[Phil Masters]

Characters, Cont.

The classes that use supernatural power make things a little more complicated.

For simplicity, I'd run with the Wizard as written in Dungeon Fantasy 1. Okay, that means using the standard GURPS magic system, which isn't especially close to magic as hinted at in the early books (which seems vaguely Vancean with "memorised" spells) or as seen in later stories (which seems more improvisational), but, frankly, meh, close enough for government work, and it fits the tactical, resource-management feel traditional in dungeon fantasy. GMs can op to to use the Discworld RPG magic system instead if they wish, with characters switching the points that the templates assign to spells to Magic and Magical Form skills and improving specific spells, but that may slow combat down a little.

Following the lead of the books, actual wizards would all be male - presumably Unseen University graduates who've decided on a quick and dirty route to wealth and power rather than trying to hatchet their way up the pre-Ridcully UU hierarchy - while female spell-casters would mostly be witches, and would mostly have better things to do with their time than go down dungeons. However, there's no need to enforce rigid sexist limits; the early books hint at the existence of enchantresses, Krull certainly produces female wizards, and so on. And witches might join dungeoneering parties anyway, if they decided that those irresponsible delver types were doing a necessary job in keeping monsters down and just needed a bit of supervision.

Wizards really need power items (Dungeon Fantasy 1, p. 28; note that after converting to Ankh-Morpork dollars, every AM$ of item value would let it hold 2 FP), and the obvious item of choice for a Discworld wizard is his staff. Strictly speaking, ordinary staffs are dirt cheap and hence can't hold much power, but wizards can acquire fancy, ornate, hand-crafted staffs, and look out for rare woods (sapient pearwood being the ultimate option), so GMs can let characters spend more or less what they like on a staff. The only catch is that you'll be taking a flammable, breakable masterpiece of finely carved wood into combat. Other spell-users might have other appropriate options; for example, enchantresses might invest in flashy jewelry. For local colour, witches might treat their images and lifestyle as a power item; instead of spending money on staffs, bling, or whatever, they can invest in cottages full of cauldrons and iron ovens, pointy hats, cat food, and the rest, with the "item value" being fixed costs (the cottage, cauldron, etc.) and the "charge cost" being upkeep costs (fuel for the oven) and increased living expenses (travel to and from that remote cottage in the woods, say). Whereas an ordinary power item can be broken or stolen, a witch can be forced or induced to blow her "witchy" image by acting in an uncharacteristic fashion, losing the bonus FP until they get their groove back. Note that confectionery architecture is likely to be amazingly expensive to build and maintain, so this rule can actually explain the gingerbread cottages.

Bards, the other secular magic-worker type in Dungeon Fantasy 1, are harder to fit in. They really don't fit the Discworld feel at all, and there's no real precedent for them in the novels. (There are some very talented wandering entertainers, but they're strictly non-magic-wielders, despite their relationship to the power of narrative, and they're definitely noncombatants.) To keep it simple, I'd just drop this template entirely; bards honestly aren't essential to dungeoneering adventure.

Which brings us to the divinely-powered character types.

To Be Continued...