Who has used Elements of Magic Revised?

[Narfellus]

I bought this the other day and i THINK i like it, but it's a little complicated, maybe because i'm just not used to it and haven't playtested it yet. Does anyone else have pros or cons with the system? I'd been wanting to adapt Ars Magica anyway to d20, and this system is pretty durn close...

 

[Psion]

I've used it. I adapted it to become the pattern warden PrC in my Second World game.

I really had to help the player get the system, and get a grip on the fact that it's not a blank check, but it works fairly well if you are a geek about magic.

 

[Particle_Man]

I'm doing it now in a PBEmail game. So far, so good. It is a little tricky to work out how much things cost, and, as with every gaming system ever since the dawn of time, there is negotiation with the DM over what illusion spells with partial reality can and cannot do (someday someone will solve this one!).

Upside, more flexibility. And there are those two classes that are more "Fightery" and more "skillsetbased", that are gentler to multiclass with. Downside, there is a learning curve - but you really only have to "learn" with the spell components you have, and the basic components. At least at first.

Something to watch for: Magic is point-based. Because of this, it is easy to spend your points too freely at the start of a day and then be stuck at the end. So miser those points a bit!

 

[Narfellus]

Cool. Thanks guys. Does say a 5th level "Mage" from Elements basically equal a character from the core rules? From what it looked like they were supposed to be interchangeable, but not level-stackable.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I really liked most of Elements of Magic (original), even though I never got around to using it in a campaign. How does the revised version compare? is it "3.5e" (cleans up some issues, tweaks a bunch of stuff, but basically the same) or is it completely changed?

Cheers

 

[RangerWickett]

First of all, for those who don't know, E.N. Publishing has a forum devoted to it, located toward the bottom of the list of forums, just above Meta. There are several threads there about EOM-R, and I'm pretty happy with the fact that five or six posters regularly discuss the rules. Right now E.N. Publishing is about a week away from starting layout on the first supplement for EOM-R, called Lyceian Arcana, which provides guidelines and alternate rules to help you take the rather generic spell system and tie it into a coherent worldview of magic.

Second, if I hadn't caught this post at 2am, I probably would give you a fuller answer, but as it is, I'm sleepy and must be brief.

Problems - Illusions that 'deal damage' are not as well designed as I'd hoped. I'm working on a fix, and I intend to post it on the ENPub forum to see what people think of it.

The book probably should've had a nice 'Beginner's Guide' section so you could jump right in more easily. I probably should've stolen the Ars Magica terminology of 'Noun' and 'Verb' for spellcasting, but I'd never read Ars Magica until after putting out EOM-R.

There are some typos and errata we missed even with the patch.

Probably some other things too.

If you have more questions, I'll be able to respond Friday.

 

[Verequus]

I really liked most of Elements of Magic (original), even though I never got around to using it in a campaign. How does the revised version compare? is it "3.5e" (cleans up some issues, tweaks a bunch of stuff, but basically the same) or is it completely changed?

EoMR is as different from EoM(o) like the 3rd edition from AD&D - you'll find the original concepts, but the rules are far better and more clean and streamlined (and are taken to the 3.5 terminology). There are some problems with the rules set, but those are tackled with a new update - at least, I hope, that RangerWickett solves them all. BTW, when is the update scheduled? Some time after Lyceian Arcana?

For those, who like the XPH rules and like to have wizards modeled after them, find a better alternative with EoMR. This supplement succeeds in delivering a rules set, which mimics the fanatasy imagination of Non-Vancian Magic - wizards can cast without books, having a limited, but adaptable spell reservoir, but can use books for spells beyound. Nifty, isn't it? The details I'll leave to RW.

 

[Plane Sailing]

EoMR is as different from EoM(o) like the 3rd edition from AD&D

Thanks for the helpful summary (I looked in the forum but all discussion was in too much detail to get an overall grasp of the differences).

Cheers

 

[Verequus]

Thanks for the helpful summary (I looked in the forum but all discussion was in too much detail to get an overall grasp of the differences).

My pleasure! I'd like to have send you the original teaser for a better understanding, but I've deleted it already. But if you intend to look into EoMR, you won't regret it!

 

[Narfellus]

Right now E.N. Publishing is about a week away from starting layout on the first supplement for EOM-R, called Lyceian Arcana, which provides guidelines and alternate rules to help you take the rather generic spell system and tie it into a coherent worldview of magic.

The book probably should've had a nice 'Beginner's Guide' section so you could jump right in more easily. I probably should've stolen the Ars Magica terminology of 'Noun' and 'Verb' for spellcasting, but I'd never read Ars Magica until after putting out EOM-R.

If you have more questions, I'll be able to respond Friday.

That sounds great Ryan. My problem with the system was that it wasn't immediately adaptable. I had to spend considerable brain power to understand the concept, although i did appreciate the amazing flexibility. A supplement that does some of that groundwork would be immensely useful. How long you looking at until release of L.A.?