Some discussion regarding Impedance of armor when casting spells

[imported_Rasyr]

ah... ok

Though, I would require at least 1 extra SP minimum even if taking the extra time.

[imported_Raf Blutaxt]

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.

[imported_Witchking20k]

It has to be hindering enough to make higher level characters think twice about using armour & casting spells; thats my biggest concern.

[imported_Raf Blutaxt]

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.

[imported_Witchking20k]

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.

[windmark8040]

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! 

[imported_Rasyr]

Thanks for the comments - keep them coming, and welcome to the forums!

[Right Wing Wacko]

 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.

[Tywyll]

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... 

[imported_Rasyr]

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.

[windmark8040]

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! 

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?

[imported_Rasyr]

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.

[Tywyll]

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! 



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...

[Fidoric]

Yeah, I gotta agree with you there.  I'd rather see four archetypes:

And now, Tim is going to write "Irregular Novus" ? 

[imported_Rasyr]

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.