|
Post by Mother Starlight on May 11, 2015 15:04:47 GMT
Using read magic on a scroll, or using a scroll, has the same effect of conferring magical knowledge of what the spell does as using read magic on a spellbook, and likewise does not expend the scroll. Magical knowledge of what read magic does does not confer the ability to know what all the kinds of magical writing are, but does let you six-second-intuit what would be the effect of using read magic on any kind of magical writing that you personally have encountered; the summon person caveat regarding what counts as "you" applies. Magical writing includes spellbooks, scrolls, arcane mark (read magic shows even an invisible arcane mark, lets you understand it if it contains/consists of meaningful words, and lets you know who cast it), and magical truth rainbows (read magic lets you understand the meaning and get the magical truth rainbow effect even if you somehow otherwise wouldn't, and provides a degree of independent confirmation that the magical truth effect is honest).
|
|
|
Post by Daniel H on May 11, 2015 19:33:56 GMT
Does it work on a summoning circle? The writing produces a magical effect, but there can be physically identical nonmagical writing (for example, a summoning circle which has already summoned).
|
|
|
Post by Mother Starlight on May 12, 2015 7:22:34 GMT
I'll say yes, and depleted circles too. You get the same information as sensing bindings, except that it doesn't matter whether there's actually a currently bound daeva, and similar sorts of information about the who-to-summon specification. You also know who the summoner is/was/would be; if that's undefined, then it's not enough of a valid circle for read magic to target it. Your call whether e.g. vertical circles are okay.
|
|
|
Post by Leaf on May 12, 2015 13:40:49 GMT
Because I'm a wee bit nuts, I have made a spreadsheet of the QDS catalogue. Does it look okay? I intend to add in spell descriptions when I have the time, but that sounds even harder than transcribing the lists.
|
|
|
Post by Daniel H on May 12, 2015 14:42:11 GMT
I can get the spell descriptions in there easily; I have my own spreadsheet I made which isn’t as nice as yours in most ways but does have that feature. I’ll make another post soon with that column once I’ve cleaned it up a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Leaf on May 12, 2015 14:45:14 GMT
Ooh, excellent.
|
|
|
Post by Daniel H on May 12, 2015 15:02:23 GMT
Here is the promised column, according to your spreadsheet’s current sort order:
causes room to be well-lit with no obvious source
as nethack, similar to d&d:mage armor
single language, single mode (e.g. written/spoken/signed), must have sample material cost material cost detect secret doors, traps, etc.; doesn't detect magically hidden things
one-way, telepathic, non-language-dependent
write spellbook mundane trained animal, e.g. dog or horse hostile
as nethack:sleep unlocks things
as nethack:jumping nethack: confuse monster
as nethack offer trade; cannot transport target; 6-second time limit
as nethack
similar to d&d: stinking cloud
as d&d: daylight -- harms things that are harmed by sunlight; also gives light as nethack random, very similar form, e.g. orcish dagger to elvish dagger, human to elf works like nethack:Elbereth as nethack:slow monster
as nethack:haste self as nethack; unlimited duration unless dispelled allows fast Craft check, doesn't waste materials on failure detect even magically hidden, but instant and undetailed select location on same dungeon level or within horizontal (along same grav.potential) line of sight; gain instant (non-continuing) info as though standing there and looking around
does not grant control
as nethack create nonmagical item, expend 2x value
material cost material cost 1-shot trap casts expended spell random, horizontal, not into wall, onto ground/floor, within dlvl or 100m radius
as minor planar ally, but 1-hour time limit as nethack material cost similar to d&d:disjunction or nethack:cancellation
random, broadly similar type, e.g. mace to bow, human to dragon multiple clustered targets statue produces nonmagical corpse unless made by flesh to stone
select location under same rules as scry
similar to Naruto summoning contract, but individual rather than species
random, cross-type, e.g. dragon to sword create even magical item, expend 2x value as time stop, but bring some allies into it with you similar to d&d:demiplane creation, material cost: 10,000gp per cubic meter, more for special effects
Apparently my two blank lines at the top didn’t work; put the first row of that next to light
|
|
|
Post by Daniel H on May 12, 2015 15:03:53 GMT
However, fire resistance seems to be in the wrong place on your spreadsheet: it takes 13 MP, not 12, unless I missed a change somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Leaf on May 12, 2015 15:09:00 GMT
I probably just made a typo. It's surprising I made so few, really.
|
|
|
Post by Daniel H on May 12, 2015 15:17:47 GMT
I made mine with LibreOffice’s paste text feature and a bit of cleanup, but that doesn’t cover things like whether or not the spell is permanent. I mostly did it to calculate how many Zorkmids Andrew would need to get to buy everything in their catalog. The answer: enough to stretch the definition of “inventory”. I hope Leaf has a way to move his bathtub.
|
|
|
Post by Leaf on May 12, 2015 15:19:20 GMT
Leaf has grav tech. Leaf can wear his bathtub as a backpack if he so chooses.
|
|
|
Post by Daniel H on May 12, 2015 19:08:37 GMT
So, I’ve been wondering about the company’s name.
Spellbooks can be made (with scribe magic), usually for about half the listed price. Is the “value” of the textbook for magical purposes like wish the price to make them with scribe magic, approximately the price to buy them here (for things which aren’t marked up), or what? Given the ubiquitous “adventurers sell for half” rules (I assume those aren’t just D&D), could you theoretically make money by scribing spellbooks? And, most importantly, if I were to go into any town in Dungeon and look for a magic shop, would their spellbooks actually be more expensive than the QDS ones?
And, for the other word: spells which are approximately the same can vary. You could invent a non-identical fireball. What sort of parameters could vary: temperature, speed, mana cost, damage, range, …? Are these spellbooks of any higher quality than others of the same name (like with a hotter, faster, lower mana, more damaging, or farther-range fireball?
I would have suspected this was at least a false advertising name, but I’ve been surprised before.
|
|
|
Post by Daniel H on May 12, 2015 19:20:48 GMT
Also, despite Dungeon not really being my world, I added some worldbuilding for it in-thread when I said that the spellbooks were destroyed using different methods. I can take that out if you want, but you seemed to be OK with it and I got the impression you were leaning in that direction anyway. Andrew, is not going to do experiments to determine how spellbooks get used up. If the textbook says that how they get used up is complicated, he’ll believe it and won’t try to think of simple rules. If it says it’s random each time, then it’s wrong but he’ll believe it. If it doesn’t mention this, then he might think he has simple rules but won’t be too surprised when they’re violated. I know that it’s complicated and not likely to be fully-specified, but will use the following three rules unless there’s a good reason not to. First, it cannot be especially useful: if you want to start a fire, you cannot do so by learning a spell and having the book burst into flames; if you are thirsty, you cannot learn a spell to make the book waterlogged and then wring it out. Second, it cannot be especially harmful: the book will not burn your fingers by bursting into flames, or trigger the drawback of the vase by becoming waterlogged. Third, it will be mischievous if possible: if you are trying to light a fire, but there’s a way for the book to burst into flames without catching anything else, it will preferentially do that.
|
|
|
Post by Mother Starlight on May 12, 2015 20:05:19 GMT
The book destruction is as I intended, yeah.
Most magic shops in Dungeon have slightly higher prices and a much narrower selection that's more reliably in stock.
Stock changes about weekly, which is how often the subscription updates go out.
The value for wish (which is doubled to find the cost for wish) is in most cases slightly higher than the listed prices, and in maybe 1/5 of cases slightly lower. For marked-up stuff it's naturally lower. You generally can't make money selling wished stuff (the exception is if you can somehow sell at an enormous markup, perhaps to a particularly desperate buyer), but you can totally make money selling scribe magiced spellbooks. Scribe magic takes more time than most adventurers want to spend, though.
All of the parameters you listed can vary, though the mana cost doesn't vary independently of the others. QDS's stock is usually sort of "off-brand"; this isn't likely to affect forum buyers, but Dungeon natives would likely find the details of the spells' behavior differs from the versions they're used to. Off-brand spells generally have both advantages and disadvantages, both relatively minor, in comparison to the standard versions, though due to status quo bias the disadvantages are likely to feel more salient to Dungeon casters. "Quality" is pure marketing fluff. (eta: one might argue that, by being of adequate quality, they're higher quality than other, even skeezier discount spellbook businesses.)
Your using-up guidelines are fine for things that are probably usually true, but occasionally it'll do something unexpected just because. The textbook doesn't specify, it just says they're "expended", "used up", "consumed".
|
|
|
Post by QUALITY DISCOUNT SPELLBOOKS on May 12, 2015 20:23:59 GMT
On further reflection, the boss is going to decide that anyone who can get their hands on that much gold is probably powerful enough to beat up a shopkeeper, so the special orders will go through without a problem.
eta: and I've been assuming that the totals youall mention with your orders are correct. If not, the minor planar ally will ask for the correct total regardless.
|
|