Magic, for magic classes only or for everyone?

[Frenetic Pony]

So, a mage can use a sword yes? That's the goal.

 

Can a fighter cast a fireball?

 

Obviously if a wizard can cast a fireball AND wield a sword, and a fighter can't, a wizard is automatically more flexible in terms of builds. How does one balance that? Do you give the fighter more talents/points/whatever than the wizard? That's the only thing I can think of, at the moment. I'm sure there's more solutions than that.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Every class will have unique "soul abilities", which kind of function as magic.

[Frenetic Pony]

Every class will have unique "soul abilities", which kind of function as magic.

 

No no no, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

 

Obviously, there's going to be a fireball spell yes? Right. Normally, in D&D and so many other fantasy universes, only the wizards and what have you can access this stuff. Only a wizard class can cast a fireball. Usually this is balanced out by a wizard class being ****e at fighting up close. Project Eternities current premise is that you don't need to have your wizard be ****e at up close fighting. So if a wizard can use a sword well and cast a fireball, and a fighter can use a sword well but not cast a fireball, then obviously the wizard is the default better choice.

[Jarmo]

From what I gather, fighter has unique fighting abilities other classes don't have.

The abilities are just more hand to hand combat style than those of wizards.

 

Though the magic for everybody is an interesting concept.

RuneQuest had that and it worked out pretty great, although there it meant exactly that

you couldn't really be a top notch kick ass fighter if you didn't know any magic.

 

It actually does sound at this point, that a party of wizards (some more melee than others)

would indeed be a viable, versatile choice. But remains to be seen how things balance out.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Jarmo

[Gumbercules]

The sword-weilding is available to both classes, but there are other things that are available to the fighter that aren't available to the wizard, like the ability to keep multiple enemies tied up in engagement or increased effectiveness of armor. From what I understand, fighters should be gaining unique abilities at the same rate that wizards gain spells, even if many of the abilities are passive bonuses compared to the wizards' active spells. There's still the matter of whether all classes will be balanced to be roughly equally useful and fun (fingers crossed!) but at the very least it seems they'll all have unique stuff no one else can do.

[rjshae]

I don't think you want to have too much overlap between the unique capabilities of the classes. If Fighters get spells at all, they should probably be associated with the martial arts. For example, grow a pair of magical arms and fight four-handed; blur your weapon so it is harder to parry; create a temporary cojoined twin so you can fight back-to-back with yourself...

Edited May 31, 2013 by rjshae

[Lephys]

Let's say a surgeon can't bake delicious goodies. But I can, 'cause my class is Delicious Goodie Baker. But, I can AlSO wield bandages and sharp utensils. Does that mean I'm automatically better than the surgeon, because I can utilize basic physics to cause sharp edges to cut things and to apply adhesive to fleshy surfaces that are presumably bleeding, and the surgeon can't bake yummy things?

 

Riddle me that, Batman.

 

(I get what you're asking and why you're asking it, but I don't really think a Wizard's inability to wield a sword would make things even, since there is already balancing in place between the Wizard's class-specific abilities and the Warrior's [like spells-per-day limits, etc.]).

[Somna]

The proposed question seems flawed to me.

 

Being able to pick up a weapon and swing it around does not necessarily qualify you to "use" the weapon for a build. D&D had weapon proficiency to differentiate between characters who are improvising with the weapon and character that were actually trained in the weapon and could use it to qualify towards feat chains.

 

So the initial statement about wizards being able to "use" a sword makes at least one assumption that isn't necessarily true.

[Prometheus]

Currently spells are unique to each class in Project Eternity. see quote below:

 

Currently, spells are entirely unique to each class.

source

So the fighter will not cast a fireball or a other spell that the wizard has.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Prometheus

[Eiphel]

I think there's a slightly flawed premise in the question: The wizard's spells are not a counterpart to the fighter's sword wielding. Ability to use a sword is universal to all classes. Wizard then has spells. Fighter has their combat feats. The wizard doesn't get the fighter's combat feats, nor does the fighter get spells. The wizard just gets to equip a sword - presumably a fighter can carry a staff if they so will it. (If there's wands or scrolls or some other sort of artifact that dispenses spells, I would like to see fighters be able to use those, with them making the same sort of tradeoffs as a wizard using a sword.)

Edited June 1, 2013 by Eiphel

[mcmanusaur]

Let's just get it over with and give everyone superpowers, eh? I like being able to play characters who don't use any magic, personally.

[Eiphel]

Let's just get it over with and give everyone superpowers, eh? I like being able to play characters who don't use any magic, personally.

Well, you know, if Obsidian announced a superhero RPG as their next game after PE, I'd be all over that...

[teknoman2]

from what i understand, there will be a number of skill trees available to all character classes. fireballs and such will be exclusive to the wizard, however their effectiveness (and maybe the spell levels available to the wizard) will go up by puting points on the magic skill tree. if the wizard puts too many points on the melee skill tree so he can be effective with a sword, he wont be able to cast strong spells.

same goes for the warrior: if he puts points on magic skill tree he will get some bonuses to some skills (or will unlock the ability to add elemental damage to his weapon at will), however his standard attacks, his defence and other skills will suffer from lack of points on the respective skill trees

[Prometheus]

from what i understand, there will be a number of skill trees available to all character classes. fireballs and such will be exclusive to the wizard, however their effectiveness (and maybe the spell levels available to the wizard) will go up by puting points on the magic skill tree. if the wizard puts too many points on the melee skill tree so he can be effective with a sword, he wont be able to cast strong spells.

same goes for the warrior: if he puts points on magic skill tree he will get some bonuses to some skills (or will unlock the ability to add elemental damage to his weapon at will), however his standard attacks, his defence and other skills will suffer from lack of points on the respective skill trees

I don't think there will any skill trees. There will be attributes, skills, abilities and talents. skills for non combat and each class can learn all skills but classes gets a bonus to skills they are good in(e.g the rogue gets a bonus in stealth and Mechanic skills). abilities(modal, passive and active) and spells are class exclusive. There are talents that all classes can choose and there will be talents for only one class.  Josh Sawyer said that you can currently chosse a talent at every third level. If you choose a weapon talent for a mage you have less talents that are mage specific. But you will always gain your class abillities. More on talents here..

[teknoman2]

well more or less the same thing i said. the wizard can cast spells, the warrior cannot. the wizard can learn warrior skills so he can be tougher at the expence of magical power, the warrior can learn magic related skills (not spells) that could help him at the expence of combat skills and the same goes for all classes

ie a wizard can learn to use plate armor and shields to reduce the damage taken from attacks, so he can stay and cast spells, without having to move around trying to break aggro. that will keep him from becoming a master of pyromancy due to lack of skill points. he trades not being able to dish out the max possible dps, for consistency at casting

[motorizer]

I think stuff like this can end up leading to a bunch of cloned jack of all trade characters..so no I'd rather see specialists

and I'm not a big fan of magic, ...I tend to play characters who can't do it, and would rather not be forced into it (as in skyrim if  you did the main quest)

[rjshae]

Yeah, if you want to allow characters to do all the same things, you may as well use a point-based system. A class-based system is centered around the concept of making distinctly different characters. Sure, some overlap is okay--just not to a significant degree.

[AGX-17]

So, a mage can use a sword yes? That's the goal.

 

Can a fighter cast a fireball?

 

Obviously if a wizard can cast a fireball AND wield a sword, and a fighter can't, a wizard is automatically more flexible in terms of builds. How does one balance that? Do you give the fighter more talents/points/whatever than the wizard? That's the only thing I can think of, at the moment. I'm sure there's more solutions than that.

Classes are limited to the skills available for that class. You don't get to be the most bestest there ever was at everything like Skyrim. A fighter has a role different from a wizard. If everyone is an iron wall tank that can cast powerful spells of all varieties then what's the point of classes?

Edited June 3, 2013 by AGX-17

[Ffordesoon]

This is one of those questions that always makes me go, "Is this really a problem?"

 

There's this inherent assumption that, by not having wizards react to swords like vampires touching crosses, ALL CLASS BALANCE FOREVER is DUMBED DOWN FOR THE FILTHY CASUALS. Is that really true?

 

I don't cook for a living, and I'm no expert at it but I can pick up a knife and use it to, like, cut a tomato in half. You don't suck at everything else just because you're not an expert at it. You're just, you know, not an expert at it.

[TrashMan]

Personally when magic is everywhere, it kinda chepans the whole thing. It looses a lot of the mystique and awe when every Tom, **** and Harry can cast all kinds of magic and everything is magical.

 

To put it another way - if everyone is special, then no one is.

[motorizer]

Personally when magic is everywhere, it kinda chepans the whole thing. It looses a lot of the mystique and awe when every Tom, **** and Harry can cast all kinds of magic and everything is magical.

 

To put it another way - if everyone is special, then no one is.

Yep, look at lord of the rings.... huge fatasy epic, and even Gandalf doesn't cast all that much magic in it...rarity makes magic seem more....well...magical

[Ffordesoon]

Why does magic need to have "mystique," though? Why does it need to be special?

 

Note that I'm not arguing against either of those portrayals of magic, but rather the idea that those are the only "valid" ways to portray magic. That's certainly the easiest way to make it interesting, but it feels kind of arbitrary to say that's the only way. And does it even need to be "interesting" from a lore perspective?

 

I understand that the classic high fantasy wizard is a wizened old fellow who has spent his life studying the proper applications of "the magicks," and there's no inherent problem with that archetype. Wizards in D&D match it to a tee, and I absolutely get the argument for carrying that aspect of D&D over into PE. I'm not even saying it shouldn't be carried over. I'm speaking about fantasy games in general right now, not necessarily PE.

 

With that said (and you should take it as read from this point on), I think a world in which magic is commonplace and acknowledged as such could easily be just as interesting as a world in which it's rare, and that the "magical" feeling its rarity gives you could be replicated in other ways.

 

Look at, say, kung fu movies. Everyone in a kung fu movie is usually able to do some small amount of kung fu, but kung fu masters are as rare as wizards, and their superhuman displays of skill are appropriately astonishing. The mooks who can do some basic punches and kicks are so ubiquitous, and so easily trounced by the hero (who is often a journeyman of local renown, not a true master), that we are instinctively unimpressed by them even if they do stuff that would be impressive in another type of story. And we are likewise only somewhat impressed by the journeyman hero's kung fu when he or she goes up against a master.

 

(Yeah, I know, CTHD isn't technically a kung fu picture, and Li Mu Bai isn't technically a master, but it serves well enough as an example.)

 

Now apply that to a fantasy universe. Pretty much everyone can do a cantrip or two, and there are some moderately accomplished spellslingers, but the best of the best are on a whole other level, and inspire the awe reserved for any caster in a fantasy world with "rare" magic. Ergo, some people are special, some people aren't. Same as usual.

 

There is, of course, the argument that magic as a whole would become less "special" in such a universe, and I agree with that argument. I also don't think it's particularly important for magic as an abstract concept to be special unless that's the world-sense a storyteller is trying to evoke. The important thing is not to get into A Wizard Did It territory, where magic can simply fix everything. But when that stuff happens, it's a flaw in the world-building of a specific storyteller rather than an inherent flaw of magic as a concept.

 

So there is no confusion, I will reiterate that I'm not saying commonplace magic must be the order of things in PE's world. My point is simply that there is no inherent problem with commonplace magic unless you just hate it when magic isn't "special." Which, you know, I get, because I too have pet peeves, but any pet peeves you have are kind of your problem. I loathe Will Smith to an irrational degree, but I can still admit he's talented, and I can watch and enjoy his movies. And even if I couldn't, I wouldn't say a movie is garbage just because Will Smith is in it. I just wouldn't watch the thing.

[Lephys]

Personally when magic is everywhere, it kinda chepans the whole thing. It looses a lot of the mystique and awe when every Tom, **** and Harry can cast all kinds of magic and everything is magical.

 

To put it another way - if everyone is special, then no one is.

This is only true when you establish magic as both exotic AND mundane, simultaneously. Look at the movie Looper (if you haven't seen it, I HIGHLY recommend it). They mention at the VERY beginning of the movie (basically the prologue, explaining the background of the film's world/setting) that it's become common for people to possess telekinesis. Yet, throughout the majority of the film, you pretty much forget about the existence of telekinesis at all, except that everyone's ultra-worried about some uber powerful telekinetic. Why? Because telekinesis is just something people in that world can do, just like people in reality can lift things. And, while that's interesting, it doesn't exactly upset the balance of the world or anything. But, when someone can move a car with their mind (just like in reality when someone can lift the front of a car with their arms), everyone's shocked and surprised.

 

Basically, you make magic mundane, and certain bits of magic special. But, it's still interesting because it's a skill/ability that isn't existent in our reality. If someone can start fires without flint and steel, that makes interesting changes to the world. However, that doesn't mean everyone can hurl fireballs or summon giant firestorms.

 

Same with any weapon, really. Oodles of people can be archers, yet few people were extraordinarily skilled with a bow. Those figures stand out in historical accounts.

 

It's not what they can do, but how well they can do it.

[Iron_JG]

To be a little anal-retentive (as if that's something anyone around here should discourage:P), let's use 3rd edition as the framework for the OP's question.

 

For a wizard/sorceror to cast a fireball, IIRC, they have to be at least level 5. So that spell represents significant investment and accumulated magical study, which no one can just jump into, let alone a warrior. But let's back up and make the example prestidigitation or some other 0-level, basic as it gets spell.

 

The idea in most settings is that magic is so precise and demanding, and typically so non-intuitive, that it takes conscious choice and significant study to do any of it. There's a start-up cost to do any of it, even the easy stuff. That start-up cost is taking a caster level, which a fighter is generally free to do. Meanwhile, casters do not get, nor can they easily benefit from, most weapon and armor proficiencies. Fighters are getting things casters aren't, as casters get things fighters aren't. So DnD (at least through 3.5 edition, I'm not familiar with 4th edition) does the tradeoff fairly well. Warriors' abilities are generally more passive, but that's by conscious design -- they train like crazy to get amazing results with relatively simple tools, and directly overcome the brunt of most monsters' attacks.

 

Stepping past DnD, even if casters can use all weapons fighters can, as so many posters have noted, using something and getting results with it are two different things. I would also encourage the OP to differentiate between the quantity of class abilities and the quality of class abilities. Again going back to DnD, a fighter will not be able to do as many things in a given encounter as a wizard, who might bring dozens of distinct spells to a fight. Does that mean the fighter is getting gypped? No, because his few abilities are, generally, really direct and effective. The wizard will also conclude, 99 times out of 100, that even his crappy spells would achieve better results than swinging a sword. If your ideal choice is never to use a certain vestigial ability, it's functionally equivalent to not having it, wouldn't you say?

 

As an addendum, yes, warriors should have a good mix of active/passive abilities, so they're dynamic to play and not just a damage sponge. I would balance this by saying that, as tanky types, they should still require marginally less micro-managing than casters and other squishies. What's the point of durability if we can't neglect them some?

[Lephys]

As an addendum, yes, warriors should have a good mix of active/passive abilities, so they're dynamic to play and not just a damage sponge. I would balance this by saying that, as tanky types, they should still require marginally less micro-managing than casters and other squishies. What's the point of durability if we can't neglect them some?

This is the only part I somewhat disagree with. What if your main character is a Warrior, tanky type, yet you wish to spend the most time micromanaging your main character's abilities to facilitate greater effect in combat? If he's naturally much more passive and neglect-worthy than some other class, you'd have to pick a different class, even if you want the TYPES of abilities that the Warrior has (you want a melee heavy).

 

That isn't to say that their abilities might not be more modal (and therefore "passive" in effect) in general. But, that doesn't mean they should inherently be less tactically inclined than, say, a Wizard.

 

I know you weren't necessarily saying that (hence the "somewhat disagree"). I just wanted to clarify.