Fantasy Concepts: An OGL Fantasy Saga Project

[EditorBFG]

All--

Okay, two questions for the group, regarding the Mage base class:

1) Okay, it looks like we will be using caster level (as suggested) and making the die roll to cast a spell d20 + ability mod + half your caster level (rounded up). Since half your caster level is an important number (it is also the highest level spell you can cast), I think it needs its own name. "Spell Potency" was my thinking for a while, but that sounds like it describves the spell not the caster. Any ideas?

2) Should mage have the Wizard BAB from D&D or the minimum Saga BAB (same as cleric)?

What do you think?

 

[Gentlegamer]

How about "Power" for casting level.

"My wizard can cast 5th Power spells."

While we're renaming things, can BAB be called "Prowess," instead?

 

[EditorBFG]

How about "Power" for casting level.

"My wizard can cast 5th Power spells."

While we're renaming things, can BAB be called "Prowess," instead?

To be clear, we are looking for a term to describe a mage's skill at casting spells, not the spells themselves.

And while we're not looking to rename BAB, I think "Spell Prowess" is a possibility.

 

[Gentlegamer]

To be clear, we are looking for a term to describe a mage's skill at casting spells, not the spells themselves.

In these rules, casting level also equals the highest level spell that the m-u may cast, correct?

Casting level is what governs the variable parts of spells, such as damage dice, range, duration, etc. I think "power" is pretty good term for this.

And while we're not looking to rename BAB, I think "Spell Prowess" is a possibility.

I've just always disliked the term BAB or even "base attack bonus."

In fact, maybe the wizard's attack bonus for using spells that require attack rolls ought to be equal to his caster level (or Spell Prowess, or Power, or whatever it ends up being named) plus Int or Dex modifier, depending on the spell/situation. This way, the wizard's use of magic can be divorced from his combat skill represented by his BAB (and therefore can be given a very very low BAB progression, requiring wizards who want more combat skill to multiclass).

Sorry, I can get into brainstorming easily sometimes.

 

[Mokona]

Should mage have the Wizard BAB from D&D or the minimum Saga BAB (same as cleric)?

Saga-style please.

 

[Flynn]

With the advent of the half-level defense progression, I have suggested we return to the traditional half-level BAB progression for Mages for two main reasons:

1) Commoners (non-heroic) will have the half-level progression, and D&D promotes the concept of a Mage as being no more skilled in weaponry than the average man.

2) Priests have the three-quarters level progression, so giving the same progression to Mages is saying that Mages and Priests are equal in martial prowess, and I'm personally not a fan of that concept.

That's my viewpoint on it. (I'm all for giving Mages a d6 for hit die, though. Mages definitely need some HP lovin', and that would put them on par with Experts.)

Hope That Helps,
Flynn

 

[EditorBFG]

I'm anxious to see what others think, but I'm starting to think I might be on the side of 3/4 BAB for the Mage. For the sake of argument, I thought I'd react to a couple points:

1) Commoners (non-heroic) will have the half-level progression, and D&D promotes the concept of a Mage as being no more skilled in weaponry than the average man.

To my mind, this is a mistake in D&D. A commoner is a guy who doesn't go on adventures; by 3rd level, your average PC spellcaster has been in 40 (13.33 per level) serious battles where his life was at stake-- just as many as a priest, or even a warrior. Given how many spells require a ranged attack roll, I don't understand why a spellcaster who has been in that many battles has the same base attck as an experienced local cheesemaker (2nd level commoner). A high-level spellcaster can't hit anyone around his level with a ranged attack roll, and that's in a system where armor class does not automatically get a bonus from a character going up in level, as it does here.

Priests have the three-quarters level progression, so giving the same progression to Mages is saying that Mages and Priests are equal in martial prowess, and I'm personally not a fan of that concept.

In D&D, even the kindly local head priest who has never been in a fight in his life has cleric levels to represent his standing in the church and his ability to heal the villagers-- clerics are not all warlike avengers of the faith.

To my mind, Saga does not have PCs with a BAB less than 3/4 because the goal of Saga is to make the PCs heroes. As stated often by the designers, heroes don't sit out chasing a mounted opponent because they haven't focused on Ride-- I think, by the same philosophy, heroes are better in a fight than commoners, no matter what their focus is, and they should have a fair chance of hitting a lower level enemy with an acid arrow.

Also, mentioning ranged attack rolls, it occurs to me with a roll for spellcasting, any spell with a ranged attack roll essentially has two chances to fail. Given that two rolls are required for success, I don't think spellcaster should be so terrible at the second.

 

[Flynn]

To my mind, Saga does not have PCs with a BAB less than 3/4 because the goal of Saga is to make the PCs heroes.

Something to remember: Reflex Defense in Saga starts at a base of the character's heroic levels. 3/4 BAB is LESS than the Reflex Defense progression in Saga, so the classes with that progression are losing out in the long run in a Saga game. They can't even keep attacks balanced against defenses as they move up in level. It's all in the numbers.

Reflex Defense in Fantasy Concepts starts at a base of HALF the character's heroic levels. The numbers are different, so I prefer to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. To me, it's a game mechanics/numbers issue, not a personal preference.

However, in the long run, no one has yet spoken up in support of D&D BABs for the mage, so unless that changes very soon, we'll say all mages are equal in combat and warskill to priests and move on. We don't have time to try and convince one another of who's got the more valid point here, and several of the more vocal fans have already voiced an opinion.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

Also, mentioning ranged attack rolls, it occurs to me with a roll for spellcasting, any spell with a ranged attack roll essentially has two chances to fail. Given that two rolls are required for success, I don't think spellcaster should be so terrible at the second.

I suggest that we will need to look at that and figure out a way to make it one roll instead. Saga deliberately moved away from the two roll resolution mentality where it could. It would be nice to do the same thing here.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[EditorBFG]

I suggest that we will need to look at that and figure out a way to make it one roll instead. Saga deliberately moved away from the two roll resolution mentality where it could. It would be nice to do the same thing here.

That's a really good point. I should've thought of that!