# Lyceian Arcana teasers



## RangerWickett

So far there have been three teasers of _Lyceian Arcana_, the sequel to _Elements of Magic - Revised_.  The first teaser was at the end of the book.

The second teaser I'll repost here.  It is a look at the EOM version of the paladin - the Godhand.

The third teaser is a look at the ritual spellcasting rules.


----------



## Marius Delphus

Very cool. I especially like the ~300 mages' ritual.

  Possible Typo Alert: Rituals - Should the 18 MP entry in the "Ritual Value" table be 600 instead of 500?

 Developer Question: Rituals - Are there other ways of disrupting hugely long rituals? Say, kidnapping one of the participants or otherwise making him/her unavailable so he/she is not there to donate MP at the "proper" time? (Basically, how important is it to have an utterly reliable set of ritual participants?) Dispelling the vessel instead of destroying it?

 Ultimately, it sounds like Lyceian Arcana is starting to shape up as a required "Volume II" for EOMR!


----------



## dekrass

Good stuff! 
I already planned on buying Lyceian Arcana, but it just keeps looking better!


----------



## Archus

*Can't wait for Lyceian Arcana*

I love Elements of Magic Revised (enough to buy the earlier edition as well).  I am planning on starting a new d20 game using EoM and the Lyceian Arcana as soon as it comes out.

I'm even tempted to open up a wiki page for people to post spells.  The more premade spells (similar to the standard d20 spells) I can gather, the easier it will be to convert my group.  Well it will be faster.

--Archus


----------



## RangerWickett

One thing I wanted to do that never got off the ground was a subforum where people could post spells of their creation, so we could create an online spellbook, of sorts.  Once issue 2 of the magazine is done and LA is out, I think I'll revisit that idea.


----------



## Verequus

One thing, I've discovered, is, that there should be cantrips for every spell list - actually, one spell description for every 0 and 1 MP spell. Why? If you have beginners with EoMR and you start at level 1, then it is already time-intensive to explain the system - then having additionally to (re)make cantrips and look, if they can even function (E.G.: Is there a dragon with only a CR of 1/2 or 1?), is in such a situation too much. Because it is so much work and I didn't find time for that task, I'll postponed that idea. BTW, I've dubbed those spells "Apprentice's friends".

 Looking on your wiki-page, Archus, I see, that you found the review from Arthur xxx (or the other review, which copied the relevant part). I wonder, if you plan to bring the entire rules online - I've considered this situation myself and I'm unsure, if this would hurt EN Publishing and subsequently Ryan too much. I've asked Ryan about this, but he hasn't replied yet.

 Related on this: Please don't use "Elements of Magic", but "Elements of Magic Revised", because they are different books. But because that title is IP and not under the OGL (which is missing on your wiki, too), you should consider the change of the title. I've came up with "Elementary Magic" and "High Arcana", which are to be considered as being under the OGL - so feel free to use them.

 A last note: I don't know, if you will be happy with first edition of EoM - it is as much different from its successor as AD&D from 3rd edition. Consider yourself warned.


----------



## Archus

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> One thing, I've discovered, is, that there should be cantrips for every spell list - actually, one spell description for every 0 and 1 MP spell. Why? If you have beginners with EoMR and you start at level 1, then it is already time-intensive to explain the system - then having additionally to (re)make cantrips and look, if they can even function (E.G.: Is there a dragon with only a CR of 1/2 or 1?), is in such a situation too much. Because it is so much work and I didn't find time for that task, I'll postponed that idea. BTW, I've dubbed those spells "Apprentice's friends".



The bigger the spell-list the better.  I'd really like to use the system, but have some people that always play wizards and would have trouble at first with an open system.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Looking on your wiki-page, Archus, I see, that you found the review from Arthur xxx (or the other review, which copied the relevant part). I wonder, if you plan to bring the entire rules online - I've considered this situation myself and I'm unsure, if this would hurt EN Publishing and subsequently Ryan too much. I've asked Ryan about this, but he hasn't replied yet.



I actually want to pair the rule summary down to the barest minimum to give an idea what it all means and generate interest in the product.  I don't want to hurt EN Publishing or Ryan in any way.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Related on this: Please don't use "Elements of Magic", but "Elements of Magic Revised", because they are different books. But because that title is IP and not under the OGL (which is missing on your wiki, too), you should consider the change of the title. I've came up with "Elementary Magic" and "High Arcana", which are to be considered as being under the OGL - so feel free to use them.



I'll change the names of the pages.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> A last note: I don't know, if you will be happy with first edition of EoM - it is as much different from its successor as AD&D from 3rd edition. Consider yourself warned.



Just despiration for some ideas on conversion and trying to support the product.


----------



## Archus

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Related on this: Please don't use "Elements of Magic", but "Elements of Magic Revised", because they are different books. But because that title is IP and not under the OGL (which is missing on your wiki, too), you should consider the change of the title. I've came up with "Elementary Magic" and "High Arcana", which are to be considered as being under the OGL - so feel free to use them.



High Arcana it is.  I left the redirect of http://eom.arcanearcade.com but will add another for http://arcana.arcanearcade.com


----------



## Verequus

Another point of critique: You leave the spaces out of many links. That's annyoing and I don't see any good reason for it.



			
				Archus said:
			
		

> I actually want to pair the rule summary down to the barest minimum to give an idea what it all means and generate interest in the product. I don't want to hurt EN Publishing or Ryan in any way.



 It wasn't clear, which route you are going to take. But I suggest, putting a full-fledged review on the server for those interested in more information after the primer would be a bigger incentive to buy the system.



> Just despiration for some ideas on conversion and trying to support the product.



 Despiration? Do you mean desperation or inspiration? If the latter, I don't think, you'll find many ideas, which are neither from the core rules nor included in EoMR - but I haven't compared both products in that detail. And for the support - why don't you buy another product from Ryan Nock like Spike Chains and mention, that you bought it because EoMR? IMO, you'll get more for your money in that case.

  BTW, what is the purpose of the wiki-server? There are some other topics on it, too.

 Ryan:
 One word to the updates of EoMR material in Lycaian Arcana: Please make it a seperate PDF and then a big update of EoMR-PDF itself. I don't like to have things cluttered along several books and to remember, that this spell list isn't correct anymore. The big update should address some issues, Arthur Reyes mentioned. I mark the important points with boldcase, even so a lot of my answers disagree with Arthur's opinion, so you have to look a bit closer, if you are the addressed one or Arthur or both of you (although it is a bit unfair to make this post, because Arthur can't defend himself).



			
				Arthur Reyes said:
			
		

> I really like the ideas in this product. I would have given it a better rating, but found the editing and writing to not be very good. I wrote this intro after I wrote my critique, and I feel like I've been a little harsh. In a way, I am, because I make the same mistakes I perceive the author making, and in a sense, I'm being my own worse critic. Enough apology, whatever you get from my comments, I do recommend the product. It is worth my money. Get this product if you want something other than the traditional D&D spell system.
> 
> *Simply put, this is a d20 port of the very popular magic system from Ars Magica, but it took a really long time for me to understand the system.*



 I know, that it isn't true, because it evolved out of a mixture of psionics and domains, but others may have the wrong impression.



			
				Arthur Reyes said:
			
		

> Was it the lack of bookmarks in an electronic product?
> Was it the poor editing?
> 
> Yes, and Yes. I won't say much about bookmarks except to say I feel they are very important. It's an electronic format, expect your customers to use it on their computer.
> 
> Editing
> *I judged editing by how quickly I grasped the same game concept that was presented in two game systems. I was already passingly familiar with Ars Magica; I read it once; but suddenly felt there was a huge learning curve to understand EoM.*
> 
> *I think the problems the author faced is that the ideas in the text are very divergent from core d20, and the author wished the ideas to be as accessible as the those found in the Player's Handbook.*



 There is a huge learning curve and it should be addressed - both of having an appendix with full "Apprentice's Friends" for the quick start and using the explanation detailed below for explaining the actual idea behind the rules.



			
				Arthur Reyes said:
			
		

> What follows are thick, convoluted sentences, and ideas that are mired by verbose expression. There are organization errors which also make the text difficult to grasp.
> 
> Ars Magica got to the point when it came to describing spells, EoM doesn't. *EoM takes too long explaining concepts that are unchanged from core d20 products, and never succinctly explains its own mechanic.*



 That is partly false - I believe, that a book, which replaces an entire subsystem, should include everything, which is in the corresponding core rule book. Partly because of convenience, partly because of having a true replacement. For example, I don't want to use the PH, because in Arcana Unearthed has been something forgotten to be included.



			
				Arthur Reyes said:
			
		

> I'm going to restate the entire system in a few sentences, because I like it so much.
> 
> *Spells are like sentences: Verb + Noun.
> EoM has 11 magical verbs, such as Evoke, Charm, Compel.
> EoM has 3 magical nouns, Alignment, Creature, Element. The nouns are subdivided into specific alignment types (Good), creatures (Trolls), and elements (Ice).
> 
> Mages learn spell lists. A spell list is 1 verb + 1 noun, like Evoke Fire, or Charm Dragon. Mages cast spells by manipulating their spell lists to produce a magical effect.
> 
> A simple spell is one spell list + enhancements.
> A complex spell is a two or more spell lists + enhancements.
> 
> To cast a spell, select your spell list, then enhancements, then spend magic points to determines how potent the spell is.*



 This only a starting point - for a new review in German I've based my explanation on these lines and the outcome is better.



			
				Arthur Reyes said:
			
		

> A summary like this, at the beginning of Chapter 2, would have gone a long way to concisely delivering information to the reader. It would have also reduced redundancy throughout the begining of the chapter. Furthermore, it would have followed a logical progression of delivering ideas. Simple summary, Simple Explanation, Detailed Information. *As already stated, too much text was wasted on terminology that was unchanged from core d20. The author was quick to gloss over concepts like Magic Points, because the concept wound be, "familiar to anyone who has played computer RPGs.", but I find it interesting that the author of a traditional pen & paper RPG supplement would assume familiarity of MP from CRPGs, but not core gaming concepts from a game system he is writing about.*



 I've looked over the section, but I don't see, what is missing regarding the MP explanation. The other point has been addressed already.



			
				Arthur Reyes said:
			
		

> <*Now that I think about it, "spell list" is a redundant terminology for spell, and it doesn't need to be in the text at all to explain the system.* If you replaced "spell list", with spell, you could easily shave off 1/4 the explanatory text. The author is subconsciously aware of this, because chapter 3 is titled Spells, when in actuality it is devoted to Spell Lists.>
> 
> *Once the basics of spellcasting was written, you could have explained signature spells:
> 
> There is an third type of spell called a signature spell. Signature spells can be cast more quickly than simple or complex spells. A signature spell is a specific formula. The formula's spell lists, enhancements, and magic points are fixed, and cannot be changed.*



 Comes to the above mentioned explanations of the basic system.



			
				Arthur Reyes said:
			
		

> Take this sentence for example.
> *"Each spell list has multiple ways in which it can be cast, and you only choose the way you want to use it when you actually cast the spell; you don’t have to prepare spells in advance."
> 
> The above sentence is a summary of what a spell is, not a spell list. It comes three pages after the introduction to Chapter 2, when you should be presenting the actual mechanics of spell casting, yet it incorrectly appears in the introduction of the subtopic, Spell list.*



 Really? A spell list isn't a spell like the 3.0 _Symbol_, which allows to choose, what kind of symbol is used. It is a set of possibilities, which is "templated" through the effect type. A full step more abstract than a normal spell.



			
				Arthur Reyes said:
			
		

> *Why is table 2.1 on page 18, when you are trying to explain the basics of spellcasting.*



 Why not? Except of three paragraphs everything covered on this table is explained before the table is shown.



			
				Arthur Reyes said:
			
		

> Page 21 has an orphaned paragraph in the second column under the illustration.
> 
> *Rules for regaining Magic Points are repeated, verbatim, in two places in the same chapter.*



 That's true. On page 17 and page 21. Both places are understandable, but one has to go - and I prefer in this case page 17, because it is on page 21 more suitable.


----------



## Archus

*Why a Wiki*



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Another point of critique: You leave the spaces out of many links. That's annyoing and I don't see any good reason for it.



A habit of using WikiWords.  It is easy to make new pages in a wiki by putting mixed case words together.  You can use "free links" and have spaces, but sometimes I forget.  


			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> It wasn't clear, which route you are going to take. But I suggest, putting a full-fledged review on the server for those interested in more information after the primer would be a bigger incentive to buy the system.



I'll put together a review and link to all the ones I can find.  My goal for the site is to collect fan created spells, magic items, feats, traditions, etc and provide enough of a summary for anyone (especially my players) to use.  I'm hoping the "cheat sheet" someone mentioned is made - all of the costs so if you know what you are doing you can create spells by looking at a couple of pages. 


			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Despiration? Do you mean desperation or inspiration? If the latter, I don't think, you'll find many ideas, which are neither from the core rules nor included in EoMR - but I haven't compared both products in that detail. And for the support - why don't you buy another product from Ryan Nock like Spike Chains and mention, that you bought it because EoMR? IMO, you'll get more for your money in that case.



Mostly inspiration while I wait for the Lyceian Arcana - it looks like there is some information I might be able to tease out of the older edition.  I might buy Spike Chains - always loved that weapon.


			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> BTW, what is the purpose of the wiki-server? There are some other topics on it, too.



Mostly the wiki server is there to provide information on the various games I play or like.  Right now I'm only running Talislanta and playing Exalted - I'm really tempted to run a d20 game using EoMR and maybe Dragonstar (but since I'm still working full time as a software developer and getting an MBA, I'm fairly busy).

EoMR was exactly what I've been looking for.  A coherent and complete system for creating spells and magic items that is basically compatable with the standard d20 spells so I can use all the material with little or no effort.  About the only thing I might need to do is scale some of the magic effects to get the world I want - for example if I ran a Dragonstar game I might up the damage of evocation because the weapons in Dragonstar take away some of the purpose of Wizards even using the basic rules..

I decided to go with a wiki because I'd like to develop a community of contributors.  Wiki pages are so much better than html because anyone can edit any page (with the permissions I've setup, you only have to provide a user name when you hit the save button after editing).  The coding is also a little simpler than html.  My hope is that people from this forum and others will start posting their own EoMR stuff.

The whole domain I purchased for the following reasons:
* Mess around with some web programming.

* Reserve a cool domain name (arcanearcade.com).  I might go into the gaming industry and that is a nice name.

* Give something back to the gaming community.

So I invite everyone to post and edit to their hearts content on the High Arcana wiki.  I'm pulling over stuff from the forums, but if people beat me to it, so much the better 

http://eom.arcanearcade.com or
http://arcana.arcanearcade.com


----------



## Archus

*Rogue or Monk Mages*

RangerWickett,

Between EoMR and the snippets of the Lyceian Arcana there are classes filling the niches of:
* Pure Spellcaster - Mage
* Melee Spellcaster - Mageknight
* Scholar/Skill Focused Spellcaster - Taskmaster
* Religious Warrior - Godhand

Are there going to be core or prestige classes filling the roles of:
* Rogue Mage/Arcane Trickster - You could get close with a Taskmaster and a few levels of rogue (for the sneak attack), but I was wondering if there was anything more directlly applicable.

* Physical Adept - An unarmed combat specalist with magic.  You could get there with Mageknight and Monk, but again I was wondering if there was a directly applicable class.

BTW, EoMR is great.  I made a 4th level spellcaster today and it was fun - a great number of hard choices to make but the character in the end had more character than your run of the mill wizard and all without needing a prestige class to customize him.  Please bring out the Lyceian Arcana soon.

--Archus


----------



## phluks

*But when?*

When is the Lyceian Arcana going to appear in print/pdf?


----------



## hilander75

phluks said:
			
		

> When is the Lyceian Arcana going to appear in print/pdf?



Yes, that is a good question, I am also very interested to know that


----------



## RangerWickett

First things first, I am feeling very good that we have the second issue of the EN World Gamer in the final stages of layout, which means I pretty much can stop worrying about it.  Also, Friday night I saved the world by keeping El Diablo from escaping a small Mexican town in a Call of Cthulhu game.

I am sorry that I haven't replied for about a week, but I'm going to try to reply to everything.  If I miss a question someone has asked, just ask it again to get my attention.  Here's hoping I can finish in less than three hours, because then I need to get back to Robert Sullivan, he of the saintly patience, who has been waiting about two months for me to give him my opinion of Mechamancy.

As far as when Lyceian Arcana will come out, . . . you might guess that I am hesitant to put up another date, for fear that something else will come up to keep me from following through.  The good news is that I'm unemployed, so I have to write to eat, so I plan to spend about 40 hours in the next three days writing, editing, and replying to posts and emails.  Yes, my eyes will melt, but I love doing this stuff.



			
				Archus said:
			
		

> RangerWickett,
> 
> Between EoMR and the snippets of the Lyceian Arcana there are classes filling the niches of:
> * Pure Spellcaster - Mage
> * Melee Spellcaster - Mageknight
> * Scholar/Skill Focused Spellcaster - Taskmaster
> * Religious Warrior - Godhand
> 
> Are there going to be core or prestige classes filling the roles of:
> * Rogue Mage/Arcane Trickster - You could get close with a Taskmaster and a few levels of rogue (for the sneak attack), but I was wondering if there was anything more directlly applicable.
> 
> * Physical Adept - An unarmed combat specalist with magic.  You could get there with Mageknight and Monk, but again I was wondering if there was a directly applicable class.
> 
> BTW, EoMR is great.  I made a 4th level spellcaster today and it was fun - a great number of hard choices to make but the character in the end had more character than your run of the mill wizard and all without needing a prestige class to customize him.  Please bring out the Lyceian Arcana soon.
> 
> --Archus




One thing I'll probably cut out of Lyceian Arcana are the prestige classes.  I think the core of the system is still pretty flexible, and I'd rather present optional rules in depth, instead of relegating them to prestige classes.  That's why there's no "Ritual Mage" prestige class.

As for normal classes, what I have now are:


Revisions of the core classes, so we have the EOM Bard, the EOM Cleric, etc.  Basically it's a hard conversion of core classes to EOM.
Arcanist - Spellcasters who focus on learning to wield pure magic, favoring energy effects over objects or creatures.  Very intellectual mages, sort of what I would do if I were designing the Wizard class from scratch, just for EOM.
Exalten - Like bards, designed specifically to use EOM.
Godhand - Like paladins, designed specifically to use EOM.
Longwalker - Like druids, designed specifically for EOM.  Longwalkers are my favorite of the new classes, because their powers _require_ them to adventure.  They become stronger the more places they go to, unlike the classic image of the druid who just sits in his grove and tends to one small area.

I might include the Tel Shalanth, though I'd feel a little self-absorbed if I did.  They're basically Elvish magical martial artists from my personal campaign.  Monks get to deflect arrows; these guys get to deflect spells.  Actually, they're pretty much a fanboyish fantasy remix of anime heroes who can channel ki into energy blasts and such.  I might save them for something later, though.

I don't really know what one would want specifically out of an arcane trickster that you can't do with mage/rogue.  I'm really not that fond of the prestige classes that exist in 3.5 just to let you multiclass without being weak.  The Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, and Mystic Theurge, as written, just aren't that interesting.  They don't have much flavor.  

Of course, I was convinced that Theurges can be pretty cool by Hellhound's mini-book, The Secrets of Theurgy, since he played around with what theurgical magic actually meant, instead of just having bland rules.

Not sure where I'm going with this line of thought.  Hm.


----------



## The Goblin King

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I might include the Tel Shalanth, though I'd feel a little self-absorbed if I did.  They're basically Elvish magical martial artists from my personal campaign.  Monks get to deflect arrows; these guys get to deflect spells.  Actually, they're pretty much a fanboyish fantasy remix of anime heroes who can channel ki into energy blasts and such.  I might save them for something later, though.




I would be interested in seeing them.


----------



## Archus

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> One thing I'll probably cut out of Lyceian Arcana are the prestige classes.  I think the core of the system is still pretty flexible, and I'd rather present optional rules in depth, instead of relegating them to prestige classes.  That's why there's no "Ritual Mage" prestige class.



Actually I agree.  There are too many prestige classes that basically give you what multiclassing should handle.  That is why I remove multiclassing restrictions and try to save prestige classes for what fits in the world.

I'll also be using something from the Unearthed Arcana and granting virtual spellcasting levels for the non-spellcasting classes.  Maybe something like every even or third level they get a 1/2 spellcasting level but no spell lists (unless I wanted a really high magic world).  

But that might not be necessary if there were rogue and/or monk like magic classes...  But while I think about it the only thing missing from the rogue is sneak attack and that can be simulated with some damage boosting spells. The only thing I would really want from the monk is HtH damage progression - other special abilities would be spell lists. 


			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Revisions of the core classes, so we have the EOM Bard, the EOM Cleric, etc.  Basically it's a hard conversion of core classes to EOM.
> Arcanist - Spellcasters who focus on learning to wield pure magic, favoring energy effects over objects or creatures.  Very intellectual mages, sort of what I would do if I were designing the Wizard class from scratch, just for EOM.
> Exalten - Like bards, designed specifically to use EOM.
> Godhand - Like paladins, designed specifically to use EOM.
> Longwalker - Like druids, designed specifically for EOM.  Longwalkers are my favorite of the new classes, because their powers _require_ them to adventure.  They become stronger the more places they go to, unlike the classic image of the druid who just sits in his grove and tends to one small area.



Sounds great.  I'm especially interested to see if the Arcanist gets abilities to match the standard wizard in fireball like damage.  I also like the Longwalker needing to adventure, but what about a long dungeon crawl like "The Worlds Largest Dungeon" where you spend 1st through 20th level in one big dungeon?


			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I might include the Tel Shalanth, though I'd feel a little self-absorbed if I did.  They're basically Elvish magical martial artists from my personal campaign.  Monks get to deflect arrows; these guys get to deflect spells.  Actually, they're pretty much a fanboyish fantasy remix of anime heroes who can channel ki into energy blasts and such.  I might save them for something later, though.



I'd like to see them but would probably strip out the Elvish restriction.  Personally I'm really fond of anime ki martial artists.


			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I don't really know what one would want specifically out of an arcane trickster that you can't do with mage/rogue.  I'm really not that fond of the prestige classes that exist in 3.5 just to let you multiclass without being weak.  The Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, and Mystic Theurge, as written, just aren't that interesting.  They don't have much flavor.



The Theurge disturbs me in getting arcane and divine levels.  I'm glad I don't have to worry about that in EoMR.

There is one last "missing" class in EoMR - the psychic.  I could do this with Silent and Still spell, but having to spend 4 MP per spell more would be crazy.  I thought of having a "psychic" tradition that gets silent and still spell for a 0 MP cost, but they have to roll Concentration DC 10 + MP spent to cast any of their spells (fail the roll and loose the MP).  Either that or each "spell" doesn't have somatic or verbal components - instead they have 2 obvious manifestations of one of the 5 senses.  There could be feats to make the manifestations less obvious.


----------



## Verequus

RangerWickett, could you please look into the post no. 9 and look, if you haven't something forgotten for your revision? Like a better basic explanation or the removing the double of the "regaining of magic points" explanation?


----------



## Archus

*How is the L.A. release going?*

Just wondering if L.A. will be release in time for Christmas.  I hope to take some time to prep for a new game using EoMR and L.A. during my vacation and start with the new year.


----------



## RangerWickett

The book is done in layout.  We're just proofing it now.  Should be up by Monday.


----------



## Kemrain

w00t-tastic!

- Kemrain the Consumer.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem

*Does a little dance*

Yay!


----------



## Archus

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> The book is done in layout.  We're just proofing it now.  Should be up by Monday.



Archus is doing a happy snoopy dance.

Combined with a class construction kit inspired by:
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=82858&page=1&pp=20
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=2909&

And I should have some ways to balance the whole thing.


----------



## Verequus

Archus said:
			
		

> Combined with a class construction kit inspired by:
> http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=82858&page=1&pp=20
> http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=2909&
> 
> And I should have some ways to balance the whole thing.



 Are you using Buy The Numbers to the extent, that I can use your conversion of EoMR without much difficulty? That is still the number one reason why I can't use BTN in my group. (Number two would be the missing support for LA.)


----------



## Archus

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Are you using Buy The Numbers to the extent, that I can use your conversion of EoMR without much difficulty? That is still the number one reason why I can't use BTN in my group. (Number two would be the missing support for LA.)



Well I just got BTN and was tinkering with the idea of using it.  I'm betting you would remove the BTN spellcasting costs and replace them with EoMR costs.  The breakdown could be as simple as assigning a cost for each .5 spellcaster level or figuring out costs for each of the following that could be bought separately:
* Maximum Spell MP
* Spell Lists Known
* Magic Points
* Cantrips Per Day
* Signature Spells - this could further be broken down into signature spells that require you to know the spell list and those that don't.

For some of these costs I'd start at the cost of making charged items.  To make a Renewable Mana Battery like a 
* 1st Level caster:: 1 Max * 5 MP * 20 XP = 100 XP
* 10th level caster: 10 Max * 95 MP * 20 XP = 19000 XP
* 20th level caster: 20 Max * 370 MP * 20 XP = 148000 XP

The above costs represent the following fractions of the points availabe at the level:
* 1st 100/1500 = 6.7%
* 10th 19000/46,500 = 40.7%
* 20th 148000/191,500 = 77.3%

Seems a bit steep.  Right now I don't have the stomach for much more math - just finished a 2.5 hr Finance exam.  If anyone has ideas I'd love to hear them.

The other class creation system I might use can be found at:
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1915725#post1915725
http://www.arcanearcade.com/wiki/index.php/D20ClassConstruction/D20ClassConstruction

In this system you have X points per level to spend on advancements.  A minimum advancement is given for 0 points in HD, BAB, Saves, Skill Points, and Defense (the option from unearthed arcana) you then pay to improve those progressions or add other things such as magic level or special abilities.  

Much simpler to deal with and you always get some minimum advancement in each of the areas plus some disgresionary points to spend for special abilities.  This method seems easier to keep track of to me.  Honestly I'm just looking for a way to balance the classes and make new ones - the thought of having some of my players pick and choose abilities and by spending xp in a point buy system frightens me (for several reasons).

--Archus


----------



## Verequus

Archus said:
			
		

> Well I just got BTN and was tinkering with the idea of using it. I'm betting you would remove the BTN spellcasting costs and replace them with EoMR costs. The breakdown could be as simple as assigning a cost for each .5 spellcaster level or figuring out costs for each of the following that could be bought separately:
> * Maximum Spell MP
> * Spell Lists Known
> * Magic Points
> * Cantrips Per Day
> * Signature Spells - this could further be broken down into signature spells that require you to know the spell list and those that don't.



 You are right - I'd like to simply exchange those systems. I'm in favor of parting everything in little bits, because it means to be able to get rid of the Practiced Spellcaster problem. But I don't understand the last part with Signature Spells - where in the rules does stand, that you don't need to know all spell lists for creating (and thus casting) a Signature Spell?



> For some of these costs I'd start at the cost of making charged items.  To make a Renewable Mana Battery like a
> * 1st Level caster:: 1 Max * 5 MP * 20 XP = 100 XP
> * 10th level caster: 10 Max * 95 MP * 20 XP = 19000 XP
> * 20th level caster: 20 Max * 370 MP * 20 XP = 148000 XP
> 
> The above costs represent the following fractions of the points availabe at the level:
> * 1st 100/1500 = 6.7%
> * 10th 19000/46,500 = 40.7%
> * 20th 148000/191,500 = 77.3%
> 
> Seems a bit steep. Right now I don't have the stomach for much more math - just finished a 2.5 hr Finance exam. If anyone has ideas I'd love to hear them.



 Sorry, but I'm no use with this kind of math - while I always had good marks, I'm not good in tinkering, how to find out the right formula... I'm a math applier, not an inventor.



> The other class creation system I might use can be found at:
> http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1915725#post1915725
> http://www.arcanearcade.com/wiki/index.php/D20ClassConstruction/D20ClassConstruction
> 
> In this system you have X points per level to spend on advancements. A minimum advancement is given for 0 points in HD, BAB, Saves, Skill Points, and Defense (the option from unearthed arcana) you then pay to improve those progressions or add other things such as magic level or special abilities.



 Actually, I don't like fractional points - you could multiply everything by ten and then you would have a bit more of flexibility. Second thing is, that I don't like the idea of giving points only out, if you earn enough XP - the point of a classless system is to have a smooth transition, isn't it? At least, you are ditching the d4 with the system - a single fireball with average damage shouldn't kill wizards without exceptional high hitpoints with one stroke.



> Much simpler to deal with and you always get some minimum advancement in each of the areas plus some disgresionary points to spend for special abilities. This method seems easier to keep track of to me. Honestly I'm just looking for a way to balance the classes and make new ones - the thought of having some of my players pick and choose abilities and by spending xp in a point buy system frightens me (for several reasons).



 The wish of having a common baseline is understandable. BTN can be used in this way, too. But I'm searching for a really free system, allowing me to use all my favorite systems at ones: BTN, EoMR and Upper_Krust's excellent CR-system. You don't seem to have seen his PDF, which details a late RC-version, so I've sent it to your webmaster address. (BTW, Ryan, I was the one, who mailed it to you - next time I'll include my nick.) But how are those BTN-formula converted to UK-CR or back? I'm not sure, if it is so easy, as it seems to me. And why is it a frightening thought anyways?


----------



## Archus

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> You are right - I'd like to simply exchange those systems. I'm in favor of parting everything in little bits, because it means to be able to get rid of the Practiced Spellcaster problem. But I don't understand the last part with Signature Spells - where in the rules does stand, that you don't need to know all spell lists for creating (and thus casting) a Signature Spell?




I thought you would need to know an appropriate spell list to make it a signature spell.  I suppose you could just have X signature spells and you can  fill that slot with:
* A spell from a spell list you know
* A spell from a book you find.

One thing I wanted to have was a "fixed" signature spell that you couldnt' just willy nilly swap out with something from a book.

A minor spellcaster with only signature spells could be used for some racial spell like abilities.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I'm no use with this kind of math - while I always had good marks, I'm not good in tinkering, how to find out the right formula... I'm a math applier, not an inventor.




During my upcoming vacation I'll sit down with BTN and figure out the rough cost for wizards and clerics under that system and try to approximate out something for EoMR.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't like fractional points - you could multiply everything by ten and then you would have a bit more of flexibility. Second thing is, that I don't like the idea of giving points only out, if you earn enough XP - the point of a classless system is to have a smooth transition, isn't it? At least, you are ditching the d4 with the system - a single fireball with average damage shouldn't kill wizards without exceptional high hitpoints with one stroke.




I wasn't really trying to get rid of character classes, more have a build your own character class system.  I understand the appeal of a build your character as you go, but a baseline of ability that you improve upon is nice IMHO.  So I wasn't going to hand out points - you would get XP and go up levels.  When a new level was achieved you would get to spend the improvement points.  I'd expect most people to choose their BAB, HD, Skill Points, Saves, and Magic progressions and then have some discretionary points to spend for special abilities, feats, etc.  Then I'd only have to deal with people tinkering with characters every session.

I really wanted to get rid of the d4 hit point issue.  One thing that I've gathered from BTN is that the creator made some assumptions that character classes were balanced and I've never bought that.   I'm also not sure I like the increasing costs of feats when compared to the relatively fixed costs for special abilities.  While feats keep increasing quadratically with the number you have, the special abilities are just fixed - so people will have more special abilities than feats.  It would be easy enough to make the cost of feats increase linearly.

More reading of BTN is needed to make a real opinion.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> The wish of having a common baseline is understandable. BTN can be used in this way, too. But I'm searching for a really free system, allowing me to use all my favorite systems at ones: BTN, EoMR and Upper_Krust's excellent CR-system. You don't seem to have seen his PDF, which details a late RC-version, so I've sent it to your webmaster address. (BTW, Ryan, I was the one, who mailed it to you - next time I'll include my nick.) But how are those BTN-formula converted to UK-CR or back? I'm not sure, if it is so easy, as it seems to me. And why is it a frightening thought anyways?




Thanks for sending the CR-system, it is pretty nice.

What frightens me about having some of my players use BTN is manyfold:
* Some would abuse the system

* Some would be completly stymied and unable to customize their characters.  Having the standard classes there to just buy would help.


----------



## Verequus

Archus said:
			
		

> I thought you would need to know an appropriate spell list to make it a signature spell. I suppose you could just have X signature spells and you can fill that slot with:
> * A spell from a spell list you know
> * A spell from a book you find.
> 
> One thing I wanted to have was a "fixed" signature spell that you couldnt' just willy nilly swap out with something from a book.



 Sorry, but you seem to have misunderstood the RAW. You can have only signature spells with spell lists, you know of. The spells in books _are_ signature spells, because you can write _only_ signature spells down in books, but you can only _memorize_ spells from books - reserving a certain amount of MP only for each use of the book spell. Allowing a race to cast a signature spell as special ability is a spell-like ability normal D&D - giving a race MP and spell lists to choose from is not the normal way.



> A minor spellcaster with only signature spells could be used for some racial spell like abilities.



 What I said.



> During my upcoming vacation I'll sit down with BTN and figure out the rough cost for wizards and clerics under that system and try to approximate out something for EoMR.



 *Does a happy dance*



> I wasn't really trying to get rid of character classes, more have a build your own character class system. I understand the appeal of a build your character as you go, but a baseline of ability that you improve upon is nice IMHO.



 Would it be possible to achieve both at the same time?



> So I wasn't going to hand out points - you would get XP and go up levels. When a new level was achieved you would get to spend the improvement points. I'd expect most people to choose their BAB, HD, Skill Points, Saves, and Magic progressions and then have some discretionary points to spend for special abilities, feats, etc. Then I'd only have to deal with people tinkering with characters every session.



 Why should this prevent tinkering between sessions?



> I really wanted to get rid of the d4 hit point issue. One thing that I've gathered from BTN is that the creator made some assumptions that character classes were balanced and I've never bought that. I'm also not sure I like the increasing costs of feats when compared to the relatively fixed costs for special abilities. While feats keep increasing quadratically with the number you have, the special abilities are just fixed - so people will have more special abilities than feats. It would be easy enough to make the cost of feats increase linearly.
> 
> More reading of BTN is needed to make a real opinion.



 I hope, that you can fix the issues (like having no LA taken into account). Search for reviews to see them themselves and look www.stcooleypublishing.com in the forum for some extra info.



> Thanks for sending the CR-system, it is pretty nice.



 My pleasure. Through it, I knew that not all classes are equal, but with BTN it looks, that Fighter and Cleric are even more further away than they should. I was suspicicious of some incompatibilities between them, but it is nice to see, that someone knows that there exist. BTW, what are the underlying assumptions, you talked about?



> What frightens me about having some of my players use BTN is manyfold:
> * Some would abuse the system
> 
> * Some would be completly stymied and unable to customize their characters. Having the standard classes there to just buy would help.



 Only these two? How can two reasons be manyfold?  The last point, having a package, is always good, especially for new players, which need  reduced amounts of options. And the power of abuse is already available - look at the wizard boards and you'll see ridicilous builds, capable of doings hundred points of damage. I don't see, how you can further this with these rules. Maybe buying ability increases through XP, which are saved through more focusing on one thing. But wouldn't this overspecialization weaken the character? I really like to see a proof for your statement.


----------



## Archus

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Would it be possible to achieve both at the same time?




With premade packages (like at the end of BTN), you could have both a flexable system and premade "classes"



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Why should this prevent tinkering between sessions?




 Well my thought was they would only tinker once per level, instead of every session.  Of course I could just hand out XP every few sessions if I wanted to keep the tinkering down.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> I hope, that you can fix the issues (like having no LA taken into account). Search for reviews to see them themselves and look www.stcooleypublishing.com in the forum for some extra info.




 LA should be out soon, but even without it the pieces (Max MP, Spell Lists, Cantrips, and MP) should remain essentially the same.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> My pleasure. Through it, I knew that not all classes are equal, but with BTN it looks, that Fighter and Cleric are even more further away than they should. I was suspicicious of some incompatibilities between them, but it is nice to see, that someone knows that there exist. BTW, what are the underlying assumptions, you talked about?




 The cleric has always been my pet peeve.  They are outrageously overpowered.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Only these two? How can two reasons be manyfold?  The last point, having a package, is always good, especially for new players, which need  reduced amounts of options. And the power of abuse is already available - look at the wizard boards and you'll see ridicilous builds, capable of doings hundred points of damage. I don't see, how you can further this with these rules. Maybe buying ability increases through XP, which are saved through more focusing on one thing. But wouldn't this overspecialization weaken the character? I really like to see a proof for your statement.




Yeah you can make some outrageous characters with stock d20.  I am a little concerned about people buying just HP, Saves, and BAB and nothing more if they want to be a combat machine.  I may institute limits based on the effective level (much like mutants and masterminds).  You can only have a number of HD equal to your effective level, only EL + 3 in a skill, etc.

As mentioned above, having a package of abilities like at the end of BTN would help new players.  You want to be a wizard... just buy these things.

Right now I'm entering the number of points the various casters spend per level in BTN so I can roughly approx what an EoMR would need to spend.  I'll probably have the primary cost driver be the Max MP.  Something similar to the cost of BAB might be appropriate.  Then buying spell lists and MP might have a fixed and linear cost.

The parts of BTN I don't like on a casual read:
* How the costs of feats increases when compared to buying special abilities.  Abilities  have a linear cost (300 * Level) but feats have a quadratic cost (50 * # * #-1).  I'd rather feats have a linear or even fixed cost.  Feat trees are what make make some feats more expensive than others.

* I'd rather the order of purchasing abilities not matter.  For HD and weapon proficiencies, you are better off buying them early but most other things don't matter.   I'd probably just have weapon proficiencies have a fixed cost.  Hell I'd like weapon proficiencies to just be a Feat as they are in d20 and to have a fixed cost.

* Attribute increases may need to be a little different if you begin pulling in monster levels.

Hmm, this is getting pretty off topic.  Maybe I'll start a thread for BTN and EoMR and take some of my griping to the BTN forums.  

--Archus


----------



## Verequus

Archus said:
			
		

> LA should be out soon, but even without it the pieces (Max MP, Spell Lists, Cantrips, and MP) should remain essentially the same.



   Arrg, I meant with LA not Lyceian Arcana, but Level Adjustment. Stupid Abbraviations...



> The cleric has always been my pet peeve.  They are outrageously overpowered.



 Otherwise no one would play them.



> Yeah you can make some outrageous characters with stock d20. I am a little concerned about people buying just HP, Saves, and BAB and nothing more if they want to be a combat machine. I may institute limits based on the effective level (much like mutants and masterminds). You can only have a number of HD equal to your effective level, only EL + 3 in a skill, etc.



 That would make them like the standard classes. But this wouldn't allow Kagome, the girl from Inuyasha. Kagome has probably few hit dice, but is a devil with the bow - better than even masters with this weapon.



> As mentioned above, having a package of abilities like at the end of BTN would help new players. You want to be a wizard... just buy these things.
> 
> Right now I'm entering the number of points the various casters spend per level in BTN so I can roughly approx what an EoMR would need to spend. I'll probably have the primary cost driver be the Max MP. Something similar to the cost of BAB might be appropriate. Then buying spell lists and MP might have a fixed and linear cost.
> 
> The parts of BTN I don't like on a casual read:
> * How the costs of feats increases when compared to buying special abilities. Abilities have a linear cost (300 * Level) but feats have a quadratic cost (50 * # * #-1). I'd rather feats have a linear or even fixed cost. Feat trees are what make make some feats more expensive than others.
> 
> * I'd rather the order of purchasing abilities not matter. For HD and weapon proficiencies, you are better off buying them early but most other things don't matter. I'd probably just have weapon proficiencies have a fixed cost. Hell I'd like weapon proficiencies to just be a Feat as they are in d20 and to have a fixed cost.
> 
> * Attribute increases may need to be a little different if you begin pulling in monster levels.
> 
> Hmm, this is getting pretty off topic. Maybe I'll start a thread for BTN and EoMR and take some of my griping to the BTN forums.



 I'm wondering, why you have such a different view in opposite to The_Sigil regarding these points. He said, that these formula presented the best fit for his numbers... But I'll look to the BTN forums just to see your griping. ;-)


----------



## Archus

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Arrg, I meant with LA not Lyceian Arcana, but Level Adjustment. Stupid Abbraviations...




I found "Point Buy Numbers" for d20 modern derived from BTN that has level adjustment costs:
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10850.phtml
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=3690&

I haven't crunched the numbers there and would rather be able to buy racial abilities in pieces.  So I'll be crunching away using the Upper_Krust stuff you sent me.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Otherwise no one would play them.




Plenty would still play clerics since they have healing.  I also observed that in Arcana Unearthed, where they have no clerics, that all the magic using classes are attractive for different reasons even though they all get access to healing (Greenbonds are just better at it).



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> That would make them like the standard classes. But this wouldn't allow Kagome, the girl from Inuyasha. Kagome has probably few hit dice, but is a devil with the bow - better than even masters with this weapon.




Very good point and there are times I miss that about d20.  I worry a little about some players powergaming they hell out of that, but they would always have a weakness.  I also worry about some players forgetting to buy some things.

To get Kagome, you would need to break up the cost of BAB into at least ranged and melee.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> I'm wondering, why you have such a different view in opposite to The_Sigil regarding these points. He said, that these formula presented the best fit for his numbers... But I'll look to the BTN forums just to see your griping. ;-)




"Point Buy Numbers" actually had some of my same complaints and have a flat increase in cost for Saves and Feats.  I'll be using that.  

I'm putting together a spreadsheet to watch the costs on various builds of the classes.  As long as things are approximate to core d20 within a reasonable range I'll be happy.  If things get a little wonky past 15th level, I won't sweat it - as Upper_Krust's analysis shows the higher level CRs are too low anyway (certainly the Bodak my group encountered was way more powerful than the CR indicated).

I may just write a C# program to do character builds - excel can drive me a little batty.


----------



## Verequus

Archus said:
			
		

> I found "Point Buy Numbers" for d20 modern derived from BTN that has level adjustment costs:
> http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10850.phtml
> http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=3690&
> 
> I haven't crunched the numbers there and would rather be able to buy racial abilities in pieces. So I'll be crunching away using the Upper_Krust stuff you sent me.



 I've bought it and looked through it. Next to the really sloppy editing (missing sentences everywhere) I saw the table for ECL races - I don't understand the numbers behind it. Maybe there is a typo for ECL+1. It seems, that one has to pay for being an elf, but not for being a human. Did I overlook something?



> Plenty would still play clerics since they have healing. I also observed that in Arcana Unearthed, where they have no clerics, that all the magic using classes are attractive for different reasons even though they all get access to healing (Greenbonds are just better at it).



 That may be, but those examples use different magic systems. Under AD&D, playing cleric was no fun.



> Very good point and there are times I miss that about d20. I worry a little about some players powergaming they hell out of that, but they would always have a weakness. I also worry about some players forgetting to buy some things.
> 
> To get Kagome, you would need to break up the cost of BAB into at least ranged and melee.



 Without bound limits, you can have experts without having many hit dice. Also, there should be for PCs and other, who have a lot battles, a minimum hit dice limit. At least the half ECL in hit dice, rounded up. Otherwise they'll die too fast. For the powergamers: Kill them. They should worry about their ass. And the forgetful should either have a checklist or buy things in packages, with some additions on their own behalf.



> "Point Buy Numbers" actually had some of my same complaints and have a flat increase in cost for Saves and Feats. I'll be using that.
> 
> I'm putting together a spreadsheet to watch the costs on various builds of the classes. As long as things are approximate to core d20 within a reasonable range I'll be happy. If things get a little wonky past 15th level, I won't sweat it - as Upper_Krust's analysis shows the higher level CRs are too low anyway (certainly the Bodak my group encountered was way more powerful than the CR indicated).
> 
> I may just write a C# program to do character builds - excel can drive me a little batty.



 Being a programmer myself, I'd like to see that program. BTW, if you intend to publish it, then it has to be open source because of the OGL, unless you use a script language to parse it.


----------

