# EOM compared to Core



## osarusan (Jul 13, 2005)

Has anyone used an EOM/Core combination in their game? My game is going to go in that direction eventually, but not for a few more levels. I was wondering if anyone who has had experience with a combo game, or comparing the two systems could share any advice.

As it stands, EOM seems much more powerful in addition to being more flexible. I love the system, especially for its flexibility, but when it comes to power I worry about how well it will "mesh" with the core system. (I'm expecting Core to be slightly less powerful, but I'm afraid it could be a dramatic difference.)

So are there any caveats I should know about before venturing into this? Or any specific comparisons of the two systems?

Thanks.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 13, 2005)

Generally, I've found EoM to be _less_ powerful but more flexible.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 13, 2005)

On a sheer numerical scale, EOM is weaker than core spells. To equal a 1st level spelll like magic missile (long range, average of 3.5 damage), you'd need to be at least 4th level (+4 long range, +0 1d6 damage, assuming they don't make their save). To equal a spell you'd cast at 5th level, like fireball (long range, 20-ft. radius, 5d6 damage), you'd need to be at least 10th level (+4 long range, +2 radius, +4 damage).

True, there are ways to abuse things, especially when creating effects that aren't common in the core rules so I had no baseline to compare them to, but in such cases the GM should be able to recognize when something is grossly overpowered.

What problems do you see?


----------



## osarusan (Jul 14, 2005)

Well I think the problems I'm worry about are the costs of range and area of effect. They seem a little on the cheap side, IMHO. But your post raises a question... You said Long Range for Magic Missile would be +4 MP. Isn't long range (800 ft) only +3 MP? Magic Missile has a range of 100+10/lvl, so I'd say +2 MP for a 150 foot range would be closer. You also listed +4 for fireball's long range. Shouldn't that only be +3? Or am I doing something wrong in my calculations?

Anyway, I'm running a game with a party of all EOM wizards, so my concerns are unique to that situation. In a party with only 1 or 2 spellcasters, I can see how they'd be much weaker... but I've run all-wizard games before, and all-EOM parties seem *much* more powerful than all-Core parties. So, in that aspect, my concerns may not be valid at all. (I think EOM makes an excellent system for an all-mage party.)


----------



## osarusan (Jul 14, 2005)

On second thought, my I'm wrong in saying that the costs are too cheap for range and area of effect... Maybe it's just a couple of lists that are a bit too cheap for my tastes? I'm not sure, but I'll explain some of the things I've noticed.

As far as damaging spells are concerned, I think the costs are OK... but when it comes to buff spells, it only takes 1 mp to make the buff a 10 ft range and easily cover everyone in the party. Same goes for teleport, heal, etc. So that pretty soon, every single helpful spell my players have in their lists is an area effect. This means that with just two spells, everyone in a party can have a huge DR and a huge energy buffer (and with the adaptive feat, this makes for a nearly invincible party, unless the opponent happens to have multiple type of energy attacks).

It also seems to make charms more powerful than I'd think they should be, since you have to beat the save by 5 to avoid any negative effects. It makes area stun spells a lot more powerful (more than 1 MP-worth, IMHO) than a simple targeted charm.



Anyway, like I said this is coming from an experience with an all-mage party. So chances are that has a lot more to do with it than if the party had only 1 or 2 mages.


----------



## MonsterMash (Jul 18, 2005)

Well the options would be to increase the MP costs or adjust the area affected - make it 5 ft instead of 10 ft, as the rules are robust enough to stand it. With the charms or stuns, you could adjust the save DC or amount that the save has to be beaten by.

I definitely think that EoMR spells tend to lower amounts of power than an equivalent core spell, but I need to really get a chance to play test with it to confirm my understanding of the rules.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Jul 18, 2005)

One thing is, how often do you _need_ all of that _fireball's_ range? Not very, I think.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jul 18, 2005)

D-minky... on the all-party buff problem you see, IIRC the area affect will stick to that area. In order to get it to stick to the characters in the area you need the discriminating enhancement.

 So, really useful if the party is in close quarters and staying right next to the mage.. but the spell will also affect opponents who get within range. 

 With Discriminating, you have the cap of 1 person per caster level along with the extra MP cost.

I am HRing that you need the Discriminate with Teleport spells as well, or you take the entire AoE.

 I have to agree that area Heals are much more powerful 
I have not had a chance to see the Charm list in play yet, so I am holding judgement {and HRs} on that


----------



## osarusan (Jul 18, 2005)

Can someone confirm the cost of long range? Ranger Wicket is listing +4... while I was pretty sure the book says +3. Of course I'm more likely to believe Ranger Wicket, and assume that I'm doing something wrong considering I'm not the author. It's killing me wondering what I've overlook. ;-)


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 18, 2005)

Hm. No, no, you're right. It is +3. Odd. Oops on my part.


----------



## genshou (Jul 19, 2005)

1) Evoke spells are generally less capable of dealing damage (especially without scalable spells which increase damage dice per caster level for "free" as in core rules).  Even with the "cheap" area of effect enhancements, overall damage dealt to individual targets is well below core standards.

2) Healing spells are much more useful and powerful, and get ridiculous when the Heal Specialist feat is used for packaged spells.

RW, are you trying to send the message that we should be decreasing PC fatalities?


----------



## Bayonet_Chris (Jul 19, 2005)

*Meshing core and EOM*

I think you're missing a major point - the integration of the core classes with the eom core. To properly mesh EOM into a core game, you'll have to essentially eliminate the Paladin, Ranger (both MageKnights), the Bard (TaskMage), all of the spellcasting primary classes (Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer) and play with what you have left.

That leaves Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, Mage, TaskMage, MageKnight as your base classes. For pure symmetry, I would replace the barbarian with some sort of fighter/rogue variant - a ranger sans spells. 

That would leave a fighter, rogue, wizard, fighter/wizard, fighter/rogue, and rogue/wizard as your primary classes.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jul 19, 2005)

Actually, the point is mix-n-match, not mesh. 

 My game, which is at 2nd level, has a core druid and an EOM Druid working side by side.
I am running Eberron and treat EOM as the ancient magics and Core as the modern 'corperate' versions.


 My Mage PC is currently Core, but plans on converting to EOM as he gets exposed to the system both in character and as a player.

I will let you know if I run across anything that required trimming, but so far no issues


----------



## genshou (Jul 19, 2005)

Yep, and Pledge of Tyranny (see sig) is a Forgotten Realms campaign which uses EoMR as its sole magic system.  I'm using the Lyceian Arcana variants right alongside the actual core classes (with EoM caster level).  For instance, the PC in the campaign is a gestalt Paladin/Fighter, but he fights right alongside other Exalten of Helm.  I'm still trying to decide how I should split up NPC levels for FR's more famous characters, but until the party actually meets one of them, it doesn't really matter.

The fact is that it works.  I've HR'd the caster level for EoM Clerics and Druids to be the same as the Mage IMC, and also given them free uses per day of spells that fall under the "channeling" and "wild shape" functions.  I never understood why those two classes had the lower caster level, since they peaked out at 9th-level spells at 17th-level, the same level as the wizard.  RW, can you give me some insight into that particular choice?


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 19, 2005)

genshou said:
			
		

> Yep, and Pledge of Tyranny (see sig) is a Forgotten Realms campaign which uses EoMR as its sole magic system.  I'm using the Lyceian Arcana variants right alongside the actual core classes (with EoM caster level).  For instance, the PC in the campaign is a gestalt Paladin/Fighter, but he fights right alongside other Exalten of Helm.  I'm still trying to decide how I should split up NPC levels for FR's more famous characters, but until the party actually meets one of them, it doesn't really matter.




First, let me say I think this is very cool. I'm thrilled to see EOM being used in a core setting.



> The fact is that it works.  I've HR'd the caster level for EoM Clerics and Druids to be the same as the Mage IMC, and also given them free uses per day of spells that fall under the "channeling" and "wild shape" functions.  I never understood why those two classes had the lower caster level, since they peaked out at 9th-level spells at 17th-level, the same level as the wizard.  RW, can you give me some insight into that particular choice?




While the core rules versions of clerics and druids have somewhat weaker spells compared to wizards (not always, but often), I needed a different way to balance their higher BAB, HD, and saves against mages. The lower caster level is even more important now that I'm planning to make it official that MP Limit should be equal to hit dice, not just caster level. But the next EOM release I have scheduled is a modern one, which uses a very different system.

And which needs art. Hmm.


----------



## genshou (Jul 21, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> First, let me say I think this is very cool. I'm thrilled to see EOM being used in a core setting.



We started out with the core rules, but after buying EoM, I just had to suggest the change to my player.  It's been a major overhaul, but also a worthwhile one.  Your book deserves to be used in a world like Forgotten Realms.


			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> While the core rules versions of clerics and druids have somewhat weaker spells compared to wizards (not always, but often), I needed a different way to balance their higher BAB, HD, and saves against mages. The lower caster level is even more important now that I'm planning to make it official that MP Limit should be equal to hit dice, not just caster level. But the next EOM release I have scheduled is a modern one, which uses a very different system.



Ah, I was wondering if that was the reason you made that adjustment.  It doesn't work as well in a world like Forgotten Realms (where arcane and divine really need to be equal, especially with the ridiculous amount of epic-level arcane caster NPCs they populated the world with).  I suppose it's mostly the difference in usable MP per day that bugs me.  Especially when the cleric or paladin has to expend MP in order to use their undead turning class ability.


----------



## Night Watchman (Sep 8, 2005)

Speaking of coverting existing games to EoM, I'm using d20 Modern and I'd like to import the EoM system into a. existing game without having to restart the game or forcing the players to waste all of their magic user levels and going through all of the rigamorol of replacing the magic user classes with normal classes and having them deal with the magical skills as presented in the Mythic Earth preview.

Can I just switch out the D20 Modern spell levels for the EoM ones and call it good?  Or is there some dark and hidden reason that I shouldn't?


----------



## genshou (Sep 8, 2005)

Night Watchman said:
			
		

> Speaking of coverting existing games to EoM, I'm using d20 Modern and I'd like to import the EoM system into a. existing game without having to restart the game or forcing the players to waste all of their magic user levels and going through all of the rigamorol of replacing the magic user classes with normal classes and having them deal with the magical skills as presented in the Mythic Earth preview.
> 
> Can I just switch out the D20 Modern spell levels for the EoM ones and call it good?  Or is there some dark and hidden reason that I shouldn't?



The only reason I can see is that the EoM spell costs-as they presently stand-don't suit a d20 Modern game.  You would need to bump up the MP cost of Heal spells by a bit, and Move spells by a great deal.  Taking considerations such as these into account, however, EoM can be adapted for d20 Modern/Future/Past/Apocalypse/BOOGAHBOOGAH! as easily as it can be dropped into D&D.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 8, 2005)

Night Watchman said:
			
		

> Speaking of coverting existing games to EoM, I'm using d20 Modern and I'd like to import the EoM system into a. existing game without having to restart the game or forcing the players to waste all of their magic user levels and going through all of the rigamorol of replacing the magic user classes with normal classes and having them deal with the magical skills as presented in the Mythic Earth preview.
> 
> Can I just switch out the D20 Modern spell levels for the EoM ones and call it good?  Or is there some dark and hidden reason that I shouldn't?




It is quite easy to just swap levels of D20 Modern Mage, Acolyte, and other similar advanced classes for the EOM Mage, Taskmage, and Mageknight, though you'd want to fiddle with them a bit to make them appropriate as advanced classes, and to add in necessary D20 Modern elements like Reputation and Defense bonuses and different skill lists.

_Mythic Earth_ presents its own 'Mage' advanced class (complete with a note that, yes, the name Mage is already taken, but it's the best name, and it's not like most people would use both Mages in the same game). The ME rules assume that usually characters will have access to magic at 1st level (though it's dinky until about 4th level), but you could fairly easily say that characters have to take the Mage advanced class before they can actually take any magical skills.

ME is different from standard EOM in that the spell creation system is streamlined significantly. Since everything is a magical skill, I was able to get things like divination and dispelling to make more sense in context of the system. Sure, the ~20 elemental attack side effects aren't all included, but there are 8 primary ones (acid, cold, death, electricity, fire, life, mental, and sonic). Sure there aren't strict listings of what all you can do with Create, but the spell is set up now so that MP cost is related to monetary cost, so you can say "I'm going to create light; that's like a flood lamp, which has Purchase DC x, so it's a y-level spell."

Basically, ME feels better to me in play style than core EOM does. It's also designed with d20 Modern in mind, with regards to things like making magic items (Purchase DCs and action points instead of gold and XP), massive damage save (slightly lower damage on spells), and availability of healing.

I hope to have the EOM teaser available this evening or tomorrow.


----------



## genshou (Sep 9, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I hope to have the EOM teaser available this evening or tomorrow.



Yay!  I'm so excited!


----------



## Bayonet_Chris (Sep 9, 2005)

*Me too!*

The story hour has been great, so I'm very much looking forward to the teaser.
-C


----------



## Night Watchman (Sep 10, 2005)

Thanks for the replies guys I really apperiated the answers you posted.  Now I'm really looking forward to _Mythic Earth_.  Just to let you know I'm acctually hoping to be able to run what most would think of as HIGH magic d20 Modern rather than your starndard low magic d20 Modern.


----------

