Fantasy Concepts: An OGL Fantasy Saga Project

[Matrix Sorcica]

So my magic system suggestion is totally off? :\

Are you going to use something like your Fantastic Classes Vancian spellcasting talents?

Edit: That is - I knew you were going Vancian. I just thought there would be some remnant of Saga left....

 

[EditorBFG]

So my magic system suggestion is totally off? :\

Are you going to use something like your Fantastic Classes Vancian spellcasting talents?

Edit: That is - I knew you were going Vancian. I just thought there would be some remnant of Saga left....

In an email I just wrote Flynn, I noted that the big lesson we can take from Saga is that, for spells and spell-like abilities, uses per encounter are what matters, not the current D&D paradigm of uses per day/game session. So, to my mind, that is the most important thing we can take from Saga.

I think the system you wrote up would work great, and it takes what Saga does well and applies it to D&D spells. However, I do not think the idea of a Force suite of per encounter abilities is a concept we can lift from Saga without any notion of having referenced copyrighted material.

I know this issue was beaten to death with a rock in earlier posts, but we have to write this game as if Saga had never been published, based on existing Open Content or new material. However, Saga uses so many concepts that have analogs in the body of published OGC that it is easily adaptable. And per the OSRIC model, things that are algorithmic or simple math are too simple for anyone to own them.

But despite earlier comments in this thread, things have advanced farther than I think we originally planned. The magic system will be essentially new, though drawing heavily upon non-SRD Open Content. In fact, I think I can safely say Flynn and I have both rejected "Vancian" magic.

Here are some things I know right now: This system will not involve spell slots. It will not resemble the spellcasting talents from Fantastic Classes at all. It will only peripherally involve Action Points. It will not require preparation, nor ticking off of spells per day. It will be skill-based, and in some ways more versatile than Saga. So I don't think the term Vancian still applies.

So I would not say your magic system is totally off. In fact, in some ways we have taken the ideas behind it further.

(Besides, you also just made perfect house rules for anyone who wants to use Saga style powers with fantasy.)

 

[EditorBFG]

I still think there's something to be said for trimming down the weapon list and getting rid of the extreme weapon types (at least a max of threat range 19-20, or multiplier x3, if not all the way back to 20/x2). I'm waiting on feedback from people on the list as to which way things should go.

If we could do what Saga does and have weapons do up to 6d6 damage, I might be more in favor of it. As it is, while I do think there is fat to be cut from the SRD weapon list (do we really need a glaive and a guisarme?), I still want a variety of weapons for PCs to use. I have yet to see any arguments presented that address the points I made in Post #170, above. Things are still evolving, but my opinion is still that the D&D rapier works fine as is.

There's also a Weapon Mastery talent tree in Grim Tales that works well in actual usage. Chances are, though, they look pretty similar.

As I recall, yes. Grim Tales is open on my desk at home, so I'll look at it after work.

 

[Flynn]

But despite earlier comments in this thread, things have advanced farther than I think we originally planned. The magic system will be essentially new, though drawing heavily upon non-SRD Open Content. In fact, I think I can safely say Flynn and I have both rejected "Vancian" magic.

Here are some things I know right now: This system will not involve spell slots. It will not resemble the spellcasting talents from Fantastic Classes at all. It will only peripherally involve Action Points. It will not require preparation, nor ticking off of spells per day. It will be skill-based, and in some ways more versatile than Saga. So I don't think the term Vancian still applies.

I use the term Vancian to refer to the fact that spells are discreet, and define a limited and relatively pre-determined effect. This is not effects-based magic; you can still use spells from other sources (OGC or not, whatever works at your table). Because it uses spells, I would call it Vancian.

However, what we are working up is similar in concept to Legends of Sorcery, and so you do not have to keep track of spell slots and the like, just the spells you know/have access to, and a Magic skill (unique to each type of magic) that must achieve a DC calculated using the spell's level. At least, that's how it looks right now.

In some ways, it is similar mechanically to the Use the Force rules, so there is definitely a similar feel to that of Saga.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Mokona]

Spells per Day

Sounds like we've moved away from D&D-style spell memorization. If we haven't then the Mage (or Priest) class might contain two spellcaster tracks. One that roughly maps to Sorcerer (innate spells) and another for Wizard (spellbooks).

Whatever feat or talent you take to open up one of the two magic traditions (innate versus spellbooks) would say: "For each additional level you take in this class, you may choose to assign that level to one instance of this talent."

While the wording could use some work, the concept is that if you take both the talent for Sorcerer and the talent for Wizard you could have both types of spells. However, a 10th level Mage that was a Sorcerer/Wizard would have to divide up his Mage levels between the two spellcasting talents. So he could be a Sorcerer 1/Wizard 9 or Sorcerer 5/Wizard 5.

 

[Baron Opal]

Re: Weapons

I would have no problems cutting the number of weapons to a "mere" 20 or so rather than the three pages of weapons currently available. I don't see the utility in having saex, kukri and gladius listings; a shortsword listing is sufficent for my needs. Having weapon mastery feat trees ties to a particular weapon type (axes, maces, swords, spears, polearms, &c.) would allow someone to "specialize" in a particular weapon but still have some flexibility. I like being "married to a weapon type". Must be my RuneQuest gaming shining through.

Iron Heroes is a great resource for customizing weapon styles and ancillary talents. There are tactician feats that pretty nifty. They are a bit too complicated for our scheme, but I think that they would be exceptional for mining. And, most of the mechanics and the whole feat chapter is open under the OGL.

Re: Resource Allocation

One thing that I want to point out is that there are several levels of resource management in SWSE. These include per encounter, per day, and per level (adventure?). I like the differing levels of management. I like that there are still per day resources and you can't go full steam for every encounter. I do not want the entire resource system to be solely encounter based.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Definitely trim the weapon list down. I was always impressed with the WoW weapon categories - it's a good place to start. I actually think that making all weapons 20/x2 and then using talents to modify those statistics could be a very streamlined way to do things. You would choose a weapon based on its size (very light dagger, light shortsword, one-handed longsword, two-handed greatsword) and damage type (piercing, slashing, bashing). Remove the Bastard Sword and equivalents - it typically takes a feat to wield it one-handed, which essentially gives you +1 damage, which could be done better with weapon specialisation. The 'name' of your weapon is just flavour, so if you want to use a khopesh, it's just a 1H sword, or a sledgehammer, a 2H hammer/mace.

Suggested categories, if it helps: Axes, Swords, Hammers/Maces, Spears, Polearms. Also, Bows, Crossbows, Slings/Thrown weapons. Finally, make everyone proficient with the club, staff and dagger.

I'm looking forward to hearing more about your magic system too!

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

BFGEditor, Flynn

How about playtesting? I volunteer!

 

[Flynn]

Sorcica,

We have not yet discussed playtesting as yet, but when we do, I'll keep you in mind. One of the things we're really going to look for from playtesters is, of course, feedback. You've shown you can give feedback on the boards, but I urge you and other interested parties to remain active in these discussions, as it lets us know who is likely to give us analytical and constructive feedback.

I don't mind posts that disagree with me, but I definitely want constructive feedback in this matter. It's easy for someone to say "I don't like this" or "This sucks" or "This is great" without supporting their statements. I can't make it better without feedback on what specifically someone feels is wrong, and why they feel that way (and possible even better, what could be done to fix it).

Thanks for broaching this topic,
Flynn

 

[FreeXenon]

Weapons as Special Effects may cover what you are thinking.

I am in for Play Testing as well.