New Erfworld Campaign - "Darkness Rising" - Rules

[Nnelg]

So, now that the action on the New Batch thread is winding down, we should get back to retooling Foolamancy.


But first, I want to clarify exactly what it is I want to do with Foolamancy:

I want to use Foolamancy more for short-term gains on the battlefield. Sowing chaos and confusion, disguising strength and concealing weaknesses, keeping the enemy on their toes... Maintaining a hold on the tactical initiative is my aim. But at this the more "passive", strategic-level illusions do not excell. The veil as-written (and as Marbit interpreted it) for the old edition was such a spell: it has its place, but its limitations greatly limited its use in a tactical situation.


So, I think this is the source of contention on this issue:

Flash isn't going to work as written - if you negate spot checks, Foolamancy becomes uncounterable. I see what you're trying to do there, but I'm not really convinced that Foolamancy really requires a way to distract from castings while enemy units are in RLOS - that's a fundamental limitation of the school in my mind, which forces the Foolamancer to make more use of the environment instead of just doing exactly what they want to do every time.

If battlefields were less wide-open and it were actually feasible to hide from the enemy, then I might agree with you. But still, I must say...

Even if foolamancy cast in LOS was immediately believed by all observers, would it really be overpowered?

After all, it's still an illusion. It can't do anything to hurt anyone. All it can do is distract or misdirect the enemy, and even that isn't gauranteed. And it isn't hard to figure it out when it fails to attack.


Anyways, there's a few things I think we should cut for now (possibly to put back in later). Displacement, for one; "illusionary" damage can go too. Whole-turn durations needn't be the default, either. We should keep things as simple as possible until we've got the basics sketched out and balanced.

(I also think we should go back to a set number of spells, but keep the concept of modifiers [both positive and negative] open. However, I think that most of them could be given for free, with that only the most significant being exceptions.)

[CroverusRaven]

I'll have Donovan for now (So marbit can have a reason to use the Whump character model) until I get the OK to work on making Hippiemancy.

[MarbitChow]

With the addition of Obfuscation, illusions CAN be cast in LOS in the middle of a battle, PLUS units can be protected from ranged attacks. Certain spells WILL work when being observed - Units hit with Crypsis will vanish, Displacement used to make copies will obscure the original (if any movement occurs, in order to make it sort of a shell game), etc.

The only thing the new rules can't do is to perform actions that the rule set as a whole doesn't support : units can't appear healed for no reason, or suddenly transform from a marbit into a dwagon, because I can't enforce this on the players.

Foolamancy is about making units act on bad knowledge. Players know what is and is not possible according to the rules. Players are allowed to do whatever they wish. I cannot force a player to stop attacking a unit that they've badly wounded just because the wounds are no longer there. Hell, even if they think the unit has been fully healed, they'll STILL probably continue to wail on it, because that's what they decided to do. The only difference is that they'll start staggering their attack so that whatever hit is required to kill it won't cause other attacks to be wasted.

I refuse to create a system that is only enforceable against NPCs. If a unit's stats change from one update to the next, and there is NO DISCERNIBLE REASON for it, players will cry foul, and demand a correction or explanation. If none is offered, they will act on the knowledge that foolamancy is in play, whether they make the roll or not.

I need a system that can work seamlessly when both you and the NPCs use foolamancy. I want to get the rules finalized very soon, and I still need to revamp Shockamancy. I've got no objection to dropping Illusionary damage completely, but otherwise, the foolamancy rules are near completion. Everything must be nearly finalized, because if I decide to throw a high-level Foolamancer against the players, the rules for them must be available. I'm not going to go through and keep revising rules, so this version of Foolamancy has to be the best attempt at quantifying the comic version that we can make.

[ETheBoyce]

Soooo these Shockamancy changes I keep hearing about, color me curious

[Nnelg]

I need a system that can work seamlessly when both you and the NPCs use foolamancy.

Ah... Now I see what you're worried about. You're right, this is a tricky one to handle...

But, the specifics of the spells/effects still need to be tweaked, I think. As it is now, the kind of cheap and quick tricks I want to do are too costly... For instance, a replica of the old version's Veil spell costs almost twice as much. And in order for me to mix a single unit in with a stack of warriors, I'd have to Obfuscate so many hexes I might as well just turn them all invisible instead.

I don't want crypsis to be the only cost-effective spell that can do what I want. I'd prefer it if being clever with my spells would allow me to save juice, while still achieving the desired effect. I mean, I'll play with a broken system if I have to, but it won't be as fun.


Anyways... What if we assumed that every unit has the same near-omniscient view of the battlefield that the players do, and work from there? Then we can have illusions that directly affect this view, and thus would be enforceable against the players. For instance, how about a "Blur" effect that doesn't obscure a unit's identity per se, but masks if they have delayed moves/actions (and perhaps some other things) and causes their name to be replaced by <???> everywhere in the "Results" section of the usual battle report?

[MarbitChow]

I agree about the Juice costs. Those will get lowered. Foolamancy should be one of the most cost-effective schools, so we can definitely tweak that down.

Anyways... What if we assumed that every unit has the same near-omniscient view of the battlefield that the players do, and work from there?

That's pretty much the way things already work (at least within RLOS). If any units are aware of the enemy, all units on a side are.

Then we can have illusions that directly affect this view, and thus would be enforceable against the players. For instance, how about a "Blur" effect that doesn't obscure a unit's identity per se, but masks if they have delayed moves/actions (and perhaps some other things) and causes their name to be replaced by <???> everywhere in the "Results" section of the usual battle report?

I'm not sure I understand the value of this, exactly. Are we just masking the hits and stats, so that people have no idea what the stats actually are? How is that different from being able to apply whatever false stat you want them to see? Would this effect be cheaper than the regular veil? If so, I'd rather just reduce the cost of the veils; we're already in agreement that the initial "final draft" Juice costs estimates were too high.

-------

As to shockamancy, what I'm thinking of is trying to do to Shockamancy what Foolamancy, Luckamancy, and Healamancy have now : more flexibility. I'm leaning towards making spells be 'mix-and-match' components like we've got with Luckamancy instead of simple spells.

[Nnelg]

Well... For instance, say I Veiled a stack of various, distinguishable units to all look the same. A player would be able to easily go back and check which is which. But if I Blurred them at the same time, then everyone in the stack could move but all anyone would be able to see is "<???> moved to M5" et cetera. Then when the Blur wears off (say at the end of the Round) you'd give the units temporary designations, and nobody would be able to tell which was which.

And if Nemo Blurred himself, (adding modifiers to make it last longer) when the enemy sees "<???> cast Heal at Whump", he won't know if it was a fake heal, a real one from a scroll, or another Blurred caster altogether. (Actually, that makes me think of something. Perhaps all Foolamancy spells should be secret, as in "Nemo casts <???>" instead of "Nemo casts Veil".)

We could have more specific blurs, too. Just blurring a units current hits would be useful if it's cheap and persists, with the acceptable trade-off of pre-battle casting being requisite for maximum effectiveness.

[MarbitChow]

Ok, I see what you're trying to do. I think we can get the same effect by making a couple of minor changes.

First, allow Glamour to change the name/designation of the unit. In retrospect, that should have obviously been one of the "stats" that it could alter. This allows you to pull a shell-game: as long as you veil a set of units and those units move almost immediately thereafter, you can swap units around. For example:

Whump and Tod are standing side-by-side. You Glamour Whump as Tod and Tod as Whump, then both move to new squares. The report shows:

Whump: Moves to C5
Tod: Moves to C4

The Real Tod is now in C5, and Real Whump is in C4. But the image of Tod is in C4, and Whump's image is in C5. The report and display match, so there's no inconsistency for players to be able to catch when the NPCs do it. I'm a bit hesitant to just blank out unit names completely, because I'm afraid that I'll end up losing track of who is who if it's done to enough units, and it's clearly an ability that becomes more useful the more units you use it on.

Second, casting Foolamancy spells has to be secret. I already intended to add this into the rule set, I'm just going back and forth between whether this is the default (and making them 'not secret', like "Foghat", lowers the cost) or not. That's a minor issue, though. I totally agree that casting foolamancy, in general, doesn't appear in the result set. Well, technically it does, but when your side does it, I'll add a modifier to it like this:

Nemo: (Unseen) Casts XXX at Whump, Tod

So that you can confirm it actually occurred. It will only be completely off the reports when the other side does it.

I don't really like the idea of "blurring hits" as a cheaper mechanic. Foolamancy strikes me as being used primarily for creating new, false information, rather than just hiding it. I'd rather just make the basic mechanic of allowing you to change the stat to whatever you want cheap enough that you'll always use that.

[Nnelg]

Hm; ok, sounds promising.

If you're worried about losing track of units, you could keep a "correct" combat log on your computer, and just censor what you give to the players.

And about "hiding information"... I suggested it because I thought it might be easy to implement, but I can see how that specific example could become overused. Still, I think the concept in general is sound, since hiding inconvenient information makes it easier for false information to seem plausible. (But, if I can hide the stats by other means easily enough it should be fine.)

[MarbitChow]

Since Erfworld is an environment in which one can "see stats", it seems to me that seeing an unknown stat is more unlikely than seeing a false stat, and thus a greater clue that foolamancy is in play; Stanley freaks out when he can see Parson's stats, after all, and even though he's got a foolamancer, he doesn't assume foolamancy is in play - he thinks it just shouldn't be.

When the new rules go live, if you have a goal in mind that you want to do with Foolamancy, I'll work with you to get a spell that accomplishes what you're trying to do as closely as possible if it's not immediately obvious whether the rules can do it or not.

[Nnelg]

Well, one thing I'd like to see are some modifiers for shortening spell durations. Many of my ideas don't require the illusion to last more than a few phases.

So, a x0.5 juice cost modifier for a spell that goes away at the end of the round it's cast on, then?


Oh, and how would you handle it if a unit was turned invisible the same phase an enemy had orders to attack it? (I'm thinking 50% miss chance, or something.)

[MarbitChow]

Shockamancy Revision - First Draft

Based on the flexibility of other schools (Foolamancy in particular), I'm attempting to update Shockamancy to grant much greater flexibility. Instead of having specific spells, the caster gets components that can be mixed and matched to tailor to the current situation.

-----

Naughtymancy (Shockamancy)
Against Plus-sized targets (targets that occupy more than one square), Shockamancy spells that affect multiple squares will do +2d6 damage for each additional square the target has in the area of effect. Riders on mounted targets that are hit with a multi-square shockamancy spell take half the base damage (ignoring plus-sized damage), that their mount takes, rounded down. All Shockamancy spell damage ignores defense.
Bonus: Caster who specializes in Shockamancy can create Juice Restoration Potions. Max Juice that the potion can restore is 4x Caster's level. It costs 8x Juice restored in order to create the potion. This cost can be paid for over multiple turns. Caster who specializes in Shockamancy start with Zap and Zot.

Zap - Does d6 Base (0.5 Juice)
[Requires Zap] Zot (0.5 AP) - Add +Combat (1 Juice)*
[Requires Zot] Zort (0.5 AP) - Add +1d6 (0.5 Juice)*
[Requires Zort] Bam (0.5 AP) - Add +1d6 (1 Juice) (can be purchased multiple times)*
[Requires Zort] Kapow (0.5 AP) - Stuns for 1 turn. If damage dealing is included, any unit that takes at least 1 Hit from the spell (directly or through damage transfer) is stunned. (1 Juice)
[Requires Kapow] Kablooie (0.5 AP) - +X turn(s) to Stun (2 Juice/turn) (Spell must include Kapow)
* - Spell must include Zap

Modifiers
[Requires Zap] Enlarge (0.5 AP) - 2x2 Area (Base * 2.5)
[Requires Enlarge] Embiggen (0.5 AP) - 3x3 Area (Base * 5)
[Requires Embiggen] Hugenate (0.5 AP) - 4x4 Area (Base * 9)
[Requires Hugenate] Enormousize (0.5 AP) - 5x5 Area (Base * 16)
If multiple areas are created with Pew, targets take full damage from each area that covers the square that they are in. The Upper-Left corner of the square is considered to be the target square.
Caster can exclude any number of targets from each area of effect by paying an additional 1 Juice / excluded target (if the excluded target resides in an overlapping square, the cost must be paid for each area that hits him).

Bonuses
[Requires Level 4] Pew (0.5 AP) - +X Targets (Max Targets = (Level - 1)) (Total * Targets). The same target or target square cannot be selected more than once.

Any fractional Juice cost is ignored.

Examples

Hiya: Zap + Zot (1.5 -> 1 Juice)
Hoboken: Zap + Zot + Zort (2 Juice)
2G1C: Zap + Zort + Bam + Enlarge (5 Juice)
Citrus Party: Kapow + Kablooie (5 Juice)
Ickypron: (Zap + Zot + Zort + Kapow) * (Pew x 3) (9 Juice)
Burninate: Zap + Zort + Bam + Embiggen (10 Juice)
Hobobarbie: Zap + Zot + Embiggen (7 Juice)
4Chan: Zap + Zot + Kapow + Enormousize (40 Juice)

(New spells:)
Wrath - 3d6+Combat to 3 different 2x2 Areas: (Zap (.5) + Zot(1) + Zort(.5) + Bam(1) + Enlarge(*2.5)) + (Pew * 3) = (7.5 * 3) = (22 Juice)
Wrath can be used to inflict a total of 9d6+3xCombat against a single target, plus 6d6+2xCombat against targets North, South, East and West of that target, plus 3d6+Combat to 3 additional targets diagonally adjacent from the target in the following pattern:


Code: Select all

1 2 1
2 3 2
1 2



SpamBlam - 4d6+Combat to 4 different 3x3 Areas: (Zap (.5) + Zot(1) + Zort(.5) + Bam x2 (2) + Embiggen (*5)) * (Pew * 4) = (60 Juice)
SpamBlam can be used to cover a single 4x4 area in which units at each corner are hit once, units at each non-corner border square are hit twice, and units in the center four squares are hit four times (see diagram below). Alternately, it can cover a 6x6 area.


Code: Select all

1 2 2 1
2 4 4 2
2 4 4 2
1 2 2 1


T. Coil's spell selections at Level 4:

1:Zap, Zot
2:Zort,Zap
3:Bam,Enlarge
4:Pew,Kapow

[MarbitChow]

So, a x0.5 juice cost modifier for a spell that goes away at the end of the round it's cast on, then?

For consistency, it will probably last for a full round, so if it was cast on Round 1, Phase 3, it would last until Round 2, Phase 4.

Oh, and how would you handle it if a unit was turned invisible the same phase an enemy had orders to attack it? (I'm thinking 50% miss chance, or something.)

I believe I already made the Crypsis modifier a dodge bonus based on the Caster's level. That would still be the case regardless of whether the defender was invisible that same phase or multiple phases. The attacker still has to target the right square, though, so the advantage to attacking at the same time the spell lands is that the defender doesn't have a chance to move yet (assuming attacker and defender started adjacent, or attacker was using a Fire action).

It will be a bit before I get to the next "final draft" of Foolamancy. I'm a bit fried after doing Shockamancy.

[BLANDCorporatio]

Shockamancy Revision - First Draft

Based on the flexibility of other schools (Foolamancy in particular), I'm attempting to update Shockamancy to grant much greater flexibility. Instead of having specific spells, the caster gets components that can be mixed and matched to tailor to the current situation.

Great! I look forward to similar flexibility-ising for melee and archery

-----

[list]
Zap - Does d6 Base (0.5 Juice)
[Requires Zap] Zot (0.5 AP) - Add +Combat (1 Juice)*
[Requires Zot] Zort (0.5 AP) - Add +1d6 (0.5 Juice)*
[Requires Zort] Bam (0.5 AP) - Add +1d6 (1 Juice) (can be purchased multiple times)*

Are you kidding me?!

Modifiers
[Requires Zap] Enlarge (0.5 AP) - 2x2 Area (Base * 2.5)
[Requires Enlarge] Embiggen (0.5 AP) - 3x3 Area (Base * 5)
[Requires Embiggen] Hugenate (0.5 AP) - 4x4 Area (Base * 9)
[Requires Hugenate] Enormousize (0.5 AP) - 5x5 Area (Base * 16)

Pew

Are you kidding me?!1123

No. Fucking. Way.

That's not more flexibility, for one. It's still just damage and stunning. And ooh boy what damage that is. Multiple attacks on the same target, damage that ignores defense, the fact that 0.5AP reliably increases damage output each level by 1d6 which is more than what ANY unit save for some Obsessive Compulsive heavy combat maniac would achieve and STILL leaves enough AP (0.5) to purchase area abilities ... was this made with balance in mind?

EDIT: Or if you prefer this another way- why do we need combat troops again, if -that-'s what ONE shockamancer can do? You've got loads of uber strong, defense-ignoring, stunning, area effects. All the other folks can just pack their bags and go for a picnic. Or you know, act as meatshields coz' that's the only thing they're good for.

It never struck me before that Shockamancy needed buffing UP in this campaign. It's been plenty useful so far as is.

[MarbitChow]

Great! I look forward to similar flexibility-ising for melee and archery

Support (0.5 AP): Get Combat -2 for the round. A single adjacent ally targeting the same enemy as you gains +3 Combat for the round. Bonus cannot be applied to Multi-target spells.
Coordinate (0.5 AP): Get Defense -2 for the round. A single adjacent ally targeting the same enemy as you gains +3 Combat for the round. Bonus cannot be applied to Multi-target spells.

Surround yourself with 8 Level 2 archers w/ 2 ranks of Support and Coordinate each. Each of William's shots will now do 2d6 + 32 Combat + 48 Coordinate + 48 Support = ave. 135 - Defense. A Heavy unit that specialized in Defense like you've specialized in Offense will ONLY take 200+ points.

Compare that with a 4th level Shockamancer, who (using these draft rules) can do a max of 9d6+3xCombat against a single target (although he will also be damaging any adjacent units, if any - you don't have to be a rocket surgeon to conclude that spreading out your units when fighting a shockamancer is a good idea). Using Coil as our sample, that's 9d6 (av. 32ish) + 39 damage. = 72 damage. And Coil has now lost 2/3rds of his Juice. If he chugs Juice potions like Red Bulls, he can pull that move off once every 2 rounds.

If we let Coil use those same 8 archers, he can now do 3d6 (11ish) + 13 + Combat + 48 Coordinate + 48 Support damage = 120 damage. Not bad, only about 80 points less, each round, and he'll eventually run dry (although since single shots are cheaper, he'll at least be able to last longer). But he can't use those archers with any multi-target spells (either 'Pew' or AoE).

Military units' flexibility is in the interaction with other, specialized military units. You can custom-build military squads, which you can't do significantly with casters. Get William a level 4 mount that fills a 2x2 area and 12(!) level 3 archers, and the damage becomes EVEN MORE INSANE : + 108 Coordinate + 108 Support PER SHOT. If William is Level 8, this formation is doing about 600 damage (AFTER subtracting their defense) to a single target EVERY ROUND.

And the only time clustering 9 units in a 3x3 square is a bad idea is if the other side has a shockamancer, who in all likelihood has just become the #1 target.

That's not more flexibility, for one. It's still just damage and stunning. And ooh boy what damage that is. Multiple attacks on the same target, damage that ignores defense, the fact that 0.5AP reliably increases damage output each level by 1d6 which is more than what ANY unit save for some Obsessive Compulsive heavy combat maniac would achieve and STILL leaves enough AP (0.5) to purchase area abilities ... was this made with balance in mind?

Yes, since one of my assumptions is that, unlike archers, Shockamancers run dry.

EDIT: Or if you prefer this another way- why do we need combat troops again, if -that-'s what ONE shockamancer can do? You've got loads of uber strong, defense-ignoring, stunning, area effects. All the other folks can just pack their bags and go for a picnic. Or you know, act as meatshields coz' that's the only thing they're good for.

See the 'archer square' example above. Swap William out for a 2nd Level archer w/ Well-Armed, Mighty Blow x2 and Dance Fighting, and put 7 such 'middle square' archers in Tod's stack, each assisted by a stack of level 2s, and you're dishing out (2d6 + 13 Combat + 6 Mighty Blow + 4 Dance Fighting + 5 Leadership + 2 CW + 48 Coordinate + 48 Support damage) with each shot. Get a pair of paragon archer training instructor NPCs up to level 4 and you crank out 4 stacks of level 2 archers every 5 rounds, or level 3 archers every 15 rounds.

So, why do you need a shockamancer, other than to charge up your towers?

It never struck me before that Shockamancy needed buffing UP in this campaign. It's been plenty useful so far as is.

The main objections to this rewrite vanish with a few small tweaks: don't let areas overlap and increase the cost of 'Bam' to 1 AP. But if combats last longer than a few rounds (and it is my goal to start getting individual rounds out faster, but to increase the amount of things that happen in a single turn), shockamancers are spent while archers are Energizer Bunnies.

Now granted, shockamancers can add stun; the ability to both damage and negate the attack of a unit is huge. But the more they try to do, the quicker they run dry.

And Glob forbid they waste their massive attack on a foolamancy phantom... William, in the same situation, just shrugs and tries another target next round.

This is only the first draft, obviously - it's meant to spur discussion. Foolamancy is on it's 3rd draft now, after heated debate. I hope the debate on this is equally passionate, and that everyone feels free to have their say. I will, of course, be ignoring anything that ETheBoyce suggests, unless he suggests nerfs (or it REALLY ticks of BLAND).

[Nnelg]

That's not more flexibility, for one. It's still just damage and stunning.

Well, that's kinda the point. Shockmancy is like a sledgehammer: powerful at its job, (breaking stuff) but hard to use for anything else. The flexibility here doesn't mean turning that sledge into a swiss army knife, but rather giving you the choice between sideswipe, jab forwards, overhand blow, et cetera.


Oh, and also I might point out that the entirety of the spell tree can be learned by level 5 or so. Not necessarily a bad thing, just something to point out.

I think that "Ignores Defence" should definitely be a modifier as well, rather than a basic inclusion. Also, the stun effect needs a failure chance and/or a higher juice cost.

[0beron]

At the very least the Juice costs should round UP, just like is the case for Foolamancy...not sure why you started with rounding down.

[ETheBoyce]

Iiiiintersting though some questions/issue I notice off the bat:

Bam says it can be purchased multiple times, does each instance of Bam require an additional point of juice? Also is there a limit on the number of times Bam can be taken?

Can I still target Riders instead of Mounts with non-AOE Shockamancy?

How will Mount/Rider interact with nondamaging AOE stuns? For instance if I combine Kapow+Kablooie+Embiggen (Super Citrus Party) and a mounted unit was in the AOE would both the mount and rider be stunned?

The juice cost for ignoring targets leads me to believe you're going to try and get me to blast my allies <_<

Also, You seem to have chosen Zap twice for T. Coil, he has an extra .5 AP to spend!

[Exate]

We know that Shockamancy can be used to create traps, which will go off even in the absence of the Shockamancer or another caster manning them. I'd include support for that in the system if possible, as it adds a lot of utility and strategy to the class.

[BLANDCorporatio]

It never struck me before that Shockamancy needed buffing UP in this campaign. It's been plenty useful so far as is.

The main objections to this rewrite vanish with a few small tweaks: don't let areas overlap and increase the cost of 'Bam' to 1 AP.

That's a start, but there's more. I don't see why this update was done at all, really. The stated reason is "flexibility", since Shockamancy, supposedly, lacks it in comparison with other schools. However, Healomancy so far has been merely about Revitalize and Ward. Croakamancy has been merely about producing skeleton archers and infantry. Shockamancy has been about a reliable (ie defense ignoring) damage source and stun.

All schools so far were really employing two or so effects, from a given roster of spells which supply said effects in a small palette of areas and strengths. Are we to assume they're all in the same problem then?