Magic-User Options

[SmootRK]

And this is where Smoot and I differ...

And there are countless degrees of middle-ground or differing opinions... and one of the greatest strengths of BFRPG is the plug-in nature of materials for the game.

Insert this, leave off that, etc. and you have the game you play, all very personal to the individual and his group.

Which also makes me note, that supplements that cover one topic (or at least parse each subtopic into alacarte items as this one does in a fashion) are better than compilations or compiled houserule systems. Let the individual folks decide which small aspects they like in their games. In that sense, I like how you have written this.

[Sir Bedivere]

Smoot, I appreciate your advice, & I like your ideas for the supplement.

On not changing things, the whole X Options set of supplements presents rules changes more than anything else. Combat Options, Thief Options, etc., focus on ways to tweak the rules. That's actually what I'm interested in doing here.

I'm not really sure about the distinctions you make. For example, to me, adding bonus spells is just as much of a change as letting MUs wear leather armor or changing the experience table. What do you see as the difference?

[SmootRK]

Smoot, I appreciate your advice, & I like your ideas for the supplement.

On not changing things, the whole X Options set of supplements presents rules changes more than anything else. Combat Options, Thief Options, etc., focus on ways to tweak the rules. That's actually what I'm interested in doing here.

I'm not really sure about the distinctions you make. For example, to me, adding bonus spells is just as much of a change as letting MUs wear leather armor or changing the experience table. What do you see as the difference?

The distinction is (at least in how I grok it):
Allowing MU to wear armor is a change to the existing class.
Adding bonus spells is an "add-on" to the existing class.
Changing weapon proficiencies for MU is a a "change"
Giving the MU a new ability "arcane bolt" is an "add-on"

Altering a Thief's chance with Thief abilities (as many would like low level theives have higher chances) is a change to the existing class.
Adding bonuses to the thief abilities based upon Ability scores is an "add-on"

Adding Combat Options for Fighters is generally "add-on", as is Weapon Specializations.
Altering the Combat Attack Bonus Chart to give fighters a bit more edge over other classes is a "change"

Adding Spells, Items, Gear... those are all clearly "add-on" material.

I agree, sometimes fine line and might be a little subjective, but that is how I look at it.

[Solomoriah]

Well, here I think your comments are pretty solid.

I know that I am usually too wordy when I write, so that was no surprise. Also, I kind of had that sense myself; when I finished the 2nd revision I wasn't really happy with the organization of it all, but in the spirit of "release early, release often," I went with what I had, even knowing it still needed some work.

This is good. I do feel that it is important to keep release cycles short, so that you don't stew in your own juices too long.

I wanted to discourage the idea of shifting the spell table, but the way I've done it seems confusing. I'm not sure that sort of "don't do this" advice is ever given in this kind of supplement, so I should probably drop it, or maybe make it clearly a warning.

I'd drop it, as I'm lazy... the effort of making the admonition clear is more than the effort of deletion. I personally have never seen that suggestion before... have you had it come up?

On your third comment, I'm just wrong, so I should correct it.

The idea that writing a spell in a book was the same as creating a scroll is an old theory, not supported directly by any BX or 1E era rules as far as I know but common in some groups in that era. I could go into the many arguments against it, but in this case, unless someone challenges me I'm prone to leave it to fiat.

Anyway, the main thing I want to do w/ r3 is reorganize it, clean it up, and add in the supplements & ideas that have come out since r2. I don't have a bunch of new stuff for it. Naturally, I always want to hear other gamers' opinions for improving it. I want it to be useful.

Good.

Would you prefer if I drop it to the Showcase where you can more freely update it? I just added you to the approved authors list.

[Sir Bedivere]

I wanted to discourage the idea of shifting the spell table, but the way I've done it seems confusing. I'm not sure that sort of "don't do this" advice is ever given in this kind of supplement, so I should probably drop it, or maybe make it clearly a warning.

I'd drop it, as I'm lazy... the effort of making the admonition clear is more than the effort of deletion. I personally have never seen that suggestion before... have you had it come up?

When I first did this supplement, I spent some time brainstorming possible variations and then thinking them through. This is one I came up with and it looked good at first glance, but I think it leads to a pretty bad result. I think I'll just drop it.

Anyway, the main thing I want to do w/ r3 is reorganize it, clean it up, and add in the supplements & ideas that have come out since r2. I don't have a bunch of new stuff for it. Naturally, I always want to hear other gamers' opinions for improving it. I want it to be useful.

Good.

Would you prefer if I drop it to the Showcase where you can more freely update it? I just added you to the approved authors list.

Hey, thanks. Let me check out the Showcase & orient myself to how that works, then I'll upload it there. (I'm assuming I can upload it there, of course.)

[Solomoriah]

You can. I'll need to drop it from the Downloads page to avoid having two different versions out there.

[Sir Bedivere]

I hadn't thought about that. I'll let you know when I'm ready to switch over.

[Sir Bedivere]

3) The section about inscribing spells is incorrect, in that inscribing a spell in a book is NOT the same as creating a scroll. A spell in a spellbook is the caster's notes about how to cast it; a scroll is a magically charged item containing the power of a spell activated by reading the words. You can't cast a spell by reading it out of the book.

Looking back at the rules, I think the reason I got the wrong idea is that it costs the MU 500gp / lvl of spell to write the spell into the spellbook, and the same to make a magical scroll. I assumed the process and materials were the same.

... the spell learned must be transcribed into the Magic-User's own spellbook, at a cost of 500 gp per spell level transcribed ...

A spellcaster may create a scroll ... The cost is 500 gp per spell level, and the time required is 1 day per spell level.

If the spellbook is just notes, I can't imagine why it would cost more than ink and quills to write the spell into the book.

[Sir Bedivere]

I'm not really sure about the distinctions you make. For example, to me, adding bonus spells is just as much of a change as letting MUs wear leather armor or changing the experience table. What do you see as the difference?

The distinction is (at least in how I grok it):
Allowing MU to wear armor is a change to the existing class.
Adding bonus spells is an "add-on" to the existing class.
Changing weapon proficiencies for MU is a a "change"
Giving the MU a new ability "arcane bolt" is an "add-on"

This is interesting. I can see the armor vs. bonus spells distinction: they don't get to wear armor at all, so adding it is a new thing; they already get spells, so adding more spells is just an expansion of something they already do.

However, MUs get two weapon proficiencies, so adding more seems just like adding more spells to me.

Even more, arcane bolt isn't like anything else the MU has before. Sure, we're calling it magic, but it doesn't work like any other kind of magic in BF, so it's not only new for the class, it's new for the whole game. To me, this is an even bigger change than allowing MUs to wear armor.

[SmootRK]

I agree, sometimes fine line and might be a little subjective, but that is how I look at it.

This line was also relevant in my post.
In the end, this is all subjective. To me, several of your proposed tweaks change the core rules, while I propose stuff (as Solomoriah has said regarding the new upcoming 3rd edition) that does not invalidate or change the core rules... but simply layers onto those rules. Perhaps that is the better way to describe my paradigm.
I would suggest things that layer upon the existing class framework without changing the nature of the core rules as written (when possible).

For instance,
Adding Cantrips does not invalidate anything in the core rules, only adding to the MU
Adding bonus spells for prime requisite does not invalidate anything in the core rules, only adding to the MU (or cleric appropriately with Wis).
Adding Arcane Bolt does not invalidate anything in the core rules, only adding to the MU
However, adding or changing actual weapon proficiencies does change the core rules as written.
Changing the nature of armor or simply adding armor for MU does change the core rules as written.

To me, arcane bolt is a new ability (add-on). It works like a weapon (about like a thrown dagger) more so than a spell, basically an unlimited thrown dagger... already doable by the MU, just not with the magical veneer. Perhaps we have differing views on how such ability might work. Here is the relevant paragraphs from my own house rules:

Arcane Bolt – All Mage classes may produce an Arcane Bolt once each round. This bolt may be used either melee or as ranged attack (10/20/30) and deals 1d3 points of physical damage. The Mage must roll to hit, with his or her Prime Requisite modifying the attack and damage rolls. The damage type dealt is a generic concussive force like a sling bullet.

At each level divisible by 5 (IE 5th, 10th, 15th, etc) the Mage may add another type of damage that can be chosen from round to round. Such choices include Fire/Heat, Cold, Electrical, Sonic. In addition, one could choose Necrotic or Negative energy causing damage to living tissue like a Cause Wounds spell, or Living / Positive energy which damages undead. For either of these positive or negative energies, the bolt does not produce healing effects (whether to living or undead respectively)

Adding a new proficiency like Crossbow to the MU, substantially changes the MU with regards to range. Bear in mind I am not so against this as a potential change to MU, but I was putting forth examples of each... not trying to dictate the choices of changes/tweak for your document. I would actually be quite fine with MU's with light crossbows or slings (but thinking sling is better suited).

In that sense, adding Short Sword to MU would not bother me either (Gandalf had a elven sword - I would even say longsword by the look/description - Glamdring)