Tim's launching a Traveller campaign, and we got together last week for a character generation session. Tim opted to use the Ironman variant, where if you fail a survival roll during a background term, you die. No ifs, ands, buts, injuries, being cryofrozen for a couple years, being kicked out of the career, or any of that nonsense. Toast.
Tim's reasoning for this decision was that it would let him remove term caps by balancing the potential for high skills and lots of starting perks with the increasing risk of death. Without Ironman, our experience is that most people will go straight for whatever term limit you impose, but here there was definitely much deliberation about whether or not to continue.
From the player's perspective, though, I was a fan of it for another reason - it lets you dispose of really terrible sets of ability scores. Rolled a set with two 2s and nothing over a 7? Join the Marines, see the universe, get yourself killed during boot camp. Oops. Guess you better roll another (better) set. Nobody in our group ended up playing the first set they rolled, and Drew went though I think four or five casualties before finally getting a survivor. The ability score distribution of the characters who did make it are uniformly above average, with only a pair of -1 stats between the four of us. I think this will help with one of the issues we observed previously in Mongoose Traveller, namely the wide disparity in capability between characters, which I believe wide disparities in ability scores contributed to significantly.
I guess the modern equivalent mechanic would be DCC's character funnel? Haven't played DCC, but it sounds like it serves a similar purpose, of weeding out terrible sets but putting the good sets at (fairly significant) risk too.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Monday, February 25, 2013
An Alternative ACKS Diplomacy
One thing that bothered me just a little during ACKS was how awesome the +reaction roll proficiencies were. A 1st level bard with 16 Cha who takes Diplomacy as his general and Mystic Aura as your class proficiency, you can be pulling +6 on reaction rolls from 1st level. Since reactions are rolled on 2d6, that's a hell of a modifier, bumping even snake eyes up to a "neutral, uncertain" reaction from kill-on-sight, and anything higher than unfriendly up to helpful. I really don't think the reaction roll mechanism was built to handle modifiers larger than +3 or so, so I was kind of thinking about capping modifiers or eliminating stacking, but upon further thought, I think I've reached at least a more interesting solution.
I don't mind Mystic Aura so much because it's a class prof only, and Intimidate carries its own restrictions, but Diplomacy as it stands was a remarkably common choice as a general proficiency. Diplomacy to my mind involves a lot of smoothing things over, stomping on your companions' toes when they're about to say something stupid, and so forth. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. I'm curious, then to change Diplomacy to something resembling the following:
Diplomacy (G): The character is smooth-tongued and familiar with protocol. When attempting to parley, the character learns the outcome of the reaction roll and chooses whether or not to intervene. Should he intervene, a second reaction roll is made with the same modifiers, and the diplomat makes a proficiency throw of 11+. If he succeeds, the higher of the two reaction rolls is used; should he fail, he has further angered the other party, and the lower of the two rolls is used.
These changes produce a version of diplomacy which does not raise the maximum result of reaction rolls, but which can still be used to ameliorate the effects of poor rolls. It also turns a flat-bonus proficiency into something which is rolled by the players reactively, and it adds a little bit of strategy into the reaction roll in terms of risk management ("Hmm, well they came off Neutral, should we try to persuade them to our cause but risk a failure?"), creating a sort of 'double or nothing' mechanic. Thoughts?
I don't mind Mystic Aura so much because it's a class prof only, and Intimidate carries its own restrictions, but Diplomacy as it stands was a remarkably common choice as a general proficiency. Diplomacy to my mind involves a lot of smoothing things over, stomping on your companions' toes when they're about to say something stupid, and so forth. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. I'm curious, then to change Diplomacy to something resembling the following:
Diplomacy (G): The character is smooth-tongued and familiar with protocol. When attempting to parley, the character learns the outcome of the reaction roll and chooses whether or not to intervene. Should he intervene, a second reaction roll is made with the same modifiers, and the diplomat makes a proficiency throw of 11+. If he succeeds, the higher of the two reaction rolls is used; should he fail, he has further angered the other party, and the lower of the two rolls is used.
These changes produce a version of diplomacy which does not raise the maximum result of reaction rolls, but which can still be used to ameliorate the effects of poor rolls. It also turns a flat-bonus proficiency into something which is rolled by the players reactively, and it adds a little bit of strategy into the reaction roll in terms of risk management ("Hmm, well they came off Neutral, should we try to persuade them to our cause but risk a failure?"), creating a sort of 'double or nothing' mechanic. Thoughts?
Friday, February 22, 2013
Homework Hiatus
brb have to write a Russian History paper. No blogging or reddit until it's done; posts should resume Monday.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
The Golden Pair and ACKS Trade
I went back through and read the ACKS world generation rules today, both because I'm kind of thinking about converting the Wilderlands to ACKS, and because I've been thinking about writing some code to handle the generation of settlement trade numbers. I still haven't figured out a good input format (since we probably want to take a list of settlements, their terrains and ages, and some encoding of their relative distances and connections with other settlements), but I did notice something very interesting in the generation rules which addresses an age-old complaint about Traveller economics.
In Traveller, from Classic to present iterations (with the notable exclusion of Free Trader and a few other editions I think?), there is a phenomenon known as the Golden Pair. The Golden Pair is a pair of worlds in close proximity which have inverse market modifiers on several goods, such that you can buy A low on the first planet, jump once, sell A high on the second planet, buy B low on the second planet, jump once, sell B high on the first planet, and wash, rinse, repeat. They're called a Golden Pair because they're a pair of worlds that you can exploit to coat everything you own in gold. They don't make any sense in a setting where there are ostensibly megacorporations with bulk freighters moving these cargos in much larger quantities, which should tend to equalize prices across the two planets.
ACKS, interestingly enough, has taken measures to prevent Golden Pair situations from arising. This, I believe, is the purpose of the Trade Route rules on page 233, which indicate that nearby settlements with a road or river connection have their demand modifiers shifted towards each other by 2 (where 10% * demand modifier is applied as an increase to prices). The radius of 'nearby' depends on the size of the markets, but is minimally 24 miles for a pair of class VI markets connected by roads and just goes up from there (which seems reasonable; that's a day or two's journey by road). By comparison, a pair of class I markets could be connected at up to 480 miles by water, which is a very sizable distance. The essential takeaway from these is that if you don't want to have a damper put on your profit by competition / arbitrage forces, you need to be trading between either fairly distant pairs of small settlements, or you need to be hauling your goods between settlements which are isolated from each other by lack of roads or coastline. In the first case, your profit is limited by the sizes of the markets involved, since market size directly affected number of merchants available and the amount of cargo they're interested in selling. In the second, you're trading risk for potential reward, since you can get larger demand differentials on larger markets in closer proximity, but you're having to journey through trackless wilderness to get the goods there. I love a good strategic risk/reward tradeoff...
Unfortunately, the simplified market rules we were using did not generate this tradeoff. Under the simplified rules, trade along an established route tended to be more reliable and in expectation more profitable than trade off-route.This made it possible to trade along routes at greater profits than originally intended, I believe (my mistake, did not take the land value modifiers into account correctly. Credit for correction to Thomas Weigel). Reliable, maximally profitable, and safe made route trading the preferred strategy of our venturer, whereas normally it would be something quite possible avoided as "not particularly profitable."
This got me to thinking, though, about whether there was a mechanism by which a merchant could bring route trading's profitability back up to that of off-route trading. I'm fairly sure this is the intent of the monopoly rules, since a character with a monopoly on a good at both ends of a route can effectively create the extra 20% differential that would exist if there were no route. There's some potential weirdness with 'convincing merchants to sell you goods'; do all caravans carry large volumes of all cargos equally, so that they can be convinced to sell them? I guess I'm willing to chalk the whole reaction roll to convince merchants to sell you something up to "only some fraction of them have it, and the rest honestly don't." Hard to see how charisma enters into that, or why you'd want to sell to a monopoly rather than holding onto your goods and transporting them further, but hey, this is the dark ages and not everything has to make perfect sense. In any case, it got me thinking that a monopoly on a low-value good in a particular town or other small domain might be a nice mid-level reward to kick PCs into trade (and the wilderness adventuring that goes along with it) for service to a local minor noble, and it might also be a cool way to let the venturer maintain relevance into domain play (ie, the fighter grants the venturer monopolies within his domains on all goods. Centralized, state-managed economy ensues, at massive profit to thekleptocrats party).
Anyway, I'd like to try the full demand modifier system next time I run ACKS, so I guess I'd better get cracking on that script... ideally with a feature that lets you save the base (rolled+terrain) demand modifiers so that when the PCs build roads connecting settlements or upgrade a settlement in market class, it's possible to efficiently recalculate the demand modifiers for all other settlements Speaking of which - hilariously, if the party had finished the road between Ironbridge and Opportunity, the full system would tell us that the potential for profit along that route would have gone down, as other merchants started traveling it and equalizing prices. Their urban revenue would not have risen as a result of increased merchant presence in their city, either. Perverse incentives much? I guess the main benefit they would have derived would be increase troop mobility, had they eventually chosen to annex Ironbridge by force...
In Traveller, from Classic to present iterations (with the notable exclusion of Free Trader and a few other editions I think?), there is a phenomenon known as the Golden Pair. The Golden Pair is a pair of worlds in close proximity which have inverse market modifiers on several goods, such that you can buy A low on the first planet, jump once, sell A high on the second planet, buy B low on the second planet, jump once, sell B high on the first planet, and wash, rinse, repeat. They're called a Golden Pair because they're a pair of worlds that you can exploit to coat everything you own in gold. They don't make any sense in a setting where there are ostensibly megacorporations with bulk freighters moving these cargos in much larger quantities, which should tend to equalize prices across the two planets.
ACKS, interestingly enough, has taken measures to prevent Golden Pair situations from arising. This, I believe, is the purpose of the Trade Route rules on page 233, which indicate that nearby settlements with a road or river connection have their demand modifiers shifted towards each other by 2 (where 10% * demand modifier is applied as an increase to prices). The radius of 'nearby' depends on the size of the markets, but is minimally 24 miles for a pair of class VI markets connected by roads and just goes up from there (which seems reasonable; that's a day or two's journey by road). By comparison, a pair of class I markets could be connected at up to 480 miles by water, which is a very sizable distance. The essential takeaway from these is that if you don't want to have a damper put on your profit by competition / arbitrage forces, you need to be trading between either fairly distant pairs of small settlements, or you need to be hauling your goods between settlements which are isolated from each other by lack of roads or coastline. In the first case, your profit is limited by the sizes of the markets involved, since market size directly affected number of merchants available and the amount of cargo they're interested in selling. In the second, you're trading risk for potential reward, since you can get larger demand differentials on larger markets in closer proximity, but you're having to journey through trackless wilderness to get the goods there. I love a good strategic risk/reward tradeoff...
Unfortunately, the simplified market rules we were using did not generate this tradeoff. Under the simplified rules, trade along an established route tended to be more reliable and in expectation more profitable than trade off-route.
This got me to thinking, though, about whether there was a mechanism by which a merchant could bring route trading's profitability back up to that of off-route trading. I'm fairly sure this is the intent of the monopoly rules, since a character with a monopoly on a good at both ends of a route can effectively create the extra 20% differential that would exist if there were no route. There's some potential weirdness with 'convincing merchants to sell you goods'; do all caravans carry large volumes of all cargos equally, so that they can be convinced to sell them? I guess I'm willing to chalk the whole reaction roll to convince merchants to sell you something up to "only some fraction of them have it, and the rest honestly don't." Hard to see how charisma enters into that, or why you'd want to sell to a monopoly rather than holding onto your goods and transporting them further, but hey, this is the dark ages and not everything has to make perfect sense. In any case, it got me thinking that a monopoly on a low-value good in a particular town or other small domain might be a nice mid-level reward to kick PCs into trade (and the wilderness adventuring that goes along with it) for service to a local minor noble, and it might also be a cool way to let the venturer maintain relevance into domain play (ie, the fighter grants the venturer monopolies within his domains on all goods. Centralized, state-managed economy ensues, at massive profit to the
Anyway, I'd like to try the full demand modifier system next time I run ACKS, so I guess I'd better get cracking on that script... ideally with a feature that lets you save the base (rolled+terrain) demand modifiers so that when the PCs build roads connecting settlements or upgrade a settlement in market class, it's possible to efficiently recalculate the demand modifiers for all other settlements Speaking of which - hilariously, if the party had finished the road between Ironbridge and Opportunity, the full system would tell us that the potential for profit along that route would have gone down, as other merchants started traveling it and equalizing prices. Their urban revenue would not have risen as a result of increased merchant presence in their city, either. Perverse incentives much? I guess the main benefit they would have derived would be increase troop mobility, had they eventually chosen to annex Ironbridge by force...
Monday, February 18, 2013
Venturer Domains and the Domain Ecology
One subject of complaint about the Venturer class was the nature of its domain. Our venturer player was keeping things very much on the level, legally speaking, and was frustrated that the only domain-level future for him seemed to lie in crime (or in taking his venturer followers and sticking them on trading ships and DDoSing the DM with mercantile ventures, which I was not going to let happen if at all possible). What makes the venturer syndicate even more problematic is that despite being mostly-a-thief, the venturer class gets only one hijink-driving skill, Hear Noises, which is useful only for the weakest of the hijinks, Carousing. This meant that it made little sense financially for a venturer of name level to employ his newfound followers at hijinks, because frankly they're not very good at them. And so we're back to the trade DDoS...
An alternate proposal was floated at one point to give the venturer a fortified trading outpost or kasbah as a stronghold / fighter-style domain under the same restrictions that the explorer's domain suffers, but upon some reflection on the structure of domain-level play, I don't think this is a good solution. Looking at the rules, our experiences, and the Grim Fist's logs, I'm starting to think that domain play is best understood cooperatively, and certain classes (and domain types) perform certain niche functions in the domain ecology. Of the main class types, arcanists are unlikely to establish a domain first because they level slowly and have a tendency to spend lots of cash on research, libraries, and dungeons, which yield no monetary return. Fighters and clerics operate similarly, with clerics reaching name level first and getting a discount on fortresses and followers, which gives them a leg up in the early domain game, though the fighter's +morale for mercenaries is useful too. Basically I see a party with a fighter and a cleric ending up with either "the cleric rules the domain but the fighter is the commander of the armies and first in line for a fief" or "the fighter has the domain and the cleric is patriarch, using the populace's divine power to make magic items at low cost, and is liable to build the Vatican inside the fighter's domain given the chance." Might swing on the charisma scores of the characters involved. Thieves level fastest and don't need cash for much, but they can't build a proper domain, and so rely on the fighter or cleric's town as a source of revenue where the law is relatively friendly.
Once domains are gotten, and even during their construction, we can classify the types of domains as cash-sinks, cash-sources, or cash-neutral. Building fortresses is expensive, so in the early domain game fighter and cleric domains are distinctly cash sinks (though they later stabilize), while the wizard seems to be a cash sink across all levels if he's doing a lot of research (but this converts cash into various fun forms of utility). Where are these hundreds of thousands of gold pieces to come from? Sure, it might be possible to extract them as treasure from extremely lucrative adventures... but a thief domain makes it a lot easier, since (as we saw) it can definitely generate five figures of profit per month if managed well. Thus, just as at low levels he opened traps and picked locks to reduce casualties and access more treasure, and at mid-levels he provided treasure maps to high-value locations, a domain-level thief plays something of a support role to the other classes by generating the cash necessary for them to perform more of their domain-level functions (he also has a surgical strike capability across levels, starting with backstab and then expanding to assassination at 9th, and an intelligence gathering capability starting with hide / move silently and expanding to carousing and spying, but the support role really takes off at domain level). I think the fact that this support role is emphasized strongly in ACKS at mid-to-high levels plays very nicely with Roger's theories on the thief's role in the party dynamic as "advocates for the selfish and immediate interests of the party". He can get you the cash you need to raise that army now... but it might cost you later or make you a few enemies.
But, returning to the venturer. The reason that a fortified outpost domain is somewhat unsatisfying for the venturer is because the venturer is all about making money, and thief domains make money hand-over-fist compared (in our experience) with traditional domains. The venturer is already a financial support class, so a financial support domain makes a lot of sense. Likewise, there's already a fair bit of competition in a standard party for a fighter/cleric-style landed domain, and adding the venturer to this competition will not help things much, especially in a party like ours with an abundance of fighters and a dearth of thieves.
The trick then, remains finding a cash-support domain structure which 1) is not necessarily illegal, 2) utilizes venturer followers to something regarding their fullest potential, and 3) isn't a huge headache for everyone involved. I'm curious to take something like Alex's proposed Business Investment rules, add a little more detail, and provide venturer-managed businesses with a bonus for their monetary acumen as a potential solution. Thoughts?
An alternate proposal was floated at one point to give the venturer a fortified trading outpost or kasbah as a stronghold / fighter-style domain under the same restrictions that the explorer's domain suffers, but upon some reflection on the structure of domain-level play, I don't think this is a good solution. Looking at the rules, our experiences, and the Grim Fist's logs, I'm starting to think that domain play is best understood cooperatively, and certain classes (and domain types) perform certain niche functions in the domain ecology. Of the main class types, arcanists are unlikely to establish a domain first because they level slowly and have a tendency to spend lots of cash on research, libraries, and dungeons, which yield no monetary return. Fighters and clerics operate similarly, with clerics reaching name level first and getting a discount on fortresses and followers, which gives them a leg up in the early domain game, though the fighter's +morale for mercenaries is useful too. Basically I see a party with a fighter and a cleric ending up with either "the cleric rules the domain but the fighter is the commander of the armies and first in line for a fief" or "the fighter has the domain and the cleric is patriarch, using the populace's divine power to make magic items at low cost, and is liable to build the Vatican inside the fighter's domain given the chance." Might swing on the charisma scores of the characters involved. Thieves level fastest and don't need cash for much, but they can't build a proper domain, and so rely on the fighter or cleric's town as a source of revenue where the law is relatively friendly.
Once domains are gotten, and even during their construction, we can classify the types of domains as cash-sinks, cash-sources, or cash-neutral. Building fortresses is expensive, so in the early domain game fighter and cleric domains are distinctly cash sinks (though they later stabilize), while the wizard seems to be a cash sink across all levels if he's doing a lot of research (but this converts cash into various fun forms of utility). Where are these hundreds of thousands of gold pieces to come from? Sure, it might be possible to extract them as treasure from extremely lucrative adventures... but a thief domain makes it a lot easier, since (as we saw) it can definitely generate five figures of profit per month if managed well. Thus, just as at low levels he opened traps and picked locks to reduce casualties and access more treasure, and at mid-levels he provided treasure maps to high-value locations, a domain-level thief plays something of a support role to the other classes by generating the cash necessary for them to perform more of their domain-level functions (he also has a surgical strike capability across levels, starting with backstab and then expanding to assassination at 9th, and an intelligence gathering capability starting with hide / move silently and expanding to carousing and spying, but the support role really takes off at domain level). I think the fact that this support role is emphasized strongly in ACKS at mid-to-high levels plays very nicely with Roger's theories on the thief's role in the party dynamic as "advocates for the selfish and immediate interests of the party". He can get you the cash you need to raise that army now... but it might cost you later or make you a few enemies.
But, returning to the venturer. The reason that a fortified outpost domain is somewhat unsatisfying for the venturer is because the venturer is all about making money, and thief domains make money hand-over-fist compared (in our experience) with traditional domains. The venturer is already a financial support class, so a financial support domain makes a lot of sense. Likewise, there's already a fair bit of competition in a standard party for a fighter/cleric-style landed domain, and adding the venturer to this competition will not help things much, especially in a party like ours with an abundance of fighters and a dearth of thieves.
The trick then, remains finding a cash-support domain structure which 1) is not necessarily illegal, 2) utilizes venturer followers to something regarding their fullest potential, and 3) isn't a huge headache for everyone involved. I'm curious to take something like Alex's proposed Business Investment rules, add a little more detail, and provide venturer-managed businesses with a bonus for their monetary acumen as a potential solution. Thoughts?
Friday, February 15, 2013
New ACKS Spells 3 - Summons
Three summons - one silly, one risky, and one I should've written some six or so months ago.
Summon Minions
Arcane 3
Range: 10'
Duration: Permanent until dispelled
This spell summons several weak humanoids, who appear within 10' of the caster and subsequently begin cowering and swearing loyalty. One chaotic humanoid per caster level may be summoned, and no summoned humanoid may have greater than 1 HD or more than one special ability. A favorite of evil casters with a high rate of minion attrition or in need of crossbreeding subjects, the minions so summoned serve loyally and permanently. Casters with beastman domains and sufficient spell slots may even use this spell to expand their populace rapidly (but woe betide them when someone brings a ritual-grade Disjunction against their realm...).
(Maths: Summon, HD = caster level (75), up to 1 HD per creature (x0.15), general type (humanoids) (x1), range 10' (x1), duration indefinite (x2.5) = 28.2)
Call the Worm
Arcane 3
Range: 60'
Duration: 1 turn
This spell calls a purple worm from deep in the bowels of the earth to serve the caster. The worm erupts from the ground beneath the caster's enemies at a range of up to 60', and obeys the caster's mental commands for one turn. However, during this period, the caster must concentrate to keep control of the worm; should he take damage or otherwise have his concentration broken, the worm will escape his control and proceed to go on an indiscriminate rampage for the rest of the spell's duration. Should the caster's enemies all be slain before the spell's duration ends, he is advised to continue controlling the worm, for it cannot be dismissed and does not disappear until either it is slain or the spell ends. Known variants of this spell include Call the Remorhaz in frozen regions, Call Giant Crocodile in jungles and swamps, and Release the Kraken at sea.
(Maths: Summon, one creature (65), up to 18 HD (x1.33), two special abilities (x1.66), specific type of creature (x0.7), concentrate to control (x0.5), range 60 (x1.15), duration one turn (x0.5) = 28.8)
Summon Legendary Ancestor
Valkyrie 4
Range: 10'
Duration: 12 turns
This spell calls a powerful viking spirit down from Valhalla to fight alongside the valkyrie. The legendary ancestor fights as a 10th-level Jutland barbarian warchief with a 16 Str, 10 Int, 10 Wis, 13 Dex, 16 Con, 10 Cha and the Alertness proficiency. He is armed with a battle-axe +1, shield, and chainmail, for the following statistics: AC 6, MV 90', HP 65, 1+ to hit, damage 1d6+7, SV F10, ML 12, AL N, +2 init, +2 surprise. Once called, he fights alongside the valkyrie for twelve turns, or until dispelled or slain. Reverence for the ancestor and tradition forbid summoning him more than once per day. If called a second time in one day without regard for this tradition, the summoned ancestor will arrive very drunk and belligerent, sans any weapons, armor, or pants. If the summoner is lucky, the ancestor will pass out on the floor or maunder on about the lack of respect today's youth exhibit for their elders before disappearing back to Valhalla. If not, he may stick around and cause trouble as only a drunk viking chieftain can until the summoning expires. In either case, he is unlikely to be useful in combat.
(Maths: Summon, one creature (65), up to 10 HD (x0.8), specific type of creature (x0.7), once per day (x0.9), divine (x1.2) = 39.3)
I should do Plague of Cats and Summon Trusty Steed (summons horse with 8-hour duration for wilderness travel), but bleh.
Summon Minions
Arcane 3
Range: 10'
Duration: Permanent until dispelled
This spell summons several weak humanoids, who appear within 10' of the caster and subsequently begin cowering and swearing loyalty. One chaotic humanoid per caster level may be summoned, and no summoned humanoid may have greater than 1 HD or more than one special ability. A favorite of evil casters with a high rate of minion attrition or in need of crossbreeding subjects, the minions so summoned serve loyally and permanently. Casters with beastman domains and sufficient spell slots may even use this spell to expand their populace rapidly (but woe betide them when someone brings a ritual-grade Disjunction against their realm...).
(Maths: Summon, HD = caster level (75), up to 1 HD per creature (x0.15), general type (humanoids) (x1), range 10' (x1), duration indefinite (x2.5) = 28.2)
Call the Worm
Arcane 3
Range: 60'
Duration: 1 turn
This spell calls a purple worm from deep in the bowels of the earth to serve the caster. The worm erupts from the ground beneath the caster's enemies at a range of up to 60', and obeys the caster's mental commands for one turn. However, during this period, the caster must concentrate to keep control of the worm; should he take damage or otherwise have his concentration broken, the worm will escape his control and proceed to go on an indiscriminate rampage for the rest of the spell's duration. Should the caster's enemies all be slain before the spell's duration ends, he is advised to continue controlling the worm, for it cannot be dismissed and does not disappear until either it is slain or the spell ends. Known variants of this spell include Call the Remorhaz in frozen regions, Call Giant Crocodile in jungles and swamps, and Release the Kraken at sea.
(Maths: Summon, one creature (65), up to 18 HD (x1.33), two special abilities (x1.66), specific type of creature (x0.7), concentrate to control (x0.5), range 60 (x1.15), duration one turn (x0.5) = 28.8)
Summon Legendary Ancestor
Valkyrie 4
Range: 10'
Duration: 12 turns
This spell calls a powerful viking spirit down from Valhalla to fight alongside the valkyrie. The legendary ancestor fights as a 10th-level Jutland barbarian warchief with a 16 Str, 10 Int, 10 Wis, 13 Dex, 16 Con, 10 Cha and the Alertness proficiency. He is armed with a battle-axe +1, shield, and chainmail, for the following statistics: AC 6, MV 90', HP 65, 1+ to hit, damage 1d6+7, SV F10, ML 12, AL N, +2 init, +2 surprise. Once called, he fights alongside the valkyrie for twelve turns, or until dispelled or slain. Reverence for the ancestor and tradition forbid summoning him more than once per day. If called a second time in one day without regard for this tradition, the summoned ancestor will arrive very drunk and belligerent, sans any weapons, armor, or pants. If the summoner is lucky, the ancestor will pass out on the floor or maunder on about the lack of respect today's youth exhibit for their elders before disappearing back to Valhalla. If not, he may stick around and cause trouble as only a drunk viking chieftain can until the summoning expires. In either case, he is unlikely to be useful in combat.
(Maths: Summon, one creature (65), up to 10 HD (x0.8), specific type of creature (x0.7), once per day (x0.9), divine (x1.2) = 39.3)
I should do Plague of Cats and Summon Trusty Steed (summons horse with 8-hour duration for wilderness travel), but bleh.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
New ACKS Spells 2 - Utility
Today I've got an upgrade of an old standby, as well as two (slightly silly) mount-related utility spells:
Deep Slumber (Ench)
Arcane 3
Range 120'
Duration: 4d4 turns
A more powerful version of the common Sleep spell, Deep Slumber causes up to 24 HD worth of living creatures within range to save or fall asleep for the duration (the save may be vs Death or Spells, as the judge's discretion). There is no HD cap per creature, and the caster may select the order in which he desires to effect targets, subtracting them from his HD budget. Affected creatures may be awakened as per the Sleep spell.
(Maths: Enchantment, target asleep (15), 24 HD of creatures (x3), only living targets (x0.75), range 120' (x1.1), duration 4d4 turns (x1.2), save avoids (x0.5) = 29.7)
Estenmar's Equine Enhancer
Arcane 2
Range: Touch
Duration: 8 hours
This spell doubles the movement rate of one willing creature touched for eight hours. Typically used by the originator on his horse for long overland journeys, the spell is equally effective on one's travelling companions or oneself while fleeing a dungeon in a pinch. Whether unintelligent animals are 'willing' is an open question; they might be willing recipients of benign magics, or they may need special training. Ask your DM if Estenmar's Equine Enhancer is right for you.
(Maths: Movement, double speed (5), one willing creature with normal carrying capacity (x0.8), range touch (x1), duration 8 hours (x4), beneficial effect (x1) = 16)
Pegastasize (Transmog)
Arcane 4
Range: Touch
Duration: Permanent until dispelled
Pegastasize is a specialized spell developed by a wizard who was trying to turn horses into pegasi with Polymorph Other, but who then had to deal with the complete training wipe that ensued from inheriting their mental characteristics. Pegastasize avoids this problem, transforming a horse into a pegasus without altering its mental characteristics. If used on a pegasus, pegastize causes its wings to retract, yielding a normal horse. In both cases, the subject receives a saving throw vs spells, and if the target is unwilling, the caster may have to roll to hit in order to successfully touch them with the spell.
(Maths: Transmog, Total transform of living creature with physical characteristics and attacks (55), limited type to transform to (x0.75), limited type of subject (x0.75), HD limited to caster level and 2x target level (x0.75), range touch (x0.6), attack throw required vs unwilling target (x0.75), indefinite duration (x3.5) = 36.54)
Deep Slumber (Ench)
Arcane 3
Range 120'
Duration: 4d4 turns
A more powerful version of the common Sleep spell, Deep Slumber causes up to 24 HD worth of living creatures within range to save or fall asleep for the duration (the save may be vs Death or Spells, as the judge's discretion). There is no HD cap per creature, and the caster may select the order in which he desires to effect targets, subtracting them from his HD budget. Affected creatures may be awakened as per the Sleep spell.
(Maths: Enchantment, target asleep (15), 24 HD of creatures (x3), only living targets (x0.75), range 120' (x1.1), duration 4d4 turns (x1.2), save avoids (x0.5) = 29.7)
Estenmar's Equine Enhancer
Arcane 2
Range: Touch
Duration: 8 hours
This spell doubles the movement rate of one willing creature touched for eight hours. Typically used by the originator on his horse for long overland journeys, the spell is equally effective on one's travelling companions or oneself while fleeing a dungeon in a pinch. Whether unintelligent animals are 'willing' is an open question; they might be willing recipients of benign magics, or they may need special training. Ask your DM if Estenmar's Equine Enhancer is right for you.
(Maths: Movement, double speed (5), one willing creature with normal carrying capacity (x0.8), range touch (x1), duration 8 hours (x4), beneficial effect (x1) = 16)
Pegastasize (Transmog)
Arcane 4
Range: Touch
Duration: Permanent until dispelled
Pegastasize is a specialized spell developed by a wizard who was trying to turn horses into pegasi with Polymorph Other, but who then had to deal with the complete training wipe that ensued from inheriting their mental characteristics. Pegastasize avoids this problem, transforming a horse into a pegasus without altering its mental characteristics. If used on a pegasus, pegastize causes its wings to retract, yielding a normal horse. In both cases, the subject receives a saving throw vs spells, and if the target is unwilling, the caster may have to roll to hit in order to successfully touch them with the spell.
(Maths: Transmog, Total transform of living creature with physical characteristics and attacks (55), limited type to transform to (x0.75), limited type of subject (x0.75), HD limited to caster level and 2x target level (x0.75), range touch (x0.6), attack throw required vs unwilling target (x0.75), indefinite duration (x3.5) = 36.54)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)