In gaming, I find that a lot of players enjoy the idea of a warrior with a few key magic tricks. It's been expressed in one form or another in plenty of games, but often more of a half and half thing, rather than edging heavily towards the warrior. See early D&D "elf" or something like the "spell sword" in various games. Or, if it is expressed more towards the warrior, then it's wrapped up in something specific. See the D&D paladin and ranger in many editions, for example.
I'm trying to get to the base archetype. Or discover if there even is a base archetype of mostly warrior with light magic tricks? If there is, what would you call it?
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1143980In gaming, I find that a lot of players enjoy the idea of a warrior with a few key magic tricks. It's been expressed in one form or another in plenty of games, but often more of a half and half thing, rather than edging heavily towards the warrior. See early D&D "elf" or something like the "spell sword" in various games. Or, if it is expressed more towards the warrior, then it's wrapped up in something specific. See the D&D paladin and ranger in many editions, for example.
I'm trying to get to the base archetype. Or discover if there even is a base archetype of mostly warrior with light magic tricks? If there is, what would you call it?
I don't know that it's precisely an archetype of its own without some of that wrapping that makes it (in D&D) a paladin, ranger, or even a bard. 5e gives us the Eldritch Knight, but the flavor there is offense (evocations)/defense (abjurations) rather than tricks (most of the other schools). You can get there by multiclassing too, but I don't like having to build to get to an archetype and prefer multiclassing for breaking out of archetypes--even though I know that's not how the optimizers do it.
There is the Magus class in Pathfinder.
Quote from: Shasarak;1143983There is the Magus class in Pathfinder.
Battle Magus in Rifts too.
I dunno what I would call it, but I can think of some examples from literature off the top of my head: Corwin of Amber (Zelazny), Dilvish the Damned (Zelazny), Sparhawk (Eddings), Aragorn (Tolkein, debatable), Raven (Cook). That seems like there's enough that it ought to be an archetype. Mechanically, though, to me, archetype suggests class systems, and I don't think this archetype is best handled by a dedicated class. I would do it as a fighter with some cross-class magic skills, or even better, use a skill based system.
In my own system there are a number of ways you could get there depending on the tricks you want.
I specifically give an example of a warrior who studies utility magic but puts his faith in the steel of his weapons and armor for combat as an example of a fighter class with the Arcanist background. Similarly, the Exotic Tutor boon for the Aristocrat background or Esoteric Experience boon for the Traveler background would allow you to select a limited number of cantrips or utility spells.
If you're looking for more combat related magic, the multi-classing talent will allow limited access to the abilities of a spellcasting class of choice and follow-on talents can increase that access to whatever level you wish.
Conversely, if you want something more combat spellcaster who also uses some weapons and armor then the Militant or Zealous Astral, Big Lug or Monkeywrencher Gadgeteer, Potent or Swift Primal, or War Wizard spellcasting paths are all viable ways to obtain that (war wizard is bar none the best option for someone who puts equal focus on weapons and spells).
Quote from: HappyDaze;1143985Battle Magus in Rifts too.
4e had the Swordmage.
Rather then multiclassing there are also Gestalt Characters (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm) which are essentially characters with two classes.
Quote from: Shasarak;11439894e had the Swordmage.
Rather then multiclassing there are also Gestalt Characters (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm) which are essentially characters with two classes.
5e has Magic Initiate, a feat that anyone can learn, it grants a cantrip and a single spell. There are a few other things like that for specific races, like Wood Elf Magic that allows any Wood Elf a couple of Druid/Ranger spells even if their class doesnt usually allow such.
I love the idea of a mystical warrior types, but have often found making such characters in D&D frustrating and barely effective--specially in WotC's editions, where multi-classing wizards and warriors makes both classes less effective. I largely gave up on the idea of playing such characters years ago, even though they're my favorite concept for an ideal character.
My go-to term for warriors with magical abilities is "Mystical Warrior". Though, how exactly one would define such characters can vary widely, and their specific set of abilities can also vary by story, with some some stories portraying them as having no spell casting abilities at all, but rather magical powers that enhance their combat abilities or grant them prophetic dreams or insight, as in the case of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Neo in the Matrix or MK from Into the Badlands. Most "Savior" type characters tend to embody this type of archetype, which tends to be more akin to a D&D monk in some respects, but with full blown combat abilities, rather than limited "THAC0/BAB" or being restricted to just unarmed combat and "monk weapons". Berserker warriors could potentially also fall into this category, as their portrayal in legend tends to paint them as having almost magically enhanced battle prowess, though, such characters tend to be portrayed as completely mundane "Barbarians" in D&D.
Quote from: HappyDaze;11439915e has Magic Initiate, a feat that anyone can learn, it grants a cantrip and a single spell. There are a few other things like that for specific races, like Wood Elf Magic that allows any Wood Elf a couple of Druid/Ranger spells even if their class doesnt usually allow such.
A single spell is pretty magic light but I guess a signature shocking grasp or some such could give you a little bit of magic warrior feel.
Quote from: Shasarak;1143997A single spell is pretty magic light but I guess a signature shocking grasp or some such could give you a little bit of magic warrior feel.
Seen a Strength-based Ranger with relatively low Dex but fairly respectable Wisdom make good use of
thorn whip for an at-will 30' melee attack that pulls the target 10' closer. Not an optimizer's dream, but it worked out well enough.
i think its easier to do in a skill based rather than class based system, in D6 for example you would simply put some dice into magic attribute/skill and learn a couple simple spells with low cast difficulty and keep on truckin.
Quote from: Slipshot762;1144001i think its easier to do in a skill based rather than class based system, in D6 for example you would simply put some dice into magic attribute/skill and learn a couple simple spells with low cast difficulty and keep on truckin.
GURPS does this too. I don't think it's in Dungeon Fantasy though, because that tries to funnel characters into tighter classes so you don't get things like teleporting/blinking swashbucklers.
That does remind me though that, in Earthdawn, all of the PC types had some magical tricks. Humans could even add in the magical tricks of other character types, a potentially very powerful ability that could also be very expensive in XP cost.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1143999Seen a Strength-based Ranger with relatively low Dex but fairly respectable Wisdom make good use of thorn whip for an at-will 30' melee attack that pulls the target 10' closer. Not an optimizer's dream, but it worked out well enough.
A ranged melee attack, not bad. Always handy when you need to get a quick defenestration and the look on the DMs face: Priceless.
Quote from: Shasarak;1143983There is the Magus class in Pathfinder.
Not the greatest example. Magus is basically a weaker fighter with better damage output because he can apply touch spells with an attack. And 90 percent of his available spells are just that; combat spells.
Most builds focus on upping his crit chance because the critical applies to any spell he strikes with as well as his weapon.
Best idea I have so far is "warden". I'm not in love with it, but it's better than some of the alternatives I've considered. Doesn't hurt that I see the spells for such a character as mostly supplementary to the fighting, which probably means a focus on protection, aid, and utility kind of magic.
My next favorite was "mystic", but already had it pinned to a better spot. The progression is "warrior" (full combat options, no magic), "warden" (lots of combat options, minor magic), "mystic" (half and half). That goes with "rogue" and "hunter" as other no magic options, "wanderer" as another minor magic option, and then "shaman" and "magi" as the more heavy magic options. The actual magic type for any character with magic is varied (e.g. could have an academic magi or a more priestly type).
Part of my issue is that these aren't classes exactly. They are more like base partial classes that gives a spine and some meat to the character. You can't change it once the character starts. Classes are then more specific and flavorful and layered on top of the rather bland base, with multi-classing allowed. So I need a name that is descriptive enough to convey and remind of the mechanical idea, but not so much that it overly stereotypes the character or steals a label better left for a class. "Shaman" isn't a perfect fit because it conjures an image, but I think it's also varied enough in its images that I can live with it.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1144080Best idea I have so far is "warden". I'm not in love with it, but it's better than some of the alternatives I've considered. Doesn't hurt that I see the spells for such a character as mostly supplementary to the fighting, which probably means a focus on protection, aid, and utility kind of magic.
My next favorite was "mystic", but already had it pinned to a better spot. The progression is "warrior" (full combat options, no magic), "warden" (lots of combat options, minor magic), "mystic" (half and half). That goes with "rogue" and "hunter" as other no magic options, "wanderer" as another minor magic option, and then "shaman" and "magi" as the more heavy magic options. The actual magic type for any character with magic is varied (e.g. could have an academic magi or a more priestly type).
Part of my issue is that these aren't classes exactly. They are more like base partial classes that gives a spine and some meat to the character. You can't change it once the character starts. Classes are then more specific and flavorful and layered on top of the rather bland base, with multi-classing allowed. So I need a name that is descriptive enough to convey and remind of the mechanical idea, but not so much that it overly stereotypes the character or steals a label better left for a class. "Shaman" isn't a perfect fit because it conjures an image, but I think it's also varied enough in its images that I can live with it.
Rifts also gives us Spirit Warrior, which is a Native American neo-primitive (following the "old ways") warrior with mystical/magical/spiritual powers making a better warrior (as opposed to the more magical, less warrior Shaman).
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1144080Best idea I have so far is "warden". I'm not in love with it, but it's better than some of the alternatives I've considered. Doesn't hurt that I see the spells for such a character as mostly supplementary to the fighting, which probably means a focus on protection, aid, and utility kind of magic.
My next favorite was "mystic", but already had it pinned to a better spot. The progression is "warrior" (full combat options, no magic), "warden" (lots of combat options, minor magic), "mystic" (half and half). That goes with "rogue" and "hunter" as other no magic options, "wanderer" as another minor magic option, and then "shaman" and "magi" as the more heavy magic options. The actual magic type for any character with magic is varied (e.g. could have an academic magi or a more priestly type).
Part of my issue is that these aren't classes exactly. They are more like base partial classes that gives a spine and some meat to the character. You can't change it once the character starts. Classes are then more specific and flavorful and layered on top of the rather bland base, with multi-classing allowed. So I need a name that is descriptive enough to convey and remind of the mechanical idea, but not so much that it overly stereotypes the character or steals a label better left for a class. "Shaman" isn't a perfect fit because it conjures an image, but I think it's also varied enough in its images that I can live with it.
Warden sounds like your character is in charge of a prison. Perhaps Warmage might be better, or Battlemage, Spellsword, etc. Though, if these are supposed to be base classes and multi-classing is allowed, I wonder if a hybrid class (like a mystical warrior) is even necessary as a base class. Wouldn't it be simpler to just multi-class into a mystical warrior concept or treat this as a specialized class built from a baseline warrior rather than treat such a specialized concept as a base class?
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1143980I'm trying to get to the base archetype. Or discover if there even is a base archetype of mostly warrior with light magic tricks? If there is, what would you call it?
No idea of the base archetype because you'd have to define the essential ratio more. Best I could say is what you already said: D&D "elf" or TSR paladin, ranger, bard. And then at that point it is self-referential as players shaped the popularity and became a feedback as D&D developed -- basically a self-referential ouroboros of wish-fulfillment into edition development.
I guess you could say video game and anime references fed into that D&D-as-Self-Reference because early Final Fantasy & Dragon Warrior & Deedlit of 'Record of Lodoss War', etc. took straight from D&D. In turn that popularised their consciousness in fandoms so as to feed the rise of gishes (1/2 casters) and 1/3 caster and 1/4 casters all the way to now 5e with "splash caster" (from racial spell or magical feats like Magic Initiate or Ritual Caster). Apparently this has feedback looped so hard that Sword Art Online (people trapped in video game rpgs) and the like are there own anime sub-genres and their tropes & design expectations are affecting video and ttrpgs in turn.
I dunno if you can find the Ur-manifest of this archetype anymore until you define the different ratio subcategories. But at that point it's like micro-genres in music, you might as well get a pair of skinny jeans and thick-framed glasses because you'll be trawling the underground for some time, delaying your master's thesis. :D
Quote from: VisionStorm;1144086Warden sounds like your character is in charge of a prison. Perhaps Warmage might be better, or Battlemage, Spellsword, etc. Though, if these are supposed to be base classes and multi-classing is allowed, I wonder if a hybrid class (like a mystical warrior) is even necessary as a base class. Wouldn't it be simpler to just multi-class into a mystical warrior concept or treat this as a specialized class built from a baseline warrior rather than treat such a specialized concept as a base class?
Not exactly a class, but has some of the elements of a class. It's not really playable by itself and no "multi-classing" on the base, only on the actual classes. This setup is not going to be as flexible as a skills-based system or even something like a complex class-based system. Rather, it's seeing how many options I can get into it with a system only slightly more complexity than D&D Basic/Expert setup. Right now, the experiment is to see if the "base" stuff provides enough of a framework for the central character idea to simplify the other parts of the system. In effect, I need to nail down the ratio of combat/magic/other in the base to box out complexity issues elsewhere.
In normal D&D, only caster characters ever get access to spells. A wizard gains access to higher level spells at odd levels, (ie, 3rd level spells at 5th level). We modify the spell levels a little bit, so 'full casters' get them a little earlier (and our spells only go up to 7th level), but every character has a caster level. For 'non-casters' it is 1/2 their level minus 1 - meaning that a 3rd level warrior could learn 1st level spells if they wanted to. They still have to invest resources (the equivalent of a feat). This makes it pretty easy for a character to pick up a couple of tricks - like the rogue that knows how to turn themselves invisible - without fully dedicating themselves to casting or missing out on their critical class features. We like the idea of everyone having SOME access to magic, while wizards have the most versatility with it....
Probably worth noting - most spells that are powerful relative to your level take a full action to cast - as you get more powerful they take less time. A powerful wizard can cast spells more quickly than a 'gaffer' - as a result, warriors and rogues are more likely to learn spells that they can use outside of combat. Giving up a whole turn (and having to worry about having a spell disrupted) is a pretty steep cost when you could be backstabbing a fool for x3 damage.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1144133In normal D&D, only caster characters ever get access to spells. A wizard gains access to higher level spells at odd levels, (ie, 3rd level spells at 5th level). We modify the spell levels a little bit, so 'full casters' get them a little earlier (and our spells only go up to 7th level), but every character has a caster level. For 'non-casters' it is 1/2 their level minus 1 - meaning that a 3rd level warrior could learn 1st level spells if they wanted to. They still have to invest resources (the equivalent of a feat). This makes it pretty easy for a character to pick up a couple of tricks - like the rogue that knows how to turn themselves invisible - without fully dedicating themselves to casting or missing out on their critical class features. We like the idea of everyone having SOME access to magic, while wizards have the most versatility with it....
Probably worth noting - most spells that are powerful relative to your level take a full action to cast - as you get more powerful they take less time. A powerful wizard can cast spells more quickly than a 'gaffer' - as a result, warriors and rogues are more likely to learn spells that they can use outside of combat. Giving up a whole turn (and having to worry about having a spell disrupted) is a pretty steep cost when you could be backstabbing a fool for x3 damage.
Do you deal with arcane spell failure from armor, etc?
If you're really just looking for a name ... "Supernatural Warrior" comes to mind. Not as elegant as the one-word alternatives, but it seems to say what you want.
How about calling it a Gish.
Quote from: Shasarak;1144152How about calling it a Gish.
I'd rather not. That name is a Gith term for something specific to their culture, and I like to reserve it for that usage just as I don't call every sword wielding mage a bladesinger.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1144156I'd rather not. That name is a Gith term for something specific to their culture, and I like to reserve it for that usage just as I don't call every sword wielding mage a bladesinger.
I would not want to culturally appropriate from the Gith.
So then how about calling it a Gysh.
Quote from: Shasarak;1144203I would not want to culturally appropriate from the Gith.
So then how about calling it a Gysh.
I won't lie, that made me chuckle.
Many RuneQuest characters seemed to fit what you looking for.
In the Glory Road system, there are two kinds of classes. Professions like Mage, Initiate, Elite Warrior and Specialist in (an environment) that require so much of ones time that they exclude other classes for humans and other peoples with normal lifespans. Occupations, like Half-Mage, Hedge-Priest, Fighter and Inhabitant of (an environment) can be combined.
Fighter/Half-Mage seems like it would be split too equally to fit what you want. However, the people who have played recent examples have played them as fighters with a few spells.
Quote from: Ghostmaker;1144142Do you deal with arcane spell failure from armor, etc?
We use a spell point system. Metal armors (particularly iron/steel) make a spell more expensive to cast. Spending as much as you would for a 3rd level spell to cast a 1st level spell gets expensive, but it is possible. Bronze armor is not as good as iron/steel, but it reduces the cost of casting.
We never really liked the percentage chance of spell failure, and we didn't really like thinks like 'still spell' automatically negating it. This is a happy compromise - if you need to dress in full plate to infiltrate the lich-king's castle, you can still cast some spells, but you're much less effective - without being COMPLETELY ineffective.
I remember playing a fighter in ad&d, and feeling like it was the best class at lower levels. Then at higher levels, the fighter was far outclassed by clerics and magic users. So, we allowed the fighter to gain some magic items; which did help, but there was still a noticeable gap. So, we allowed the fighter to multiclass. My fighter stopped gaining fighter levels, and started to learn magic instead. After doing that for a while, the fighter could better hold his own; but then he wasn't really a fighter, anymore.... Magus would have been more appropriate.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1144380We use a spell point system. Metal armors (particularly iron/steel) make a spell more expensive to cast. Spending as much as you would for a 3rd level spell to cast a 1st level spell gets expensive, but it is possible. Bronze armor is not as good as iron/steel, but it reduces the cost of casting.
We never really liked the percentage chance of spell failure, and we didn't really like thinks like 'still spell' automatically negating it. This is a happy compromise - if you need to dress in full plate to infiltrate the lich-king's castle, you can still cast some spells, but you're much less effective - without being COMPLETELY ineffective.
Interesting. Might need to ponder this, but I like the idea of certain armor materials being more conducive to spellcasting.
There is the Rogue type in T&T. It is not so much a thief as a warrior with magic tricks (Grey Mouser).
Quote from: KingofElfland;1144497There is the Rogue type in T&T. It is not so much a thief as a warrior with magic tricks (Grey Mouser).
That is an interesting direction. Then I need another name for the moderate combat/high skills combo that is "rogue" currently, but that might be easier to come up with. Main problem is that I see the warrior with tricks as capable of fully using heavy armor, which doesn't really fit "rogue".
It is also possible that I drop it altogether, and depend on the classes to provide any minimal magic for such a character. Then the "wanderer" goes away as well. In effect, any character that is not a spell caster has
access to "minor magic" through their base path, but they don't actually have any magical capabilities unless they take a class that can provide them. That's a little more RuneQuest-like than the D&D-like I'm aiming for, but I don't know that it is insurmountable, since the non-caster classes will be attractive picks for such a character.
For those familiar with BEMCI/RC, a character that took base of non-spell caster and then took all magic classes would be a heck of a lot like the elf class, maxing out at around 5th level spells (albeit much later in the class progression than the RC elf).
Quote from: Razor 007;1144462I remember playing a fighter in ad&d, and feeling like it was the best class at lower levels. Then at higher levels, the fighter was far outclassed by clerics and magic users. So, we allowed the fighter to gain some magic items; which did help, but there was still a noticeable gap. So, we allowed the fighter to multiclass. My fighter stopped gaining fighter levels, and started to learn magic instead. After doing that for a while, the fighter could better hold his own; but then he wasn't really a fighter, anymore.... Magus would have been more appropriate.
It's a consequence of niche protection. In order to protect the melee damage supremacy of the fighting classes, a fighter will continue to gain upgrades to their abilities (especially as RPGs have evolved to the present) that give them a clear advantage in physical combat. Giving up any of those advances drops the fighter in effectiveness, quickly in comparison to those fighters which retain them. The same is true for magic-using characters. This is why the true "gysh" (:p Shasarak) always feels underwhelming or gimped compared to a straight fighter or mage. It's a consequence of the niche protection built into most class-based games. Were the game to allow a merged class to be just as good as fighters at fighting, but just as good as mages at magic, then there would be no reason to play any other class. So, instead, your fighter-mage is not good enough at either to feel satisfying...
Quote from: Eirikrautha;1144601It's a consequence of niche protection. In order to protect the melee damage supremacy of the fighting classes, a fighter will continue to gain upgrades to their abilities (especially as RPGs have evolved to the present) that give them a clear advantage in physical combat. Giving up any of those advances drops the fighter in effectiveness, quickly in comparison to those fighters which retain them. The same is true for magic-using characters. This is why the true "gysh" (:p Shasarak) always feels underwhelming or gimped compared to a straight fighter or mage. It's a consequence of the niche protection built into most class-based games. Were the game to allow a merged class to be just as good as fighters at fighting, but just as good as mages at magic, then there would be no reason to play any other class. So, instead, your fighter-mage is not good enough at either to feel satisfying...
I agree with this in theory, but my actual gaming experience doesn't always follow this. As one anecdote, my first AD&D character was an elven fighter/magic-user, and I always felt like he was the most effective PC in the party.
Quote from: Mishihari;1144606I agree with this in theory, but my actual gaming experience doesn't always follow this. As one anecdote, my first AD&D character was an elven fighter/magic-user, and I always felt like he was the most effective PC in the party.
Depends on the definition of "effective." I often find that mixed characters can be very flexible, having an impact on any situation. If that is "effective," then I would generally agree. On the other hand, if your character was the only "front-liner" or the only magic-using character in the party and trying to replace having a dedicated fighter or mage, then the effectiveness might not seem as great...
Quote from: Eirikrautha;1144628Depends on the definition of "effective." I often find that mixed characters can be very flexible, having an impact on any situation. If that is "effective," then I would generally agree. On the other hand, if your character was the only "front-liner" or the only magic-using character in the party and trying to replace having a dedicated fighter or mage, then the effectiveness might not seem as great...
Well, at the risk of chasing "balance" too far ...
There's often a sweet spot in the fighter/mage hybrid that works. We sometimes talk casually of such a character being half/half, but in practice I've found what works pretty darn well is closer to .75/.75 (not implying precision by that), though something around .65/.65 can work, too, depending on the system, the players, the exact characters, the typical game missions, and all those other factors that make chasing "balance" a trap.
I think the counter influence is that while a lot of players like the
idea of a magic being rare, most characters not having any, and so forth--there are whole groups that don't actually want to play that way. They don't like reasonable limitations on magic, and they don't like how straight magicians are so powerful, and they don't like how the hybrid character can get over-shadowed. I once had a group that slipped into that rut. I threw up my hands and suggested that they all play hybrids, and then it wouldn't matter. No, that won't work either, because it doesn't make sense to have a group without non-casters in it. So people keep chasing the correct ratio, and I'm certainly not immune.
However, I do think my ace up the sleeve for this particular effort is to return to more frequent character deaths by design. That solves a lot of problems. :D
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1144501That is an interesting direction. Then I need another name for the moderate combat/high skills combo that is "rogue" currently, but that might be easier to come up with. Main problem is that I see the warrior with tricks as capable of fully using heavy armor, which doesn't really fit "rogue".
For what it's worth, there are no class armor restrictions in T&T--it's based on one's strength attribute. So even Wizards can go in armored up (but might have to shuck it if they deplete their strength using magic--which is the norm in older editions).
I regularly run BX. My suggestion there would be a cleric with M-U spells instead of cleric spells. Maybe give an extra 1st level spell at 1st level (since the cleric doesn't have any then) to replace turn undead. Or not, reskin turn undead as a banishing cantrip and apply it to both undead and demons. Also drop the bludgeoning weapon restriction. You would need a new name for the class... some variation of witch hunter or demon slayer would be my pick.
Also switch out the xp track. I'd say a base 3000 to get to level two and go from there--not as punishing as the Elf, and doesn't tread on the MU's track.
Quote from: Eirikrautha;1144628Depends on the definition of "effective." I often find that mixed characters can be very flexible, having an impact on any situation. If that is "effective," then I would generally agree. On the other hand, if your character was the only "front-liner" or the only magic-using character in the party and trying to replace having a dedicated fighter or mage, then the effectiveness might not seem as great...
Flexibility is cool: in my experience it allows a character to participate more often, but in smaller ways. But if all of their abilities are some fraction of the same ability available via another party member, then that character never gets the spotlight. They might be "effective" by some definition, but it still leaves some players feeling minimized when it comes time to heroically shine.
I think it's a mistake to build a "mixed" class as not-quite-as-good-at-more-things, for this reason. Rather, if a class is mixed, I think an essentially component is
synergy. A mixed class should be
better at some things than any other class -- just as all classes should be -- by virtue of that synergy.
"Mystical warrior" is your typical PC in Glorantha / Runequest, where every PC must follow a cult and receive boons and tricks from it.
Ie: a Vingan warrior (see the blue Wind runes that give her tricks and bonus related to movement): :)
(https://scontent.fsdu5-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/65932498_1281488358677823_8877244316142010368_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_sid=dd9801&_nc_ohc=3IpgqlwpnCQAX-SphCj&_nc_ht=scontent.fsdu5-1.fna&oh=67f88c1c96f589019ab0b8160505aaf1&oe=5F5C41C9)
Quote from: Chris24601;1143987In my own system there are a number of ways you could get there depending on the tricks you want.
I specifically give an example of a warrior who studies utility magic but puts his faith in the steel of his weapons and armor for combat as an example of a fighter class with the Arcanist background. Similarly, the Exotic Tutor boon for the Aristocrat background or Esoteric Experience boon for the Traveler background would allow you to select a limited number of cantrips or utility spells.
If you're looking for more combat related magic, the multi-classing talent will allow limited access to the abilities of a spellcasting class of choice and follow-on talents can increase that access to whatever level you wish.
Conversely, if you want something more combat spellcaster who also uses some weapons and armor then the Militant or Zealous Astral, Big Lug or Monkeywrencher Gadgeteer, Potent or Swift Primal, or War Wizard spellcasting paths are all viable ways to obtain that (war wizard is bar none the best option for someone who puts equal focus on weapons and spells).
What is your own system? Is it a published game or are you referring to your own homebrew game?
Quote from: kidkaos2;1144782What is your own system? Is it a published game or are you referring to your own homebrew game?
It's a system I'm finishing up with intent to publish. I'm working through the last major section of new content (which isn't even mechanics; it's New GM/world-building advice) and reworking part of the equipment section based on player feedback. I don't know what feedback reports I'll get this weekend, but for now that's basically all that's left on the writing white board.
Shoot me a PM if you'd be willing to give feedback and I'll shoot you a link (the same goes for anyone else).
Alternatively, I'll be going to an "open beta" once all the outstanding bits are done (hopefully in the next few months unless something blows up in the feedback or my day job) to get broader feedback to find any problems the small groups and I have probably missed and you could check it out then.
Thanks to everyone that responded. It was very helpful to bounce ideas around.
Update for anyone interested in resolution of my question:
Turned out the trouble with naming was hiding a design issue. Not so much a flaw necessarily as simply some of the limited complexity was in the wrong spot.
To make a long story short, what I did was flip the thing that was going to be "class" with these "base classes" and move some of the complexity out of "class". That reduced the three main categories relevant to classes to "combat", "magic" and "adventuring". "Adventuring" subsuming what would be "skills" in many games as well as other abilities that don't fit under combat or magic exactly. That is, "class" is now this base thing that every character has exactly one of (i.e. no multi-classing), but it only provides the overall structure for the character. There are other elements that stack on top of the class to make what would be the D&D class equivalent.
That gave me just six classes to handle all the combinations I want:
- Fighter - full combat, no magic, solid adventuring.
- Rogue - solid combat, no magic, full adventuring.
- Wayfarer - solid combat, minor magic, solid adventuring.
- Mystic - solid combat, solid magic, minor adventuring.
- Shaman - minor combat, solid magic, solid adventuring.
- Wizard - minor combat, full magic, minor adventuring.
Note that those labels are only rough approximations. The rogue is a little better at combat than the wayfarer, and the wayfarer has a distinct edge on other "solid adventuring" characters in that category. But you probably get the idea. Also, any magic class has to pick one of three styles of magic, roughly but not exactly corresponding to the Rules Compendium cleric, druid, and wizard. For example, a "Mystic Priest" might be very much like the RC cleric capped out of the highest level spells, while a "Wizard Priest" would be a robed holy man of great priestly power, even exceeding the RC Cleric caster in some ways.