Magic in the IK

[Rapier]

Magic in the Iron Kingdoms, is presented as a myriad of different types. Broadly speaking we have magic from the gift of Thamar, for humanity this covers all arcane magic, and divine magic directly from the gods.
At the very least, I hope the human magic is split along these. We know that Fury and Focus will receive distinct rules, and a third category has been created called Will Weaver. In the fluff of the Iron Kingdoms, as presented in D&D, wizardry and sorcery follow different rules, it will be interesting to see if this distinction is correct, or if it was part of a D&D holdover.
Divine magic predates arcane magic in humanity and I feel there should be differences between these two types of magic
that is reflected in rules as well as fluff.

In the D&D version both wizardry and sorcery are suitable for most applications, ranging from necromancy to divination and evocation (fireballs and the like), Alexia is a good example of a sorceress developing necromancy whereas Cryx necromancers represents the scholarly pursuit of the same art.

We know that gun mages will be a separate career from sorcerer, presumably wizard will also be separate. I hope that selecting a career will modify the options available to how magic works. I?m afraid that magic in the role playing game will be simplified to the way it works in the wargame, all magic which is not Fury or Focus, is represented by the same set of rules rolling two dice and trying to role under a target number.

I would like to see tweaks arising from different magical backgrounds, so that all wizards can perform rituals, which are not available to sorcerers or divine casters, these rituals will be modified from training such that the Fraternal Order and Grey Lords performed subtly differently. This will be the equivalent of adding in the paths from no quarter articles.

The Druids of the Circle and divine casters should probably receive greater modification to reflect the differences in divine magic, I did not like the way this magic worked in D&D preparing divine magic in advance never felt miraculous. I hope that this will be changed, even though it works exactly as arcane magic in the wargame. I?m looking forward to working out how Druid magic will be represented, whether they manipulate arcane or divine energy.
I also hope to learn more about non-human magic, such as the difference between Trolkin sorcerers and whether Grim Angus is in fact a gun mage, I would like to know if Grissel is just a fell caller/warlock and I would like to know if all trolkin warlocks are also sorcerers of some kind.

Finally I hope that Skorne magic is presented with greater differentiation from human magic them was the case in the last edition. I like the fact that Paingivers and Mortiheurges can power their spells through suffering pain and inflicting it. I?m not sure to what extent they have magical energies outside of this sphere.

While there are many more examples (Infernals, Dragons) the real purpose of this is to highlight the many different kinds of magic and hope to get some answers to show this area of the game has been given sufficient differences to make it interesting to play the different magic users as interestingly as the difference between warcasters and warlocks.

[StJason]

Firstly, I agree. One of the cool things that kinda outgrew from the D&D 3.x versions is this idea that magic is kind of like music. You can have some kid in their basement experimenting and 'feeling' their way through it, or a systematic, scholarly study. Both end up making 'pretty noise'.
I also like the comparison, in that there are many, many types of music, and therefore, there should be many, many types of magic. Orchestral pieces, work-chants, rock riffs, Tibetan throat-singing... and there should be technical wizardry (formulaic, rote, safe, robust), more improvised sorcery (wild, dangerous, unpredictable, powerful), divine (questionable if even cast by the caster, or channeled from the gods themselves), even Fury stuff (which I feel is related to the whole Paingiving/Mortitheurge stuff... pain and rage....). As a system, it makes it easy to drop new stuff into the game. Mortitheurge? New career. Done.

[Weaselcreature]

Some of those variations can be made by the player/GM giving a description of how his/her magic works, or what it looks/sounds like the character is doing when casting. You could have one character doing divine throat singing, and another doing academic rock-riffs; they may use the same in-game mechanic ("Make a will-weaver roll, target 15..."), but come across as completely different castings.

[Aníron]

I also hope to learn more about non-human magic, such as the difference between Trolkin sorcerers and whether Grim Angus is in fact a gun mage, I would like to know if Grissel is just a fell caller/warlock and I would like to know if all trolkin warlocks are also sorcerers of some kind.

Not all trollkin warlocks are sorcerers. Some are Dhunian Shamans or Fell Callers, see below:

Fell callers are another unusual case. Fell callers are neither shamans nor sorcerers. Their power is more similar to sorcery but does not require albinism. So it's more accurate to say that all warlocks so far are shamans (Borka, Doomshaper, Calandra, Gunnbjorn), sorcerers (Grim Angus, Madrak), or fell callers (Grissel). Note that the shamanistic power does not always require one to be acting in the societal role of a shaman, as Gunnbjorn demonstrates. He has the requisite spirituality and connection with the full-blood trolls, but does not serve the kriels as a shaman in the same way as several of the others. Even those who identify themselves as shamans all demonstrate the wide range of interpretation of the faith and that role, as clearly Borka is quite a different sort of shaman than Calandra, and the same could be said of Doomshaper. All of these characters draw on Dhunia as well as their connection to the full-blood trolls for their spells.

As for trollkin eyes, that would be a matter for our artists to answer, but in looking through the illustrations in the Forces of HORDES: Trollbloods book, it is fair to draw the conclusion that clearly visible irises and pupils are a rare and likely recessive trait among the trollkin. Grissel seems to be the only major character with clearly visible irises in the art. Far more pupils can be seen on the studio miniatures and I believe this was a choice by the painter(s) of those miniatures who felt the models looked unfinished or lacking in character without pupils. This is not a mistake but an individual artistic choice. Sometimes what looks best in an illustration is not what looks best on a painted miniature. There will always be some variation when different people present material in the setting, whether in narratives by different writers, illustrations by different artists, or painted miniatures.

[Sosthenes]

The problem with actually having distinct magic systems outside of the pure fluff part is that it complicates the rules a lot. If you see a system with lots of truly different approaches to magic, it's quite often the outgrowth of the houses rules of a group, i.e. the first (and often only) published book of the authors. Very few professional games try to over-extend them this way. The two exceptions would be somewhat generic systems that present a few different magical methods and let you pick those you actually need for your world, and D&D 3E/Rifts-ish "let's sell another novelty crunch book".

Given that, and looking at prior art (the PP approach to D20, Warmahordes), I would be really surprised if we get truly separate casting traditions. My bet is on pre-fabricated spells, where each one is only available to a subset of all the magical careers, plus some small variations in how magical energy is spent and recovered (e.g. willwonka/focuspocus).

I do guess the ancient race of the druids will get a few unique bennies, too, considering the whole wilding stuff and the siphoning off the Devourer background, so you'll get your equivalent to the sorcerer/wizard split. Still, that's perfectly doable with just some unique spells, so I don't expect a lot of mechanical distinctness.

Still, just because there aren't that many different kinds of magical objects doesn't mean that you can't do a lot within a limited set. Assuming that it's mostly about available spells, it's going to be a big issue where you draw the lines. Healing being a divine monopoly is probably in there, but after that, all bets are open. The whole support/destruction split between priests and mages was broken down already in 3E, and I don't see any of it in Warmachine. And who knows what's the big deal between sorcerers and wizards? The fluff doesn't indicated anything at all there…

I wouldn't expect too many rituals, though. Casting times beyond a combat turn aren't hip right now.

[Blackraine]

Yeah, I'm in favor of simple rules and GM Guidance on how to make them sound thematically different. Shadowrun is a good example... there are so many different sub-systems to shadowrun. There's a system for Hacking and a system for Astral Projecting. Rules-wise, those two systems could be identical... they're obviously different thematically, but they have the same *sets* of rules (both make the player more or less immobile as he concentrates on his "other self", both result in an entirely seperate initiative tracker from normal combat, both have their own sets of actions that you can do and those that you can't, etc). However, they have two seperate systems in Shadowrun, which means a GM can be running up to three seperate combats with three seperate rulesets AT THE SAME TIME. Which is ridiculous. As a GM, I'd rather the game abstract the mechanics down to where they're mechanically the same, then tell us narratively how they differ.

[DragnTyr]

I believe that their magic systems are going to be exactly like Warmachine and Hords as the two type or way of casting it with possibly a third Hybrid. Then what is going to make a difference is going to be the Book Fluff and the magical item tech. I think that is really it... but we will not really know until the books come out.

[Rapier]

Some of those variations can be made by the player/GM giving a description of how his/her magic works, or what it looks/sounds like the character is doing when casting. You could have one character doing divine throat singing, and another doing academic rock-riffs; they may use the same in-game mechanic ("Make a will-weaver roll, target 15..."), but come across as completely different castings.

Yes - but no.

Yes they could indeed do this. Have one simple set of rules and have the fluff description around it be different to add the "flavour". However many systems offer this (Savage Worlds, BRP) and I don’t feel any of them actually work; Savage Worlds just leads to very samey characters in my experience because the extent of mechanical differentiation between different fighters or different spell casters is too slim. I’ve played it a lot but the system just has a limit on variation.

So this is exactly the thing I’m saying I hope they don’t do. This is exactly how it’s done in Warmachine/Hordes and I want more detail than this in the Iron Kingdoms Role Playing Game. I really don’t want to be playing and wishing I still had the different casting classes from D&D (In most other ways the new rules sound like a huge improvement for this setting).

I feel that mechanical separation is important to truly get across significantly different things. As an example Anima contains 4 magic sub-systems (Magic, Ki, Summoning, Divine), they each have effects only they can do; they have overlap where the same effect can be created in a different way – but the rules are functionally different and that makes the characters not just be described differently but actually play differently.

The experience of playing these 4 types of character is far greater than playing Savage Worlds (Wizard, Mystic, Priest, Weird Science) – in fact in my experience adding new magic systems is the main way Savage Settings try to differentiate themselves. (Hellfrost, Deadlands, Savage Skies, Savage Kane – all add new magic).

I don’t know Shadowrun so I won’t comment on that example except that – entirely different combats with different initiative trackers is more differentiation than I was looking for.
Sosthenes; you essentially list the pragmatic approach that I’m worried PP will have taken. Yes the recent trend has been for unified and simplified systems. My only real hope is that given that we know Fury and Focus and (Will Weaving) will be different – there is hope.

I guess what I’m really saying is, I want Haley (Sorcereress/Warcaster) and Feora (Temple Priestess/Warcaster) to differ. I want different spell lists, I want tweaks to the spell systems. It doesn’t have to be entirely different – the difference between Divine casting and Wizardy in D&D is essentially only casting stat, spell list, specialisations (Domains vs Schools).

The difference between Wizardry and Sorcery in D&D is only casting stat and a few rules (Number of spells per day, breadth of spell knowledge). Still they play differently, these three things which are essentially similar – if you know the rules of Cleric/Wizard/Sorcerer the carry over is very simple – but the experience mechanically is different.

Now I’m expecting spells per day to be taken out the equation – it never fit the IK setting; certainly doesn’t fit Warmachine and Hordes. I’m certain that Focus and Fury will be replenishing (focus per round/hour or something like that – fury from beasts riling). Will weavers apparently use fatigue which sounds fairly replenishing too. I can’t remember or check NQ 42 right now – but if I recall the implication was that Will weavers could blow all their fatigue faster and then took longer to recover (that was my conjecture at the time).

So what I’m saying is – if this Will Weaver category has to fit Wizards, Fell Callers, Sorcerers, Priests, Gun Mages, Druids – then it needs to at least modable. I want different spell lists definitely – but I want more than that; I want different rates of replenishing fatigue – different requirements (Gun Mages need a gun for example – not just fluff and offset by other advantages like being able to see down the barrel like they could in the old IK).

I want Iosian magic to work more scientific – they manipulate force fields and describe their arcane energy like magnets; they use magic on a daily basis for a lot of trivial stuff. I want more fatigue or less fatigue for different casting careers – access to different things (rituals specifically made me think of the Druids and Infernalists/Thamarites, they’re always described as doing stuff that takes more time - I think rituals should be in there - but not necessarily in combat ones - though really I think Infernalists should be all about rituals with the penalty to casting times implied).

I’m not saying that all magic should have different rules (I’d like divine magic to have different rules from Arcane magic because in the fluff they come from different places, work in different ways and in the case of humans – are granted by different things entirely).

I’m saying that a core set of Arcane Magic rules needs to be tweaked sufficiently for each casting career that’s distinct that playing one or the other is a meaningful choice.

The Core set of Divine Magic rules likewise, should be tweaked so that worshipping different Gods/entities nets you different powers, spell lists and possibly different casting stats (Thamar favours int; the Devourer Wurm favours strength).

These two sets at the very least should be different – otherwise a Priest of Thamar and a Thamarite Wizard will in fact be identical (magically speaking) and they have not been in the fluff up until now.

Unrelated points:

How can you not think the distinction between sorcery and wizardy is meaningful in the IK fluff? The Inquisition specifically went around hunting rogue sorcerers and not bothering the fraternal order - the entire justification for the execution of the coven that Alexia's mother is part of is that they're sorcerers not wizards.

I’m an idiot for forgetting that Dhunia Shamans could be Warlocks (seeing as how Menite Preists clearly can be Warcasters) – that was just idiocy. I’m interested to hear that Grissel is definitely Fell Caller/Warlock, I’m surprised to learn that Jarl and Angus aren’t Gun Mages given their spell lists – although Gun Mage sorcery apparently is only for humans (and only Cygnar and Llael at that). I wait to see if that is opened up to Trolkin as a career in the new book.

Shadowrun sounds like a nightmare to GM!

[profparm]

How did you double post in the same post? That is truly impressive.

[Rapier]

How did you double post in the same post? That is truly impressive.

I have no idea how that happened - it also deleted my paragraphs. It's fixed now. (The forums also brought up a posting window for me to post in after posting with a 3rd copy of my post already written in place!)

[StJason]

BoT: Exactly. The whole "Well, my magic is blue with lots of pink sparkles!" angle just feels wrong.
Someone etching runeplates should have to.. you know, make some etching skill rolls. Just waving it off as a 'etching magic' roll just feels empty. Especially when his buddy, the Morrowan Cleric just has to make a 'praying magic' roll to heal.
To bring it back to my music example, it'd be like if you made a bard character, and had to do a military march. Without ever having picked up a drum before, you make your 'bard music' roll, and drum away just fine. Later, at the castle, you have to blow the appropriate fanfare for a knight, a baron, and the king. Making that same 'bard music' roll, you do so. Finally, through a series of wacky time-traveling adventures, the bard comes across an electric guitar. Making that same 'bard music' roll, you tear out a riff that would put Hendrix to shame.
No. No. And No. I want different schools of magic to feel different from each other for the player, and even to some extent, different applications of that same school. However, we all know it will be '2d6+stat'.

[Rapier]

However, we all know it will be '2d6+stat'.

My despair is rising.

Even with that I made some suggestions for making it at least somewhat different. I expect it to be 2d6+stat for the actual magic attack rolls because well - it's the system they're making. However you could have things like;

Sorcereres (innate and gifted magic; not learnt but born) gain their additional dice and boosted rolls from different things. How about - sorcerers have preferred spells (a subset they choose from their spell-list) - they get automatically boosted rolls - however their spell list is a lot shorter. They use the magic stat to cast spells but something like charisma or willpower determines the number of spells they known.

Wizards get the greatest range of spells (most flexible) they can learn new magic the easiest; they have standardised rituals (meta-magic) that they can use to boost spells but they can only have so many prepared and rituals are required to change the ones that these apply too. Unlimited number of spells known - int determines the number that can be meta-magiced (and it's a smaller amount that the sorcerer gets above).

This preserves the feel of both these spell casters in my mind - continues to make their secondary stats (along with the casting stat that I can't remember what it's called), relevant and would make their feel in game different - while still keeping the same basic system for both.

Divine Casters I hope will be getting a complete overhaul - I'm guessing they still have spell lists (although those never really made sense to me) - I hope that divine casters have something made of their divine connection - maybe they spend fatigue to commune with their respective Gods (A large investment of fatigue) but then they can cast spells without a fatigue investment (the weight is carried by the God) - this means that in an adventure a divine caster won't be using spells for every little thing; but when they open up their connection they'll be able to cast a lot of spells. - You could even allow divine casters to use just the magic stat - after all their magic comes from the highest source.

This I feel reflects the depiction of the menoth warcasters and battle chaplains of morrow in previous fluff; it makes the divine and arcane casters play differently (mechanically and in fluff) without invaliding previous ideas.

Similar tweaks could be applied to Druids in general and with the Wilding (for Warlocks I believe); or just to druids if all druids go through the wildling and then warlocks is just a type of training.

I don't think PP has to make these things just be identical while still keeping a core system that is fundermantally the same (Fatigue; 2d6 + stat, spell lists). I'd prefer two different magic systems (Magic/Divine) because I think that their is value to different systems; but even if we only get 1 I still hope they've taken the time to diversify the system.

I even don't mind if not all of this in the first book - the tweaks for different casting traditions can come in a later (Signs and Sigils) type book if necessary - I just hope that the PP team have made it possible to fit these types of things in. It's a question of what their design philosophy is/was rather than actually wanting spoilers (though those would be nice too).

[Killj0y]

Deep and complicated magic systems often lend themselves to jedi vs. jedi type worlds where only the magic users are of any importance and everything else falls by the wayside.

I support a more simplified mechanical structure while at the same time encouraging a level of risk taking in magical systems. There are a lot of things can be done from a semantic standpoint in system to differentiate differing magical styles savage worlds actually does a good job of that drawing from its deadlands roots in seperating what kinds of magic various people can perform.

@StJason - I'm actually enjoying the idea of a world where magic=music and the barbershop quartet is recognized at the most fear group of magical assassins for their use of the 5th note.

[StJason]

@StJason - I'm actually enjoying the idea of a world where magic=music and the barbershop quartet is recognized at the most fear group of magical assassins for their use of the 5th note.

Vinnie. We been lookin' all over town for youse. But you don't hang out at the old spots no morse. Mebbie you think you too good for us? No? You never heard we was lookin' fer you? Mebbie you don't hear too goods? We'll gives you somethin' to listen to. "Misses Murphy's Chowder" on tree, boys!

[Killj0y]

Nobody messes with the guild of slide-whistle players they are the only mu-gic user capable of the renowned Song of Defenstration.

[Killj0y]

double post.

[TwilightRising]

I'm inclined to think that inherent differences in magical energy are a hold-over from the 3.5 rules. WM-H has never made such a distinction. For instance Constance Blaize can perfectly well use an arc-node to channel her spells, and she'd pretty clearly be a cleric (maybe a paladin) in D&D or PFRPG. Epic Haley's ability to control the cortex of an enemy jack works just as well against Menites and Cryxians. Heck, even the Liber Mechanicka was a bit fuzzy on there being a clear distinction. This isn't to say that every character with magic will have full access to the same abilities.

[Rapier]

I'm inclined to think that inherent differences in magical energy are a hold-over from the 3.5 rules. WM-H has never made such a distinction. For instance Constance Blaize can perfectly well use an arc-node to channel her spells, and she'd pretty clearly be a cleric (maybe a paladin) in D&D or PFRPG. Epic Haley's ability to control the cortex of an enemy jack works just as well against Menites and Cryxians. Heck, even the Liber Mechanicka was a bit fuzzy on there being a clear distinction. This isn't to say that every character with magic will have full access to the same abilities.

I don't think so; at least the difference between Divine and Arcane is a clear distinction that still exists in the Warmachine fluff (Not the rules so much). Vassals of Menoth are arcane casters and they get imprisoned by the Protectorate and Priests and Warcasters are divine so they don't. This can only occur if it's a tangible difference where they can tel what kind of magic people use. Equally in the IKRPG Divine magic predates human Arcane Magic; they have different origins on the source of the power and (in the old rpg) significantly different spell lists.

The distinction between Sorcerers and Wizards is fluff relevant in the old IKRPG but may be there because of the D&D origins of the game. I am interested to see if they intend to keep it. I think they should because it's important to the fluff of several groups like the Fraternal Order (no sorcerers), and Alexia and her mother in the Witchfire. Also Albino trolkin are natural sorcerers (not natural Druids/preists of Dhunia and NOT natural wizards). They may choose to get rid of it as a separate concept though - and just have learned and innate wizards. Even then the terms are fluff relevant so should be kept.

[Killj0y]

All cortexes are arcane by default, as is all mechanika. Haley is really just a skilled hacker able to override the cortex locks on another country's units. It's not really any different that someone picking the locks on a unit and manually changing the ownership commands, she's just doing it mentally.


One interesting fact that has thus far escaped me would be that divine casters don't need a focus chamber on their warcaster armor.

Divine spells don't have a spell failure chance so there isn't any need to use a focus point to offset the armors ASF.

[Sosthenes]

Jeepers, the new rules will continue the silly armored mage persecution?

[PPS_Dougseacat]

You can rest assured the index for our new rules does NOT include an entry for "Arcane Spell Failure."

[GunMageinTraining]

I don't think so; at least the difference between Divine and Arcane is a clear distinction that still exists in the Warmachine fluff (Not the rules so much). Vassals of Menoth are arcane casters and they get imprisoned by the Protectorate and Priests and Warcasters are divine so they don't. This can only occur if it's a tangible difference where they can tel what kind of magic people use. Equally in the IKRPG Divine magic predates human Arcane Magic; they have different origins on the source of the power and (in the old rpg) significantly different spell lists.

The distinction between Sorcerers and Wizards is fluff relevant in the old IKRPG but may be there because of the D&D origins of the game. I am interested to see if they intend to keep it. I think they should because it's important to the fluff of several groups like the Fraternal Order (no sorcerers), and Alexia and her mother in the Witchfire. Also Albino trolkin are natural sorcerers (not natural Druids/preists of Dhunia and NOT natural wizards). They may choose to get rid of it as a separate concept though - and just have learned and innate wizards. Even then the terms are fluff relevant so should be kept.

At least with Vassals, I don't think it's so much that there is a distinction between 'Arcane' and 'Divine' so much as 'from somewhere' and 'from Menoth'.

I assume any non-associated spellcaster accesses magic directly from the pool, while those that give homage to gods or various supernatural entities are in a more lend/borrow relationship. They link their pool to their patron, but are restricted accordingly. Another way of putting it would be that they access the 'pool' through their patron's filter.

I say this simply because, well... how did Thalamar and Morrow ascend? What was 'The Gift'? I'm curious to see IK's perspective on this.

[Killj0y]

Interesting, the armor itself isn't actually necessary to be a warcaster but being a warcaster allows you to wear armor that you couldn't wear otherwise. The armor prevents you from casting spells due to the nature of the enhancements despite being magical and custom fit and then provides an "out" in the form of a costly focus dependant mechanism that only warcasters can use.

Will be interesting to see what they do to it in the new system.

[Alzer]

Vassals are actually SPECIFICALLY Arcane. The Vassals are around because they have arcane magic and can actually build mechanika, which apparently divine magic cannot be used for. Or at the very least, Menoth said no.

I'm going to chime in and say it is appreciated to have a system where sub-sets of the system work differently. One of the things that bothered me about the most recent editions of D&D was that pretty much every class felt the same. (I'm not looking for an edition-war here, this is just my opinion on the matter, we have the D&DNext forums for edition wars).

I'm also hoping rituals ARE part of the system, as they add so much flavor and intensity to a system and can really bring levels of powerful magic in a game that I don't feel players should be able to pop out of a can at will. Especially considering Gaspy busts out a major-league ritual about every other book it seems like.

[Alzer]

And the mysterious magic of the laggy double-post strikes again!

[Rapier]

The Circle, Everblight, Cryx and Skorne all do rituals within the fluff. We don't hear much about it from the human factions except that Menoth is full of holy rituals (and arguably those have power since a lot of the Menite stuff has a degree of supernatural like the bond of brotherhood).

The question really is the level of detail PP plans for the magic system. However I feel reassured by the apparent level of detail in the skills system - if we're getting all those different skills I'd be amazed if all the rich and diverse magic of the iron kingdoms was simplified to the extent of a system like Savage worlds.

I mean it just wouldn't make sense to me to keep complex fighting and skills systems and them skimp on the magic and holy power.

You'd better preview this stuff before Gencon PP! I don't want to wait till October if you're brewing a disappointment for me.

[Rapier]

You can rest assured the index for our new rules does NOT include an entry for "Arcane Spell Failure."

Seriously? I only now spotted your reply to my thread. All my anguish about magic systems and you felt it was fitting to spoil a lack of arcane spell failure? This is like skorne in book 4 all over again.

It's a good idea to remove since it doesn't fit your setting at all - but it does also take away one of the differences from D&D magic systems.

[profparm]

Which would really suck if we were playing D&D: Iron Kingdoms.

But in the setting, warcasters (one of the most commonly seen example of magic-users from those familiar to the setting through the game) are discussed as having Warcaster Armor.

At this point, I'm really interested to see how their interpretations of the magic system goes, and I would have no problem with it being either a) All magic is mechanically the same, the only difference is the themes and feel behind it; now, what does that REALLY say about those who prejudice against people for using arcane while they use divine? OR b) Here's different types of magic, and we're not just going to divvy it up as "god-given" and "non-god-given", and the limitations and restrictions on those who use it are not based on the same limitations for D&D characters.

I WOULD be disappointed if it was, "There's two types of magic: arcane, and divine, with those as the terms we're using. Arcane users don't wear armor. Divine users do. Divine tends to focus on healing and buffing, while Arcane tends to be a more direct problem-solving type of magic. If you have any questions, please refer to your Player's Handbook 1 and it should easily explain the difference." I want new and original stuff that I haven't seen before! And, if it's not overly new and original, I at least want it to not just be a copy and paste of another company's game system.

[Sosthenes]

I WOULD be disappointed if it was, "There's two types of magic: arcane, and divine, with those as the terms we're using. Arcane users don't wear armor. Divine users do. Divine tends to focus on healing and buffing, while Arcane tends to be a more direct problem-solving type of magic. If you have any questions, please refer to your Player's Handbook 1 and it should easily explain the difference." I want new and original stuff that I haven't seen before!

I'm really not sure whether I'd want arcane healing at this point (and the whole buffing vs. destruction divide is pretty illusory given current 3.5 spell lists). By now (at least to me), arcane vs. divine and sorcery vs wizardry has gotten beyond their rule origins and entered serious fluff territory.

Armor limitations and spell memorization on the other hand never really appeared outside of the rules, so good riddance. At least that way nobody has to invent some ridiculous quasi-armor (looking in your direction, greatcoats…).

[technodemon]

I was wanderimg what were the different styles of casting for each of the spellcaster careers? For fluff info that is. Like how would a Warcaster or a gun mage cast his spells? Are there rituals in the game and if who uses them and how?

[Goliath]

Runes figure heavily in IK spellcasting. They're inscribed on the rune plates used in making magical weapons, and you can see them when someone casts a spell (see the Warcaster/Warlock artwork in any Warmahordes book). It's a fair bet that more detail will appear in the book.

[technodemon]

Okay this an expanded question on casting style or thermantics for the core Careers:
Arcane Mechanik: Creating unique devices called mechanika and adding spell effects to these devices.
Arcanist: Unsure on this career is anyways
Gun Mage: using their firearms as a focus for casting (similar to wizards wand [Harry Potter] or staff [Tolkien]), casting spells through the guns for added effects (and damage) and possibly us spells to buff their combat skills doing unique feats with firearms.
Priest: Praying maybe and "miracles" happens.
Sorcerer: Probabaly saying magic words and hand gestures.
Warcaster: This one I am unsure of what they do for casting spells.

Is this somewhatclose the descriptions found in Warmachine, if any?

[Ralphus]

I feel like we are changing the rules to suit our needs before the book is even out. We are working on very limited resources here and should keep it to speculation.

[Rapier]

I feel like we are changing the rules to suit our needs before the book is even out. We are working on very limited resources here and should keep it to speculation.

The purpose of this thread was to raise awareness of the complex magical systems described in the Iron Kingdoms fluff and to say how important it was to have mechanical rules to cover these.

As opposed to the common approach in current new role playing games of just having "fluff" descriptions placed onto generic rules to make them unique. Savage worlds having a spell blast (which you describe as fire, or ice ect. depending on your character) and this spell being the same whether you use wizardry or weird science is what I'm talking about wanting to avoid.

We know that Gun Mage, Arcane Mechanic, Arcanist and Priest are all getting separate careers; we can also infer that each of these has a separate spell list (based on the Arcane Mechanic preview). Additionally we know that Warcaster will use a different core mechanic (Focus instead of Will Weaving).

However we don't know if anything besides spell list will differ from all the other careers. We know that all gifted careers have a similar set of powers (although some are so generic as to be, "gain a new spell"); the point I was getting at is that Priests, Gun Mages, Arcanists and Arcane Mechanics should have different rules.

(Requirement on Arcane Focus (Gun) - staying within the domains of divine powers - free boosted rolls on prefered spells, that kind of tweak to the core rules is what I'm talking about).

[StJason]

Okay this an expanded question on casting style or thermantics for the core Careers:
Arcane Mechanik: Creating unique devices called mechanika and adding spell effects to these devices.
Arcanist: Unsure on this career is anyways
Gun Mage: using their firearms as a focus for casting (similar to wizards wand [Harry Potter] or staff [Tolkien]), casting spells through the guns for added effects (and damage) and possibly us spells to buff their combat skills doing unique feats with firearms.
Priest: Praying maybe and "miracles" happens.
Sorcerer: Probabaly saying magic words and hand gestures.
Warcaster: This one I am unsure of what they do for casting spells.

Arcane Mechanik: (career) Combining mechanical (note the lack of a K) and magical technology to create mechankia.
Arcanist: (career) Likely to be the classical wizard, learning spells by rote learning, education, and belonging to a guild.
Sorcerer: A magician who uses their innate connection to magic to cast spells.
Gun Mage: (career)A subclass of sorcerer who has a connection to their guns.
Priest: (career) Not sure as of yet which way PP is taking priests. Pray and make miracles (not likely) or channel the Gods might (basically a Sorcerer with a different energy source). Also note that priests come in many different flavors from the mechanically-capable Cult of Cyriss, Morrowians, Menites (of the Old and New faiths), Toruk devotees, Wurm cultists, Dhunia shamen, and Druids...
Infernalist: Someone who draws power from dealings with the Infernals. Often also a Arcanist, but not necessarily.
Necromancer: Someone who studies the dark arts of the dead and undead. Note that the magics themselves are antithetical to life, and damage (and potentially kill) their living weilders. Any wonder why the most powerful necromancers tend to be undead?
Warcaster: (career)Using their innate connection to warjacks and other mechanikal devices to use them in ways other magic-weilders cannot. (Note: you can be a different type of magician as well as a warcaster. See Nemo (Arcane Mechanik/Warcaster), Zerkova (Arcanist/Warcaster), Caine (Gun Mage/Warcaster) etc.
Warlock: (likely career) Pulling power out of the life and rage of animals, especially the largest and most dangerous ones in Immoren.

There is also the Bard and Fell Caller, both of which use music to generate their magical effects. I hope PP goes the route of making magic songs, rather then "You cast spells, oh, yeah, and you can play the harp if you really want...". Speaking of Trollkin, their stone scribes seem to be something a bit different then just shamen. The same might be ascribed to the various stone-shapers of the Circle.
The Skorne have the Mortitheurges and Extollers, both of which have magics dedicated to manipulation of the (Skorne) soul.

[technodemon]

I do have a question visuals in many artwork i have seen. I was wondering what are the circle of glowing runes shown in several artwork of spellcasters I have seen? What does circle of runes mean and is it visual to every one? Where does this runes comefrom or the source of the visual manifestation?

[stormwell]

There is also the Bard and Fell Caller, both of which use music to generate their magical effects. I hope PP goes the route of making magic songs, rather then "You cast spells, oh, yeah, and you can play the harp if you really want...".

Thought the IKCG basically said War Bards were basically Sorcerers who'd joined the military as Bards to be legit?

[Weaselcreature]

I do have a question visuals in many artwork i have seen. I was wondering what are the circle of glowing runes shown in several artwork of spellcasters I have seen? What does circle of runes mean and is it visual to every one? Where does this runes comefrom or the source of the visual manifestation?

There were some clues in one of the recent sneak peaks. The runes are visible to everyone, and another caster can try and see what spell is being cast by identifying those runes. The runes seem to be a manifestation during the casting process in the IK.

[Sosthenes]

IF U CN RD THS, U CAN HAZ MAI FIREBALL! LOL!

Or for the older generation


IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
SPELL-ID "Lightning Bolt".
TARGET DIVISON.
TARGET-CENTER "You".
PROCEDURE DIVISION.
BURN.
STOP RUN.

(Note: Proper Warcasters schould choose a less verbose spell language. Although not too verbose, you don't want to incinerate your own unit because you said "Z" instead of "S" to designate the target type)

[jdripley]

Yeah, I really like that whole rune thing. In the art there seems to even be some variance. Gunmages have circles of runes around their pistols. Some Dhunian Shamans have vertical columns of runes rotating around them.

Though... it brings to mind the question of what happens when you cast a stealth sort of spell. Invisibility or concealment as the final product. Do you... glow.. then disappear? Does the glowing effect flare at the moment of casting and then subside, or does it persist for the duration of the effect?