Grim Tales: Spell Lists

[MacMathan]

For those of that have and/or are playing Grim Tales have you come up with a list of spells allowed or banned for a fantasy setting?

Basically I want to run DnD-style fantasy but with the low-magic aspects of Grim Tales and I am looking for ideas on which spells would be okay to allow into the game without ruining the low-magic flavor.

 

[GlassJaw]

I'm working on a campaign but I don't think I am going to make spell lists beforehand, at least one that the player's have access to. At the start, the players won't really have any knowledge of magic at all, at least not in the traditional sense. Most of the magic will be shamanistic and nature-based. They may have heard of someone who can increase the amount of water in a jug or cause grass and weeds to grow wildly but I really want to make each spell unique. I think a spell list sort of demystifies magic.

That said, I will have some guidelines about the magic I do introduce. The nature magic will be spells that affect nature in some way: entangle, create water, fog cloud, gust of wind, etc.

I'll also have some necromantic/chaos magic but that will be much more specialized and relegated to the bad guys only.

 

[Fenris]

Make that a second on no premade lists.

My homebrew is a fading magic setting, so magic is/was known. It is just harder to cast now and harder to find someone to teach you.

But I must always invoke Wulf. Here is his reply to some of my badgering

". I hate to do it, but I'll give you a three-skull yardstick. Let's right away toss out two ends of that yardstick: the high-magic end of D&D, and the zero magic end. We're going to narrow down our yardstick to something in between.

*** (very low magic) The PCs may discover one or two spells total through the campaign. (But they are more likely to be devastating spells.) This is the Call of Cthulhu model.

** The PCs may discover 6-10 spells throughout the campaign; most of them will be minor, low-level, informational spells, with a couple of higher-level whizz-bangs. This is my favorite. Adding a new spell to your repertoire every 2nd level or so is a major accomplishment. For the most part, the repertoire of spells is chosen by the GM because of how they can be used to advance his campaign. Regardless, finding a new spell isn't guaranteed and the GM can use a new spell as a major item of "treasure."

* (high-magic, for a low magic campaign) Magic is rare, but known and controlled by certain groups in the campaign. Magical Adepts have some reliable source of "player's choice" spell gain: Arcane Adepts have academies and (with time and money) may learn one new spell each time they gain a caster level (most likely within a specialty school). Divine Adepts choose a domain and (through ritual initiations/heirarchies) may learn one spell from their domain list each time they gain a caster level. In this model, the structured approach to the existence of magic is innappropriate for wild adepts. If you want to be a wild adept in this model, you are still at the whims of the GM.

To me, that last * is still too high magic, but it seems to be the most likely thing you or your players will be gunning for.

Personally, I don't think any player should enter a low magic game with the expectation of "I'm going to be the wizard!" If you've already lost that battle, you've lost the low-magic war. Expectations will be set higher than you should be delivering in a low-magic game, and I would expect things to break down quickly.

EDIT: One last thing. The thing I don't like about the * option is this: the player gains a caster level and expects a new spell. Again, that's backwards. You should give the players a spell or two first. But the PCs should not have ANY impetus to improve their caster level until such time as they feel they know enough spells to make it worth spending that talent."

So there is Wulf's take on spells. So give them what YOU want and what YOU think they will need. Remember in a low magic world those utilitarian spells are better than combat spells! and should be more prevalent.

 

[GlassJaw]

I don't think any player should enter a low magic game with the expectation of "I'm going to be the wizard!" If you've already lost that battle, you've lost the low-magic war

This pretty much sums up the Grim Tales concept. Once you wrap your head around this idea (it took me a little while), you'll have come a long way in understanding how a GT campaign works.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Yeah, what that Wulf guy said.

 

[MacMathan]

Thanks for the advice. I am coming at this from the angle of DM so the list would not be available to players.

So, a supplementary question- how do you intrest players in a new campaign using Grim Tales if they usually play spell casters?

There seems to be some fear that there will not be enough definitive "niches" for each player to have there own.

 

[GlassJaw]

So, a supplementary question- how do you intrest players in a new campaign using Grim Tales if they usually play spell casters?

There seems to be some fear that there will not be enough definitive "niches" for each player to have there own.

I'm encountering that a bit with one of my groups. We are about to end a high-power/high-magic 3ed campaign after 2+ years and I really want to try something new. Enter Grim Tales.

It's a really good group and everyone's a good player but there are some weekend warriors who basically like to show up, roll dice, kill stuff, and eat junk food. The role-playing has been pretty light in this campaign the last few months but I did some DM'ing earlier in the year and it is possible to bring them out of their shell.

I started to mention it a few months ago slowly by just describing it and what the differences between it and standard 3ed. Some of the first questions were about spellcasters. I hate telling players no but when they ask if they'll be able to play a wizard, you essentially have to say no. I explained that while there may be magic, it will be introduced by me at a pace I decide. It won't be determined by character level or spell lists.

But in the end, the best I've been able to come up with, aside from just talking about it, is telling my group to be open-minded for something new. They haven't said "no" yet at least.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Thanks for the advice. I am coming at this from the angle of DM so the list would not be available to players.

Honestly, don't work backwards from a complete list. Work from ground zero, and add spells that you specifically want the players to have on a case by case basis. It's so much easier.

Think of the players' spell list as YOUR toolkit for helping them to have fun in the adventure you have planned.

As a short list, detect magic and augury are pretty good tools for the GM.

So, a supplementary question- how do you intrest players in a new campaign using Grim Tales if they usually play spell casters?

It's a more "cinematic" approach to spellcasting. The road to mastery is longer, but the power payoff is better.

There seems to be some fear that there will not be enough definitive "niches" for each player to have there own.

Piffle. There are enough feats and talents that everyone can take a different approach. Character creation is amazingly flexible.

Wulf

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I'll be the (somewhat) dissenting voice here.

As others have mentioned, expectations are key. If you and the player understand beforehand how things are going to play out, you can make anything work. I don't think for a dedicated caster you need to work out spell lists ahead of time, although the normal problem spells (teleport, raise dead, etc) should be held out unless you want to add them.

It is quite possible to have something of a 'classic' caster in GT. A player that wants to be good at it, and to be able to cast even half the spells that a D&D caster would, is going to have to dedicate nearly all of his development selections to improving his caster level. And even when he does, he's still going to have high chances of spell failure on his top spells, and get hit with spell burn.

Look at the spell burn rules and options, and work the math. Use those permutations to set the tone you want for your campaign. If you want a caster that slings magic missiles while his comrades fire machine guns, use a d4 for spell burn, and he'll take enough constant damage from automatic spell burn to keep him in check. Want a mage with access to powerful spells, but don't want him able to cast them all day? Raise the burn die to d8 (or higher), and rule that automatic burn damage always does temporary ability damage.

The only real thing to watch out for is healing magic. That, more than the blast/buff/etc spells can throw a GT game out of whack (especially if you let healing magic cure spell burn).

The beauty of GT's magic system is that you can use the same rules with trivial changes (eg spell burn die) to scale magic level from rare and low-power to common and high-power.

If you want to restrict spell availability for flavor reasons, by all means do so. It's an excellent way to make magic seem different and mysterious, and that is tailor-made for some campaigns. But if you want magic to be a little more prominent, and don't like 'fire and forget' systems, and don't want the complexity and balance issues of a mana or spellpoint system, GT is (IMO) absolutely perfect.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Just to follow up on that, I think one talent spent on Master Arcane Flow is almost required for a "dedicated" spellcaster, in order to tweak the spell burn die to your current needs.

I'd drop the spell burn die down when I have an important spell to cast-- increased chance of automatic spell burn, for times when the bump in caster level and/or DC is worth it.

Wulf