Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Spell Progression Question

Expand Messages
  • Kevin Clark
    Awhile back, the Aleph put to bed the question of why higher-level versions of certain spells had to be purchased if the PC had already put points into the
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 1, 2008
      Awhile back, the Aleph put to bed the question of why higher-level versions of certain spells had to be purchased if the PC had already put points into the lower-level counterpart.  And that made sense.
       
      However, there is nothing anywhere in the rules about having to master the lower-level spell at all.  For example, a G&P wizard need not be Adept at Sleep I to become adept at Sleep II.
       
      To refer back to the Aleph's post, this would be analogous to "klepping out" of the lower-level spell instead of having to take it as a course requirement.
       
      That being said, I wonder if it might be appropriate to reward players who DO master the lower-level versions before tackling the higher.  Perhaps taking the "prerequisite" decreases the difficulty in mastering the higher spell.
       
      Has anyone else experimented with such house rules?
    • Sean L. McLane
      ... I came up with my house rule to countermand blatant twinkery: If you have met the requirements to cast journeyman or master level spells, then you can go
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 1, 2008
        > From: "Kevin Clark" <tarotmage2008@...>
        > Subject: [ironclaw] Spell Progression Question
        >
        > Awhile back, the Aleph put to bed the question of why higher-level versions=
        > of certain spells had to be purchased if the PC had already put points int=
        > o the lower-level counterpart. And that made sense.
        >
        > However, there is nothing anywhere in the rules about having to master the =
        > lower-level spell at all. For example, a G&P wizard need not be Adept at S=
        > leep I to become adept at Sleep II.
        >
        > To refer back to the Aleph's post, this would be analogous to "klepping out=
        > " of the lower-level spell instead of having to take it as a course require=
        > ment.
        >
        > That being said, I wonder if it might be appropriate to reward players who =
        > DO master the lower-level versions before tackling the higher. Perhaps tak=
        > ing the "prerequisite" decreases the difficulty in mastering the higher spe=
        > ll.
        >
        > Has anyone else experimented with such house rules?

        I came up with my house rule to countermand blatant twinkery:

        If you have met the requirements to cast journeyman or master level spells,
        then you can go ahead and cast those spells.

        However, you cannot put experience into a master level spell until you are
        adept at the Journeyman level, and likewise, cannot put experience into the
        Journeyman until you are adept at the Apprentice.

        -Sean, CI
      • Frank Sronce
        ... In my game, I make the next higher version 1/2 cost if you ve mastered the previous one. Kiz
        Message 3 of 3 , Dec 1, 2008
          Kevin Clark wrote:
          > Awhile back, the Aleph put to bed the question of why higher-level
          > versions of certain spells had to be purchased if the PC had already
          > put points into the lower-level counterpart. And that made sense.
          >
          > However, there is nothing anywhere in the rules about having to master
          > the lower-level spell at all. For example, a G&P wizard need not be
          > Adept at Sleep I to become adept at Sleep II.
          >
          > To refer back to the Aleph's post, this would be analogous to
          > "klepping out" of the lower-level spell instead of having to take it
          > as a course requirement.
          >
          > That being said, I wonder if it might be appropriate to reward players
          > who DO master the lower-level versions before tackling the higher.
          > Perhaps taking the "prerequisite" decreases the difficulty in
          > mastering the higher spell.
          >
          > Has anyone else experimented with such house rules?
          >

          In my game, I make the next higher version 1/2 cost if you've mastered
          the previous one.

          Kiz
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.