Articles: Frostgrave Magic School Review

[Calmdown]

Hi Everybody!

Two articles in my Frostgrave Magic School Review series, for your reading pleasure (or displeasure.... everyone's entitled to their opinion ):

Part 1: A general chat about magic schools - http://www.bad-karma.net/frostgrave-magic-school-review-part-1-preamble/

Part 2: Illusion School Review - http://www.bad-karma.net/frostgrave-magic-school-review-part-2-illusion/


Feel free to hit me up with any questions you may have!

Cheers

[affun]

I have been looking forward to this -Didn't dissapoint. A very nice read, as usual.

One thing, Re: the Summary, that occured to me, is that, since you rate Illusion as "weak" for alligned wizards due to the -2 casting modifier, that does place the illusionist Apprentice in a bad spot to begin with as well. He/she will of course improve along with the wizard, but in the beginning will have a hard time accomplishing pretty much anything. On the other hand, thats no different from the role most other apprentices fill in the beginning - A back-up caster.

A wizard build around Glow, taking improvements in Shoot with an apprentice with a crossbow, might not be a bad thing: At max level thats effectively another Marksman.

It's all speculation, of course, since I haven't even finished painting my warband, let alone actually played a game.
The article does show how cool the spellsystem of Frostgrave is, though: I definitely felt myself compelled to paint up an Illusionist at some point.  Transpose is a cool spell.

Edit: This guy would make a pretty cool illusionist-with-crossbow. Hmmmm.

[Calmdown]

I have been looking forward to this -Didn't dissapoint. A very nice read, as usual.

One thing, Re: the Summary, that occured to me, is that, since you rate Illusion as "weak" for alligned wizards due to the -2 casting modifier, that does place the illusionist Apprentice in a bad spot to begin with as well. He/she will of course improve along with the wizard, but in the beginning will have a hard time accomplishing pretty much anything. On the other hand, thats no different from the role must other apprentices fill in the beginning - A back-up caster.

You're right that this really does apply to all apprentices, but yes, it applies double to schools like Illusion who's spells are hard to cast to begin with. On the one hand, having two out of game spells makes the apprentice handy (and the percentages in that article for these spells do factor in the apprentice's -2) but on the other hand there is not a lot he is going to cast easily in-game. 8 cost spells like Bone Dart or Telekinesis are really where you want your apprentice to be looking for new warbands, but very few schools have spells like that so I don't think Illusionist is any worse.

I have a campaign day coming up on Saturday and I'll be playing Illusionist. I plan to have my apprentice mostly casting Glow or cutting himself for clutch Transposes

[Crazy88]

Great article and some really useful insights - I had pretty much written off Illusionary Soldier as useless!

Must admit that I have been wondering about the whole resistance mechanic, specifically what you noted in the Beauty breakdown. In 'mastering' a spell like Beauty (i.e. lowering its casting roll) you are potentially weakening the spell as it may become easier to resist. Seems counter intuitive.

I wonder if a house rule setting the original cast roll as a minimum resist value would make resistance spells too good? Probably should actually play the game before tinkering with it though huh?

Looking forward to more in this series!

[Magos Kasen]

Nice, all your articles are great reads Some interesting thoughts on one of my favourite schools.

[Calmdown]

Must admit that I have been wondering about the whole resistance mechanic, specifically what you noted in the Beauty breakdown. In 'mastering' a spell like Beauty (i.e. lowering its casting roll) you are potentially weakening the spell as it may become easier to resist. Seems counter intuitive.

Resistance spells are certainly "worse" in general, in theory, yeah. But there aren't really any resisted and unresisted spells that do the same thing to say "x is better than y" so in reality we have to use what we're given, and often that means taking the unresistable spell just so you dont have another roll that can fail it.

As far as lowering casts of resistable spells, you're definitely correct. However, I can certainly see levelling these spells up later on down the line. For example, if you already have all of the spells that you really want mastered - it can certainly be useful to cast your turn 1 Beauty even on a 5. Success is still better than failure even if the success is easy to resist, and if nothing else, it means that rolling low doesn't do damage or does less damage on a fail.

[Philhelm]

Isn't the Illusionist spell, Glow, a defensive rather than offensive ability?  The spell states that all shooting attacks against the figure are at +3.  The rules for shooting (pg. 40) state that "all modifiers to shooting are expressed as bonuses or penalties to the target’s Fight roll."  A positive modifier would actually make it more difficult for the archer to hit the target.  I was under the impression that it was a blinding light that made the target harder to hit.

[Calmdown]

Isn't the Illusionist spell, Glow, a defensive rather than offensive ability?  The spell states that all shooting attacks against the figure are at +3.  The rules for shooting (pg. 40) state that "all modifiers to shooting are expressed as bonuses or penalties to the target’s Fight roll."  A positive modifier would actually make it more difficult for the archer to hit the target.  I was under the impression that it was a blinding light that made the target harder to hit.

That is a valid point. I hadn't thought about that.

Whilst I am pretty sure that the line you quote is talking about the table that follows it in the book, and not every modifier to shooting in the game it is possible that the Glow is a "blinding light" rather than a "shoot me, I'm dayglo" style effect. It would make sense given Illusionist's propensity for defense, too.

However, I do think that the feel of the spell ("glow" style spells in RPGs traditionally make the target easier to see, remove invisibility, etc - and this game is very heavily RPG influenced) is that it's supposed to make them easier to spot. If it was supposed to be defensive, it feels like it would be called something stronger-sounding like "Dazzle" or similar. The wording throughout the book, especially in spells, is pretty inconsistent so I expect this is either just misworded or the spell wasn't intended to interact with the sentence that you quoted.

Worth checking on in the rules thread when Joe is back from holiday, definitely. Interested to hear other peoples' well-reasoned opinions on this, too.

[Darkson71]

That is a valid point. I hadn't thought about that.

This - hadn't even thought about the spell in that way, though I can now see that that could be the intention of the spell.  I agree that this needs to be clarified by Joe (enjoy the holiday! ).

[Philhelm]

Whilst I am pretty sure that the line you quote is talking about the table that follows it in the book, and not every modifier to shooting in the game it is possible that the Glow is a "blinding light" rather than a "shoot me, I'm dayglo" style effect. It would make sense given Illusionist's propensity for defense, too.

Funnily enough, when I first skimmed through the rules I thought that Glow had the "shoot me, I'm dayglo" effect, since I was used to bonuses and penalties being applied to the model that is firing the shot.  When I realized that shooting modifiers are instead added to the target's Fight roll, I went with the "blinding light" effect.  

(I really hope that my interpretation is correct since my Thaumaturge took that spell just for the defense bonus against ranged opponents...   )

However, I do think that the feel of the spell ("glow" style spells in RPGs traditionally make the target easier to see, remove invisibility, etc - and this game is very heavily RPG influenced) is that it's supposed to make them easier to spot. If it was supposed to be defensive, it feels like it would be called something stronger-sounding like "Dazzle" or similar. The wording throughout the book, especially in spells, is pretty inconsistent so I expect this is either just misworded or the spell wasn't intended to interact with the sentence that you quoted.

I agree with your view on the spell's name.  When I think, "glow," I think of a Glow Worm, or weak glow in the dark paint, rather than a dazzling light.  The spell description simply states that it's a "brightly glowing light," which is certainly open to interpretation.

My main issue is that the spell states that "all shooting attacks against this figure are at +3." If it is an "offensive" spell, it should probably be reworded to "all models receive a temporary +3 bonus to Shoot when making a shooting attack against the model."  Compare to:

STRENGTH
Enchanter / 10 / Line of Sight
The target receives +2 Fight for the rest of the game.

Worth checking on in the rules thread when Joe is back from holiday, definitely. Interested to hear other peoples' well-reasoned opinions on this, too.

Definitely, since I took the spell with an entirely different use in mind (frankly, I would rather have the defense against shooting).  At this point, I really don't know which interpretation is correct, although I'm starting to think that yours is correct, even if its RAW wording is a bit shaky.  It all hinges on whether "shooting attack" is a +3 bonus to the firing models Shoot stat, or whether it is a modifier to shooting that is added to the target's Fight stat.

[Darkson71]

Don't forget to ask the "Monstrous Form" question. 

[Calmdown]

I figured I'd save both for when Joe is back rather than letting them get buried in the sea of silliness that is the rules thread

[Philhelm]

I won't hijack the thread with the Glow question, so moving right along...

I agree with your assessment about obtaining the between game spells.  If the game will only last several turns to begin with, it seems that it would be best to have a few bread and butter spells that receive reduced casting values through experience gains, along with some supporting utility spells that might be needed to deal with different situations (things like, Teleport, Dispel, etc.).  Other than that, there seems to be no reason not to obtain most/all of the between game spells, even if the casting value isn't all that great.

I did, however, take a slightly different route with my favorite wizard, the Thaumaturge.  I ended up choosing Heal, Shield, and Restore Life.  Heal is a no-brainer, since it's almost always useful except for perhaps the first turn, and has the lowest casting value.  I spent most of my time casting Shield, and liked that I could buff my soldiers' defense and allow the wizard and apprentice to raise their armor value since they can't normally do so unless equipped with the Ring/Cloak of Protection.  With Shield activated, and equipped with the Ring and Cloak of Protection, the wizard and apprentice can benefit from an armor value of 14.  Not bad.

Regarding Restore Life, with so many options to choose from during level gains I thought that I would take the spell to start so that I could start improving its casting value early on.  It also allowed me to get immediate potential value for taking the Temple as my base (for thematic reasons, of course).  I'm not so sure that the spell is all that great to begin with, especially with a casting value of 20, since it can't be used to save the wizard.  It is more of an indirect way to save money by not needing to replace the apprentice and soldiers.  It would be more useful if apprentices leveled independently from wizards or if soldiers leveled at all.  Still, it would be a poor "cleric" that can't revive the dead, so I'm compelled to take it.  My next spell will be Dispel, of course.

[Commander Roj]

I have been looking forward to this -Didn't dissapoint. A very nice read, as usual.

One thing, Re: the Summary, that occured to me, is that, since you rate Illusion as "weak" for alligned wizards due to the -2 casting modifier, that does place the illusionist Apprentice in a bad spot to begin with as well. He/she will of course improve along with the wizard, but in the beginning will have a hard time accomplishing pretty much anything. On the other hand, thats no different from the role most other apprentices fill in the beginning - A back-up caster.

A wizard build around Glow, taking improvements in Shoot with an apprentice with a crossbow, might not be a bad thing: At max level thats effectively another

It's all speculation, of course, since I haven't even finished painting my warband, let alone actually played a game.
The article does show how cool the spellsystem of Frostgrave is, though: I definitely felt myself compelled to paint up an Illusionist at some point.   Transpose is a cool spell.

Edit: This guy would make a pretty cool illusionist-with-crossbow. Hmmmm.

No, that guy is definitely a chronomancer with a moustache that is pure Battle of Britain vintage British fighter pilot! But he also seems to have a WW1 German Ace monocle. A bit confused by the early twentieth century them, this wizard.