Firehawk Games
Firehawk Games RPG Products => Novus RPG => Topic started by: imported_Rasyr on May 01, 2011, 01:27:20 AM
-
In a recent email, somebody brought up the following issue regarding armor Impedance
Also, there were some issues regarding impedance. We decided that although the caster has to pay impedance, isn't part of anything else. So if you cast a 5 point spell with 2 impedance, you'd have to spend 7 spell points, but the save is only 19 since it's based on the spells cost without impedance. Counterspell would be the same way, but the counterspeller is also affected by his own impedance, but not the targets.
So for an example Fred and Jan are in a spell duel. Fred has an impedence of 3 and Jan has an impedence of 5, since they both are wearing armor for some reason. Jan goes to cast Touch of the Grave, sp cost 2 + impedence 5 = 7 sp. Fred tries to counterspell. Since Jans spell is only 2 points once her impedence is accounted for, Fred still has to spend 5 sp since he has to add his 3 impedance to the spell cost of 2.
I guess a slightly clearer way to explain it might be The caster of the spell or counterspell has to pay the impedence cost in addition to the spell or counterspells normal cost, but the impedance cost isn't considered when calculating effects, target numbers, etc.
At least that's how we thing it goes. (http:///smile.gif)
Now, the 2nd paragraph under the heading "Casting Spells" says the following:
Wearing armor does not affect the TN of casting a spell,
but it does require that the caster expend more Spell Points
or else the spell will automatically fail. Armor has an attribute
known as Impedance (p. 31) and this is equal to how many
extra Spell Points the caster must expend in casting a spell.
And 2 paragraphs after that, it says:
If a spell requires that the target make a Save, the base TN
for this Save is 14 plus the number of Spell Points required to
cast the spell. Each spell will list what stat the Save is against.
This may also be adjusted through Casting Boon Points.
And in the description for Counterspells, we never mention Impedance.
What I want to do here is to get feedback and opinions regarding the idea that we formalize that Impedance does not, ever, affect Casting TN, Saves against, or Counterspell costs.
In my opinion, the extra SP spent on casting spells while wearing armor is basically meant to allow the caster to treat the spell as if he were not wearing armor at all. And for these other things, that armor shouldn't count either.
Another idea that I want feedback on is the idea of allowing casters to ignore the Impedance SP cost in exchange for taking a -2 modifier to the casting roll. This makes the spell harder to cast well, but won't affect Saves against it, or counterspells...
Thoughts? Comments?
-
My thoughts. As it concerns a spell caster: I think armor should increase the TN of casting & cost the impedence. It would be kinda like forcing fluid through different sized pipes; it would all get through, but if you want it to get through in a hury you'd have to force it by applying more pressure (impedence cost) and suffering the burst of pressure on the other side (TN penalty). Every point of impedence increases the TN, but this should be more severe than +1's maybe the penalty doubles every time; so 1 impedence is +1, 2 is +2, 3 is+4, etc...
Counterspell should be subject to impedence; it is a spell afterall.
And saves against: do you mean the caster making a save or the target of the spell making a save? If its the target the Casting roll affects the save does it not? If not; impedence could reduce the TN for resisting (simulating unfocused power)...
-
The question regarding Counterspell is not whether or not the person casting the counterspell has to figure in Impedance (he does), but if the target spell/caster has armor, how does HIS Impedance figure into the calculations.
For example:
Fred the Black Magican is wearing Scale torso armor and is casting Hex (4 SP), thus he is spending 6 SP in total to cast the spell (and if we use Witchking's suggestion and use double the Imp as a CTN mod, the Casting TN of the Hex is increased from 26 to 30).
Joe, our magical hero is going to cast Counterspell (Joe is NOT wearing armor right now). He makes his Magecraft roll so he knows how many SP he needs to counter the Hex.
The question is -- When Joe makes his Magecraft roll, does it tell him that the spell costs 4 SP (its normal cost), or 6 SP since that is what Fred spent?
Personally, I would say 4 SP, since it seems wrong to me to force a Counterspeller to also pay for the target's impedance. It would also mean that something that makes a spell harder to cast also makes it harder to dispell (counter-intuitive to me).
Saves -- I was talking the target's Saves... If Fred is casting Hex on Joe, Joe's Save TN should be (IMO) 18, not 20. Now, I could see an argument for making the target's Save be 16 (14 + Base SP in spell - Imp) as THAT does make sense to me.
-
Is magecraft measuring the in or the out......if he's watching the inhale of the "mana" being taken in, then 6; if he's watching the exhale of the mana froming the spell, then 4. I pesronally think 4.
-
okay, I picture the casting of a spell to be the forming of an energy matrix using mana. The number of SP required will determine the size of the matrix (another way to think of it is as a 3 dimensional snowflake made out of energy). IMO, the extra mana required because of Impedance is used to overcome the inherent energy dampening properties of armor. (Once formed, the magical effect happens (and/or is resisted), and since we are talking effect, not raw energy, the target's armor plays no part in the Save.
So, to me, the counterspell should not include the SP from Imp.
-
The question is -- When Joe makes his Magecraft roll, does it tell him that the spell costs 4 SP (its normal cost), or 6 SP since that is what Fred spent?
Personally, I would say 4 SP, since it seems wrong to me to force a Counterspeller to also pay for the target's impedance. It would also mean that something that makes a spell harder to cast also makes it harder to dispell (counter-intuitive to me).
I agree with you, Tim.
-
I think that the extra SP spend to overcome impedance should not count into counterspells and saves. In my mind they are lost on the way through the caster's armor. I don't see it like the pipes model of Witchking, I think of it more like forcing water through a thick cloth. Some of the water (SP) will just get sucked up by the cloth.
As for impedance vs. casting penalties, I'm undecided. I personally am happy with just impedance, but having a chance to decide might be nice. If so, it should be harder to overcome impedance without increasing SP than just dumping more SP into it, i.e. +2 to TN for every point of impedance or something like that.
-
As for impedance vs. casting penalties, I'm undecided. I personally am happy with just impedance, but having a chance to decide might be nice. If so, it should be harder to overcome impedance without increasing SP than just dumping more SP into it, i.e. +2 to TN for every point of impedance or something like that.
Are you saying that you think that Impedance should translate into:
1) xx SP per each spell
OR
2) +2 to CTN per point of Impedance
Correct?
-
I'm not sure I understand you there, but what I meant was this:
Having impedance as an extra cost on SP like it is at the moment, is a very good solution. I could se the option of having the choice to ignore the extra cost and casting the spell at its original SP cost with a penalty for those cases where the mage is running low on mana. But this should be riskier than just a flat +x to the CTN to make it a last resort kind of thing.
The reasoning being that normally the mage just dumps SP into a spell until it works, thus using more SP when he is wearing armor. If he doesn't do this, the spell matrix is more fragile and prone to collapse. Thus the higher CTN. The exact ammount of penalty is something I haven't thought too much about though. Does this make it clearer?
-
Kinda.... Hmm.. perhaps something like automatically earning a Snag Point (regardless of final die total, in addition to the mod to the casting roll) if you don't use the mana option?
-
Hmm, our experiences with the snag points haven't been all that great so far, so I'm a bit weary there. I'll think some more on it.
-
No major rush....
-
I could see it gibving a penalty in casting time because it is more difficult to create the more fragile matrix.
-
I could see it gibving a penalty in casting time because it is more difficult to create the more fragile matrix.
Oh! Impedance == extra SP required to cast the spell AND extra Action Points required to cast spells.
So, Fred wants to cast Hex, but he is wearing Scale torso armor and a reinforced leather helm (total Imp of 3), that would mean that the spell costs 7 SP (4 base SP + 3 Imp SP) and that it would take 7 Action Points to cast (i.e. 1 full round and part of a second).
That would explain why most magic users go without armor, it makes spells cheaper, and quicker....
-
Actually, what I meant was that he could decide if he wanted to use more SP and cast in the normal casting time, or use the normal ammount of SP and cast with a penalty and use more AP since he had a more fragile matrix, since the armor was sucking up some of the mana he was trying to pump through. Does this make sense?
-
ah... ok
Though, I would require at least 1 extra SP minimum even if taking the extra time.
-
I'm completely ok with that. A bit of impedance still remains that just can't be overcome, no matter how careful you build your spell matrix.
-
It has to be hindering enough to make higher level characters think twice about using armour & casting spells; thats my biggest concern.
-
I personally don't have that much of a problem with spellcasters wearing armor, especially once they are a bit more powerful. Even with heavy armor a mage can never become a good mage and a good fighter at the same time, so there's no reason to prohibit him from using armor too much.
-
Except that they can "tank it out" by layering armour & spells. In a mixed level campaign (where some players are level 6 and some are level 3) the balance could be tricky for a GM.
-
I really like the fact that casters can wear armor! As far as Impedance is concerned, I think it should modify the wearer's casting Target Number. This would apply if the character is casting a spell or when counterspelling. I don't think it is really necessary to increase the spell point cost, since its a double-penalty, as far as I see it. BUT, I wouldn't cry too much about it! (http:///smile.gif)
-
Thanks for the comments - keep them coming, and welcome to the forums!
-
Increasing the SP cost or casting time basically means that the character has the same base CHANCE of casting the spell as if he/she was wearing no armor- it just takes more energy and time to do so. That's not nearly as much fun (or tense) for the caster!
Good point!
And I agree.
-
Personally, I hate Impedance. I loathe the 'mages can't wear armor' trope in a game that is supposed to be generic and in which it is unnecessary for balance. Wizards in DnD weren't allowed to wear armor as a way of limiting their ultimately cosmic power. Casters in Novus don't seem to have access to that kind of gross imbalance, and so its a purely aesthetic decision rather than a mechanical one. Sure, it makes sense for some settings and game worlds, but Novus does not appear to be (nor is it described as) anything more than a generic set of fantasy RPG rules. It's not like the mechanics are built around a setting (ala Runequest). Casters are already limited in a number of ways (needing a fuel for their ability to function being high among them) so I don't think
That being the case, I see no reason to make all magic adhere to a specific limitation. If all magic is, at its core, the same, then why have different schools at all? There isn't anything Divine about Divine magic (it doesn't come from the gods), or Black about Black Magic. It's all just 'magic'.
Now, I'd be more ok with the limitation of Impedance if the Schools behaved differently. Then I could at least be comforted knowing there was a setting and mechanical reason for it instead of an aesthetic one.
Honestly, I think I'd rather see it done like this:
Magic Stat determined by Class (or dispense with most of the classes and make a generic caster template that had flexible skills)
Two Types of Magic: High and Low (or Prosaic or whatever). Everyone can use Low. Your 'School' magic is 8 or 10 spells chosen from the High List. Some spells that duplicate effects may need to be done away with.
Bam...instantly you've opened the gate to players and GMs being able to create a huge number of desired caster types and archtypes and done away with problems like 'why can't my priest of nature use Nature spells?'
Then, you can get more specific. Schools (Black, High, Divine, etc) are templates that players can pick (probably in a Librum supplement) that have advantages and disadvantages. Maybe Black and Divine Casters can wear armor because their magic comes from an outside source, but they suffer either outright hatred in the case of Black casters or religious restrictions in the case of Divine magic. This would make the schools feel different mechanically and meaningfully.
Anyway, that's my wish list... (http:///bigwink.gif)
-
That being the case, I see no reason to make all magic adhere to a specific limitation. If all magic is, at its core, the same, then why have different schools at all? There isn't anything Divine about Divine magic (it doesn't come from the gods), or Black about Black Magic. It's all just 'magic'.
Mechanically (via the system), all magic is essentially the same, currently.
Spellcasters in Novus, unlike in D&D, ARE allowed to wear armor. However, it is just that doing so comes with a consequence. Either an increase in the Spell Points required (or, in the next version, an increase in the TN of the spell -- player will get to choose when they cast a spell).
Now, I'd be more ok with the limitation of Impedance if the Schools behaved differently. Then I could at least be comforted knowing there was a setting and mechanical reason for it instead of an aesthetic one.
The main difference in the schools is their philosophy and training (i.e. how they approach casting spells, and the sorts of spells that they do cast).
Magic Stat determined by Class (or dispense with most of the classes and make a generic caster template that had flexible skills)
In version 0.4, Magic Stat is determined by Class.
However, I am actually working on (thanks to some comments from a poster on rpg.net) a single spell using Class that does away with the the existing spell-using Classes and replaces them with a single Class (4 Favored Skills, 3 other skills selected by the Player). Have even posted the first draft of it to the Alpha Playtesters already.
Two Types of Magic: High and Low (or Prosaic or whatever). Everyone can use Low. Your 'School' magic is 8 or 10 spells chosen from the High List. Some spells that duplicate effects may need to be done away with.
Not sure I like this idea.... but will consider it and let the idea perculate....
Bam...instantly you've opened the gate to players and GMs being able to create a huge number of desired caster types and archtypes and done away with problems like 'why can't my priest of nature use Nature spells?'
THat is actually something that I have been meaning to address. The generic priest versus a priest of a specific deity. There is nothing in the rules that says that a GM cannot give access to spells, or spells that are more approriate to a specific deity.
Hmmm... In fact, it might be a better idea to include a second new class that does JUST that, that creates his spell list based on Divine spells and spells related specifically to the character's deity.
-
Posted by: Tywyll
I loathe the 'mages can't wear armor' trope in a game that is supposed to be generic and in which it is unnecessary for balance. Wizards in DnD weren't allowed to wear armor as a way of limiting their ultimately cosmic power. Casters in Novus don't seem to have access to that kind of gross imbalance, and so its a purely aesthetic decision rather than a mechanical one.
I have not become an expert on the Novus System yet, and I can't yet speak on the limitations of the magic system, but while looking over the Libras Novus I supplement, it appears to me that mages can and will have access to fairly powerful spells- especially since the system allows for spell creation.
Now if the author/creator of a system desires Impedance, so be it. Just because a system is "generic", doesn't mean it can't have both aesthetic (setting) and mechanic rules. You as a GM have the power to modify any sytem any way you desire to. I honestly don't think I have ever played in or GMed a game that hadn't been "houseruled" or modified in some form.
Magic Stat determined by Class (or dispense with most of the classes and make a generic caster template that had flexible skills)
Magic Stats are determined by class already. The system is based upon Classes. Its not a classless system- although that is my preferance! (http:///smile.gif)
Two Types of Magic: High and Low (or Prosaic or whatever). Everyone can use Low.
That seems to be the direction that the system is headed in. Universal Magic (in my interpretation) is like a Low Magic. Everyone can use Universal Magic- if they purchase the Magecraft and Spellcraft skills.
'why can't my priest of nature use Nature spells?'
Who says he can't? The Player and Gm simply need to work together and create some Nature spells.
I like your ideas alot and simply see them as inspiration for creative GM's and players to go nuts, using the flexibility of the system as it stands.
Posted by: Rasyr(Tim)
However, I am actually working on (thanks to some comments from a poster on rpg.net) a single spell using Class that does away with the the existing spell-using Classes and replaces them with a single Class (4 Favored Skills, 3 other skills selected by the Player).
As a stickler for continuity, I must ask- if there is a single spell-using class that does away with the existing classes (allowing for more flexibility), will there also the be a single melee or martial class that allows for the same flexibilty? Then players and Gm's can basically make and design their own classes, by choosing the skills they want?
-
Posted by: Rasyr(Tim)
However, I am actually working on (thanks to some comments from a poster on rpg.net) a single spell using Class that does away with the the existing spell-using Classes and replaces them with a single Class (4 Favored Skills, 3 other skills selected by the Player).
As a stickler for continuity, I must ask- if there is a single spell-using class that does away with the existing classes (allowing for more flexibility), will there also the be a single melee or martial class that allows for the same flexibilty? Then players and Gm's can basically make and design their own classes, by choosing the skills they want?
Actually, the condensed spell casting class only offers a slight increase in flexibility, as most everything is the same for the majority of the spell using classes. Basically, the condensing gives the available spell users the ability to select 1-2 more skills as Favored (while removing some of the assigned Favored skills). This class does not get to select its Special Abilities (i.e. Major Adept). It is the fact that all of the spell using classes had the SAME special ability that allowed them to be condensed into a single class.
The Archer, Fighter, Minstrel, and Rogue all get to select 2 skills as Favored (compared to the 3 that the condensed spell user gets to select). However, they all have different Special Abilities, which makes it harder to combine them.
-
Posted by: Tywyll
I loathe the 'mages can't wear armor' trope in a game that is supposed to be generic and in which it is unnecessary for balance. Wizards in DnD weren't allowed to wear armor as a way of limiting their ultimately cosmic power. Casters in Novus don't seem to have access to that kind of gross imbalance, and so its a purely aesthetic decision rather than a mechanical one.
I have not become an expert on the Novus System yet, and I can't yet speak on the limitations of the magic system, but while looking over the Libras Novus I supplement, it appears to me that mages can and will have access to fairly powerful spells- especially since the system allows for spell creation.
I don't have that supplement. I'm only talking about whats in the main book. Maybe they do have access to that stuff, but the core mechanics do not NEED 'no armor' by default to balance them. They simply are not that much more powerful than non-casters.
Now if the author/creator of a system desires Impedance, so be it. Just because a system is "generic", doesn't mean it can't have both aesthetic (setting) and mechanic rules. You as a GM have the power to modify any sytem any way you desire to. I honestly don't think I have ever played in or GMed a game that hadn't been "houseruled" or modified in some form.
Of course they can. But equally, this game does intend to compete with an already full market. Since the rules are divorced from any sort of setting, if I were buying it, I'd be looking for something generic. So when I hit a SETTING based rule in my system, as a customer, I find it rankles. If there is clear balancing going on, fair enough. If there are other factors involved (different types of magic behave differently), again, I'm amenable.
I mean, look at the basic elements of the system: we have a 'Class' system that is, for the most part, merely a template that reflects the direction of character development but, like Rolemaster, is not meant to limit character growth based on player concept. Fighters can learn magic, rogues can learn to fight well, and wizards can learn to fight too.
But they can't wear armor.
It just seems needless, from a balance perspective, and antithetical to the core assumption of being able to build the character YOU want to play.
Magic Stat determined by Class (or dispense with most of the classes and make a generic caster template that had flexible skills)
Magic Stats are determined by class already. The system is based upon Classes. Its not a classless system- although that is my preferance! (http:///smile.gif)
Yeah, I know that. I was looking for a way of making 'Class' even relevant in my proposed changes. So skill selection and Magic stat are determined by your class, but you get to pick your spells to build your 'school' (or the GM picks them for you).
My original idea was that you would pick the stat you wanted your magic to be based around. You could have a Con based innate magician, for example.
'why can't my priest of nature use Nature spells?'
Who says he can't? The Player and Gm simply need to work together and create some Nature spells.
I like your ideas alot and simply see them as inspiration for creative GM's and players to go nuts, using the flexibility of the system as it stands.
Thank you. I agree that GM's can and usually do houserule any system they play with. But thinking about it from the perspective of new players/groups and I wonder why things should require them to do so. I think Priests as a concept should have that element to begin with, rather than needing to add it later.
Posted by: Rasyr(Tim)
However, I am actually working on (thanks to some comments from a poster on rpg.net) a single spell using Class that does away with the the existing spell-using Classes and replaces them with a single Class (4 Favored Skills, 3 other skills selected by the Player).
As a stickler for continuity, I must ask- if there is a single spell-using class that does away with the existing classes (allowing for more flexibility), will there also the be a single melee or martial class that allows for the same flexibilty? Then players and Gm's can basically make and design their own classes, by choosing the skills they want?
Yeah, I gotta agree with you there. I'd rather see four archetypes:
Martial
Rogue
Caster
Hybrid (Caster+Martial or Rogue)
Each with flexible skill sets/advantages so you can build your own. Martial and Rogue characters would get X advantages from a list, or maybe Martial get Combat 2 + X Points of advantages from the following... Rogues get Combat 1 + X points of advantages from the following...
Easy peasy...
-
Yeah, I gotta agree with you there. I'd rather see four archetypes:
And now, Tim is going to write "Irregular Novus" ? (http:///bigeyes.gif)
-
I don't have that supplement. I'm only talking about whats in the main book. Maybe they do have access to that stuff, but the core mechanics do not NEED 'no armor' by default to balance them. They simply are not that much more powerful than non-casters.
In writing Novus, I could not limit myself to "just the core rules". I have to take the approach that the system WILL be expanded upon, and in some cases, those expansions were not only already known, but already written (i.e. the spell creation rules).
Therefore, I have to write the rules accordingly, to all of the known rules. And since the Spell Base rules DO expand the pweor of magic users greatly, I have to make sure that there are balancing things in place.
Of course they can. But equally, this game does intend to compete with an already full market. Since the rules are divorced from any sort of setting, if I were buying it, I'd be looking for something generic. So when I hit a SETTING based rule in my system, as a customer, I find it rankles. If there is clear balancing going on, fair enough. If there are other factors involved (different types of magic behave differently), again, I'm amenable.
The armor rules ARE balance-based, not setting based
I mean, look at the basic elements of the system: we have a 'Class' system that is, for the most part, merely a template that reflects the direction of character development but, like Rolemaster, is not meant to limit character growth based on player concept. Fighters can learn magic, rogues can learn to fight well, and wizards can learn to fight too.
But they can't wear armor.
There is no rule in Novus that says spell users cannot wear armor. The Impedance rules only say that IF the spell user does wear armor, he has to pay an additional cost in Spell Points.
It just seems needless, from a balance perspective, and antithetical to the core assumption of being able to build the character YOU want to play.
You can build the character you want - within the limits of balance within the system.
But what is not wanted, is super-mages who can cast spells in plate armor (with other defensive spells piled on top), fight with a sword
Yeah, I know that. I was looking for a way of making 'Class' even relevant in my proposed changes. So skill selection and Magic stat are determined by your class, but you get to pick your spells to build your 'school' (or the GM picks them for you).
My original idea was that you would pick the stat you wanted your magic to be based around. You could have a Con based innate magician, for example.
No, not doing a "build your own School" system, sorry. Building Schools of Magic should, IMO, be limited to the GM, designing them for HIS setting. Novus has to give some example Schools, and that is exactly what we do.
Thank you. I agree that GM's can and usually do houserule any system they play with. But thinking about it from the perspective of new players/groups and I wonder why things should require them to do so. I think Priests as a concept should have that element to begin with, rather than needing to add it later.
Yes, I do need to expand the Clerics a bit. I will likely present 2 or 3 alternate Spell lists (built off the existing spells in Novus) for players to choose from. However, these Clerical Spell Lists will have to be based on something, so most likely, they will be based on the Gods from the setting that I am developing for Novus - Tyrlon.
Yeah, I gotta agree with you there. I'd rather see four archetypes:
Martial
Rogue
Caster
Hybrid (Caster+Martial or Rogue)
Each with flexible skill sets/advantages so you can build your own. Martial and Rogue characters would get X advantages from a list, or maybe Martial get Combat 2 + X Points of advantages from the following... Rogues get Combat 1 + X points of advantages from the following...
Easy peasy...
Not easy peasy, not when you are trying to balance things properly. Not everything is equivalent....
So, sorry, the existing non-spell-using classes will remain.
-
Of course they can. But equally, this game does intend to compete with an already full market. Since the rules are divorced from any sort of setting, if I were buying it, I'd be looking for something generic. So when I hit a SETTING based rule in my system, as a customer, I find it rankles. If there is clear balancing going on, fair enough. If there are other factors involved (different types of magic behave differently), again, I'm amenable.
The armor rules ARE balance-based, not setting based
I'd have thought that the small amount of power points that casters get (2 per level) is the real balancing factor, along with the cost for spells and spell skill, not whether they have armor.
It just seems needless, from a balance perspective, and antithetical to the core assumption of being able to build the character YOU want to play.
You can build the character you want - within the limits of balance within the system.
But what is not wanted, is super-mages who can cast spells in plate armor (with other defensive spells piled on top), fight with a sword
Nor is that what would result from allowing them to wear armor. Where did you get that?
If you are worried about layered defensive magic, don't let it layer (or make the kind of protection spell that does layer be much weaker than the one used without layering). I mean, that's not complicated. Tons of games have 'gish' style characters without breaking.
Yeah, I know that. I was looking for a way of making 'Class' even relevant in my proposed changes. So skill selection and Magic stat are determined by your class, but you get to pick your spells to build your 'school' (or the GM picks them for you).
My original idea was that you would pick the stat you wanted your magic to be based around. You could have a Con based innate magician, for example.
No, not doing a "build your own School" system, sorry. Building Schools of Magic should, IMO, be limited to the GM, designing them for HIS setting. Novus has to give some example Schools, and that is exactly what we do.
I never said it wouldn't be in the hands of the GM. By dividing Magic into Low and High, and saying caster methodologies get X spells from High, you put it in the GM's hands. Or the player's hands, if that's what the GM wants.
The implication is, that if a PLAYER were to pick whatever high spells they wanted, it would make things Unbalanced, somehow. But if GM's do something similar, their creation won't be? Because there's no guidelines on spell values, in a balance sense, or how powerful a school should be. Maybe this is something you have planned for a supplement, I don't know.
Thank you. I agree that GM's can and usually do houserule any system they play with. But thinking about it from the perspective of new players/groups and I wonder why things should require them to do so. I think Priests as a concept should have that element to begin with, rather than needing to add it later.
Yes, I do need to expand the Clerics a bit. I will likely present 2 or 3 alternate Spell lists (built off the existing spells in Novus) for players to choose from. However, these Clerical Spell Lists will have to be based on something, so most likely, they will be based on the Gods from the setting that I am developing for Novus - Tyrlon.
Sure, that makes sense. Though you could just as easily base them on concepts [Sky God, Sea God, Trickster, Death, etc].
Yeah, I gotta agree with you there. I'd rather see four archetypes:
Martial
Rogue
Caster
Hybrid (Caster+Martial or Rogue)
Each with flexible skill sets/advantages so you can build your own. Martial and Rogue characters would get X advantages from a list, or maybe Martial get Combat 2 + X Points of advantages from the following... Rogues get Combat 1 + X points of advantages from the following...
Easy peasy...
Not easy peasy, not when you are trying to balance things properly. Not everything is equivalent....
So, sorry, the existing non-spell-using classes will remain.
Are the current classes built around a numerical value? Since elements can be purchased and have a value, then it should be DEAD simple to 'balance' them.
Let's see:
Archer:
11 Skills
26 Points of Talents
Fighter
10 Skills
31 Talents
Minstral
10* Skills
21 Talents
Rogue
11 Skills
24 Talents
Thief
9 skills
23 Talents
The above numbers include the skills from Favored Skill and Combat Talent.
So... based on those numbers, it seems fairly straight forward:
Martial
10 Skills (No more than 4 skills within a skill needing specialization, like Combat Skills or Craft).
Up to 4 Talents (but no less than 3) with a total cost of 30 or less
Must pick either Combat Training 1 or 2, the rest must come from the following list: Armor Lt or med, Shield Use, Favored Skill (one time only), Natural Talent, Waylay
Of course, with this type of system, you'd do better opening the list of advantages characters can pick from, but the above would adequate represent the existing classes with only the Minstral being a sort of outlier.
-
The only reason I am combining the spell using classes is because they all have the same identical Special Ability and they all shared several of the same Favored skills. So combining them does not make for a major departure from what is/was already present.
However, combining the other classes, to me, does not make any sort of sense, because they don't share the same Special Abilities, nor do I wish to make the game more complicated by trying to setup what amounts to a "Class Creation System" for the core rules. That sort of thing is something that, IMO, should go into a set of GM rules, specifically telling how to create new classes (I gave a short explanation in another thread around here somewhere).
Too many choices at the onset can be daunting and intimidating (not for everybody, but for some). I cannot go by personal preferences, I have to write and design for the larger, overall picture, for the potential wider audience.
Impedance will stay. In fact, (as discussed in another thread someplace) I will be expanding it so that players can either pay the Impedance cost, or swap a point of Impedance for a +2 to the Casting TN of the spell (or a -2 to their casting roll). And you are correct that things such as CP cost and SP costs are balancing factors. However, none of them, by themselves works perfectly, but taken together, as a whole, when compared with the whole of the magic system (including the Spell Base rules from LN#1, which was originally part of the core rules, and then removed as being too complicated for the core), work quite well to balance everything out.
Also, I think that it is important to point out one additional thing. I am not writing Novus to "compete" against a market already filled to the brim with other systems. I am writing Novus because it is a system that I want to play, and I want to share it with others. I don't have a huge company or extremely popular (and expensive) license behind me, so I know going into this that Novus won't instantly be a "huge hit". This is me designing what I think is the best game I possibly can, and putting it into a format that will be workable and appeal to the widest audience possible.
If folks like it - so much the better. If some folks don't, then good luck to them with their game of choice and no hard feelings.
-
First of all, Tim, thanks for taking the time out to have these (sometimes heated?) (http:///smile.gif)