Specifically, first impressions and thoughts on how easy/hard it would be to run and ways it could be improved. The current Precision * Complexity system kinda bugs me, but seems to have potential, too. Maybe it's just the current implementation...

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;364743Specifically, first impressions and thoughts on how easy/hard it would be to run and ways it could be improved. The current Precision * Complexity system kinda bugs me, but seems to have potential, too. Maybe it's just the current implementation...

It's rough in places and probably needs more examples, but I see no killer problems. Sure, power-gamers can abuse it, but that's what the GM is for.

The downside I see to it comes from my own experience, few players really like a wild open create-a-spell yourself system in play. It sounds neat on paper, but in practice it seems to be more work than many players are really interested in. At least that's what I've discovered from trying them. YMMV.

Well, Easy20 is only 36 pages - Plenty of room for a Spellbook and Trait Section. And I imagine more players would customize than create new, so...Very good point.

I'll throw in with Randall and say that build-a-spell systems tend to be dull and flavorless.  I can think of only a couple of rare exceptions, and in those games the spell components took up huge chunks of the books.

Additionally, adding a layer of complexity this big to a game called Easy20 seems to contradict your overall 'mission statement.'

You know, what I honestly expected to see in your game was a spell-point system fueled by Vigor, because your wizard profession has a decent 'hit die' (so to speak).  Proficiencies could be spent to learn spells and Subtle Magic Maneuvers would let you alter spells away from their base effects.

It is clear you put some thought into your spell-buy tables and there's probably a good place for them - an appendix or someplace giving players that skeleton to create balanced homebrew spells.

Quote from: winkingbishop;364805I'll throw in with Randall and say that build-a-spell systems tend to be dull and flavorless.  I can think of only a couple of rare exceptions, and in those games the spell components took up huge chunks of the books.

Additionally, adding a layer of complexity this big to a game called Easy20 seems to contradict your overall 'mission statement.'

You know, what I honestly expected to see in your game was a spell-point system fueled by Vigor, because your wizard profession has a decent 'hit die' (so to speak).  Proficiencies could be spent to learn spells and Subtle Magic Maneuvers would let you alter spells away from their base effects.

It is clear you put some thought into your spell-buy tables and there's probably a good place for them - an appendix or someplace giving players that skeleton to create balanced homebrew spells.

...Good idea. And that's why I asked for help: Because I can't think of everything.

Thanks, think I might run with that.

I like spell-sentence open systems myself. I use them to give the flavor I want to different wizards.

From my good guy necromancer with his "Cage of Blood" and "Bone-Rattle" spells, to my nature oriented elf wizard with his Lancing Leaf, Vinerope, and Woodwind Walk spell.

I"ve been a big fan of games that let you make magic without making things go madly imbalanced.

Quote from: Silverlion;364922I like spell-sentence open systems myself. I use them to give the flavor I want to different wizards.

From my good guy necromancer with his "Cage of Blood" and "Bone-Rattle" spells, to my nature oriented elf wizard with his Lancing Leaf, Vinerope, and Woodwind Walk spell.

I"ve been a big fan of games that let you make magic without making things go madly imbalanced.

Well, good. You have experience, then. Take a look at mine and see what you think.

Quote from: Spinachcat;364973How does "Guide Sword to Target" work?

Is it a one time rune? AKA, I carve the name of the baron on my blade and now my blade hits the baron the first time I swing against him?   Or will it always strike the baron?  

A "true aim" spell that makes a fighter auto-hit on his next attack is fine in a fire&forget spell system like D&D.  Having an item gain that "spell" as an ability is fine as long as it's once per day, or only against trolls, or only under the light of new moon, etc.

To answer the question, if I do ever include auto-hit mechanics, it will have a very steep cost and likely handle something like "Flat To-Hit of 12 versus Reflex" - Reflex being a flat number itself.

"Only under the light of the new moon" would be assigned a Modifier to the Power of the spell, by the GM. There would be a chart of example Modifiers to choose from. The Modifier would be added to the Power, after it is calculated from Precision and Complexity.

Generally, a GM should only allow modifiers for things that aren't covered under Spell Words. Using "Resist Harm" to increase Damage Resistance against Fire only is a Precision of no more than 1, not a case for a Modifier. Modifiers are not a substitute for a lack of Spell Words such as "From Fire".

OTOH, "Self Fly With Wings" could use a Modifier to represent wings that are actual, physical means of flight, not supernatural manifestations of flight - Ie, Strength checks to stay in the air, stalling if you go to slow, no instantaneous changes in velocity, going rather slowly upwards and rather fast downwards and etc..

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;364925Well, good. You have experience, then. Take a look at mine and see what you think.

I've just glanced at it so far. I think I'd simplify it a bit, but I like games I call FIFO (Fast in Fast Out.) Games which can be learned quickly and produce a solid result that is solid enough without being too slow to produce mechanically.

I'll read more and get some more specific Feedback later.

Part of my issue is that it seems to make more sense to me to give a player a skill with forming spell sentences, the better the skill the more things they can chain together, the more they can chain together the more accurate it is. Rather than a specific limit on words. They have a difficulty set for how many they try and utilize.

"Set enemy on fire" is a bit vague. It might simply cause their mustache to burn on the tips.

Set the Kobold before me on fire with a body burning conflaguration. Is more specific and accurate but more difficult.

Of course it is early in the AM for me, so I may need to read more carefully.

Some stuff to think about there; looking forward to your feedback when you're awake (And when I'm awake! )

I'll try and put some thoughts together by Sunday night. (Gaming tonight and I have a pulled muscle.)

Quote from: Silverlion;365090I'll try and put some thoughts together by Sunday night. (Gaming tonight and I have a pulled muscle.)

Looking forward to it.

I've updated the Spell Sentence .pdf; some spells, enchantments and traits, showing some of the future direction of the underlying sub-system and options for those who don't want to deal with it.

Alright general feedback:

Stick to one way of measuring value. Either use percentages or +1/+x. The mixed system makes for unneeded differences in how play works.  I'd probably stick to +1-+5 or to "Double/Triple" methods of measuring how spells increase in difficulty.

Focus on picking the "hardest" thing and make that matter. Is casting a spell across town made harder because you want it to blow up five houses? Or is blowing up five houses harder because its across town? I think the hardest element should be used as the target modification. Don't nickel and dime players to death. It speeds up play and creates a more robust system if you have a little fluidity to what matters to the mechanics.


I would simplify spell words to Do, Create, Alter, Revert. Keeping it simple and then deciding what those simple handful of words can do within the sentence. "Create fire on Bob" is the same as "Set Bob on Fire", but you can also "Create Bob's twin" or "Create Bob's allergy..." and so on. Stick to the fewest possible "Do" words, and then the rest are simply target narrowing.

"Create fire.." is easy.
"Create fire"  "on" (modifier) "Bob" (target)

So your system would be more focused if you let the players have a "Do" word--Do what? Where? and to Whom?

So you have What, Where, Whom..important answers to questions, how and why aren't needed in this kind of sentence system.

Of course once you narrow what a sentence can do to simpler terms, you can then value how the narrowing works.

Example: Create Fire (broad) Easy Difficulty.
             Create fire on creature) Harder, but not specific to which creater.
            Create fire on human ) Even harder, more specific. Etc.

So your basically building the system around how narrow a target it is trying to effect.

I don't suggest worrying a lot about ranges because it IS magic. I'd let ranges be used to REDUCE difficulty. Starting with spells at Line of Sight.


Then again that's what I would do.

So far the system seems solid, with a few mechanical flaws where you repeat yourself or double dip your casters forcing something to be harder than it would be, if they were creative with their spell words.

Also Telekinesis is misspelled. (Do that myself..so no worries.)



Was this supposed to be part of your somewhat 2E clone?


The simpler a system you come up with the more easily it can be adjudicated by a GM, letting them balance and shape the world without allowing a player who see the loophole to get around the complexity to abuse the system. A simple system says "Yes you will need to say yes and no."


Interesting ways to use spell words that are easyish as the system stands.

Create Earth Pillar
Explode that Bob! (Why set him on fire when I can turn him into the bomb!)

A simpler system could also allow a creative player to add in "flourishes" the more dramatic they make it sound, the more flavorful--the better the discount they get on casting.


Example: Rather than Create Fire on Bob...

I say "I create the infernal scorching tongue of flame on Bob, called from sulfurous abyss where demons bleak await the bliss of claiming his black and empty soul!"


Want flavor? How's that? Don't punish for more words (since that takes time and thought.) Encourage it!

Thanks - That's an awesome review. And yeah, it is for "Easy20", or whatever I end up calling it.

Right now, my Easy20 thoughts are currently bubbling at the back of my head, so I'm waiting for them to settle a bit.