I was just pondering (as I do quite a lot) about the Spell limit table from the rulebook...

Total Craft 1 2 3 4 5 6+
Maximum Number of Spells 0 0 1 2 2 3

...and wondered about decreasing the lower limit to 2 Craft, so that a simple formula would be that you can have half of your Craft (rounding down) up to a maximum of 3 . So the table would read -

Total Craft 1 2 3 4 5 6+
Maximum Number of Spells 0 1 1 2 2 3

I realise that the existing table and limits are not rocket science, but wondered what people thought the "operational" implications of such a move might cause? More/earlier access to spells for some, less domination by traditional spellcasters?

I'd be interested to see some opinion.

Polish "Magiczny Miecz" (Magical Sword) used this:

Total Craft 1 2 3 4 5 6+
Maximum Number of Spells 0 1 2 2 3 3

I don't know what to think about Your option. Basically with the exception of Troll, all other Characters have the Craft equal to 2 or greater. So basically only Troll will not gain anything with this change, while the rest Characters will end stronger. This includes the ogres, immortal swordmasters, or other "ave Caesar morituri te salutant" suiciders. Not to mention that I have been playing years with the current system, so it is written in my memory. Learning a new one is...

When I play there seems to be alot using spells to get rid of them, in order to get new spells. Would the capacity to hold more spells make the feel of the game less awkward?

talismanisland said:

Talisman 4ER is now a matter of Spells. Spellcasters always win. The only Characters that are not spellcasters and occasionally manage to win are Assassin and Ogre Chieftain (broken Characters). What does matter is: can I get a Spell per turn, at least one per round? If yes, I can compete; if not, I can only grab a victory if other Spellcasters fight and destroy each other.

Your tweak would allow an earlier access to Spells but this won't change things dramatically. Traditional Spellcasters dominate because now there are dozens of Spells that cycle well and allow them to break game rules every round/turn. The sooner you get your Spell per turn, the closer you are to victory. Just being able to receive Spells is not a great improvement.

The_Warlock said:

What do you mean by "broken characters"?

I agree that spellcasters are generally better (yeah.. too good imho) but I would definitely not say that they "always win".

On the subject I'd like to add that lowering the craft limit to 2 would be like removing it, all "strong" characters (4s 2c etc) would be able to get spells from round 1 =P

Nioreh said:

I think he means that the Assassin and ogre chieftain are too powerful, and are almost instant wins..

Although, i must say that i have never play with the ogre chieftain.

But from what i heard about it, ogre chieftain is really good if you add the dungeon to the game.

Collecting monster followers, and trophy points will boost the ogre chieftain to a high level.

Even if you play with a end boss, and you are strong enough to win from it, you can cash all those followers in by the LOD to reach quickly the coc space.

Nioreh said:

By "broken characters" I mean Characters that can achieve victory with far less effort than the others, because they have abilities that are simply too good.

I don't think these Characters are broken in every situation, but there are combinations where nobody has the chance to stop them. Assassin has lost many games, but often because of extraordinary bad luck, absence of Enemies or no care by the player (e.g. kill as many Characters as possible, and forget to win). Ogre Chieftain has been played 4 times and won 4 times, each time with a different player. So I'd say this Character has something wrong with his design. Same impression has been left by the new Fire Wizard, and we did not play with Dragon Hunter yet.

Since Sacred Pool is out, every victory belonged to a pure Spellcasting Character or, in fewer cases, to a Character who achieved a constant supply of Spells. This is my game experience and I can count 12 games since then.

There definitely has been some overall (but erratic) escalation in characters. So much so that some of the earlier characters are made obsolete in the mix. Now back to the original post.

My group also tried to find a simpler formula for escalated spell limit, but two problems occurred.

First, characters who can get spells more easily through abilities are a pain in the ass for other characters. Talisman spells are not cast by the characters inside the game but by players outside the game. This is evidenced in part by the fact that a spell can target anyone, anywhere regardless of where the characters are in relation to each other.

Second, if playing with one or even more expansion boards, the problem is exacerbated, as more of the outside PvP (through Spells) dominates competition instead of CvC inside of the game. The Spell caster dominance grows. Why? Because characters are more spread out and the possibility of direct characterr interaction is further diminished... that the influence is exponential, by the by, and not merely progressional.

Though differing expansion boards have advantages for winning the game, this also then exacerbates the problem with spells. When characters are far apart, and unable to interact more readily in true CvC, players must resort of pure PvP in order to slow down an opponent. And again, Spells are the only way to do this, and the advantage of Spell cyclers grows.

At present, if we imagine a Spell Limit progression beyond Craft 6, at a Craft 1&2 you get none, Craft 3 you get one, 4&5 your get two, and at 6... etc. There's a progression already hinted at that makes acquisition of more than 3 spells possible but harder and harder as would be the case based on Craft. Since 3 is just slightly below the average for the base stat range of the characters, that should not be lowered. As shown above, and because spells are hard to come by for non-spellcyclers, it might make having a Spell easier but not getting one. That's another problem for another solution because spells already have innate problems.

Here's the Spell Limit escalation we use for beyond 6, and since characters rarely go beyond 9 or 10 before going after a win, there's no need for an equation to remember it.

1,2 = 0 Spells
3 = 1 Spell
4,5 = 2
6,7,8 = 3
9,10,11,12 = 4
13,14,15,16,17 = 5
18,19,20,21,22,23 = 6

The list isn't really needed. All you need is to remember 3, 4+, 6+, 9+, 13+. The progression is based on Craft 3 plus the numbered Spell limits encountered at all previous Craft levels.

• For 1 Spell it is Craft 3;
• for 2 Spells, it would be base Craft 3 + 1 for that previous Spell count allowed, or Craft 4 to have 2 Spells
• for 3 Spells... base Craft 3 plus the previous two spell limits of 1 and 2: Base Craft 3 +1 +2 = Craft 6 to have 3 spells... and so
• for 4 Spells... base Craft 3 plus all previous spell limits passed through... or Base 3 +1 +2 +3 = Craft 9 to have 4 Spells.

And once again, since most groups finish a game at no higher than Strength/Craft 12, all you need remember is 3, 4, 6, 9 for 4 Spells... and maybe 13 for 5. A character (or rather a player)... especially a spell cycler... is going to have too much power and potential spell combos at that level anyhow. Even the 9 and 12 year olds that I occasional have at our games (though we now play mostly Runebound), easily remember the 3, 4, 6... 9 and 13 sequence.

I personally like the way the spell levels are set and starting at 3 craft. I also like the fact that you max out at 3 spells. Like some others have pointed out on here, spells can really dominate the game and give characters a nice advantage. While spells can be helpful and might help to progress the game some, I find that most people are busy reading their spells or trying to figure out ways to use them just to get the next one, and overall it seems to slow down the turns. It can especially lengthen the game when characters are saving their good spells to use on the leader (like casting the spell that lets you take any item from one character, I always cast this spell when the character is almost through Inner region and take their talisman from them so they have to turn and go all the way back). I think a good solution to help characters with a low craft compete with the spell casters would be to introduce more Magic Resistant/Immunity type items to the game.

That's my humble opinion, but I'm no Gandalf.

Regulator18 said:

You're no Gandalf, but I totally agree with you. More Amulets, more 'lose random Spell' cards are needed.

The incredible thing about Spells is that designers didn't notice that losing or discarding a Spell of your choice is always a positive fact. In Dragon expansion, Grilipus Dragon Rage is "discard a Spell if able, otherwise lose one Life". This is not random and Spellcasters are happy to discard a Spell that has blocked their continuous flow of magic energy. It looks like a simmetry with Cadorus and Varthrax Rage, but it isn't. The only Characters who fear this are the ones who got one valuable Spell and hope to put it into good use, or Characters without Spells. Other Dragon Rages damage all Characters no matter what abilities they have.

I hope FFG can do something about this in the next small box expansion. Add few or no new Spells (perhaps extra Counterspells, Nullify, Destroy Magic, Reflection), and compensate with specific Objects/Followers/Events/Strangers/Places/Enemies that act against the domain of spellcasters.

The_Warlock said:

Nice point !

But the chances that dragon rage is triggered is pretty low.

There are only 6 dragon tokens, and few cards maybe that activates dragon rage.

On top of that,... if dragon rage is drawn, grillipus needs to be king at that moment.

I think that it will not dominate the game, . And we must be happy with it, otherwise the spell casters would be real killers..

But on the other side, If a region is full of scales, the chances go up, because dragon rage is triggered if you stay in that region.

They can wait until a grilipus token is drawn, and then they can discard they worthless spell that they want to get rid of..

The_Warlock said:

I agree, I've pondered about how to balance the magic out a bit and more counterspells/reflection etc would be good (even though it would mainly benefit other spellcasters). More (>1) "that amulet that makes you immune to magic, looks like a silver lightning bolt" (cant remember its name right now), several events with "No spells for X rounds", "Everyone can see everyones spells for 3 rounds", "No spells will affect you for 1 die roll of rounds", strangers/followers etc and so onetc AND (!) I would like an expansion where there are several "Cursed glade"-like spaces that shield you from magic.

Nioreh said:

FFG could create some cursed glade cards, that must be place on a wood space to make it cursed!

Velhart said:

Or some Curse Card/Token mechanic that gives to any space the properties of the Cursed Glade. That's a nice idea for the Forest Expansion, or better, for the next small box expansion.

I agree that Counterspells will mostly benefit casters, so the best idea is to create Weapons/Armours/Followers/Objects that act against Spells (drain Spell, discard Spells, prevent Spells, alter Spells). Think of the Amulet: could you imagine an Object with a better design than this? You are immune to all Spells, but can't cast Spells. This is designed for non-Spellcasters and against Spellcasters.

In the new expansions there was never a step backwards concerning the growing power of Spellcasters and Sacred Pool signed the point of no return with a Spell like Misfortune. This is huge game equalizer and nobody feels safe when somebody has Spells in hand. There's no purpose in creating more powerful Spells. There's need for some crappy Spells to dilute the deck, Spells that don't cycle well and protection from magic in general, possibly with the same principle of the Amulet.

The_Warlock said:

A curse token would be fun.

Then spell casters, need to find a safe place if they want to cast a spell.

Maybe Curse tokens can be similar to dragon tokens, but with a other rule how to trigger them.

A rule for curse tokens could be, that you can't cast spells on other characters, but you can still cast spells on yourself or on creatures.

I've been thinking along the same lines: Anti-Magic Quests. These could be standard Adventure Cards that weaken Spells (e.g. they only work on a die roll of 4-6) or make them more dangerous to cast (e.g. each time you cast a Spell, you must lose either a fate or a life) until the quest is completed.

If there is an incomplete quest, anyone with a spell may not pass through the Portal of Power. This would provide an incentive for permanent spell owners to complete the quest, while others would be indifferent to it.

Weaken spells is a nice idea. It could be made as a curse object or a normal event card for x rounds..

It could also be something like the amulet, but then as a cursed item. Spell casters will not be happy to draw such a object..

They need to travel to the alchemist to get rid of it..

I have also recently been thinking about how to control spellcasting in a way that makes sense. I remember that back in the days of the Fighting Fantasy series of choose-your-own-adventure books by Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone, every spell cast had an associated cost in terms of stamina points (which in Talisman would be the equivalent of number of Lives). The more powerful the spell, the more stamina you would lose in casting it, which makes sense. Without complicating things too much for Talisman, I thought of the following option:

- Players can cast one Spell per round (i.e. until their next turn) without any cost, however for every additional Spell that they wish to cast within that round of play, they must spend 1 Fate. If they have no Fate, they must spend 1 Life.

I haven’t playtested this yet, but I think it might be worth a try. It would certainly make spellcasters think twice before casting a spell and would prevent easy “spell-cycling”, and it might also add an extra level of strategy in casting your spells at the right time. However, it might end up being a bit too restrictive. What do you think?

limit spell casting to 1 spell per player turn. and only if applicable. (as in a purpose is met)

so if you have a spell like psionic blast. it can be cast once. and no other spells are allowed that turn for that player.

Lots of confussion here about the real problem with spells. The fact that they are hard to get is one side of the issue. The fact that many are easy to use (in a particular slant) is the other side.

For the first issue, one simple fix is to allow the purchase of Spells from the Enchantress at perhaps an elevated price... maybe 2G but you can Draw 3 / Pick 1. She is running a longtime, well established business in a place where she'd hardly be tolerated in a sensible land, so this gives a reason for her being there. Then there is one stable place in the city to buy Spells while there is one stable place in the village to buy Purchase cards. Simple. If one has to encounter her (a very rare occurence), buying a Spell exempts you from having to roll a die for annoying her with your presence. More likely, you now seek her out for a reason.

As to the other part, paying for casting a Spell isn't going to work in Talisman because the standard attributes don't support it. The use of LIfe / Fate / or anything else is too statistically costly by the number crunching. What's being confused here is the difference between what a "character" is doing and what a "player" is doing where Spells are concerned. Other than perhaps limits on the Spell card and the Craft based Spell limit of the character... that character has nothing to do with the actual use of a Spell card... unless its effect is applied to the casting player's own character. Players sling them at each other like demigods in some cases, and that's the real problem.

There's no easy way to really work this into a Character-based casting system. There's only a quick duct-tape fix. First, I recommended using the stable location/persona like the Enchantress for purchasing Spells, so that non-spell-cyclers have some chance to gain a Spell in addition to Purchase cards. And no matter what the Spell card says, a character can only cast the spell at:

• a target within its own region
• that is no more spaces away from it than it has Craft points.

This solves the problem of such things as someone magically stealing an object via spell unless the caster is in the same region as the target. It brings spell use further back to the Character.

Yes, some spells can affect more than one region. For those and non-targeted spells, these "range" rules wouldn't apply. But it solves a lot for those who find spells being ditched and/or rules being bent or abused by "Players" with spell-cycler characters. Range is the only further factor available inside the game that might work in linking Spell use back to characters. In such a case I would also recommend using the 3,4,6,9,13 Craft Spell Limit variation ... especially if using Craft-based characters who have to lean on spell related special abilities (beyond just spell-cycling). It's only a slight increase in Spell Limit as Craft is increased to high levels. And with the next statistical step being 18+, it is hardly ever going to happen. I have rarely seen characters that win a game with 13+ Craft. I've never personally seen one with a Craft even nearing 18+... at least by a natural 18 that couldn't be hobbled by taking Magic Objects from it or bumping off some of its Followers.

There is another problem in this approach, but only where harassing other players (characters) is concerned. There's still a large debate on whether an expansion board is a "Region" or a "Realm." The term "realm" goes back to previous editions and refers to most expansion boards being an expansion of one space inside one standard Region. It was considered an expansion of that space, not another region, and in Talisman 3E there was even a different dice used that had limit of 4 spaces max on a roll for movement. These days, its more interpreted that that one space is merely the entrance to that other Region, though this begs the question of why the Dungeon is then bigger by count of spaces than even the Outer Region.

Characters slipping off to the Highlands or Dungeon are thereby out of spell range in being in another region. If you want to zap one, you'll have to follow it there AND get close enough. Stealing that Talisman from a character on its way to the CoC would require the caster to get into the Inner Region as well. Personally, that's just find by me, as then a Spell isn't a cheat for working to the win.

JCHendee said:

ooh - I like your thinking there JC. Although the "number of spaces away" will have a different impact in the linear/spiral configuration of the expansion boards rather than the circular main board. Can't see much of a way round that though.

Have a cool Yule.

Yes, the linear approach of the expansion boards (so far) will mean some slight differences, but not really. On the main board you can fire off a spell clockwise or ant-/counter-clockwise. On a region/realm board you fire backwards or forwards. The only real difference is who is ahead of you and who is behind you; but you can still hit them if they are close enough... whether you're chasing or being chased. The only thing that's really different is the tactics involved; you are trying to slow down or knock out someone else trying to the get to the final space. It is actually the same as what would happen in the Inner Region... and already does.

And one more day to Xmas... and learning what's under the tree!

Of course you are right there JC.

Still fancy trying this out next time we play. Might be a while tho', a new nephew accounts for one player for a few months....

Hope you had interesting things under the tree.

Wife and kids (3 & 1) made me a "Talisman scene" with our heads stuck on characters. This was after me saying I was thinking of asking Gary Chalk how much he charges for a commission to draw us in a fantasy scene before reality came back to me and I figured "more than I can afford".

very very sweet.

Interesting post. I like the thinking by some of you guys. Especially the part by JC concering range limits, which would indeed make a difference between spell casters and others in a new way, all can use spells but not as well as others. This would also hinder the Fire Wizard a bit as he wouldn't be so keen on giving up all his craft trophies. It would be interesting to try sometime. In my group we also are agreed that spell-cycling casters have a great oppotunity but not as much as some of you seem to think. Perhaps that is because we most of the time work against winning and not against each other. But I think our last game was quite interesting with a Minotaur with strength 28(!) one roll from the lord of darkness, an alchemist in the dragon hatchery, my Dragon priestess having just defeated the hydra dragon, and a conjurer walking around in the outer region (with a strength of around 28 as well) finding a portal, which I can't remember the name of) teleporting directy to the CoC, winning the game...

But one thing we do with spells, and I don't know if we have misread the rules, is that we play that you can only cast 3 spells from the beginning of your turn until the beginning of your nest turn. Which means you have to save spells to be able to cast any on your opponents turns (one for each still). I think the rules can be read both ways, although I know most of you disagree about that. But Talisman texts uses "in addition" a lot which would mean that the rule book should say "in addition to casting three spells during your turn you may cast one spell on each opponents turn" to enable you to cast more than three spells. (That is if you have 3 spells at the beginning of your turn, of course).

Been a little while, as the holidays (plus before and after) are always busy...

BanthaFodder said:

That's a cool little gift and indeed commissioned art is pricey... since it's a lot of time invested. For under the tree, I picked up Frozen Wastes and Mists of Zanaga to complete my "big boxes" for Runebound (not counting Midnight, and still have some small box variants to collect). RB2E is the game of choice around here, though we still haven't tapped Isle of Dread. Barb prefers Sands of Al-Kalim most of all.

The Watcher said:

Yup, I agree on the confusion in the manual, and indeed this is an area of interpretation vastly abuse by players addicted to spell-cyclers. They're also the biggest whiners when anyone else wants to address the problem, as we have...

No. of Spells cast in one's own turn = Spell Limit.

No. of Spells cast in one's own round (begin with start of one's own turn) = Current Craft without Followers or Objects (vs Total Craft with everything).

That seems to work for us as a compromise to the whiners. The spell wars that happen in many games thereby don't heat up until the latter third of the game. Probably should have mentioned this in conjunction with some of the previous stuff, as it does sync in with other house rules.