Libram Magica

Creating game materials? Monsters, spells, classes, adventures? This is the place!
seandon4
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:35 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Libram Magica

Post Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:02 pm

While I was getting ready to jump in and defend the comprehensiveness of Libram Magica, I only found myself agreeing with Solo.

In a LL game I play in, the GM uses the ad&d/od&d chance-to-learn rule for scrolls, which is OK, it's his rule; others just let you copy.

Players often want 0 level spells, but unless the GM is really familiar with them I found it's hard to keep them balanced, esp if you allow bonus spells already anyway. I've since been in the camp where I'm OK with prestidigitations, but I've dropped 0 level spells from my recent groups. That's just me though.

I recently posted on the New Spells thread and it was suggested that I add to LM instead. But I wouldn't mind proposing some tried-and-true spells for the New Spells supplement (they could be copied to LM too.) I'll confess that I like the simplified magic-user Familiar spell too.

Solo, would you be open to adding a few more 1e spells (like Burning Hands) to New Spells? I'm not sure how to go about it, to make it legal I mean (adjust the wording I guess)? I noticed you added some 1e spells already, like Sanctuary. I suspect BHs may already be missing because of concerns with balance, but just asking.
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 7897
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Libram Magica

Post Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:09 pm

Burning Hands isn't an issue balance-wise, as far as I'm concerned. The issue with Product Identity is another matter... does anyone know if that spell appears in anyone else's OGL-licensed SRD?

In other words, yes, I'm open to additional spells in New Spells, as long as they're well-tested and/or properly classic. And thanks for the kind words with respect to Familiar; it and Analyze Magic are my babies, spells I created because I expressly did not like the 1E way (and BX had no rules for either).
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
Dimirag
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:24 pm
Location: Buenos Aires (C.A.B.A.), Argentina
Contact:

Re: Libram Magica

Post Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:17 pm

That Familiar spell is one of the better (if not the better) variants of that spell. Great work on it!
Sorry for any misspelling or writing error, I am not a native English speaker
Drawing portfolio: https://www.instagram.com/m.serena_dimirag/
seandon4
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:35 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Libram Magica

Post Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:19 pm

Yup, Burning Hands is in both OSRIC and LL+AEC -- assuming they have the right kind of license?

I like the New Spells: Familiar because it's more like how it could be done in B/X or OD&D. But for those who want it more 1e-ish there's the sup in the workshop too.

I also like the efforts on LM and the "optional, chance to learn from scroll" rule.

EDIT: That's why I was thinking BHs went by a different name.
Last edited by seandon4 on Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
seandon4
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:35 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Libram Magica

Post Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:27 pm

chiisu81 wrote:Since there's no artwork in the Core Rules for the spells, I think this image of Spiritual Hammer should go into the LM:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1040#p25048
Good pics by the way :)
-1warrior
Posts: 2237
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:57 pm

Re: Libram Magica

Post Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:37 pm

I like some of the new spells. Some, not as much.
Magic Items... Sold Dirt Cheap!

My job is to archive all of Hyway's awesome parodies. ;)
seandon4
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:35 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Libram Magica

Post Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:01 pm

On second thought, maybe something along the lines of the opposite of "Chill" as a sort of burning hands. Just a thought.
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 7897
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Libram Magica

Post Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:26 pm

I have a similar spell in my Realms of Wonder game called Spray of Fire.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3695
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Libram Magica

Post Tue Sep 16, 2014 7:07 am

Meh, differing opinions, but they seem more focused upon the "additional rules" aspect of the Libram than the spell content. Certainly the spells themselves deserve merit. Bear in mind, the (unstated) goal of the additional rules (at the beginning of the document) was to assist in keeping full control over the usage of the variety of new spells in the hands of the GM... putting a set of functions in place to keep the spells from being 'dumped into the game', so that nobody can just say "I want XX spell from the Libram for my next spell choice".

I understand where Solo is coming from here. And, I too agree that balance can be tough sometimes. Spells can be twisted by intrepid players in ways that cannot always be predicted. However, I don't think such balance issues are quite as dramatic as he (solomoriah) presents. Many of the games/editions actively supported or encouraged Spell Creation in their rules. I see no reason to be quite so stringent about the topic of new spells.

Addressing the completeness or comprehensiveness... certain subclasses were included for a couple of reasons. One reason is that they (with perhaps the exception of the Necromancer) are pretty much "stock" in many games (Illusionist and Druid specifically). The other reason was that many of their respective spells were certainly applicable to multiple classes.

Personally, I would have no problem with more compartmentalization of the offerings so that the optional subclasses are treated separately (such as the respective spell lists being presented in appendixes at the end), so long as there is minimal redundancy. I think the bulk spell listing does not need to have spells stripped out or individual spells need to be censored of references to the sub-classes, in order to be useful. Basically, I would still prefer to have one big repository of spells than have each sub-class deal with a mostly/partial redundant spell listing - or a big list that says "see spell here in the MU list, see other spell there in the Cleric list", etc. I really dislike stuff written in such a manner where it is just a big list of "see this ability here" and reference this ability from XX there.

Cantrips: Like others I am rather torn on them. I would have no problem removing them from the Libram. I certainly dislike the 0-Level spells method for giving them out (way too many at median to upper levels). Perhaps the more stringent method of giving out cantrips could be included in the Supplement for cantrips/orisons?

Overall, I have no problem with differing opinions of the things I produce. I know as I write material, that I do thing a bit differently at times, breaking some traditions, and this does not often sit well with some with more "grognard-ish qualities" (certainly not meant as derogatory at all, just a different paradigm - the other end being more of "total kitchen sink approach"). I don't often offer much help in the core rules because I know I think outside the box perhaps too much at times, and I know many such ideas often would get shot down for not "being the way things were in 1985".

Bear in mind, this staunch defense of the "core game" of BFRPG has only strengthened its appeal to many, and I would do nothing to stop that from being the way of things around here. It is a method that has proved successful.
Is it really the end, not some crazy dream?

See my shirt designs: https://teespring.com/stores/viking-life
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 7897
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Libram Magica

Post Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:35 am

SmootRK wrote:Meh, differing opinions, but they seem more focused upon the "additional rules" aspect of the Libram than the spell content.
I'm mostly bothered by the contradictory rules.
SmootRK wrote:... putting a set of functions in place to keep the spells from being 'dumped into the game', so that nobody can just say "I want XX spell from the Libram for my next spell choice".
No disagreement with your goals. But with respect to clerical magic, the GM can simply say that the deity doesn't grant the magic, and that's that. With respect to arcane spells, limiting them is easy. I do like the description of spells as "common" or "rare."
SmootRK wrote:I understand where Solo is coming from here. And, I too agree that balance can be tough sometimes. Spells can be twisted by intrepid players in ways that cannot always be predicted. However, I don't think such balance issues are quite as dramatic as he (solomoriah) presents.
Possibly. Being stringent in this area is something I've found necessary in maintaining the game. Long experience (pre-BFRPG) has taught me that certain things are more troublesome than others... classes and spells are the top of that list. Give a spell to a player, discover a problem, and just try to get the player to give it up. Even if they're good about it, you look like a fool. Classes are worse because, if one is badly broken and you feel you must remove it, that removes entire characters from the game.
SmootRK wrote:Addressing the completeness or comprehensiveness... certain subclasses were included for a couple of reasons. One reason is that they (with perhaps the exception of the Necromancer) are pretty much "stock" in many games (Illusionist and Druid specifically). The other reason was that many of their respective spells were certainly applicable to multiple classes.
I'm cool with this reasoning, but it still begs the question about how the spells get maintained.
SmootRK wrote:Bear in mind, this staunch defense of the "core game" of BFRPG has only strengthened its appeal to many, and I would do nothing to stop that from being the way of things around here. It is a method that has proved successful.
Indeed. So has the "ala carte" method of supplement creation... allowing the GM to choose to use, or not use, each supplement separately. It helps a lot when the GM is explaining what's allowed in his or her game... "I'm using druids, illusionists, half-humans, gnomes, and thief options in this campaign" is a lot more efficient than listing each house rule in detail.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests