Dungeon Fantasy with only one Spellcaster "Class"

[LoneWolf23k]

So, something I've been considering as an alternative way of running a Dungeon Fantasy game is to drop the restricted spellcaster templates (Cleric, Druid and Wizard) and replacing them with a single, broad "Mage" Template that can be customized to serve different roles, including that of Healer or "Druid". Maybe using the Magical Styles approach.

[Gnomasz]

I would strongly advise against it. It would remove guidance in character creation. You've got 350 spells to choose from, it's hard enough already to understand: what being a spellcaster means. I'd rather go the other way and even build two or three professions for wizards, with more info on what spells to take. I think that the world of Harry Potter, as distinct from DFRPG as it is, is a good analogy here: saying "this is a wizard" says nothing of the character's skills and, uhm, character. You could be a wizard warrior, wizard scholar or a wizard housewife. "Wizard" only says how you do stuff, but says nothing of what you do. Creating one "spellcaster" profession would be like making one "mundane" profession encompassing knights, barbarians, thieves and scouts. It would be messy.

Why did you consider uniting the templates?

[LoneWolf23k]

Originally Posted by Gnomasz

Why did you consider uniting the templates?

Eh, honestly, I just hate D&D's arbitrary "Wizards can't learn Healing spells, that's what Clerics are for" restriction. One of the reasons I like GURPS is that it's spell-based magic system allows for a Spellcaster to have the freedom to learn whatever spells they want. So one thing I don't like in Dungeon Fantasy is shoe-horning in the arbitrary restriction, even if it's "In Genre."

Especially if I want to use Dungeon Fantasy with Banestorm and don't want to deal with adding Clerics and Druids to a setting that

I suppose the easiest approach would be tinkering the Cleric and Druid so they come off more as "White Mage" and "Nature Mage", though.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf23k

Eh, honestly, I just hate D&D's arbitrary "Wizards can't learn Healing spells, that's what Clerics are for" restriction.

There's a reason for niche protection. It doesn't have to be the specific niches that D&D uses, but I recommend against any options that lets a spellcaster pick and choose from all of the options in GURPS Magic.

[kmunoz]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf23k

So one thing I don't like in Dungeon Fantasy is shoe-horning in the arbitrary restriction, even if it's "In Genre."

That's not really why it's in DFRPG, and it's not an arbitrary restriction. The goal is to prevent overlap among character types, so that each player can have significant and identifiable value in the game. This is especially important for new or inexperienced players, who might otherwise not be very sure how to contribute in a more freeform environment.

In fact, I would argue that one of the most important reasons for DFRPG to exist at all is to establish those character type differences as central to the game. GURPS doesn't do this at all. DFRPG is based around the concept. Removing it just gets you GURPS Lite Plus, at which point I'd wonder why you're playing DFRPG.

[LoneWolf23k]

Just realized, after going through my various Pyramid magazines, that I have other, simpler options.

-Clerical Magic: can be replaced or supplemented with Divine Favor rules. And honestly, I love the Divine Favor system a lot, since it fits the idea of Adventuring Priests calling upon the power of the Gods with piety.

-Wizards with "healing" magic: Issue Vol3#13, Thaumatology, has rules for "salving magic", has options for limited medicinal magics that doesn't heal injuries, but merely patches them up to allow the body to heal naturally at a faster rate. Turning Arcane Healing Magic into more of an advanced medical procedure then a miracle cure, which actually fits the tone of the Wizard as a magical "scientist".

[dripton]

Depends on how many PCs you have. With 4+ PCs, I like niche protection, to make sure that everyone gets to shine. With 3- PCs, it's hard to cover all the niches, and it's easier for everyone to get a word in, so I'd err on the side of letting people be generalists if the GM wants. (If you'd rather keep things simple that's fine too, but you might need to bring some NPCs along.)

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by kmunoz

GURPS doesn't do this at all.

Which, IMO, makes it superior in all ways.

[A Ladder]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf23k

Eh, honestly, I just hate D&D's arbitrary "Wizards can't learn Healing spells, that's what Clerics are for" restriction. One of the reasons I like GURPS is that it's spell-based magic system allows for a Spellcaster to have the freedom to learn whatever spells they want.

Same here. I allow spellcasters in my games learn whatever spells they want. No problems in my game. I throw out the clerical/druid prereqs and make up what I think would be prereqs based on the PI level needed.

I leave the templates though. I feel like the other skills give them a good enough flavor to be different from each other class

[Bruno]

I'd consider this not on a rules and world-design basis, but as a result of player dynamics.

EG, if only one player is willing to play a caster, but the group is beginning to argue about how they need more than one caster type and try to pressure another player into doing something they don't want to.

Or EG if I only have two or three players, the players are anxious about the lack of variety, and we've decided not to go the multiple-PC or NPC sidekick/hireling route.

I'm perfectly happy to run a game with no spell casters, or all clerics, or any other party composition my players come up with. It's based on what's sucking the fun out for my players that I'd patch this on.