Stop-gap God-Machine mechanics for Mage

[Freemind]

Oh, this was all more of an idle question my troupe had. I wasnt worried about an archmage being OP, it just hit me how much more awe inspiring their command of magic would be with rotes in 2e. Thanks for the feedback GhostTurtle, I think those are all good points.

I will say that I don't know about reach not being useful at 5+. Advanced duration, instant cast and sympathetic/sensory range would all still be huge benefits for mastery level spells, and an archmage would be able to theortically use multiple advantages without risking additional paradox. And I am sure making/unmaking spells will have some reach conditions to tempt even Masters to hubris. An archmage would be able to instantly bring about some dizzying effects without ever having to use an Imperial Practice or risking paradox within the new system ( if said reach/rote system extends with 6+ dots). If they can make a rote with that reach included, they would have a spell that would almost never fail and would out-compete anything a master could perform safely. Which is exactly how I want my archmages to be

I could see such a rote getting into non-archmmage hands being a Pax violation, but I was planning on using such a rote as exactly how you describe: a very rare Mystery that is there to help players on their Threshold Seekings. I would definitely not have them as something anyone could stumble upon.

[GhostTurtle]

Something a player of mine asked and I had no idea how to answer about spell casting in 2e:

Can an archmaster creates a rote, does it contain reach equal to his current dots in that arcanum?

My playerwas suggesting it as a possible quest for masters, as finding that Archmaster's grimoire would allow them to have greater reach for master level spells (and thus give even Masters a reason to seek out new rotes/grimoires). But it also made me think that it would allow an archmage (who will have at minimum a die pool of 12 when casting per 1e) to create rotes for themselves that would give those huge die pools rote quality, while maintaining their huge reach advantage for sub-Imperial practice spells.

It doesn't seem that problematic for me that Archmasters become ridiculously good at casting a non-Imperial spell they take the time and effort to create a Rote for, post-Threshold-Seeking. A Master is already going to have a minimum pool of 8, and probably considerably more (12 would require a Gnosis of 7, which seems quite reasonable for an accomplished Master).

In terms of the ways this would be different from a Master, there's three concerns: the extra Reach, the Archmaster being more powerful, and someone else getting this rote. I suspect Reach will see some diminishing returns after you get to 5, since presumably the system is being balanced around Mastery as the pinnacle of feasible spellcasting.

In terms of the Archmaster being ridiculously powerful, that pretty much comes with the territory. IM makes it pretty clear PCs should primarily encounter Seekers through either shadowy patronage or simply by stumbling across one of their works, and neither of those really seems like it would be a situation where the players cry foul if the Archmaster grossly outcasts them.

In terms of someone else getting the rote, I'd suspect spreading something like that widely would violate the Pax. There are almost certainly a handful floating around, preserved by ancient Masters or inscribed onto the walls of Ruins, but amassing more than one or at most 2 would be the work of a lifetime of effort (and possibly part of the build-up to a Threshold Seeking).

In terms of incentivizing rotes for your Master PCs, I think in some ways it's a natural part of a Mage's story that as they accumulate sufficient knowledge they shift from being the student to being the teacher. Masters themselves get great benefits now for creating rotes, and they can translate these benefits into even greater ones by teaching them to their apprentices. You might still seek out non-Archmaster Grimoires simply for rotes from Arcana you haven't mastered, or simply to acquire further resources you can use to improve your students.

[Freemind]

Something a player of mine asked and I had no idea how to answer about spell casting in 2e:

Can an archmaster creates a rote, does it contain reach equal to his current dots in that arcanum?

My playerwas suggesting it as a possible quest for masters, as finding that Archmaster's grimoire would allow them to have greater reach for master level spells (and thus give even Masters a reason to seek out new rotes/grimoires). But it also made me think that it would allow an archmage (who will have at minimum a die pool of 12 when casting per 1e) to create rotes for themselves that would give those huge die pools rote quality, while maintaining their huge reach advantage for sub-Imperial practice spells.

[Mrmdubois]

Now that we can be pretty certain that Banishers keep operating on Integrity I wonder if Proximi use Wisdom.

[Freemind]

A question from my partner on the mechanics of spell in GMC rules - If we use Forces Telekinesis ( or Matter's Plasticity ) we can use Grapple Maneuver in enemy with the spell itself. Problem is this - how to decide it's on the effects? Are spellcasting successes goes to the Strength + Brawl - Defense roll on Grapple? Or this dicepool is rolled after the spell? When are effect of spell come to being - in the moment of casting spell ( i.e. PCs initiative ) or after the whole turn of combat come to end ( i.e. ater every one made they actions in the turn )?

Cast spell, then allocate successes to strength, then roll for grapple with the points allocated during casting to the spells Strength component, using the players brawl. The only question is if it can be used same turn. I would argue yes, but that comes down to preference, since the "effect" could be argued to be either the force you create, or that force and it's own effect.

[wyrdhamster]

A question from my partner on the mechanics of spell in GMC rules - If we use Forces Telekinesis ( or Matter's Plasticity ) we can use Grapple Maneuver in enemy with the spell itself. Problem is this - how to decide it's on the effects? Are spellcasting successes goes to the Strength + Brawl - Defense roll on Grapple? Or this dicepool is rolled after the spell? When are effect of spell come to being - in the moment of casting spell ( i.e. PCs initiative ) or after the whole turn of combat come to end ( i.e. ater every one made they actions in the turn )?

[Ashenrogue]

It is the same for lethal or bashing. Aggravated doesn't receive any bonus. The reason I keep lethal and bashing the same is that I play morality up in my games so using lethal force has a greater moral risk.

And it is the normal dice roll for a spell (gnosis+arcana or skill+attribute+arcana) and then add in the Arcana dots as damage for bashing or lethal. I found that it gives the mages damage that is intimidating without being broken. I just drop those bonus points for aggravated.

I also like this. It doesn't invalidate mundane weaponry while making magical damaging spells relevant. Both have distinct drawbacks, normal weaponry being the need to actually carry a weapon around, and magic having to contend with paradox, and generally lower dicepools (unless you invest in a rote).

[PencilBoy99]

Just a mechanical question - does the original post contain the latest updates?

[CthulusButtCheeks]

I really like what your ruling there Freemind. I think I'll end up using it as well.

[Freemind]

A lightning attack spell would require Forces 4. Also, do you do Dots B/L/A or Dots B, Dots -2L, Dots -4A?

And is it Gnosis + Arcana dicepool + Aracana Damage? Or Gnosis Dicepool + Arcana Damage?

It is the same for lethal or bashing. Aggravated doesn't receive any bonus. The reason I keep lethal and bashing the same is that I play morality up in my games so using lethal force has a greater moral risk.

And it is the normal dice roll for a spell (gnosis+arcana or skill+attribute+arcana) and then add in the Arcana dots as damage for bashing or lethal. I found that it gives the mages damage that is intimidating without being broken. I just drop those bonus points for aggravated.

[PencilBoy99]

Has someone condensed these into a single document? If we put them in a Google Doc people could comment.

[proindrakenzol]

2. Quick house rule that I use: Mage adds his dots in the Arcana to a succesful role for damage. Thus, a potency 1 lightning spell still hits for 4B with 3 dots in forces, and a master will always be able to hit harder than an adept if they have the same die rolls. I also house ruled that a mage can choose to lessen this damage if they want (since it is a spell factor), such as if they don't want to kill the guy, just knock him out.

A lightning attack spell would require Forces 4. Also, do you do Dots B/L/A or Dots B, Dots -2L, Dots -4A?

And is it Gnosis + Arcana dicepool + Aracana Damage? Or Gnosis Dicepool + Arcana Damage?

[Masa]

2. Quick house rule that I use: Mage adds his dots in the Arcana to a succesful role for damage. Thus, a potency 1 lightning spell still hits for 4B with 3 dots in forces, and a master will always be able to hit harder than an adept if they have the same die rolls. I also house ruled that a mage can choose to lessen this damage if they want (since it is a spell factor), such as if they don't want to kill the guy, just knock him out.

Good Idea, I´ll follow your houserule. I will also set damage type to lethal by default unless there is a good reason for that attack to make non lethal damage. I never liked the "tune to stun" thing. I can buy you limit the electricity of your attack so you don´t kill a target, but if you burn or microwave him, be sure the damage is lethal.
I hope this change will help the Obrimos player to feel useful.

[thenate]

Please tell me that loophole is out of FWC... It's dumb that you can forcefully negate someone's mage armor AND weaken their spellcasting by casting mage armor on them.

Any spell that overpowers another (i.e. doesn't stack) also expressly does not add to Pattern Interference, either... so, yeah, you can weaken a guy's defenses with similar magic of your own, but you need to cast something different from anything they currently bear if you are going for penalties to casting.


Personally, I like being able to pull shenanigans with another guy's magical defenses as with any other magic. A clever stunt, for example, is to use Partial Dispellation on a dude's shield, so your attacks bypass without removing it. Granting intrinsic defenses that cannot be mucked about with shifts their themes significantly from truly normal human bodies upgraded by the magic they cast into something above human... which was the theme of legacies.

[Enokh]

I'm 100% completely fine with mid-level magic not being able to stand toe-to-toe with shotguns when it comes to sheer, direct damage to a single target with a simple offensive spell. The sheer variety of HOW you can deal damage, not to mention eventually being able to make it an AoE or multi-target, or hell even an AoE that excludes your friends, still makes magic a formidable way of dealing damage. Not to mention that, even at level 3, you can use some Arcana against someone while walking down a sidewalk and the many people walking around won't notice.

I'm also of the opinion that guns being that threatening compared to magic is a staple of the whole Urban Fantasy thing.

I'd pretty solidly ignore/retcon any sort of real damage buff that came with FWC.