Questions and answers...

[Kasbak]

I use Named spells quite a bit. I also play much looser with the targeting requirements so that they can be used more on items. I think they are necessary, as most of the other enchanting methods either require or heavily involve True Elements, which tips the scale and the table beneath it over to the Elementalist. I won't lie, there are cases where they can get very overpowered, but I think there are enough factors available in the current material to keep them balanced so long as they are played out, which could warrant a rewrite to flesh it out more.

The prime example I can think of in the game I play in is with Improve Karma. The spell fits the Naming requirements, however, no one uses it, as the few that have are always found to have cursed luck the rest of their lives. The luck bolstering their karma has to come from somewhere, as the universe tends toward balance. Named spells could also potentially function as a minor pattern item, since they are a link back to the magician that cast them, and we all know the ways those can be used to mess with you. Finally, there is the runic scar that is left after the resulting wound is healed, which could be played up more.

If any sort of nerf were to be applied, I would say just to limit the spell effects. Most of the spells that give just a straight effect or bonus seem to be fairly well balanced for the cost. It's the open ended potential on effect tests I think that make balancing harder. You could disallow Willforce on Named spells, or you could limit the effect to the step number. With the new rules on extra successes, I think the latter would work out nicely, as now that extra bonus on your Spellcasting is your only means of improving the end effect on the Named spell.

[Lys]

[FreeBooter]

Since we're on the subject of Named Spells, I might mention a partial solution we've come up with as a House Rule to restrict the Naming of spells on people and other entities with True Patterns. We gave them a Depatterning Rating. The in-game explanation is that by Naming a spell on something that has a True Pattern of its own, you're essentially forcing two True Patterns to exist "in the same place", thereby warping the Pattern of the person getting a Named Spell cast on them. This Depatterning rating would increase with the Circle of the spell and also increase for spells with shorter durations. We also decided that some spells can't be Named at all, Improve Karma among them. Our GM decides these things on a spell-by-spell basis, but the Depatterning means that in spite of the group being circle 8-9, the only Named spells among us are the Solo Flight that our Wizard has cast on himself and the Elementalist's Earth Q'wril spell.

I don't have the exact numbers for the amount of depatterning, but it's scaled so that it's not a good idea to have more than maybe one or two Named Spells cast on you. If anyone is interested, I can see if I can find the write-up for the house rule and post it here.

[Slimcreeper]

I'd like to see it.

[FreeBooter]

Ok, here it is:

Casting a Named Spell on a target with a True Pattern results in Depatterning according to the following:

Spell Duration units:
Rounds: +6
Minutes: +5
Hours: +4
Days: +3
Months: +2
Years: +1

Spell Circle:
1-4: +1
5-8: +2
9-12: +3
13-15: +4

This Depatterning is reduced by 1 for each extra Success Level on the Spellcasting Test.

For living creatures, this works as for Depatterning from Blood Charms.
For Thread Items, a roll is made with a Step equal to the Depatterning rating, against the item's Spell Defense. If this roll is successful, the item is destroyed.
For other items, places, etc., the exact results are determined by the GM.

As an example, the Wizard in our group cast a Named Solo Flight spell on himself. Since Solo Flight is a Circle 5 spell with a duration in minutes, it would result in 2 + 5 = 7 Depatterning, reduced by the number of extra successes on his Spellcasting Test. I believe he got an Extraordinary Result, with a final Depatterning Rating of 4.

That's it!

[Slimcreeper]

I think I like that.

[etherial]

You never did answer one of my questions from the Q&A: How much bog could a bog gob gob if a bog gob could gob bog?

[ukhata]

[10000 Orcs]

I never liked ship battles in Earthdawn. It felt as having to learn a new rule set with all those new stats. Will there be updated, easier rules for ship combat? At sea/river and up up in the air .

Also in our campaigns the thief never felt as a useful class. Often they were outperformed by scouts, who got the important thief skills, but were better fighters, too.

All in all, I am not very interested in Earthdawn 4th. Don't get me wrong, I love Earthdawn and I played a 9 year long campaign and I went with the edition changes from ED1 to ED2 to EDC. But today there are a whole lot of other games worth playing, too - with much better functioning core mechanics. I don't think Earthdawn needs some improvements, I think Earthdawn needs overhauling at its core. Too many talents, too many special rules only used on special occasions, too many rules to learn for new players... And it plays so damn slow. Combat encounters went on and on and on... And getting better, stepping up circles, you got more talents and more options and fights got even slower! You had to do all these rolls, searching the dice etc. etc.

Will you do anything to reduce complexity and bring in some simplicity in the rules? Will you do anything to have less rolls in the game?

[Telarus_KSC]

Hi 10000 Orcs, welcome to the forum. I can't speak directly for the devs, but these are all on the table for ED4.

I would recommend reading back through the Earthdawn Developer Blog to get a taste of the changes being worked out.

http://www.fasagames.com/blog/?category=Earthdawn