# EOM:R vs EOM:ME



## osarusan (Oct 6, 2005)

I'm really excited about Mythic Earth, as I am a great fan of EOM Revised.

I'm going to be buying it anyway, but I was wondering if someone could elaborate on the specific differences between the two systems? All I really know is that ME was made to be able to recreate the magic in myths... but mechanic-wise, what's the big difference? And are they compatible, or do they clash at all?

Thanks


----------



## Alzrius (Oct 6, 2005)

The two systems aren't really compatible.

EoMR is based on a class system and points system. You take so many levels in Mage, you gain spell lists and spell points. You then mix and match the various lists into spells that cost so many points, and spend them to create that effect.

ME isn't like that. In that system, you don't need to take any levels in a class, and there are no points to spend. Rather, there are ten magic skills (similar to the spell lists in EoMR, but they're skills). In order to take any of the ten magic skills, you need to take a tradition feat. Tradition feats represent your style of magic, and each gives you certain magic skills as class skills (and then you can take the others as cross-class skills). You can, normally, only cast spells of one skill (with general enhancements). Similar to EoMR, casting a spell in this manner takes two rounds, unless you use a signature spell you've set up, which takes a standard action. When casting the spell, you make a skill check to properly cast it.

The other way to cast spells in ME is with a ritual. Rituals are simpler, but take longer. You don't need a tradition feat, or access to the magic skills. Instead, configure the spell cost as normal, but make a skill check with Knowledge (arcane lore). Various modifiers apply, and you need to make a Knowledge check every round for 10 rounds to succesfully cast the spell.

Those are the differences in a nutshell.


----------



## osarusan (Oct 6, 2005)

Thanks, that helps a bit.

One other question: Are they compatible in any particular ways at all? Since it's part of the "EOM" line, and seems to be based off of the EOM magic system, could you perhaps cross spells between both systems? Obviously casting is different, since EOM uses mana points instead of skill checks, but is there anything that can be crossed? Or are they similar only in concepts and completely different mechanic-wise?


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 6, 2005)

Unfortunately, you cannot do too much direct cross-over. Mythic Earth is meant to be a stand-alone product, and as such it is a streamlined, revised version of the magic rules in EOM. I think it plays better than standard EOM, because despite being a briefer book, the system is deeper. You can do more to play with how your character casts spells.

The spell levels in ME are basically the same as EOM-R, although some abilities were shuffled around, and others were rebalanced. I mean, if you're familiar with EOM, you'll pick up ME very quickly. 

I still intend to put out more EOM supplements (and in fact I've got some folks knocking at my digital door trying to offer their layout services so I can get them on sale faster), but I wrote Mythic Earth because I was interested in capturing a feel that EOM did not quite pull off. Both books were labors of love, but Mythic Earth was also one of passion. I wish I could tell folks who have EOM-Revised to buy ME because it's really EOM-Revised Revised, but I know it's a bad idea to split the market, so I intend to focus primarily on standard EOM-R products in the future, with the occasional Mythic Earth web enhancement.

And possibly a fuller setting book or an adventure. Who knows.


----------



## genshou (Oct 7, 2005)

Any spellcaster can create single-use magic items without an item creation feat.  All other item creation is boiled into a single feat.  Instead of spending XP, EoM-ME spellcasters use action points to gain Craft Points (CP's).  The amount of CP's you get per action point rises proportionately with character level.  You can either craft items or make a spell permanent when you cast it (both have the same CP cost).

Casting healing spells has a CP cost, so it's not something a mage wants to do except when absolutely needed (or if the mage has plenty of action points)

Magical skills have no ability scores tied to them, so spellcasting is less a matter of ability modifier and more how much focus you place on each spell list as well as which tradition feat you are using at that particular moment (many tradition feats provide a bonus to specific magical skills, but you can normally only gain the benefits of one tradition at a time).  Spell mishaps for horribly failed spellcasting checks are determined by which tradition you are focusing on at any given moment.

Instead of having a limit to the number of spells you can cast, each time you fail to meet the DC to cast a spell you take a cumulative penalty to all spellcasting checks until you rest.  Failing the check by 1-5 means the spell was still successful, you just suffer the penalty to later checks.  Failing by more than that is not such a blessed event...

Overcasting rules are built-into the system.  It is a bad idea to overcast often, as it causes ability damage (always temporary, not ability drain).

As others have pointed out, one of the most important changes is that any character can cast spells (be they a Strong Hero, Rogue, Unfettered, or what have you) simply by taking a tradition feat and spending the appropriate skill points.  Even a character with a class already capable of casting spells can benefit from these skill ranks, as this gives them another source of magic to draw upon.

The effects of spell lists are slightly different, but I'm not keen on the details atm.

Hope these responses help!  ^_^
 - tpc


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 26, 2005)

*converting*

I'm determined to figure out a formula to eliminate EOM:R mana points ala EOM:ME.  The descriptions call EOM:ME a supplment to EOM:R but in this thread you guys say that its not (which really upset me after I bought the book.)  That said, I don't think that the two aren't incompatable or at least can't be.  I am destined to get my money's worth off of this product and not have to start up a modern campaign in the process.  

Here's my theory.  Mystic uses spell skills to immulate spell lists.  Could you not use the number of spell lists of a particlar verb ala (Evoke 9) to determine bonus to your roll.  For instance, if I am casting a spell that uses 5 magic points, the dc would be 15 (10 plus the amount of points).    Say I have 5 evoke spells, I would roll a d20 and add the 5 to the roll.  

If it succeeds the spell goes off as normal.  If not it doesn't.  If you want a magic grim campaign you could deduct will points away for each point the spell missed the dc by.  

This also does wonders with the additinal spell lists that you are receive, as, after a point you end up adopting spell lists that are unneccessary.    Any additional ideas on how to refine this will be much appreciated.


----------



## donm61873 (Nov 26, 2005)

Actually, I consider ME's spellcasting mechanics significantly superior to EoMR. With the skill-based casting of ME, plus the use of stress tokens from the IH boards, I finally have a magic system that puts no artificial limits on the number of times a day a wizard can cast a spell, yet puts interesting limits on abusing that in combat situations.

So, I've been working on translating the "missing" components of EoMR to ME. 
I have to agree - ME is the revised-revised. Too bad they can't re-release the PDFs.

Sigh. Still, GREAT work on both systems.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 27, 2005)

donm61873 said:
			
		

> Actually, I consider ME's spellcasting mechanics significantly superior to EoMR. With the skill-based casting of ME, plus the use of stress tokens from the IH boards, I finally have a magic system that puts no artificial limits on the number of times a day a wizard can cast a spell, yet puts interesting limits on abusing that in combat situations.
> 
> So, I've been working on translating the "missing" components of EoMR to ME.
> I have to agree - ME is the revised-revised. Too bad they can't re-release the PDFs.
> ...



It's ok, but I think it could have been written as a supplement as opposed to a completely different system (again as it seemed to be advertised).  It gives a bit too much power to the pc as he can literally master and utilize any element, allignment, and creature type. 

I'm glad I bought it though, as it is the answer for a mana pointless system/non spells per day system.  I just can't see myself uprooting my campaign again for it.  It's very difficult to go from core to eom to eom:revised.  No more magic changes for this campaign.  I'm hoping that this formula works though.  

I'm interested in what the creators and others think of it?


----------



## genshou (Dec 14, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> No more magic changes for this campaign.



Yeah, I'm with you there.  I spent weeks upgrading my Forgotten Realms campaign to use Elements of Magic (Revised), and while I do see Mythic Earth as superior in many ways, not only do I lack the inclination to change everything all over again, I don't think Mythic Earth gives a better feel to my setting.

I'm still just as glad to own Mythic Earth, and I'll be using it in modern and fantasy games alongside its predecessor.  Whichever one works best for what I'm doing at the time


----------



## DonTadow (Dec 14, 2005)

genshou said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm with you there.  I spent weeks upgrading my Forgotten Realms campaign to use Elements of Magic (Revised), and while I do see Mythic Earth as superior in many ways, not only do I lack the inclination to change everything all over again, I don't think Mythic Earth gives a better feel to my setting.
> 
> I'm still just as glad to own Mythic Earth, and I'll be using it in modern and fantasy games alongside its predecessor.  Whichever one works best for what I'm doing at the time



I'm hoping my conversion up top is a good blend of the feel of the Mythic Earth non-recordkeeping feel without converting to the system.  My players so far like not having to think about how many spells they have for the day or that they keep track of.  I've sense made some changes. 

The DC to cast a spell without penality is 15 + the spell point cost.  The player rolls a d20 + the number of spell lists that share a name with the most dominant aspect of the spell (IE Evoke) .  If they beat it, nothing happens.  If they lose by less than 10 the spell goes off and they suffer charmisa damage equal to the amount they missed the spell by.  If they miss by more than 10, they lose the spell as well.  

Enchant and all other ongoing spells have to have concentration maintained and enchantment spells do not stack.    If the mage is attacked in combat and fails her concentration check, the spell disapates.

Do you think this works as a good blend of the two?


----------

