Les nouvelles règles sont maintenant téléchargeables!

Ouaip c'est fait! Y'a t-il des commentaires?

De ce que j'ai pus lire jusqu'à date (car je n'en ais pas encore fait la lecture complète hihi) le tout me semble bien. J'aime en particulier l'ajout fait au niveau des armures et de protections contre certains sorts

Just wondering why the Nature group is getting screwed by being the only group that can no longer protect itself with Armure and Sanctuaire? Or any other protection spell?

Quand ça dit que l'armure protège contre certains sorts.. on parle d'une immunité complète?
J'avoue que ça fait spécial un peu qu'une cotte de maille portée au torse protège des Flèche de feu lancée dans les jambes, si c'est le cas, plutôt que de ne seulement compter comme de l'armure...

J'ai remarqué le changement à "Titre I/II/III". Qu'est-ce que les gens qui ont payé pour ses compétences devraient faire, côté points?

I have not looked at all the rules in detail, so I can't give too many specific issues, but I do have a few initial comments:

1 - Character Modification: What are the rules for changing your character to accomodate the new rules, particularly concerning:

a) characters who no longer meet the prerequisites/requirements for their skills or spells (i.e., you know a spell that is no longer available to your type of magic - what happens?)

b) characters who no longer find their skill or spell to be beneficial because of the way the rules have changed (i.e., Armure spells - they now only last 5 minutes and require an expensive component to cast, and thus are nowhere near as useful as before, making them less desirable. Can a caster therefore change that spell into another spell or skill because of this?)

If some can change their skills (they no longer qualified and can thus spend points elsewhere) but others can't, it makes it a bit unfair.

In this regards, you might want to establish guidelines or process... whether a complicated process that says "this can become that," or a really simple statement of "remake your character with the same number of points."


2 - I find the armor protects against magic rules to be... complicated. Specifically, why those particular spells? why not others? what will happen when spellcasters change to the other spells (I see "Boue en Pierre" becoming really popular since armor doesn't protect against it!). And who is going to actually memorize the list of who is immune to what? Is it the spellcaster's problem or the person wearing the armor? What happens if they disagree?

Would it not be easier to give it as a blanket immune to magic rather than by spell?

A possible alternative I've just thought of real quickly (certainly open for discussion): Total up your points d'armure from metal armor - all limbs and torso - divide by 3 (or 4 or whatever), and that becomes the number of spells delivered by catalyseur that you are immune to each day. Doesn't matter what spell it is; you're immune to the catalyseur. No spell list to memorize. And by a number per day, also easy (why per day... umm.. the armor absorbs the magic, eventually gets full, and then can't absorb any more until the next morning... yeah, that's it...) This works well since catalyseurs have been added to many spells now...

[As a side note, I understand that magic was considered being too powerful, and I agreed with the need to fix it. However, I'm not sure if making metal armor immune to magic is the best way to restore balance. Particularly if you've also added catalyseurs, etc. I remain undecided on this, and will wait to see how it turns out.]


3 - I do not understand the specific benefit of Titre. It sounds like Titre allows you to give followers a free skill... but the wording is very confusing. Can you please give a example for how that works.

It sounds like I can give any skill whatsoever, so long as he has at least one skill of the same "skill group" (arbre de competence) of one level lower, without worrying about prerequisites. Please confirm. Does the lack of Prerequisite means that you can give a spell, and then he can cast it even if he doesn't have the right level of Sorcellerie (or whatever) since he can ignore prerequistes?

Also, who chooses the skill? The servant or the noble with the Title? Can that bonus skill ever be changed (if the servant learns it normally, can you change it to another skill).. what if he leaves (thus losing the bonus skill), then comes back into your service (thus gaining a new bonus skill, or the same one)? Does the bonus skill count as a prerequiste for other skills?



4 - Similar issues for Rang Militaire. In this particular case, I understand exactly what the power does. What needs to be defined is "what is an army?" Who gets to create an army and who decides who is in that army? Can a player simply go up to his five friends and say "I've just recruited you into my army" and give them a bonus? Or must there be some in-game mechanism for the Organizers to state who is in what army.

Linked to this, those of us who received free Rang Militaire from the Pass... what Army does that apply to? The Army of the Pass? Does that "army" include everyone who fought there, thus pretty much all of the PC? Or are they no longer in that Army because they've left? Who decides when someone is no longer in the army - an officer, or the soldier?


5 - Why can't a mage cast Detection de Magie or Neutralization de Magie?


Anyway, that's it for now... I'm sure others will come up, but those are the ones I saw with my first read through the new rules...

Je passais justement pour revenir sur un point, et je remarque que Mike l'a déjà abordé.

Donc, renchérissons!:

Michael a écrit:

1 - Character Modification: What are the rules for changing your character to accomodate the new rules, particularly concerning:

a) characters who no longer meet the prerequisites/requirements for their skills or spells (i.e., you know a spell that is no longer available to your type of magic - what happens?)

...également, qu'est-ce qui se passe avec nos composants? J'suis un mage qui viens de perdre identification I, II et détection de la magie. Est-ce que je peux dire que j'avais une petit stash de "poudre de mage"? Maintenant, il faut que je remplace ces 3 sorts, et me retrouver soudainement avec un besoin de nouvelles composantes. ¿Qué passa avec ça? ... ah, et tout le monde qui avait acheté du sel pour Sanctuair... qu'est-ce qu'on fait avec ça aussi?

Incidemment..
- Pourquoi Sorcellerie a perdu "Divination"?
- Pourquoi Nature a perdu Matière (qui semble pleins de sorts élémentaux - me semble que ça fit très bien avec les druides, non?) et Protection?
- C'est pas un peu drastique comme changement, Armure qui passe de "dure tant qu'il en reste, et compo réutilisable" à "dure 5 mins max, et compo non-réutilisable"?
- Je flannais dans les sorts commençant par "P":
----- Peau d'ours: Durée instantannée, permet d'ignorer un coup par combat... ...ça semble dire que ça me permet d'ignorer un coup par combat pour le reste de mes jours, mais j'suis pas mal sur que c'est pas l'intention!!!
----- Permanence: Prérequis: un sort de Force Rang I. Est-ce que ça devrait pas être, comme tous les autres sorts de niveau III, "deux sorts de Force Rang II"


* * * * * * *

Michael a écrit:

3 - I do not understand the specific benefit of Titre. It sounds like Titre allows you to give followers a free skill... but the wording is very confusing. Can you please give a example for how that works.

It sounds like I can give any skill whatsoever, so long as he has at least one skill of the same "skill group" (arbre de competence) of one level lower, without worrying about prerequisites. Please confirm. Does the lack of Prerequisite means that you can give a spell, and then he can cast it even if he doesn't have the right level of Sorcellerie (or whatever) since he can ignore prerequistes?

Also, who chooses the skill? The servant or the noble with the Title? Can that bonus skill ever be changed (if the servant learns it normally, can you change it to another skill).. what if he leaves (thus losing the bonus skill), then comes back into your service (thus gaining a new bonus skill, or the same one)? Does the bonus skill count as a prerequiste for other skills?

So, regarding the phrasing... according to the rules:

Le manuels des règles de Milandes a écrit:

Cette compétence permet au joueur d’améliorer d’un cran le coût d’une compétence ou d’un sort pour un autre joueur.

- Qu'est-ce que ça veut dire, "améliorer d'un cran le coût d'une compétence"..? Est-ce que ça veut dire qu'une compétence niveau II coûte la même chose qu'une compétence niveau I? Cette phrase semble contredire le reste de la description de Titre, par contre.
- Est-ce qu'on ne peut utiliser le "pouvoir" de Titre que pour donner une compétence à un niveau plus avancé (donner Armurier II à qq'un qui a déjà Armurier I)? Ou alors, est-ce qu'on peut donner qqchose de complètement nouveau (Lettré)?
- De la façon que la compétence est phrasée, ça semble indiquer que je ne pourrais pas donner Lettré ou Langue à un perso qui n'a pas encore de compétence dans "Savoir" - pourquoi?
- À noter que de la façon que c'est écrit en ce moment, je pourrais donner "Transe III" à quelqu'un qui a Mana II (qui se trouve dans Sorcellerie II), mais qui n'as ni Transe I, ni Transe II. Est-ce que c'est ça le but?

* * * * * *

For spells with the same name: ie. Armure, Sanctuaire, etc. is the level I spell a prerequisite for the level II spell, or can you buy the level II without having the level one spell?

Do you need to need to have 2 level I spells in a specific domain, before you can get a level II spell in that domain? I am assuming that you need 2 level I spells total before a level II, but just wanted to confirm if it followed the skill branch system like the rest of the skills.

Nat a écrit:

Just wondering why the Nature group is getting screwed by being the only group that can no longer protect itself with Armure and Sanctuaire? Or any other protection spell?

That's because it was the fairest way I could think of to divide the spells: Each group has three "tree group" that are unique to each ability and they each have 2 groups that are shared with another. No one is getting screwed they are different is all. Plus druids can hide in trees and move around in them, and camouflage, and get help from faeries, that's pretty hardcore.

Marc-Antoine a écrit:

Quand ça dit que l'armure protège contre certains sorts.. on parle d'une immunité complète?
J'avoue que ça fait spécial un peu qu'une cotte de maille portée au torse protège des Flèche de feu lancée dans les jambes, si c'est le cas, plutôt que de ne seulement compter comme de l'armure...

En fin de semaine, au Dragon Rouge, j'ai réussi à pitcher un morceau de sucre dans le bol de café à JP, mais il a rebondi. J'étais à l'autre bout de la table. Es-tu en train de me dire que t'as toujours du visou incroyable? Oui, c'est une immunité complète, et c'est pour ça que c'est juste certains sorts.

Marc-Antoine a écrit:

J'ai remarqué le changement à "Titre I/II/III". Qu'est-ce que les gens qui ont payé pour ses compétences devraient faire, côté points?

OK voici ce qu'on va faire:

1- On se base sur l'historique du personnage. L'histoire prédomine tout.

2- Comptez le nombre de GNs que vous avez fait: 2pts d'XP pour un GN d'une fin de semaine, 1 pts par GNH. Ajoutez les pts d'extra qu'on donnait pour l'aide au début. (On a une liste en passant; c'est inutile d'essayer d'en faire passer des vites...)

3- Ajustez votre personnage avec les changements de règles comme si votre perso n'était jamais mort. Je crois que c'est un bon compromis.

4- Vous pouvez changez de classe UNIQUEMENT si vous croyez que ça conserve l'esprit du perso. Pas parce que votre munchkin intérieur viens de trouver un combo de la mort avec une autre classe. Restez avec quelque chose de similaire.

5- Vérifiez les pré requis: plus de la moitié des personnages n'étaient pas en normes. Techniquement, on a rien changé sur le coût des compétences sauf que maintenant, vous n'avez plus besoin de vous casser la tête avec. Donc on vous donne la chance de vous remettre tous sur le même pied d'égalité.

Michael a écrit:

2 - I find the armor protects against magic rules to be... complicated. Specifically, why those particular spells? why not others? what will happen when spellcasters change to the other spells (I see "Boue en Pierre" becoming really popular since armor doesn't protect against it!). And who is going to actually memorize the list of who is immune to what? Is it the spellcaster's problem or the person wearing the armor? What happens if they disagree?

Why those spells? Simple: I didn't want them to all be on there. I wanted to target specific attack spells, since those are the ones that affect warriors the most. There are still plenty of spells to discombopulate players.

Wearing armor will be more popular, which is a big bonus for atmosphere. Trust me, players wearing the armor will have hissy fits when the mages don't comply. These are rules everyone should know. And that's what the pocket sized character sheet is for.

Michael a écrit:

Would it not be easier to give it as a blanket immune to magic rather than by spell?

No, I thought about it, but then it gets really unfair.

Michael a écrit:

As a side note, I understand that magic was considered being too powerful, and I agreed with the need to fix it. However, I'm not sure if making metal armor immune to magic is the best way to restore balance. Particularly if you've also added catalyseurs, etc. I remain undecided on this, and will wait to see how it turns out.

Me too, I know there will never be a perfect system but I'm waiting to see how this turns out. I think it'll be ok.

Michael a écrit:

3 - I do not understand the specific benefit of Titre. It sounds like Titre allows you to give followers a free skill... but the wording is very confusing. Can you please give a example for how that works.

It sounds like I can give any skill whatsoever, so long as he has at least one skill of the same "skill group" (arbre de competence) of one level lower, without worrying about prerequisites. Please confirm. Does the lack of Prerequisite means that you can give a spell, and then he can cast it even if he doesn't have the right level of Sorcellerie (or whatever) since he can ignore prerequistes?

Sorries if i wasn't clear enough I'll clarify in French laters on another post promise so everyone can figure it out.

Michael a écrit:

4 - Similar issues for Rang Militaire. In this particular case, I understand exactly what the power does. What needs to be defined is "what is an army?" Who gets to create an army and who decides who is in that army? Can a player simply go up to his five friends and say "I've just recruited you into my army" and give them a bonus? Or must there be some in-game mechanism for the Organizers to state who is in what army.

Linked to this, those of us who received free Rang Militaire from the Pass... what Army does that apply to? The Army of the Pass? Does that "army" include everyone who fought there, thus pretty much all of the PC? Or are they no longer in that Army because they've left? Who decides when someone is no longer in the army - an officer, or the soldier?

Same here, apparently I should have written more text.

Michael a écrit:

5 - Why can't a mage cast Detection de Magie or Neutralization de Magie?

Oooooh you got me there.... I can le fix!

Michael a écrit:

Anyway, that's it for now... I'm sure others will come up, but those are the ones I saw with my first read through the new rules...

Thank yous!

Marc-Antoine a écrit:

Incidemment..
- Pourquoi Sorcellerie a perdu "Divination"?
- Pourquoi Nature a perdu Matière (qui semble pleins de sorts élémentaux - me semble que ça fit très bien avec les druides, non?) et Protection?

- Parce ce que si Sorcellerie n'avait pas eu Divination en partant tu t'en serais jamais ennuyé...
-Parce que si tu lis les sorts de matière tu te rends contre que ça va contre la nature. Même chose pour Protection!

Marc-Antoine a écrit:

- C'est pas un peu drastique comme changement, Armure qui passe de "dure tant qu'il en reste, et compo réutilisable" à "dure 5 mins max, et compo non-réutilisable"?

Oui, c'est drastique en maudit, mais ça décourageait le port d'armure.

Marc-Antoine a écrit:

Peau d'ours: Durée instantannée, permet d'ignorer un coup par combat... ...ça semble dire que ça me permet d'ignorer un coup par combat pour le reste de mes jours, mais j'suis pas mal sur que c'est pas l'intention!!!

T'as bien raison: c'est un coup par combat puis il faut que tu reçoive le sort de nouveau. Tssk... munchkin!

Marc-Antoine a écrit:

Permanence: Prérequis: un sort de Force Rang I. Est-ce que ça devrait pas être, comme tous les autres sorts de niveau III, "deux sorts de Force Rang II"

T'as entièrement raison: c'est une erreur de copy/paste. On va changer ça.

Nat a écrit:

For spells with the same name: ie. Armure, Sanctuaire, etc. is the level I spell a prerequisite for the level II spell, or can you buy the level II without having the level one spell?

I didn't make a mistake in the prerequisites for Armure II or Sanctuaire II. So yes; go ahead.

Nat a écrit:

Do you need to need to have 2 level I spells in a specific domain, before you can get a level II spell in that domain? I am assuming that you need 2 level I spells total before a level II, but just wanted to confirm if it followed the skill branch system like the rest of the skills.

The skill branch system is still there, but I took out the guess work, just follow the prerequisites.

Marie a écrit:

En fin de semaine, au Dragon Rouge, j'ai réussi à pitcher un morceau de sucre dans le bol de café à JP, mais il a rebondi. J'étais à l'autre bout de la table. Es-tu en train de me dire que t'as toujours du visou incroyable? Oui, c'est une immunité complète, et c'est pour ça que c'est juste certains sorts.

A vrai dire, non, j’ai un visou absolument à chier. La seule chose que j’ai descendu à coup de Flèches, c’est la Bête, et c’est bien parce qu’il (elle?) avait les deux pieds rivés dans le sol et faisait une bonne cible immobile. Encore là, ça m’en a prit 3 ou 4.
Ce que j'était en train de dire, c'est qui même si qq'un porte une chainmail, il devrait être possible de lui lancer des catalyseurs dans les jambes pour essayer de lui pêter les rotules. Même chose pour des dagues, careaux d'arbalête, ou autre projectiles tout ce qu'il y a de plus non-magiques. [MAIS... voir paragraphe suivant ]

J’viens de prendre la peine de lire le sort Flèche, d’ailleurs, et je viens de remarquer le changement, et comprends un peu mieux ton commentaire (qui avait pas tellement rapport avec la façon dont Flèches marchait avant..)
Avant, Flèche faisait des points de dégât là où le catalyseur touchait… donc l’armure protégeait si elle était touchée… maintenant, c’est toujours une question de toucher avec le catalyseur, mais l’endroit touché est choix de la victime. Tu lui touche la jambe gauche, pas grave, il applique le dégât à son bras gauche qui est intact et armuré. ...uhhhh, ok?

Est-ce que Flèche vous causait autant de problèmes que ça?

Tant quand être dans la lignée:

Citation :

Sphere (deux catalyseurs): Crée une boule de feu ou d'électricité, d'acide, de glace qui font deux points de dommage à deux personnes.

Est-ce que c'est le même principe que Flèche, où les personnes touchées choisissent où est appliqué le dégât? Ou bien est-ce que pour ce sort-là, c'est vraiment à l'endroit où le catalyseur touche qu'on applique le dégât? Est-ce que ce sort est aussi bloqué par une cotte de maille ou armure de plaque portée au torse?

Citation :

Cone: L’enchanteur produit un cône de flamme, glace, électricité ou d’acide qui sont capables de toucher trois personnes à la fois au montant de 1 point de dommage au torse et 1 point de dommage à deux membres de chacun. Le mage n’a pas besoin de catalyseur (...)

Encore là, est-ce que le choix des membres touchés est à la victime? Est-ce que l'armure protège comme pour Flèche?

C'est le même principe que pour flèche oui. Tu parviens à toucher la victime et le domage est fait ou le veut bien la victime. Je sais que c'est illogique, mais en quelque part il faut arrêter de jouer les avocats. J'ai envie de faire autre chose que d'écrire des règles moi!

Pour ce qui est des protections des armures contre la magie je reviens avec le tableau IV. Les armures ne protègent que contre les sorts qui sont inscrits.

Citation :

Je sais que c'est illogique, mais en quelque part il faut arrêter de jouer les avocats. J'ai envie de faire autre chose que d'écrire des règles moi!

J'en doute pas... c'est long écrire des règles...

Par contre, ce qui est pas spécifié et/ou clair dans les règles, a tendance à être ostiné en jeu.

C'est un travail important.

Marc-Antoine a écrit:

Citation :

Je sais que c'est illogique, mais en quelque part il faut arrêter de jouer les avocats. J'ai envie de faire autre chose que d'écrire des règles moi!

J'en doute pas... c'est long écrire des règles...

Par contre, ce qui est pas spécifié et/ou clair dans les règles, a tendance à être ostiné en jeu.

C'est un travail important.

J'suis d'accord je tiens à te remercier de sortir ces bobos. Même si ça veut dire encore do travail.

Some more points relating to spells:

1. It appears that Level II spells require a single Level I spell as prerequisite (of same "school" of magic), and Level III spells require 2 LeveL II spells. Is this correct?

From my understanding, as soon as I learn a single Level I spell, I can then learns as many level II spells as I want (in the same school), because I will meet the requirement of knowing a single Level I spell. And the moment I learn any two Level II spells, I can then learn as many Level III spells as I want? (well, actually, at most 2 spells, because schools only have 1 or 2 spells of level 3).

So, you can get someone who only learns a single Level I spell who then winds up knowing all the Level II and Level III spells before he learns a second Level I spell? Is this what you wanted? Or should Level II spells all require at least two Level I spells?

(Makes no difference to me, but thought I'd mention it looks weird)


2. Like Permanance, Clairvoyance III should also require 2 spells of Level II.


3. Réparation d’Armes et d’Armures: Est-ce que "une armure" veut dire un morceau d'armure (soit le torse, ou un bras, ou une jambe), ou l'armure au complet que le personnage porte (le torse, les deux bras et les deux jambes)?

Aussi, les sorts de guérisson prennent 30 secondes à caster, mais réparation prend une minute. Est-ce que c'est juste? Si sa répaire juste un morceau d'armure, je dirais non et que ca devrait etre seulement 30 secondes comme guérisson. Mais si ca répare tout l'armure au complet, une minute est juste.


Bon, je me mélange dans mes langues maintenant...

Spell Components:

It's not written anywhere... previously a spellcaster automatically received 5 free spell components upon learning a spell. Is that still the case with the new rules? If so, it needs to be written somewhere in the rules... If not, I think it should also be clearly mentioned that you start with no spell components and will have to buy all of them in the GN, as that is also important to understand clearly when making a character.

Just as equally important, I think it should be mentioned how common the components are, unless they're all equally available. That also plays an important role in chosing your spells - if a given spell component might only be available once per year, I might not want that spell compaired to one that you can purchase every single game. Or, I'll want to know before I waste them casting the spell at random instead of saving them for something important (ex: will I waste a ressurection on someone I don't know or save it for a friend since I might not be able to replace my last component?).

And spell components needs to be available at homologation, provided by the organizers to the player, then added to his equipment list (particularly if he gets free doses when learning a spell).

Related to that, I think homologation should include all spell components to keep track of them (this becomes difficult for liquids... how many drops are in a vial, after all)... or how many "pinces de poudre de mage" do you have in a bag? After several months of playing, I must admit I wouldn't remember the amounts I had if it wasn't for the fact I wrote them down. Because of this, it should be registered at homologation, just like money.

Finally, will NPC follow the rules for spell components? It's been my experience at GNs that they usually don't, which I disagree with. If a player needs a catalyseur, then so should the NPC - if find it unfair if they can simply point at you and hit you with a spell, but they're allowed to try and doge your spells. Yes, NPCs are sometimes greatly outnumbered, but when a small group of one or two PC encounter that NPC same NPC designed to fight all the players on the field, then it's not fair for them... Also, related to that, I find that spell components should be a valuable treasure to find on defeated NPC, just as much so as gold or gems. If an NPC spellcaster is casting spells at you, one would expect to be able to loot his spell component bag after defeating him.



Finally, not rules related per se, but a question because of the change in rules - as already asked by others, what happens to your current stash of spell components which may not be useable anymore because you don't have the spell since you lack the new prerequisites, or because the component of the spell has completely changed? Do you get your money back? Do you get to convert them to equal doses of other spell components? Do you lose what you had, but get 5 free doses of the new component, as per first learning a new spell?

Citation :

Wearing armor will be more popular, which is a big bonus for atmosphere.

Wearing armor is a hassle because it tends to be costly (talking "real" money) to aquire OR very time consuming to make... even when you have it, it's uncomfortable to wear, it breaks down very quickly in play, and it takes a long time to repair.

Full plate looks very cool, but you have a full set, you'll be hard pressed to find someone to repair it for you: even a full smith with Armurier III will need a full hour (5 pieces, 4 points of armor each, 3 minutes per point of armor) to bring your armor back up to full.

A simple chainmail (Torso and arms) is still a total of 9 points to repair. That's still 45 minutes of work for an character with Armurier II, which is more likely to be found.

That's a lot of time spent repairing armor. If you have several people in armor, it makes for even more downtime, even if every piece isn't completely destroyed.

...

I guess my point is, perhaps making it so that armor needs to be repaired less, and/or faster and easier to repair may be a more efficient way of promoting its use.

As it is, I wonder if the new rules (spell immunities for spells) don't simply make armor even more indispensable - but just as annoying to maintain.

Citation :

Trust me, players wearing the armor will have hissy fits when the mages don't comply. These are rules everyone should know. And that's what the pocket sized character sheet is for.

Yeah, I definitely trust that. There's so many different spells affected by different armor combinations, there are bound to be plenty of misunderstanding, in the middle of battle. And then what? We pull out our copies of the rules to prove who is right/wrong?
How about NPCs? How are they going to cope?

Sort: Combiner

First of all, the example is flawed. Benediction is a competence, not a spell, therefore Combiner cannot combine a Benediction with a magic missile.

Second, although I can pretty much well understand that each spellcaster must cast the spells to be combined afterward, it's not actually written. I'd recommend you specify that just to make it clear. (silly, yes, but clarity of rules is good).

The ability to combine two separate spells is good. I can't really see uses for that except in potions, however.

The extended duration effect when combining the same spell, however, is pointless as written. Why would I want to spend 2 mana to cast Combiner, and then have two mages cast the same spell to double the duration? It would be just as easy to have the first mage cast the spell, and then when it wears off, have the second mage cast the spell, and you've just doubled the duration - and saved the 2 mana I would have wasted on Combiner. Not to mention the points spent to learn the spell. If you want to be able to extend durations in a meaningful way, I'd recommend that Combiner with 2 casters multiplies the duration by 5, and three casters by 10.

The logic for x5 is that Combiner, being cast at 2 Mana Points, is worth at least 2 additional Level I spells (1 Mana each), so, it's as if you spent a total of 4 mana for level I spells, or cast 4 times... you want Combiner to be slightly more advantageous than that, so x5. It's a bit more advantageous for Level II and III spells, but that's ok. Even with these benefits, I don't see this spell receiving that much use.

Oh, does everyone who provides a spell in combiner for a potion need to know Alchimie, or as long as one person knows Alchimie, anyone can provide spells to add into the potion (spells that can normally be made into potions, of course)?

Sort: Luminescence

Pourquoi "une foi par jour"? Pouquoi est-ce que je peut pas le caster autant de foi que je veut et que j'ai du Mana pour le faire?

Si tu veut dire que ca dure 24 heures (donc t'as juste besoin de le caster une foi par jour), met ca pour la duree à la place...


Et, question/commentaire de jeux et non reglement pour ce sort. Plusieurs joueurs utilisent un flashlight quand meme? Oui, c'est pour des raison de securite, ou pour trouver un object echaper, et "hors game" c'est comprenable... quoi que personellement j'apprecie vraiment ceut qui rendent ca plus "in game" avec des lumiere qui ressemble a des lanternes medievale! Tout cas, mon point est pourquoi depenser des points de personage pour apprendre le sort qui te permet d'utiliser un flashlight quand beaucoup s'en servent sans le sort? Oui, c'est une question de s'en servir in-game vs out-game, qui dans la majorite des cas se distingue bien et le roleplay se fait bien avec ca. Mais pas toujours... particulierement quand quelqu'un utilise son flashlight simplement pour retourner a son campment la nuit car il voit pas (raison securite logique), et a cause de ca il t'appercoit cacher pour ton ambuscade grace a son flashlight... Meme s'il fait semblant de pas te voir, l'effect de surprise n'est pas pareille. (et de plus, fort probable il t'a aveugler accidentellement...) Et comment est-ce que la personne qui fait l'embuscade va savoir si c'est un flashlight hors game (pour securite) ou une vrai lumiere Luminescence in-game qui permetrait a la personne de lui voir?

En bref, l'utilisation de se sort necessite presque que les flashlights soit interdit sur le terrain...

Marc-Antoine a écrit:

Citation :

Wearing armor will be more popular, which is a big bonus for atmosphere.

Wearing armor is a hassle because it tends to be costly (talking "real" money) to aquire OR very time consuming to make... even when you have it, it's uncomfortable to wear, it breaks down very quickly in play, and it takes a long time to repair.

Full plate looks very cool, but you have a full set, you'll be hard pressed to find someone to repair it for you: even a full smith with Armurier III will need a full hour (5 pieces, 4 points of armor each, 3 minutes per point of armor) to bring your armor back up to full.

A simple chainmail (Torso and arms) is still a total of 9 points to repair. That's still 45 minutes of work for an character with Armurier II, which is more likely to be found.

That's a lot of time spent repairing armor. If you have several people in armor, it makes for even more downtime, even if every piece isn't completely destroyed.

...

I guess my point is, perhaps making it so that armor needs to be repaired less, and/or faster and easier to repair may be a more efficient way of promoting its use.

As it is, I wonder if the new rules (spell immunities for spells) don't simply make armor even more indispensable - but just as annoying to maintain.

Citation :

Trust me, players wearing the armor will have hissy fits when the mages don't comply. These are rules everyone should know. And that's what the pocket sized character sheet is for.

Yeah, I definitely trust that. There's so many different spells affected by different armor combinations, there are bound to be plenty of misunderstanding, in the middle of battle. And then what? We pull out our copies of the rules to prove who is right/wrong?
How about NPCs? How are they going to cope?

I just want to state that I completely agree with Marc... a specific spell list is complicated. It will slow down the game, and there will be arguments as to which spells are affected... at first.. .and then soon enough, the game effect is that mages won't even bother learning the spells that armor protects against and will learn other spells (like Boue en Pierre or Projectile Magique), and those will be the only ones you see used in combat, thus the benefits of metal armor will be lost again and rendered pointless... to which you either change the spell list (and all spellcasters will complain and want to change their spells because that's why they picked them), and it will just start over again.

I again repeat that I think you need something really simple like immune to spells with catalyseurs, X times per day... It's easy for everyone to remember, no time wasted arguing as to whether it counts or not, and while the X times per day is a matter of honesty of the person wearing armor, that's no different than the honesty of the mage for his Mana Points and ingredients, or the honesty of any player for their Hit Points.

And again, as per Marc's statement, if you want more armor, make it easier to repair. Yes, there is the Reparation d'armure spell, but that relies on spellcasters with the spell - and spellcasters who have sufficient spell components for the spell; you will need to make sure the spell components are easily available AND affordable in-game, otherwise it's also pointless. The only other option is an armorer, and that comes back to the time it takes...

Michael a écrit:

Sort: Luminescence

Pourquoi "une foi par jour"? Pouquoi est-ce que je peut pas le caster autant de foi que je veut et que j'ai du Mana pour le faire?

Si tu veut dire que ca dure 24 heures (donc t'as juste besoin de le caster une foi par jour), met ca pour la duree à la place...


Et, question/commentaire de jeux et non reglement pour ce sort. Plusieurs joueurs utilisent un flashlight quand meme? Oui, c'est pour des raison de securite, ou pour trouver un object echaper, et "hors game" c'est comprenable... quoi que personellement j'apprecie vraiment ceut qui rendent ca plus "in game" avec des lumiere qui ressemble a des lanternes medievale! Tout cas, mon point est pourquoi depenser des points de personage pour apprendre le sort qui te permet d'utiliser un flashlight quand beaucoup s'en servent sans le sort? Oui, c'est une question de s'en servir in-game vs out-game, qui dans la majorite des cas se distingue bien et le roleplay se fait bien avec ca. Mais pas toujours... particulierement quand quelqu'un utilise son flashlight simplement pour retourner a son campment la nuit car il voit pas (raison securite logique), et a cause de ca il t'appercoit cacher pour ton ambuscade grace a son flashlight... Meme s'il fait semblant de pas te voir, l'effect de surprise n'est pas pareille. (et de plus, fort probable il t'a aveugler accidentellement...) Et comment est-ce que la personne qui fait l'embuscade va savoir si c'est un flashlight hors game (pour securite) ou une vrai lumiere Luminescence in-game qui permetrait a la personne de lui voir?

En bref, l'utilisation de se sort necessite presque que les flashlights soit interdit sur le terrain...

This also sort of goes for the spell "Création de Feu". Should people without the spell be using matches?

More for armors... Just had another idea to discuss.

Maybe I missed it, but what constitutes an armor for a given body part with respect to spell immunity? Does a breastplate that only covers the front of the torso count as plate to make you immune to spells? And why does it give the same magical protection as a full back-and breast corsellet plate? Is a chain sleeve that only goes over half the arm as valid as the whole arm?

You could put a percentage - must cover 50% of body part - but that may just lead to arguments as to what amount is actually covered? And who would have the last word?

My thoughts, therefore, was as follows. The protection of armor only applies to the body part covered - you hit the armor, it applies and the armor (not the wearer) takes damage. You avoid it and hit the limb or body, then he's hit and loses actual HP.

So you make magical immunity work the same way - if it hits the armor, the armor absorbs it and the spell doesn't work. If it hits the person, then the spell affects him as well.

Now, combine this with my proposed simpler rule that the magical protection applies to all spells that use a catalyseur for a limited number of times per day rather than a spell list. I think what could work with respect to 'number of time per day' is that instead of having a number, it simple costs you a point of armor - the armor absorbs the magic but takes damage. If the armor is out of HP, then the next spell hit results in the spell working on the person.

So, one result is that spells like sleep will cause damage to armor. On the one hand, losing a single point of armor is still better than falling asleep. Also, let's look at it this way: the warrior was actually hit by something. Yes, just a catalyseur, but it could just have easily been a weapon. 1 point of damage to the armor is therefore fair 'damage' for that, with the benefit of being immune to the spell.

Another aspect if spells that are resisted cost armor points, it's one less number to track. You just track your armor points, not a number of immunities per day. And, as armor points, if you fix your armor, you essentially 'replenish' the number of times you'll be immune to a spell.

From the mage's point of view, it still gives him a chance to affect the warrior with his spell by aiming for spots on him without armor (or by finishing him off after his warrior friends take down his armor). And, if he misses, he at least does damage to the armor (not as much as Fleche would normally do, but still better than total immunity).

Anyway, my most recent thoughts on the subject. Happy to discuss further.

Michael a écrit:

1. It appears that Level II spells require a single Level I spell as prerequisite (of same "school" of magic), and Level III spells require 2 LeveL II spells. Is this correct?

I will have to re-review what had written. My goal was to make the spells easier to get since you already have to buy the abilities and the mana points to access them.

Michael a écrit:

3. Réparation d’Armes et d’Armures: Est-ce que "une armure" veut dire un morceau d'armure (soit le torse, ou un bras, ou une jambe), ou l'armure au complet que le personnage porte (le torse, les deux bras et les deux jambes)?

The spell is faster then fixing it by hand, as for on the spot fighting armor fixing, but more costly time wise, you have to get the mana back. An armorer will take more time fixing the armor on the spot but he won't lose mana points.

Michael a écrit:

Aussi, les sorts de guérisson prennent 30 secondes à caster, mais réparation prend une minute. Est-ce que c'est juste? Si sa répaire juste un morceau d'armure, je dirais non et que ca devrait etre seulement 30 secondes comme guérisson. Mais si ca répare tout l'armure au complet, une minute est juste.

Oui, ça répare le tout.