Magic-User Options

Creating game materials? Monsters, spells, classes, adventures? This is the place!
User avatar
LibraryLass
Posts: 1008
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:02 pm

Re: Magic-User Options

Post Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:50 am

Solomoriah wrote:
LibraryLass wrote:
Solomoriah wrote: You're the only person I know who read it that way. Each race lists the classes available, and only the Elf lists a combo class. What isn't specifically allowed is forbidden.
That's an awfully new-school line of thought, though, innit? That way lies feats.
I'm afraid I don't quite get your meaning.
What I mean is that when one takes the attitude that anything that is not specifically permitted is forbidden, then there are one of two results-- an intensely focused, inflexible game, or thousands of pages of corner cases.
http://rachelghoulgamestuff.blogspot.com/
Rachel Bonuses: Now with pretty

http://www.gofundme.com/8gawy0
Currently panhandling for my transition/medical bills.
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 9163
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Magic-User Options

Post Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:24 am

LibraryLass wrote:What I mean is that when one takes the attitude that anything that is not specifically permitted is forbidden, then there are one of two results-- an intensely focused, inflexible game, or thousands of pages of corner cases.
Gah.

What I meant was, in that specific case, regarding membership in a combo class, what was not specifically allowed was forbidden. Not in the more general case. I assumed that anyone reading would see that Humans could be fighters or magic-users (or clerics or thieves) while the Elves had this additional option not listed for Humans, and realize that this was an Elven bonus and not a general-purpose option.

I suppose I assumed, incorrectly of course, that most people using BFRPG rules would be familiar with either the race-classes of the BX era games (of which BFRPG's options are a slight extension and abstraction) or with the 1E era games (where, for instance, an Elf could not be a cleric/fighter, but a Half-Elf could). But modern gamers are accustomed to the opposite regime, where what is not specifically forbidden is allowed, and IMO THAT requires a far more extensive set of rules even when you allow a lot more than we do.

I'll admit, I've read of others allowing Humans to combo class, but I assumed that was a GM choice rather than a miscommunication. I'll have to rethink the presentation... I don't want to lose the "generic" explanation of combo classes, as that supports supplement races and combos.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3956
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Contact:

Re: Magic-User Options

Post Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:28 am

SmootRK wrote:"Humans may be any single class". A single word added to clarify that.
Single word in the core rules can clarify the Human Combo Class issue. Human Restrictions, first sentence.
Is it really the end, not some crazy dream?
Follow me to the Moon https://dogecoin.com/
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 9163
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Magic-User Options

Post Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:33 am

Gah, again. You kill me with your swiftness, and surprise me with your brevity. You, sir, have made an excellent contribution to the game.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3956
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Contact:

Re: Magic-User Options

Post Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:31 am

Solomoriah wrote:Gah, again. You kill me with your swiftness, and surprise me with your brevity. You, sir, have made an excellent contribution to the game.
;) :D
Is it really the end, not some crazy dream?
Follow me to the Moon https://dogecoin.com/
User avatar
LibraryLass
Posts: 1008
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:02 pm

Re: Magic-User Options

Post Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:08 pm

Solomoriah wrote:Gah.But modern gamers are accustomed to the opposite regime, where what is not specifically forbidden is allowed, and IMO THAT requires a far more extensive set of rules even when you allow a lot more than we do.
That surprises me, because in my experience this is more an attitude of the OSR-- perhaps due to the fact that it's simpler to improvise new content and the DM is better able to make on-the-fly rulings.
http://rachelghoulgamestuff.blogspot.com/
Rachel Bonuses: Now with pretty

http://www.gofundme.com/8gawy0
Currently panhandling for my transition/medical bills.
User avatar
Dimirag
Posts: 2896
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:24 pm
Location: Buenos Aires (C.A.B.A.), Argentina
Contact:

Re: Magic-User Options

Post Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:15 pm

I think the question for mage + armors is not if other races, when alowed to multiclass an armored using class with a magic wielding one can work magic on armor but if the combined training allows that.

So:
Option 1: Fighter/MU's can cast spells on armors because of racial abilities.
option 2: Fighter/MU's can cast spells on armors because of combined training.
Sorry for any misspelling or writing error, I am not a native English speaker
Drawing portfolio: https://www.instagram.com/m.serena_dimirag/
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3956
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Contact:

Re: Magic-User Options

Post Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:39 pm

Keep in mind that in the game edition that serves as the inspiration and model for the core rules (Solo's Coverage Target), the Armored Casting and the entire concept of F/MU is wholly an elf thing. It is only the "advanced" version of one early game (1e) and further propagated elsewhere and later that the concepts of multi-class and armored casting begins to take shape in different manners... and this multi-class concept continued to expand in scope, and the penalties lessening over time as well. (along with stuff like the Elven Chain, Drow Chain, etc)

Not that it shouldn't be considered, especially if one is utilizing other races that can be MU (in the core rules only Elf can be MU other than human). If one uses Half-Elves and Gnomes, this idea is complicated, and even moreso when other races might come into the mix. In my own game Phaerim can do like elves, though they tend to not wear armor for matters of their limited flight... so this is more of a "Fey" thing (elves included) in my games.

I am of a mind that if one wants a special armored spellcaster (other than elf), then perhaps that archetype is better served by some sort of alternate class, a War Mage or whatever. This sort of wizard would be able to utilize armor, bucklers (in order to keep a hand free for casting), and a broader set of weapons; however a substantially limited spell choice and slower spell progression. This is just how I would probably approach the problem, rather than a sweeping change to the mainstay of the game, the Magic-User itself.
Is it really the end, not some crazy dream?
Follow me to the Moon https://dogecoin.com/
Sir Bedivere
Posts: 998
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 10:46 pm

Re: Magic-User Options

Post Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:25 am

One reason I work on this supplement is that I am trying to learn more about game design. I am, by habit or natural inclination, a simulationist, but this is a gamist game. Probably the biggest thing I'm trying to learn with this supplement is how to think like a gamist and write for them. For me, that is about half the value I get out of this project. I.e., it doesn't matter very much at all (to me) what ends up in it as long as I'm learning how to create a good BF supplement.

The other half of what I get out of this project is creating something useful for the BF community. I've had a lot of fun w/ this game and this community, and I've learned a lot about gaming and game design here, and I'd like to give something back.

Anyway, I started thinking about "the spirit of the game," and then some things Smoot & Solomoriah have said made me want to go back and look at the old stuff, just for comparison, for my own education.

So, I went over to dndclassics.com and downloaded the B/X books. (I suspect my ancient copies of these books are in an attic somewhere.) They're pretty interesting.

On the balance issue, for example, from the Expert book, p. X7:
As magic-users reach higher levels, they will become extremely powerful characters, but it's a difficult task to reach the high levels. Their poor combat ability and few spells at lower levels balance the power they eventually achieve. Therefore, magic-users must be cautious at lower levels, for no player can expect his or her magic-user character to survive long without protection.
There it is in black and white. That doesn't change my mind about whether or not it actually IS a form of balance, but that was certainly the justification the designers gave the players.
Last edited by Sir Bedivere on Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sir Bedivere
Posts: 998
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 10:46 pm

Re: Magic-User Options

Post Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:36 am

Smoot has convinced me on the topic of armor. That option is nuked.

On weapons, B/X only allowed daggers, so adding in the cudgel and walking staff was a change (though they all have the same damage, so it's not really a change in terms of mechanics). I've decided, barring some new argument from one of you good souls, that we should add in clubs (same stats as cudgel / walking staff), and also darts and throwing knives. These last two have identical stats, d3 at 10/20/30. The advantages in adding the two missile weapons are that they are lighter than daggers, and a little more variety would be nice.

On spell transcription costs, I can't find any cost to add spells to a spell book in B/X, but there is a hefty cost for replacing a lost spell book. Here's the relevant section from p. X11:
REPLACING LOST SPELLBOOKS. A magic-user or elf whose spell books are lost or destroyed cannot regain spells until these are replaced. It takes 1000 gp and 1 week of study per spell level to replace a spell in a new book. Thus, a book with two first-level spells and one second-level spell would cost 4000 gp and take four weeks to completely replace. During this time the magic-user or elf must remain out of the campaign.

GETTING NEW SPELLS. ...

Magic-users and elves must be taught their new spells. Most player character magic-users and elves are assumed to be members of the local Magic-Users Guild or apprenticed to a higher level NPC. When player characters gain a level of experience, they will return to their masters and be out of play for one "game-week" while they are learning their new spells. Either the player or the DM may choose any new spells. Magic-users and elves are limited to the number of spells they may know, and their books will contain spells equal to the number and level of spells the caster can use in a single day (thus, the books of a 4th level elf will contain two first and two second level spells).
(I clipped out the bit on Cleric spells.)

I think the BF rules make more sense; why would you get the spell for free (or just training time), but have to pay 1,000 gp / level to replace the spell? However, they add a cost that wasn't there originally (that is, if I'm reading the B/X rules correctly), and make me want to seriously consider some kind of cheaper transcription costs.

EDIT: Um, not cheaper altogether, but cheaper at lower levels, and maybe more expensive at higher levels. So, maybe 'progressive' is a better word, rather than 'cheaper.'
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests