WakaDM
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue 21 Sep 2021, 16:30

Re: Corruption for Mystics

Tue 21 Sep 2021, 18:10

My thoughts on this is that this really catches the feeling that high level magic is dangerous. It should also be mentioned that just because you have enough temporary Corruption to force you to roll for a mark of Corruption, this doesn't stop you from casting more spells. In a way you have unlimited spell slots of every level, but are you prepared to pay the price for it? Getting permanent Corruption is on average a slow accumulation over several game sessions.

Does this mean that martial classes are better than caster classes at levels 17+? Perhaps, but looking around different forums and subreddits is seems like the general consensus is that the caster classes vastly outperform the martial classes in standard D&D 5e at higher levels, so perhaps this would end up being more balanced, even though with some imbalances still.
I agree that the setting should imprint this on the players, which is why I said I do not advocate for a 1:1 conversion of the original 5e usage. The inherent problem here for me isn't limitations compared to the original, I just feel like the limitations go too far and are uneven between approaches to the point where some are borderline unviable by comparison if you want to have at least a few options beyond just cantrips over the course of a in-game day of play. Having no spell slots is a good idea for the conversion, but overly limiting the core functionality (and the core identity of play) for some classes and even having it be quite different within the same class based on approaches is to me taking the danger-aspect a bit too far. As much as a Dark Fantasy world should come with its risks, end of the day I assume most people play to enjoy themselves, feel useful and in that have fun.

Yes, it's hard to get a good overview of this without detailed play testing. The casters do get a Corruption threshold that is much higher than the martial classes. And learning rituals gives you permanent Corruption when you learn them, but no temporary Corruption when you use them. It's hard to evaluate the exact game balance with all these different interactions.
Totally agree with you here, this is a real corker of a thing to try and hash out just purely through theoreticals. The problem is though from even these 'what ifs-' and theoretical frameworks the threshold doesn't take away from the double usage of corruption where one hampers the other and vice versa. I think the idea of a one time cost for unfettered use is an interesting idea, but ritualistic use is still something that carries a high tax (it is permanent instead of temporary and as such it cannot be shed as easily or at least clawed back a bit) and it effectively reduces your pool "permanently" making the free cast a smaller comfort than it might first seem.

I am not saying that this is an easy issue for the lovely people in charge of making all this work to solve, but I do worry about these things in particular and as such I rather voice my concerns than grumble in silence and shrug at my players. :)
 
WakaDM
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue 21 Sep 2021, 16:30

Re: Corruption for Mystics

Tue 21 Sep 2021, 18:13

My initial concern with this is that you have to be very careful so the game does not end up with rules that in the end make the risk of Corruption negligible. Magic should feel dangerous when you use it in Symbaroum, and it's a difficult thing to balance so that magic doesn't feel boring, but at the same time doesn't feel like it's without any risks for your character.
Definitely agree with you, balancing risk and fun is a really difficult and thankless project, I just hope it doesn't trap casters for the vast majority of their leveling experience feel like they can only cast low level cantrips and have to save their range and 'punch' for a perfect moment while other classes are free to utilize their entire kit to the utmost.

Sorry saw you write this while I was writing my other reply, glad to get replies rapid fire! :D
 
Ugglefar
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu 04 Aug 2016, 21:17
Location: Sweden/USA

Re: Corruption for Mystics

Tue 21 Sep 2021, 18:21

Totally agree with you here, this is a real corker of a thing to try and hash out just purely through theoreticals. The problem is though from even these 'what ifs-' and theoretical frameworks the threshold doesn't take away from the double usage of corruption where one hampers the other and vice versa. I think the idea of a one time cost for unfettered use is an interesting idea, but ritualistic use is still something that carries a high tax (it is permanent instead of temporary and as such it cannot be shed as easily or at least clawed back a bit) and it effectively reduces your pool "permanently" making the free cast a smaller comfort than it might first seem.

I am not saying that this is an easy issue for the lovely people in charge of making all this work to solve, but I do worry about these things in particular and as such I rather voice my concerns than grumble in silence and shrug at my players. :)

I am concerned over the permanent Corruption cost for taking rituals. I haven't play tested it in detail, but initially for me is seems better to not learn rituals as a caster. If it gave you no permanent Corruption that would be a different thing, or giving you permanent Corruption but to a lesser degree than as the rules are written now.
 
Ugglefar
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu 04 Aug 2016, 21:17
Location: Sweden/USA

Re: Corruption for Mystics

Tue 21 Sep 2021, 18:26

I agree that the setting should imprint this on the players, which is why I said I do not advocate for a 1:1 conversion of the original 5e usage. The inherent problem here for me isn't limitations compared to the original, I just feel like the limitations go too far and are uneven between approaches to the point where some are borderline unviable by comparison if you want to have at least a few options beyond just cantrips over the course of a in-game day of play. Having no spell slots is a good idea for the conversion, but overly limiting the core functionality (and the core identity of play) for some classes and even having it be quite different within the same class based on approaches is to me taking the danger-aspect a bit too far. As much as a Dark Fantasy world should come with its risks, end of the day I assume most people play to enjoy themselves, feel useful and in that have fun.

Yes, it is a difficult balance between lore and setting, and making all the approaches equally fun to play.

I am not saying that this is an easy issue for the lovely people in charge of making all this work to solve, but I do worry about these things in particular and as such I rather voice my concerns than grumble in silence and shrug at my players. :)

Oh no for sure; I have myself voiced quite a lot of opinions concerning the alpha. The more different angles of criticism the better I think.
 
toturi500
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2022, 19:28

Re: Corruption for Mystics

Fri 04 Mar 2022, 19:36

I have a likely stupid question, but here goes.

The Corruption Threshold calculation on page 37 of the Players Guide is (Proficiency Bonus x 2) + Charisma Modifier, but the Mystic Corruption Threshold calculation on page 109 of the Player's Guide is (Proficiency Bonus + Spellcasting Ability Modifier) x 2. Is that a typo or is the Mystic supposed to have a higher Corruption Threshold on average?
 
n4tune8
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu 22 Apr 2021, 22:11
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: Corruption for Mystics

Sat 05 Mar 2022, 01:06

I have a likely stupid question, but here goes.

The Corruption Threshold calculation on page 37 of the Players Guide is (Proficiency Bonus x 2) + Charisma Modifier, but the Mystic Corruption Threshold calculation on page 109 of the Player's Guide is (Proficiency Bonus + Spellcasting Ability Modifier) x 2. Is that a typo or is the Mystic supposed to have a higher Corruption Threshold on average?
"It's not a bug, it's a feature"!"
Seriously, it's not a typo, this is how it was designed.
 
toturi500
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2022, 19:28

Re: Corruption for Mystics

Sat 05 Mar 2022, 03:03

I have a likely stupid question, but here goes.

The Corruption Threshold calculation on page 37 of the Players Guide is (Proficiency Bonus x 2) + Charisma Modifier, but the Mystic Corruption Threshold calculation on page 109 of the Player's Guide is (Proficiency Bonus + Spellcasting Ability Modifier) x 2. Is that a typo or is the Mystic supposed to have a higher Corruption Threshold on average?
"It's not a bug, it's a feature"!"
Seriously, it's not a typo, this is how it was designed.
Sweet; thanks for clearing that up for me!
 
Scott McFarland
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun 23 Jul 2017, 01:58

Re: Corruption for Mystics

Sun 24 Apr 2022, 17:05


In OG you always had the option between surrendering xp or taking permanent corruption and there was a reason my players always chose the former over the latter, it just comes off as punishing some classes instead of feeling like "oh cool I finally got a really neat item"!
This. Could one of the designers go through the rationale for removing this option?
 
User avatar
Jacob Rodgers
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue 16 Jun 2020, 16:41
Location: Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Corruption for Mystics

Sun 24 Apr 2022, 22:47


In OG you always had the option between surrendering xp or taking permanent corruption and there was a reason my players always chose the former over the latter, it just comes off as punishing some classes instead of feeling like "oh cool I finally got a really neat item"!
This. Could one of the designers go through the rationale for removing this option?
5e doesn't really do the 'drain XP' or 'drain levels' thing so that doesn't exist in Ruins of Symbaroum. It's also trickier to scale... in 5e, losing 50 or 100 XP at level 1 or 2 hurts, but at level 10 it is nothing.
 
Raldanash
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue 19 Feb 2019, 20:08

Re: Corruption for Mystics

Sun 01 May 2022, 23:21

Sorry if this is an obvious question - I was reading up on the corruption rules and can read the text two ways.
When you cross your threshold, you roll for the corruption check and if it fails, for the mark of corruption.
Either
- Reading this as "as you cross the threshold", you would then not have to roll again.
- or as "whenever" you gain corruption above your threshold, you have to do the check and potentially gain a mark.

The second one seems to make more sense to me (and is more punishing) - Did I read this right?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests