader might infer a certain bias on the part of the person doing the editing...

 

I re-read nothing. You are accusing me of skipping the read on posts? I read every post to which I reply.

What edit? That you'd still use them? That does not automagically eradicate the first sentence where you absolutely refute having them in the first place. Which is exactly to the point you attempted to make saying you never said that.

And if they are a casual reader, that is their problem. All the text is there for everyone to read.

But, that is enough OT for me on this; feel free to PM me if you want to discuss.

 

Reagents are used in scientific labratories daily.

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/life-science/molecular-biology/molecular-biology-reagents.html

 

FYI this is a great thread. I'm just watching this thread. I can't think of anything to add at this point. I like a lot of the ideas in this thread.

And Yes Tinkerbell does in fact use a limited supply of pixie dust. I've watched every single Tinkerbell movie with my daughter. The most recent one has a pirate fairy that experiments and creates new colors of pixy dust with different properties. Pixy dust alchemy they call it.

*On the contrary, in Peter Pan Tinkerbell had an unlimited supply of pixy dust. She was the source, and was able to even sprinkle Captain Hook's entire ship with pixy dust and they flew Wendy home to London in it.

 

Yes they are. Keep in mind that in scientific nomenclature, oxygen and heat are reagents. And sometimes products. And occasionally reactants. Where precisely were you going with this?

 

Apart from creating a cost to magic, it seems reasonable that elements of reality sprinkled in to a fantasy setting seems to create more depth. Reagents and catalysts are common in our world. Gunpowder... Anyway, I believe the reagents help draw the player in and make them more apart of the process managing spell components.

It doesn't mechanicalize magic but it does add a type of science to magic. The real depth is measured when a player discovers each reagent has a function, like black pearls conjure motion etc.

Sure there are players who want to min/max everything, and they might not care. Those people will be able to adapt to reagent use anyway. They did in UO.

Sent from my Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk.

 

Speaking as a GM, I've always found magickal chemistry to be very dangerous. If continuity is to be maintained, then Black Pearls conjure motion, ALL THE TIME. Why then are Black Pearl based forms of personal trasport not in ready use? How about Black Pearl based technomechanical devices? If rarity were all that was in the way, the eventual answer would be Black Pearl farms, where specially prepared oysters lived in a densely packed and heavily patrolled environment, with circumstances that reliably produced Black Pearls of great size, and they would be monitored for regular harvest and replacement to minimize downtime. Just like we treat resource gathering in real life.

If they only ALLOW a caster to conjure motion, the concept remains. There WILL be a job, a function, that a caster can fulfill with one or more spells, which has profound economic value. Maybe it's in keeping various trade gates open, maybe it's in accelerating harvests so that food and plant reagents can be gathered in greater quantities. That job would then be filled in shifts, at every hour and day of the New Brittonian year. There would be regular deliveries of reagents, and those reagents would be farmed to keep up supply. I suspect there will be a plant which is the reagent for the spell which accelerates collection OF that plant... why isn't this infinite loop already supplying the region's needs?

In the pursuit of realism in the game, remember that when you inject things FROM reality, you GET reality, and our world isn't one that encourages adventuring heroes. Our planetwide system supports economic barons who dominate trade via law and contract, and minimizes the fun and adventure available. It does it precisely BY using the system you describe.

 

Too much complexity isn't necessary. Why do all that? Having reagents is enough. The rest can be left to the imagination.

You don't need every detail. I think Richard is an expert on giving us just what we needed. Look at what he did in the Ultima series with minimal graphics. He knew how to take a little and turn it into a world.

Sent from my Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk.

 

I have to agree... ... Malak, it looks like you are using the opportunity as leverage to cover as much ground as possible "as a GM" in order to confuse us as to what this thread is all about ?

Creating essences and various mixes that would add a certain dynamic science to spellcasting ? Which has always been the case... I almost feel pity for you, Merlin didn't tell you he used reagents all the time personally ? Ah thats bad maybe we should raise him from the grave for you, bad Merlin he concealed tricks... there is no mention of the mages using reagents in books *cough*, therefore they musn't use it... a wizard tower is full of books and... food oh no wait theres that create food spell.

Just books ! *bad fit of cough*

Such a headache. I changed my mind I have no pity.

Maybe some mages are here telling you how it is...

it's ironic that you defend yourself from implying things while you imply things in my mouth, slandering about how I must therefore think everything must have a reagent. Oh yes I think anything under "master" mage should use reagents for everything, cause it needs to be hard to get used to channel those essences (yes I'm doing it again lol)... oh yes I think also that you wannabe Gandalf and not learn what he learns, good luck

What if I told you that Gandalf could not have lit those cones had the tree not agreed and infused its own magic to it ? Does that make Gandalf less powerful of a mage ? What if without his staff he could not even have conjured fire in the first place ?

oh thats right you're a gamemaster, seen it all no need for imagination... you're probably too good to deign to reply anyways.

Back on topic I think we should really let the crafting complexity of cooking enter the essences creating system. What if an ingenuous alchemist and his fellow sorcerer find out that adding plain flour (who would think) to the essence of sulfurous ash under a specific moon would enhance fireballs while decreasing effectiveness of firewall.

We would then deduct that the flour helps for spells that go boom, while weakening spells that burn long. Everything done using the sun/moon phases to add some rarity to those "inventions".

Of course the "secrets" would have to be sparse and well spread over the growth of the character, it would encourage ingenuity and creativity. Another way to have fun with the magic system ... the discoverers of such inventions would then have no interest in reporting the recipe to a WIKI or give away the knowledge, which brings us to even more interesting vistas... the essence would still be "black pearl essence" and only the creator would be at a liberty to reveal if he enhanced it for whatever purpose.

I know this idea is priceless... *bows*

Don't think I'm being generous, I still owe the realm and walk here in service...

 

OK people.

The more I play and the more I see mages and magic. The more I think this is the way to go.

I re-read the whole topic and still think the idea is solid.

Right now people are getting used to the idea that most magic has no consumables cost. That has to stop.
We need magic users to be part of the economy to protect our crafters, while keeping it simple for beginners.

I don't think that full reagents is the way to go. Neither do I think that pre-prepped spells are the way to go.
Both are too complex for the point-and-click crowd and neither adds as much to the economy as this refining step would.
All the while making it possible for the full-reagent crowd to get their advantage by being purists.

 

You can build up the reagent system in a thousand different ways and I'll still think: Magic Ammo in any form is stupid.

I have yet to see ONE suggestion regarding reagents where they actually brought some interesting gameplay and challenge to magic. Randomly pinning a logistical tail on spellcasting simply doesn't do that, no matter how few or many reagents there are and how many steps you have to go through to get them.

It's just sad that instead of developing a system where magic requires knowledge, creativity and quick thinking we're having huge discussions about how we can tack some extra grind to every spell you cast because "It's tradition".

 

Spooned for clarity! This post defeats the wall of text

 

I wish there was a "Like It" option in the polls.

I agree Magic needs a consumable/ammunition for lore and balance purposes. I think there are a lot of factors in place here, though; touch spells, in general, are extremely powerful right now and require nothing. They're great filler, instant cast, low mana focus, deal decent damage and if there is a fizzle chance, basic Focus upgrades to fizzle rates will negate it completely, even with leather fizzle penalties. Not saying all of those things need to be adjusted, but there are factors to consider other than just crafting and consumables.

However, assuming touch spells get tweaked somewhat, even 1 reagent cost (the cheapest ones for all touch spells, I'd argue) would accomplish the same task as an essence and be easier to get. You wouldn't need an essence crafted if every touch spell cost 1 black pearl or 1 sulfurous ash. You could just stockpile it that 1 reg and be good to go. Basic touch spells would need some kind of cost, but it doesn't need to be a debilitating one nor one that would require a crafter. Think basic arrows for an archer.

 

I think you're right. I've played a pure magicuser each release now. Reagents are expensive but having some kind of refined reagents, and more potent reagents might be useful. Heck even if all spells just required the same exact reagents. That way looting a warrior who uses some spells will still possibly yield something useful for a mage who loots a reagent pouch.

Speaking of tank mages etc reagents might indeed cause a few people to pause before adding magic to their skill tree. Also I saw some other thread that a person mentioned that some spells should not work with melee weapons equipped. Automatically uneqiping a melee weapon other than staves and wands to cast offensive spells seems fair as well.

 

In any case magic should require reagents to cast the spells. Although something else feels missing in magic too. I can't seem to put my finger on it.

Perhaps it is missing its mysticism? Although maybe it is more than that. It doesn't feel like mages actually advance as a mage yet. It just feels like we are picking up skills.

As an example the Ultima spell book had 8 circles of spells. We had to gain levels in order to cast certain spells. In UO it was more focused than that, we had to gain magery skill to have a better chance to cast spells of a particular circle. Players who had a 90 magery could cast anything, but having 100 points felt far more satisfying. Also Evaluate Intelligence, and Inscription skills were needed to increased the damage of magic. So a warrior couldn't just cast spells and expect them to be as effective in dealing damage in combat, although healing, curing, teleportation, and protection all worked okay for the warrior who had magic. Regardless ALL players had to use reagents if they wanted to cast a spell, but a true magic user needed to really focus to become a good mage. Just like warriors had tactics, and anatomy mages had their own skills they needed to get.

To me this made Lord British magic far more interesting than WoW magic or even magic from D&D.

That last paragraph helped make mages feel like they were something special. Reagents alone isn't enough to set the mage apart from those who only take magic as a secondary skill. So a mage archer in SotA would be more interesting if they had to choose which one to major in, or be forced to be just okay but not masters of both.

 

D&D magic users were really cool, becuase they were more than just picking up a few skills. They were mystical, and magic was not just some ability that was always predictable. Somebody skilled with magic was a person to be impressed with, while people who were weak at magic weren't really that impressive at all. The arch-mage had spells like wish and prismatic sphere and they could teleport to any place they have been before. They could open gates to other planes.

A low level magic user was lucky to shoot an orc with a magic missle and make him bleed. Big difference.

And yet to me Lord British magic was even better. Opening up a gate was really cool. It was a 7th level spell but it wasn't something players other than mages could cast. It didn't deal damage but people asked for gates all the time. The ability to do something that others cannot do without truly specializing is really cool even if it is not an offensive spell. Maybe specialization and magical mysticism go hand in hand.

 

It's definitely true that magic loses a lot of its appeal when everyone can do magic, but I really don't see how that in any way translates to "magic ammo makes magic more interesting".

I would much rather see a system where magic is about affinities, rituals, covenants with gods and demons, and that sort of stuff. To me the idea that magic derives from your very soul and is therefore colored by who you truly are at the core is what should distinguish a magic user from a non magic user. If you just wield a sword you have total agency, complete free will, there are no greater forces pulling your strings, no ideas you need to live by to retain your power.

But yea, that will never happen, can't have a game where killing people for fun doesn't mesh well with healing magic, and you can't be a totally innocent necromancer, since that would make mechanics and lore touch, ewww. Better just make all the intricacies of magic about keeping the right ratio of 10 kinds of dirt in your inventory.