Basic Roleplaying Central

Home Forum Downloads Reviews Wiki Gallery Links


Go Back   BRP Central > The Basic Roleplaying Forum > Basic Roleplaying
Register Blogs FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #261 (permalink)  
Old November 15th, 2007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 528
Default

It's 1/2 INT, round up, for spells held in memory and levels that can be cast for a trained mage; 1/4 of each, rounded down, for an untrained caster. Elves are mid range in both at 1/3, round up. Base %'s, INTx3% for four spells to start for the mage, 25% for any spells known for non-mages. There is no minimum POW or INT for learning magic, for anyone, under the rules. A non-mage has to have a very high INT and POW before he has much capability with magic at all...he does not even get to cast 3 levels until INT 12, nor 4 levels unless INT 16+. It's not really a worry, no one is going to get to be the best at combat and magic in this. A trained mage can cast 8 levels at INT 16, the most an untrained warrior can ever cast is 4 levels, as above. A warrior with a spell or two has an advantage but not an overwhelming one. The mage is limited in weapons in a similar way, I think it was DEX x 4% with any weapon known. But they can use any weapon.
Reply With Quote
  #262 (permalink)  
Old November 15th, 2007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 148
Default

OK if nonmages are restricted to knowing 1/4 their int in spells then what restrictions are there on mages to even this out? For example I roll say 18 on str and con and 16 on power and int(I'm using loaded dice) Whats to keep me from declaring myself a mage then go on my merry way being the best fighter in the game , but with a full load of spells.
Reply With Quote
  #263 (permalink)  
Old November 15th, 2007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 528
Default

Nothing at all. In that case, enjoy your warrior-wizard.

Of course, with all 18s and 16s, you are going to pretty much have it all in any system, right? With your example, your main restriction as a fighter would be an upper weapon skill limit of 72%. With a DEX 18.
Reply With Quote
  #264 (permalink)  
Old November 16th, 2007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,036
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Durall View Post
For non-magicians who dabble, you're limited to 1/4 INT in the number of spells you can cast, and the levels of each. (If I recall correctly.)

If you're a trained magician, you can know more spells, and the limit of levels you can cast raises to 1/2 INT.
I went and checked, just because I was curious; in the original at least, being a non-magician did, indeed, only limit the number of spells you knew; there was no indication that the potency of spell was any more limited than as per usual for any spellcaster.
Reply With Quote
  #265 (permalink)  
Old November 16th, 2007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,036
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by badcat View Post
It's 1/2 INT, round up, for spells held in memory and levels that can be cast for a trained mage; 1/4 of each, rounded down, for an
As I said, you're correct about number of spells, but there's nothing special indicated about the level of spell they can cast. Check page 9 of the old MagicWorld book when you have time.
Reply With Quote
  #266 (permalink)  
Old November 16th, 2007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,036
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRose View Post
OK if nonmages are restricted to knowing 1/4 their int in spells then what restrictions are there on mages to even this out? For example I roll say 18 on str and con and 16 on power and int(I'm using loaded dice) Whats to keep me from declaring myself a mage then go on my merry way being the best fighter in the game , but with a full load of spells.
In MW, they had a cap on physical skills of Dex times three or four (the latter, I'm thinking, but I just put the box away again, so...)
Reply With Quote
  #267 (permalink)  
Old November 16th, 2007
soltakss's Avatar
RQ Fogey
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 581
Blog Entries: 1
Default

The trouble here is that everyone is discussing what they think will be in the D100 rules, or what was in RQ or Magic World or some other system, rather than what's going to be in the rules.

Hopefully it will come out close enough to Christmas for me to use Christmas money, or close enough to my birthday for me to use Birthday money so we can discuss what's actually in it.
Reply With Quote
  #268 (permalink)  
Old November 16th, 2007
NickMiddleton's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: City of the Sons of the Yew aka Eboracum
Posts: 309
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soltakss View Post
The trouble here is that everyone is discussing what they think will be in the D100 rules, or what was in RQ or Magic World or some other system, rather than what's going to be in the rules.
The "Spells levels in any spell limited to 1/2 INT, or 1/4 INT for non-mages" is in the playtest draft the playtest group saw, and Jason's indicated that it's still the case in the final manuscript - so I think we can safely say that IS what's in the rules...

The playtest draft didn't inlcude the old MW limit on mages Combat skills to DEX x 3 AFAICT - but since a mages spells are bought from their skill point pool at character creation, and training time in later play is a fixed resource, I'd say Mages were pretty effectively prevented from becoming combat monsters as well. If they spread their skill points too thinly they won't do anything well, and most professions that give access to Magic won't give access to a lot of combat skills, and in later play they havea limited amount of training time to spread between skills and spells...

I am intrigued by the fact that Blast is 3pp per level now - that's a change from the playtest draft I have (and MW IIRC). Can't wait to see the finished book!

Cheers,

Nick Middleton
Reply With Quote
  #269 (permalink)  
Old November 16th, 2007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,036
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickMiddleton View Post
The "Spells levels in any spell limited to 1/2 INT, or 1/4 INT for non-mages" is in the playtest draft the playtest group saw, and Jason's indicated that it's still the case in the final manuscript - so I think we can safely say that IS what's in the rules...
That was in terms of actual spell levels too? If so, that is a change, and weakens them noticeably for non-spellcasting specialists.

Though I'm curious given that Jason has said the previous experience is a simple point distribution, how you distinguish a mage from a non-mage, especially since you indicate the skill limits for non-mages have gone away. What defines someone as a "mage"?
Reply With Quote
  #270 (permalink)  
Old November 16th, 2007
Jason Durall's Avatar
Author
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 736
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade View Post
That was in terms of actual spell levels too? If so, that is a change, and weakens them noticeably for non-spellcasting specialists.

Though I'm curious given that Jason has said the previous experience is a simple point distribution, how you distinguish a mage from a non-mage, especially since you indicate the skill limits for non-mages have gone away. What defines someone as a "mage"?
During character creation, one stop says (essentially) "Stop here! Does your GM plan to use powers? If so, ask which ones are available." Some character professions state "this profession may have access to one of the power types". If the GM allows, then rules are presented in those power types for what level of power a starting character should have.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 19:18.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0