>But E=MC^2!

Not a question. Yes, according to current scientific theory, matter and energy are the same thing. This either makes the whole setting make more sense or less sense, and no we won't be getting into it. Think about the shaping being as much metaphor as much as a science. All in all, it's just too high of a concept to be buggered with, at least this early on.

>A Mage couldn't do an ice spell right? It would have to be an alchemist who summons water. and then the mage would use their power to suck out the heat energy?

Technically, the Alchemist doesn’t “summon” the water, just yanks the water out of something, but other than that yes. This is also one of many reasons some people choose the middle road over strict Alchemy of Magic.

>D&D says Alchemy is a type of magic.

Yes, but this isn't D&D. We're actually thinking of slightly different definitions of Alchemy and Magic.

>Can you use magic to fly?

Yes, but not with a simple flight spell. The most effective method would be creating and tethering yourself to a force field. So it's not so much 'flying' as 'air-born windsurfing an invisible kite'. Since such magic is highly impractical (if completely awesome) and extremely dangerous, there aren't many aeromancers. At least not ones who live long.

>Aeromancers?

Yeah, this wasn't something covered in the last thread, but the idea is that each path you can only advance so far in before having to specialize in a more specific field. Like with the whole Alchemy/Magic thing, you can sacrifice potency for diversity. Neither is better or worse than the other, it's just a personal choice. This will be elaborated on later in the thread, along with another new idea I'm thinking about introducing.

>Which is better in a fight?

Not really a question posed, so much as a low-key flame-war. It's tempting to say that Magic would, but the truth is magic isn't really better or worse, but it is a bit more strait forward. While a mage can just smite with someone with a lightning bolt, the combat utilities of alchemy are a bit more subtle. A master alchemist, for example, could turn his opponent's blood into acid. Or shoot the other guy. With a gun. Because no sane Shaper (people who've learned to control and shape the Power) would stake their life entirely on their power.

So short answer, mage combat is more strait forward, but an Alchemist can and will constantly alter the face of the battlefield to get an edge. And all alchemists and mages can do both to some degree.

>Dr. Baron von Evilsatan had an AWESOME idea.

Indeed he did, but his was based off a flawed understanding of how it worked.

Not that his ideas weren't awesome and have potential, because they most certainly did.

But it was written under the assumptions that:

a) Alchemists and Mages are completely different things instead of two halfs of the same coin and

b) A power level and scope MUCH bigger than the things that would be happening here. Scale wise it's closer to Shadowrun than D&D.

That said, we've both contributed to projects in /tg/'s past, and in terms of content creation I rank him somewhere in my top five ever.

So I hope there's no hard feeling when I say that the ideas he contributed aren't very useful, at least not as written.

I'll be spending the thread answering questions and responding to comments. When and if it starts to slow down, I'll start posting more content and expanding.

I welcome all criticism, even if my fragile ego has a hard time with it. But please keep in mind that this IS a new idea that i just started actually working on yesterday.

And no responses.

At all.

After the kinda awesome thread yesterday.

Reading ya loud and clear /tg/, I'm going to throw myself of a bridge.

>>13435446
Reading the archived thread, OP. Let me finish, then throw yourself off.

>>13435489

Thanks?

I'm honestly not sure you like it, or want me to die.

>>13435489
Ditto this guy, I was just reading the archived thread. Seems like a pretty sweet idea, has a lot of potential.

Unfortunately, all I really have to offer is encouragement; it seems like you have a pretty solid handle on the fluff, and I don't have enough experience with PnP games to help with the crunch.

But yeah, go for it! I'd love to see this added to the annals of "shit that got done".

>>13435553

What you have thus far read is 99% of what is done.

There really isn't any more past the whole aspects/traits thing i was going to put up next.

Also, this is sort of where crunch and fluff meet. I'm not sure what the actual name is, but my friend Dave calls in nougat.

This is an awesome concept, OP.

Is there anything that magic can't do, or is otherwise incapable of doing?

Cool idea, OP (and personally, I like the name). Would it be possible for an alchemist to delay a magical effect with alchemy? Say, create a fireball then seal it into a shield for the ultimate 'fuck off' defense?

>>13435656

There are very real limitations. For instance, magic can't reach over the veil between life and death. Magic can't do things like summon things, and something like a magic gate leading from one place to another is extremely difficult, only very important people use it to cover MASSIVE distance. Anything less than a three day horse-ride isn't even considered.

Magic can only do what the sigils shape it to do. It's a fairly simple matter to cast something like a bolt of force. it's much harder to do something like a pillar of flame, and impossible to do something like grow wings and fly.

>>13435707

No, actually. it doesn't work like that. you would need to be channeling enough power to HAVE the fireball ready to blow AND enough for the shield. You can't trap the Power, only channel it. So no magic batteries, no magic land-mines, etc.

The sigils and bindings Shape the Power to a specific purpose when it's being used. The rune-work itself is nothing, without the Power to flow into it. And the Power itself is nothing, unless shaped by runes.

>>13435737
>>13435786

Forgot to turn my name back on after posting elsewhere.

>Arts and Crafts

>>13435796

Hello troll guy.

I almost missed you.

Though mostly just hate still.

Since you keep posting without a sage, it bumps the thread for more to see, so thanks for the unintentional contribution.

>>13435828
>Arts and Crafts

So I saw in the archived thread that you were leaning towards magic being a fairly customizable system using keywords, right? But what about alchemy? Would that also be done more or less the same way (in terms of game mechanics), or would it be different?

>>13435890

Yeah, the whole thing is based off modifiers. In order to change something with Alchemy, you have to shape and direct the power like you do with magic.

main difference is that Alchemy uses binding runes and circles to contain it, while magic is more about pointing a magic effect and letting fly.

>>13435890
>>13435951
samefag?

>>13435966

Nope. I'm only posting to respond to other people right now while I'm working on the post explaining aspects and traits.

>>13435951
So how exactly would that work mechanically?
It's easy to think of it for magic -- for instance, to take the classic fireball, you'd have something for "fire", "distance", and "explode". But what about if, say, you wanted to shape an iron bar into a sword using alchemy?

>>13436338
Long + Sharp + Dull? Long, sharp blade; dull handle? I think it'd probably be more like 'I want to use these things to do this effect' and then it's Yea or Nay from the DM.

>>13435786
>>13435951
So, OP, would it be feasible for high-tier mages and alchemists to use each other's art/craft to fuel their own in some awesome sort of magic tennis?

>>13436693
>So, OP, would it be feasible for high-tier mages and alchemists to use each other's art/craft to fuel their own in some awesome sort of magic tennis?
He did mention combining magic and alchemy to make something like a wall of ice (alchemy acquires and shapes the water, magic freezes it), if that's the sort of thing you mean.

>>13436338

You would be using modifiers for ether exact shape and size if you're taking a chunk out of a larger hole.

You could also make it so X% of the base went into a certain thing, so you could make a sword the size of Cloud's (FF7) or the size of a toothpick depending on how much material was used at the start.

There's a reason Alchemy is called 'The Craft' while Magic is 'The Art'. Magic's a lot more intuitive, you can make a fire spell bigger just by putting more power into it.

Alchemy looks more like some arcane calculus for the most part.

To put it into D&D terms, Magic is more WIS based, while Alchemy is more INT.

>>13436693

Yeah, multiple Alchemists and mages working together can do some amazing stuff.

Only problem is that the bigger and more intricate the works, the more co-ordination and power it takes.

In theory there's no upper limit, in practice it's pretty much impossible to get more than 2-3 people together. The highest ever was ten, five masters each of the Art and Craft. They sundered a continent, and nobody knows if that's even what they MEANT to do.

It's sort of an exponential thing. The reason the people who walk the middle road can keep up with either side's masters is because the potential when they're wielded together is so much greater.

So yeah, teamwork is HARD but very much worth the risk when pulled off. And it IS a risk.

>>13436884

That's a very low level example of how combining the two allows for otherwise impossible things to happen.

Don't you just LOVE blackouts?

Anyway, at friends house, have internet, typing away. Earlier I mentioned traits and aspects. There's also a source, which is where the 'spark' that sets the players apart come from. Thread seems to have died since I left, but I promised this, so it's time for me to explain those.

Like I said earlier, the Alchemists/Mages are not the only people in the world. they're maybe 10% of the population. Then there are the other two sources. Players in a game would be one of three things: Someone who wields the Power, someone who hears the Rhythm, or someone with Passion (Passion is a placeholder name that doesn’t really fit). They make up total between 20-35% of the world's population.

To clarify, all the PCs are 'special'. So are a fair number of other people, so the PC's are awesome, but not unheard of.

>>13440032

Power: Already explained.

Rhythm: Imagine the world has a pulse, a steady beat. And everyone and everything sings a different note, a different song. Total chaos, and yet strangely harmonic. the people who hear/feel the Rhythm can understand and perceive this, which is something most people cannot do.

It's not as flashy or as powerful as the Passion or the Power, but extremely useful and powerful in it's own way. Imagine knowing just from being near them if somebody was happy or sad. Or by walking into a building and you know which guards are lazy and which are attentive. Being able to dance along to the world's rhythm or disrupt it with a well placed.... something. It allows the person who can hear it to become hyper-perceptive to the border of precognitive.

I don't think I’m explaining it well, and the idea is really only half-formed at this point.

Passion (I hate that and need to change the name.): You know how there's some people who seem to survive on pure force of personality? They sort of seem to exist and life sort of lines up to them? Always seem to make the million to one shot?

These people have Passion (and now you see why it doesn’t fit). It's something like a cross between being destined and being really lucky. Faith and will have a power of their own. People with Passion have considerably more, and therefore have a much larger impact. As long as they have something to focus on, they can bend fate and change the rules to make their goal reachable.

A recent and popular example would be something like Scott Pilgrim. Notice the drastic changes in competency and personality when Getting The Girl was on the line? Passion. Switch flips from goofy moron total badass when he had a goal to focus on, and a simple obstacle between him and it (like one of the evil ex-es).

(And I know that some people on /tg/ hate Scott Pilgrim, but it made such a perfect example of the concept.)

>>13440051

Aspects are things like an Archetype that can grant new powers. Aspects can change, but it takes something big to get one or change one. It's also (mostly) not limited to certain 'sparks', but can be expressed in different ways depending on your spark.

For instance: The Bard.

A Bard with the power can use music instead of runes in some cases, for some of the smaller, quicker things. Also much more efficient, if much more limited, than rune-casting. A Bard could do something like call up a force field, or do something like 'shift' the environment instead of changing it (like turning a bit of dirt into a ramp for an extra boost for a jump).

A Bard with the Rhythm would be able to feel and see the people around him, connecting with his audience like nobody else could. The more creative of you can already see the ways in which this could be used and abused.

A Bard with Passion would work the exact opposite way. Remember how Elvis was so fucking amazing he was a game changer? Bard with Passion. the fate-bending, reality defying powers of passion, with a crowd of fans amplifying the effect.

>>13440057

Traits are much the same, but smaller. these things can come and go much easier than an Aspect.

Traits could be things like Booksmart/Streetsmart. Or things like being a ladies man.

You could see the charming, schmoozing type not being the most intimidating of fellows. Someone who's Strong Like An Ox would be big and tough, but maybe not all that bright.

Hopefully /tg/ will like these, and have questions and comments. I have a much easier time explaining if someone asks me a specific question instead of just putting it out there.