Basic Fantasy RPG Forums

Also, please everyone know that I am just playing "devil's advocate" to the topics and subjects being discussed in order to spur additional thought to and get more feedback for the OP and his supplement. What things I say are not meant as direct challenges nor trying to force my opinion, but just to offer more to think about.

In all honesty, about the only thing that I am in complete congruence with is the use of bonus spells for high Intelligence and non-armor equipment.

Solomoriah wrote:Also... a couple of pages back, someone (Sir Bedivere I think) commented that the view that magic-users are supposed to be underpowered at low level because they're overpowered at high level was somehow wrong. Right or wrong, it's exactly how it was done in the original games BFRPG mimics.

I didn't say it was wrong; I just said it wasn't balanced. And, on an individual PC level, it isn't.

It might be statistically balanced, I guess. I think if you took 100 members of each class and followed their careers to 10th level, more MUs would be killed off than any other class. However, the surviving MUs might well be more powerful than the members of any of the other classes, making up for the extra deaths in their cohort. I don't know.

But, if you take one of each and play them together, at low levels the MU is something of a liability, while at high levels he overshadows his comrades. This is unbalanced at both ends at the level of the individual.

That said, that's the way it is and a lot of people obviously like it that way. So, it's not wrong on that score. In addition, there is a value in maintaining tradition, and I think that's something BF does admirably. From that standpoint, it would be wrong for BF to be changed too much from that unbalanced system.

Solomoriah wrote:Google "linear fighters, quadratic magic-users" for more discussion on the topic.

Sounds interesting. I will.

I want to go back to this, again, since this is the direction I see things going at the moment.

Solomoriah wrote: A "prescriptive" supplement should provide, at most, one way to do things. It should be possible to use the supplement in its entirety without wrecking your game.

A "constructive" supplement should provide materials and advice for DIY changes to your game. Any supplement that provides more than one way to do things is constructive.

When a supplement is prescriptive, it can contain many more or less unrelated rules; if constructive, it should focus on the one thing its constructing.

So, as I understand it, a prescriptive supplement is like a meal you order off the menu: It comes with an entree, salad, and a side dish; you can eat it all and that's fine, or you can pick and choose. A constructive supplement is like a themed buffet: You can pick and choose from among many options, all sharing the theme (e.g., Chinese food), but if you eat it all you'll die.

Is that about right?

Now, given all the comments above, it looks like our current options list for a prescriptive MU Options supplement might include:

- Add clubs and staves (and maybe darts)
- Bonus spells for intelligence
- Maybe artikid's armor idea

And several people have suggested:

- Maybe use the 0-Level Spells supplement
- Maybe use some form of auto-Detect Magic

Honestly, I like the auto-Detect Magic, and I will probably use it in my house rules, but it isn't very BF-ish.

Another couple of ideas off the top of my head.

First, what about adding something like the following table?

Roll d6:
1. You get a magical scroll with the spell ??? on it
2. You have raised a large dog and paid for it to be trained as a guard dog; it is completely loyal to you and will protect you
3. You get a Ring of Protection +1
4. etc.

Second, what about getting rid of or reducing the 500gp cost to transcribe spells into the spellbook?

Or maybe we should just recommend bonus spells for intelligence and call it good?

Of course, bonus spells wouldn't help those w/ no Intelligence bonus.

Magic-User Options, done my way (tm), would not "include" 0-level Spells. Or anything else. The supplement would stand alone.

In other words, a GM might say "I'm using Magic-User Options" and you'd know he was NOT using 0-level spells; or he'd say "I'm using Magic-User Options and 0-level Spells" and you'd know he WAS.

Perhaps my terms "prescriptive" and "constructive" are a bit too much. Let's try this from a different angle:

I prefer supplements that are like Lego blocks. Put them together to suit yourself. I don't like supplements that are like BOXES of Lego blocks.

That said, there's a place for the Big Box O' Lego. It's just that it's harder to say what "official" supplements you're using when you're using supplements that you shouldn't (or reasonably can't) use in their entirety.

That... clarifies things a lot.

Let's hash out artikid's armor rules.

First, I like it because it gives an interesting tweak to the class and it seems to be in the spirit of the game.

However, when would a MU ever choose to use it? Leather gives AC 13, so that's a 60% chance of spell failure. This would not be a common choice for an MU at any level.

In fact, maybe it isn't intended to give MUs choices so much as substitute an interesting option for a less-interesting rule (you can't cast in armor at all).

Any thoughts?

LibraryLass wrote:That... clarifies things a lot.

Yep, very helpful.

So, what about this for a third release?

EDIT 2/23/13: A newer version has been added later in the thread, so this file has been deleted.

I went ahead and put artikid's armor suggestion in for now, but it's still in debate (as is everything else in it, of course).

Whacha think?

One thing I notice about your supplement is the wording for casting in armor. The Armored Casting is an "Elf Thing", not necessarily a combination class feature. You should change the wording slightly to:
[last sentence of the section]
This rule has no effect on combination classed Elf characters (e.g., Fighter/Magic-Users).

Optionally, it can be further modified to account for Gnomes, Half-Elves, and other non-standard races.
If the Game Master utilizes Gnomes, Half-Elves, or other non-standard races from other supplements, then one should reference that supplement for particular armored casting rules (for example, Gnome Magic-User/Thieves may cast normally while in Leather Armor).

Also, bearing in mind these issues, I would perhaps suggest a graduated penalty based on armor type applied to a Ability Check... that way a higher level caster slowly acquires more ability in this area. Bonuses can be given for race? or for special Skills learned (Armor Proficiency)?
-2 Leather
-4 Chain
-8 Plate

Just ideas to get you going here...
[edit] FYI - you mention that

Sir Bedivere wrote:First, I like it because it gives an interesting tweak to the class and it seems to be in the spirit of the game.

I would disagree that this is in the spirit of the game.. perhaps 3e+ era, but not the older editions this game is modeled on.

-------------
Why not just add Dart to your equipment list (probably already done in the Equipment Emporium) and add that to the MU Proficiency. (even Solo likes this potentially)

--------------
For the Spell Inscription Section: Instead of simply cheap transcribing, how about a more severe progression, but certainly more forgiving for the beginning spell caster.
(Cantrips 50 gp if used)
1st 100 gp
2nd 500 gp
3rd 1000 gp
4th 2000 gp
5th 3000 gp
6th 6000 gp
(7th 10000 gp if used)
Just suggested progression, one could tweak that. It reduces the low level spells substantially, catching up at 4th level spells and eventually doubles that needed for the highest level spells.