Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EditorBFG" data-source="post: 3649487" data-attributes="member: 24719">The idea of a Force-like magic system has come up, and continues to be suggested-- the Star Wars designers really got it right this time-- but overall this idea is one Flynn and I have rejected. All the ideas seem to involve using a lot of non-algorithmic, non-OGC cognate elements from Saga, and for legal reasons we want to avoid that kind of outright adaptation. Also, the Force rules are designed to simulate the semi-psionic mystical tradition of an intergalactic knighthood in a space opera setting, which is not necessarily appropriate for the archetypal fantasy Wizard.I see the merits of the class structure you propose-- and there will be some means for non-spellcasting classes to use magic anyhow-- but we have our 4 basic classes essentially selected-- Warrior, Expert, Mage, and Priest. I have often wondered at the idea that spells should not be tied to class, but combat ability and skills should. So, for example, characters with low BAB's need to multiclass to be better warriors. People are fine with a whole class based around social interaction (the Noble), but many seem to think there should not be a class dedicated to magic use. This does not make sense to me. Shouldn't learning to alter the world around you with an act of will require more of a lifestyle change, and take up more time and attention, than learning to swing a sword better or picking up better social skills?Don't get me wrong, I am dedicated to the idea of non-class routes to magic use. But as far I'm concerned, if you are going to bother to have classes in a system, at least one should be dedicated to spellcasting, especially if you have ones devoted to combat or skills.</blockquote>

Verification