priest and theologian

[Tenex]

Well, need vs. want is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Some character concepts (i.e. not limited to iconic classes, but extending beyond them) just scream for certain spells. Trailtwister seems to go quite well with a woodsman/ranger type character. It makes sense that someone or a cult of someones would pursue spells in line with their professional orientation.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Yes to this last part. In our old TFT campaigns using the published rules and not adding any religious magic, there were more than enough religious people and priests and holy warriors, as well as rangers (who don't need magic).

Also, the religions we did have tended to be rather creatively developed. I'm so glad TFT did not bake in generic clerics or other RPG tropes, so there was lots of room to make up interesting homebrew stuff and not have players feeling entitled to be a generic trope in homebrew worlds. (I mean, they could if they wanted to, but the system wasn't going to pave the way for them, and there were all sorts of other options.)

And there were as many non-wizards learning spells for 3 Talent Points as I would want - I certainly would not want spells to be available for the same difficulty as the Swimming talent, or else it'd be an "almost everyone knows magic" campaign, which personally is not my cup of tea, and although I am quite willing to track logistics and individual wound healing for everyone, I am neither willing nor able to consider what would go on in towns and societies where a large fraction of the population could and did know and use all sorts of magic spells.

As for making it easier to learn spells, it sounds like SJ is likely to be already doing that, if the new character development rules let you use experience to exceed your IQ in talents and spells.

I very much agree with this and most of what Tenex and Skarg have been saying here. Most of the approaches I've seen on implementing Priests, Paladins, Clerics, etc. involve creating a new character class. This just seems wrong to me as TFT is usually hailed as a "classless system". Yes, there really are two classes: Wizards and non-Wizards. But the mechanisms are already there for characters that use a lot of magic or characters that use little to no magic. If one wants to play D&D, just play D&D. You can always implement the TFT combat rules in D&D.

I need to refresh my memory of what the new costs will be for non-Wizards to learn spells but I had the impression it wasn't a huge obstacle for non-Wizards to gain spells. If it is, it seems to me that all that is needed is a "Holy Warrior" type of talent. This talent could only be taken by non-Wizards and it's effect is to reduce the cost of learning spells. Not sure how much reduction would be best, ATM. Of course, another requirement of this "Holy Warrior" talent should be that the character actually has a religion. But religions are going to be campaign-specific.

Religions should be treated like guilds. They are social organizations that impart social rules and obligations on their members - just like a guild. However, a religious 'guild' would most likely impart more social rules and obligations than something like a Theive's Guild or Locksmith Guild.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Tenex

Well, need vs. want is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Some character concepts (i.e. not limited to iconic classes, but extending beyond them) just scream for certain spells. Trailtwister seems to go quite well with a woodsman/ranger type character. It makes sense that someone or a cult of someones would pursue spells in line with their professional orientation.

I agree but do we really need to create a new character class just to introduce new spells (or talents)? (The question is directed to all, not just Tenex.)

[platimus]

Warhorse11h, I like it. Piety is too crunchy for me but I like the spirit of it and most of the details of everything else. I'd call this "The Common Core" of fantasy holy-warriors.

If you are happy with the details, that's all that matters. As for myself, the Faith I and II talents and the Command Undead I and II talents seemed TOO similar to me at first. It didn't seem there was enough incentive to take II of either if I already had I. Then I realized they all cost 1 slot. At that cost, I would take II of either.

But I wonder if it might be more interesting, balanced, and fun to rework those talents so that (for example) Faith I costs 1 slot while Faith II costs 2 slots and is twice as powerful as Faith I. I have no specific suggestions for the details of either at present. This is just a general thought and not even a recommendation.

[platimus]

@Warhorse11h
What do you think about creating rules for a "Holy Symbol" similar to that of the "Wizard's Staff"?

Again, if you like what you have, that's great. Inspired by your stuff, here's what I would do:

1. Create rules for a "Holy Symbol" similar to that of the "Wizard's Staff".
2. Piety is used to create and fill the "holy symbol" with spell-powering ST.
3. Convert Faith I,II and Command Undead I,II to spells.

Because Piety is a Talent, it would cost more for Wizards to learn but the spells would cost less for Wizards. Piety would be cheaper for non-Wizards but the spells it powers costs more for non-Wizards. Part of the "holy symbol" rules would specify that Wizards cannot have both a "staff" and a "holy symbol". He must give up his "staff" to create a "holy symbol" and vice-versa.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Tenex

Well, need vs. want is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Some character concepts (i.e. not limited to iconic classes, but extending beyond them) just scream for certain spells. Trailtwister seems to go quite well with a woodsman/ranger type character. It makes sense that someone or a cult of someones would pursue spells in line with their professional orientation.

Yes. And some players are accustomed to and/or like games where every sort of PC or NPC can get at least some sort of minor magic, and/or for that to more or less replace non-magical ways of doing things.

For example, I was reading the play log of a GURPS campaign set in a converted D&D world, and the party was doing almost all magical things, e.g.:
* "How shall be get where we're going?" "I'm a Druid(tm) and I turn into a were-cow or something and everyone can ride on me!"
* "Did anyone bring food? No?" "Oh but I have the Create Food spell - cast cast cast..."
* "Did anyone bring a tent? No?" "Oh but I have the Weather Dome spell, we don't need a tent! cast cast cast..."
* "Hey chuck is vomiting probably from eating something other than ultra-safe magic food!" "Oh but I have Cure Food Poisoning (seriously), and Minor Healing, and Major Healing! cast cast cast..."

My own preference is to retain doing things in non-magical ways to be the norm and still something players usually need to deal with, so magic doesn't remove interesting elements from play (such as the need to heal, or have supplies and equipment). I agree that yes, Trailtwister would be useful for a woodsman type, and Lock/Knock for a thief, and so on, but I'd prefer that most such people not have easy access to those spells, and for PCs of that type for it to be some sort of significant effort and devotion of learning that could instead have been applied to something else, so it's not an obvious choice, so it's interesting and unusual that someone has such a spell. And so it doesn't become a case where every skilled person can be expected to have a magic spell to give them supernatural powers in their field, or else they're sort of lame compared to all the people who do.

[platimus]

Skarg,
I agree with your mindset. But...

For example, I was reading the play log of a GURPS campaign set in a converted D&D world, and the party was doing almost all magical things, e.g.:
* "How shall be get where we're going?" "I'm a Druid(tm) and I turn into a were-cow or something and everyone can ride on me!"
* "Did anyone bring food? No?" "Oh but I have the Create Food spell - cast cast cast..."
* "Did anyone bring a tent? No?" "Oh but I have the Weather Dome spell, we don't need a tent! cast cast cast..."
* "Hey chuck is vomiting probably from eating something other than ultra-safe magic food!" "Oh but I have Cure Food Poisoning (seriously), and Minor Healing, and Major Healing! cast cast cast..."

Any problem one might have with this seems more related to the campaign or conversion of the campaign than with the rules. I call this "spell-creep". Too many spells readily available to PCs. Rule-wise, we are fortunate that TFT doesn't suffer from "spell-creep".

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by platimus

Skarg,
I agree with your mindset. But...

Any problem one might have with this seems more related to the campaign or conversion of the campaign than with the rules. I call this "spell-creep". Too many spells readily available to PCs. Rule-wise, we are fortunate that TFT doesn't suffer from "spell-creep".

Yes, it's a matter of taste. The play logs showed the players and GM seemed to be enjoying that well enough, and I've certainly seen players that have enjoyed similar uses of "convenience magic". Some players think that wounds and travel details are boring obstacles, and like having spells to make them go away. I too have sometimes not minded that all that much, as a change of pace.

My usual taste though is very much that I'd rather that magic not remove mundane considerations from play, because I like a game where you have to do something non-magical about wounds and supplies and weather and encumbrance and scouting and lighting and equipment and so on. I like games about adventuring without magic, and usually prefer magic (when there is any) to be exceptional (and to have some considerable costs and/or risks involved) and to be best used for doing things other than remove other parts of the game from consideration.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Skarg

My usual taste though is very much that I'd rather that magic not remove mundane considerations from play, because I like a game where you have to do something non-magical about wounds and supplies and weather and encumbrance and scouting and lighting and equipment and so on. I like games about adventuring without magic, and usually prefer magic (when there is any) to be exceptional (and to have some considerable costs and/or risks involved) and to be best used for doing things other than remove other parts of the game from consideration.

I think RAW TFT pretty much guarantees your tastes will be satisfied...and it is possible (RAW) for a woodsman-type non-wizard to learn spells. But it is costly. I think creating new character classes for the various archetypes would lead to "class entitlements". For example, "All Rangers get these spells:" or "All Rangers only pay this much for these spells". That, of course, would lead to "magic-creep".

As long as "mechanically" everyone is either a Wizard or non-Wizard, I don't think you run the risk of too much magic. The great thing is: You don't need a Ranger class to role-play a Ranger archetype.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Yes. And some players are accustomed to and/or like games where every sort of PC or NPC can get at least some sort of minor magic, and/or for that to more or less replace non-magical ways of doing things.

That's two different characteristics which I think you're implicitly mixing.

It's possible to have a game where everyone has minor magic, but most things are done primarily by mundane means, magic at most being assistance. RuneQuest was like this (maybe still is, I'm out of date): if you needed to e.g. beat someone up you hit them with a sword and sure, if you had time you slapped a Bladesharp spell on it first but if you didn't it's not the end of the world. To make this work magic has to assist the talents, not replace them. So Trailtwister and Knock aren't good for this kind of game.

Conversely, it's possible to have a game where magic does things better than mundane power, and not everyone has magic. Epic-level D&D can be like this: the casters get much more powerful than the fighters. (For some reason D&D seems to think this is an acceptable feature.) IMO TFT's greatest sin in this direction is the relative power of the Thief lock-picking ability and the Knock spell.