Revising GURPS Magic

[Jürgen Hubert]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

I see no problem with that when the problem is "magic users outclassing non-magic users". Powerful magic items that can be used by thieves and warriors are the equalizer for that.

Not if the mages can get their own, equally powerful magic items to boost their power. (And in fact, plenty of magic items are "mage only"...)


Okay, perhaps I should explain it a bit differently. I have no problem with mages being powerful as such. Or that they are amazingly versatile. But when a non-mage specializes in something, they should be able to shine in that niche. A legendary archer shouldn't just fail automatically when facing a mage who knows a very basic protective spell. A thief's skills shouldn't be invalidated by a mage who knows certain spells useful for thievery. And so forth.

This is also the purpose behind my revised "spell maintenance" rules I posted earlier in the thread - mages can cast highly powerful and useful spells, but they can't maintain them all at once. They must pick and choose which ones are the most useful for any given situation. If they try to maintain too many spells, they will suffer a significant decline in skill and energy - so having the mundane skills is still useful.


And it's not as if I am only reducing the power of mages - with some of the spells I am providing significant power boosts if I judged them as too weak. But certain spells have proven to be problematic in the high-powered fantasy campaigns I participated in, and I wish to address this. These problems likely aren't a concern for all games, but they were in mine.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

But I like high-CP play. What I don't like is high-CP mages totally outclassing high-CP non-mages.

.

Have you considered that you (collective and plural noun) may be designing your non-mages inefficiently? Aldehar the Incendiary did not outshine Nyx the Barbarian.

[Jürgen Hubert]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Have you considered that you (collective and plural noun) may be designing your non-mages inefficiently? Aldehar the Incendiary did not outshine Nyx the Barbarian.

It's possible, but after witnessing mages in the party reaching "default" spell skill levels (i.e. by spending one character point in a spell) of 30 and casting about a dozen protective/boosting spells every morning which they can maintain indefinitely, I am not so sure.

[Jürgen Hubert]

Technology

Probably the most blatantly “optional” college for fantasy campaigns. Even the spells that can fit into a fantasy world should have a fairly limited circulation - the secret magic of certain craftsmen’s guilds, for instance. Many of the Machine spells will work, since even TL4 or lower settings can have simple devices, although the need for such spells is limited. The Energy spells are more problematic, although some mages’ circles figuring out how to draw magical energy from large waterfalls and the like could make for an interesting flavor. Radiation and Plastic spells are right out for most standard fantasy campaigns, although Metal spells could work.

Water

Resist Acid: As with Resist Fire/Cold, this spell provides DR 4 against acid-based damage per 1 point of base energy cost. Half cost to maintain.

Weather

Resist Lightning: As with Resist Fire/Cold, this spell provides DR 4 against electricity-based damage per 1 point of base energy cost. Half cost to maintain.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

Not if the mages can get their own, equally powerful magic items to boost their power. (And in fact, plenty of magic items are "mage only"...)

Yeah, I've never seen much point in enchanting mage-only items. That's not where the market is apart from energy items. They're only really useful for people who have the mage talent, but no training and deep pockets and that's got to be a pretty small market. Magic swords and armor, tiaras of mind protection, wands of water-seeking, that's where the real money should be. A lot of rich non-mages looking for an equalizer or an edge.

Okay, perhaps I should explain it a bit differently. I have no problem with mages being powerful as such. Or that they are amazingly versatile. But when a non-mage specializes in something, they should be able to shine in that niche. A legendary archer shouldn't just fail automatically when facing a mage who knows a very basic protective spell. A thief's skills shouldn't be invalidated by a mage who knows certain spells useful for thievery. And so forth.

I certainly agree about Lockmaster, but I'd hesitate with Deflect Missiles. "Kill the mage" is such an obvious opening move. Popping the guy with the staff in D&D with every ranged attack the party could muster was always the first move. And just making it a penalty to hit doesn't make a lot of sense because it doesn't matter how accurately the arrow is aimed if it isn't going to hit where it was aimed.

So my answer would be "special" arrows that won't be deflected, or will be but have an area of effect, or Imbuements that can contest the Deflect,

[Jürgen Hubert]

Okay, now that I have gone through the entire spell list in GURPS Magic I figure I ought to talk a bit about my long-term goals with this project.

I like D&Desque fantasy, and I like a number of D&D/Pathfinder settings. Furthermore, D&D and Pathfinder over the years have developed an amazing number of options for player character spellcasters, and I want to model some of that variety in GURPS - but without the rigidity of D&D/Pathfinder classes. And while I am at it, I also want to blow up the rigidity of the prerequisite system of GURPS Magic.

Here is how I imagine it:


Based on the "Core" and "Base Classes" of Pathfinder (and ignoring the "Hybrid Classes" and other stranger classes), Pathfinder has the following "arcane" spellcasting classes:

Magus
Sorcerer
Summoner
Witch
Wizard

(and possibly Alchemist and Bard, although they use arcane magic somewhat differently).

Pathfinder also has these "divine" spellcasting classes:

Cleric
Druid
Inquisitor
Oracle
Ranger
Paladin


Each of these basic classes would be represented as their own Magical Style, with fairly large but finite spell lists, each using their own prerequisite organization and each gaining access to thematically appropriate perks.

But many of these classes have also deeper "specializations" - for example, Wizards can specialize as "Illusionists" or "Diviners". Clerics have access to Priestly Domains depending on which deity they follow, and so forth. I would model each of these as their own Magical Style. However, you don't have to be a "Wizard" (i.e. started your magical training with the "Wizard" Magical Style) to study the "Divination" Magical Style in depth - all that matters is that you have (arcane) Magical Aptitude and know a few Divination spells from somewhere.

And this concept can be extended. All sorts of prestige classes can be modeled as Magical Styles. Heck, even famous "spell tomes" can be modeled as Magical Styles, depending on what knowledge they teach.

With this system, spellcasters will probably still identify as "wizards", "sorcerers", and so forth depending on which Magical Style they started with. But to expand their knowledge and their horizons, they have to be constantly on the lookout for more Magical Styles - more "schools of magic" and sources of knowledge - and even two mages who both specialize in fire spells will end up having rather different spell lists and perks (and possibly further advantages granted by the Magical Styles they have learned).


Does any of this make sense? And more to the point, does this sound interesting?

[Jürgen Hubert]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

I certainly agree about Lockmaster, but I'd hesitate with Deflect Missiles. "Kill the mage" is such an obvious opening move. Popping the guy with the staff in D&D with every ranged attack the party could muster was always the first move. And just making it a penalty to hit doesn't make a lot of sense because it doesn't matter how accurately the arrow is aimed if it isn't going to hit where it was aimed.

So my answer would be "special" arrows that won't be deflected, or will be but have an area of effect, or Imbuements that can contest the Deflect,

Deflect Missiles will still work - it's a Blocking Spell and an Active Defense, which means it won't work infinitely. It's Missile Shield that bothers me - in fact, casting it makes Deflect Missiles pointless.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

Deflect Missiles will still work - it's a Blocking Spell and an Active Defense, which means it won't work infinitely. It's Missile Shield that bothers me - in fact, casting it makes Deflect Missiles pointless.

Yeah I mean "Missile Shield". Although actually back in the day I had no such thing. It was Reverse Missiles or nothing (except a DR spell).

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

But when a non-mage specializes in something, they should be able to shine in that niche. A legendary archer shouldn't just fail automatically when facing a mage who knows a very basic protective spell. A thief's skills shouldn't be invalidated by a mage who knows certain spells useful for thievery. And so forth.

PREACH IT!


Of course I solve this this the other way - Lower cap on Magery and IQ.

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

Deflect Missiles will still work - it's a Blocking Spell and an Active Defense, which means it won't work infinitely. It's Missile Shield that bothers me - in fact, casting it makes Deflect Missiles pointless.

Best fit would be to make Missile Shield give DR versus missiles, 1 FP/DR half to maintain.

And drop Reverse Missiles. Keep Deflect Missile and Return Missile (maybe*).



* I admit, I never liked Reverse Missiles... and while not quite as abusive, I'm also not a fan of Return Missile.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

Here is how I imagine it:


Based on the "Core" and "Base Classes" of Pathfinder (and ignoring the "Hybrid Classes" and other stranger classes), Pathfinder has the following "arcane" spellcasting classes:

Magus
Sorcerer
Summoner
Witch
Wizard

(and possibly Alchemist and Bard, although they use arcane magic somewhat differently).

Pathfinder also has these "divine" spellcasting classes:

Cleric
Druid
Inquisitor
Oracle
Ranger
Paladin


Each of these basic classes would be represented as their own Magical Style, with fairly large but finite spell lists, each using their own prerequisite organization and each gaining access to thematically appropriate perks.


Does any of this make sense? And more to the point, does this sound interesting?

I hate to keep sounding like a contrarian but I've been playing in a Pathfinder campaign for a while. It's carrion crown and we're almost to 14th level. We're hip deep in Divine casters with a Cleric, a Paladin and an Inquisitor and most of their spell list is what these classes have in common rather than what differentiates them.

The Cleric is the primary spellcaster but with the medium hit pts and BAB progression and a couple of special Domain powers and bonus spells.

The Paladin is the strong fighter with D10 HP the best BAB progression and lots of special powers but only (theoretically) a small Spell list. It still manages to cover lots of useful things like Restoration.

The Inquisitor is a compromise class with D8s, medium BAB, better spells, lots of special Powers and a big Skill list with lots of Skill pts.

To fully model these you're going to need Templates and not Styles with a big selection of DF-style Power-Ups.

If you wonder, we've also got an Alchemist, a Magus and a Summoner-variant. Again you have an important mix of combat ability, Spell list and special powers.

I'm the Alchemist and I can tell you that the "Bombs" ability is crucial to the character class. It makes me the artillery and with a couple of buffs I can do 130 or more pts of damage per round. Not so much to do with anything like Gurps Alchemy Skill. Even Quick Gadgeteer (Alchemy only) could be too slow to match my character's ability to produce "infusions". That is very like casting buffing and healing spells.

As a private project, Styles are probably either too little or too much. I could do all the above just by making characters with raw Gurps from scratch and this would save me from making up Styles (much less Templates w/Power-Ups) that no one would ever use.

Something to be said for characters from scratch is that they would probably end up simpler and easier to play than any detailed emulation of Pathfinder. The complexity at these high levels is starting to get to my fellow players.