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.
