Fantasy Craft Q&A Thread!

[tenebrae]

Okay, so I already understood that Blessed (Path of Magic) was pretty broken, but it just clicked that a Chaneller or Sage would take it (instead of Extra School) and get access to all spell schools.

Any chance you could give us a preview of the revised Path of Magic planned for the errata? Even Step I? Or will it just be as simple as "This path is not available if you have access to the Spellcasting skill from another character option"?

[Sletchman]

Okay, so I already understood that Blessed (Path of Magic) was pretty broken, but it just clicked that a Chaneller or Sage would take it (instead of Extra School) and get access to all spell schools.

It's worse then you think - any spellcaster [works best with things like alchemist] can take blessed (POM) to get a bonus spellcasting feat and 4 spell points, and considering it is a spellcasting feat its a zero investment.  Of course I just say no about stuff like that, but I am interested in how it'll change, path of magic is actually important in my game.

[Crafty_Alex]

Path of Magic is revised to be less powerful in the errata.

Once again, I will note - the Path of Magic does not exist in any game without GM approval. Period. The Blessed feat does NOT let you choose a Path and get its first step - it lets you get on Path of your Alignment. Alignments, being GM-created, are completely constructions of their campaign. If you don't want the Path of Magic in your campaign, don't put it in

[tenebrae]

Okay, so I already understood that Blessed (Path of Magic) was pretty broken, but it just clicked that a Chaneller or Sage would take it (instead of Extra School) and get access to all spell schools.

It's worse then you think - any spellcaster [works best with things like alchemist] can take blessed (POM) to get a bonus spellcasting feat and 4 spell points, and considering it is a spellcasting feat its a zero investment.  Of course I just say no about stuff like that, but I am interested in how it'll change, path of magic is actually important in my game.

Not quite. Another spellcasting feat was the suggested replacement if the character already has Subtle and Quick to Anger (i.e. has at least 1 level in Mage). Other characters who have spellcasting just gain exactly what's written (+4 spell points, can cast 0-level spells, can learn spells of any school). And note that even granting a bonus Spellcasting feat for Mages was only a suggestion by the developers, there's nothing in the rules to back it up as yet.

Path of Magic is revised to be less powerful in the errata.

Once again, I will note - the Path of Magic does not exist in any game without GM approval. Period. The Blessed feat does NOT let you choose a Path and get its first step - it lets you get on Path of your Alignment. Alignments, being GM-created, are completely constructions of their campaign. If you don't want the Path of Magic in your campaign, don't put it in

That's fine, but if I have a player for whom it would be appropriate to start taking the Path of Magic (either by taking levels in Priest, the Blessed feat, or using Cross-class ability to gain Priest abilities) which matches their alignment, who happens to be a specialist caster, what would you suggest as a more balanced reward than "+4 SP, can learn spells from any school" (which obviously makes puts the Extra Discipline feat to shame, although that has far less demanding requirements)?

[Crafty_Alex]

Since Path of Magic has become the crux of balance issues throughout both the arcane and divine magic systems, we're going to get a little more radical with the edit here.

Path of Magic (page 313): The text is now:

Path of Magic I: Choose one magic Discipline (see page 111). You may learn spells from that Discipline, purchase ranks in the Spellcasting skill, and cast Level 0 spells you know. You also gain additional Spell Points each scene equal to 2 × your Magic Step.
Path of Magic II: You gain the circle of power I class ability.
Path of Magic II: You gain the circle of power II class ability.
Path of Magic II: You gain the circle of power III class ability.
Path of Magic II: You gain the circle of power IV class ability.

For the divine caster, this is pretty balanced against all the other paths - you get flexibility in spell choice and number of castings at the exchange of skill point investment and breadth. For the specialist caster, this works like a souped up version of Extra Discipline - certainly not a waste of a feat slot. For the Mage, it's basically useless (well, you can spend a feat to get 2 spell points I guess) - also, not a problem. For the GM, there is no danger in sticking it into your game and ruining the balance. For the player trying to easily enter an Expert Class with spellcasting requirements (Rune Knight, Mist Dancer), it's still very handy without being as good as levels in a casting class.

But most importantly, we're preserving the schwa of those characters who commit a class level to being really good at magic, whether they're a specialist or generalist. As the most precious of a PC's resources, those that invest that heavily deserve to have the greatest reward for that investment.

[Deral]

Since Path of Magic has become the crux of balance issues throughout both the arcane and divine magic systems, we're going to get a little more radical with the edit here.

Path of Magic (page 313): The text is now:

Path of Magic I: Choose one magic Discipline (see page 111). You may learn spells from that Discipline, purchase ranks in the Spellcasting skill, and cast Level 0 spells you know. You also gain additional Spell Points each scene equal to 2 × your Magic Step.
Path of Magic II: You gain the circle of power I class ability.
Path of Magic II: You gain the circle of power II class ability.
Path of Magic II: You gain the circle of power III class ability.
Path of Magic II: You gain the circle of power IV class ability.

For the divine caster, this is pretty balanced against all the other paths - you get flexibility in spell choice and number of castings at the exchange of skill point investment and breadth. For the specialist caster, this works like a souped up version of Extra Discipline - certainly not a waste of a feat slot. For the Mage, it's basically useless (well, you can spend a feat to get 2 spell points I guess) - also, not a problem. For the GM, there is no danger in sticking it into your game and ruining the balance. For the player trying to easily enter an Expert Class with spellcasting requirements (Rune Knight, Mist Dancer), it's still very handy without being as good as levels in a casting class.

But most importantly, we're preserving the schwa of those characters who commit a class level to being really good at magic, whether they're a specialist or generalist. As the most precious of a PC's resources, those that invest that heavily deserve to have the greatest reward for that investment.

I'd just like to say this is a very cool solution, less so right at this moment but once Spellbound and it's expanded spell list is out this will be very nice. But I just wanted to preempt any complaints that might show up, because I like that this actually changes very little, text-wise, but pretty well solves the power issue (And, imho, actually adds flavor to the path).

[tenebrae]

I agree. While it certainly restricts the path's powr substantially, it also provides an opportunity to tie into a Priest's other paths (for example, Path Of Weather and the ability to cast Weather spells, or Path of Fire and the Energy Discipline). With that said, it does put some very hard limits on the range of spells they gan gain (e.g. Calling only has 5 spells available at the moment), whihc will be fixed somewhat by Spellbound.

How would you feel balance would be tipped by granting an additional discipline at each path step? Perhaps restricting them to disciplines from other schools that those they already have chosen (They could take Energy at PoM I, then Word, but not Weather, at PoM II).

[mind flayer]

here's a question:

are there any plans for a Fantasy Craft campaign setting?  There is so much neat fluff built into the rules, I, for one, would like to see it all fleshed out into world.

[Sletchman]

I thought mage had the "if you have this get a free feat" but it doesn't.  Alchemist does however.  Of course a GM should allow that at their own peril, and the proposed errata shuts it down anyway, so the point is moot.

Path of Magic (page 313): The text is now:

Path of Magic I: Choose one magic Discipline (see page 111). You may learn spells from that Discipline, purchase ranks in the Spellcasting skill, and cast Level 0 spells you know. You also gain additional Spell Points each scene equal to 2 × your Magic Step.
Path of Magic II: You gain the circle of power I class ability.
Path of Magic II: You gain the circle of power II class ability.
Path of Magic II: You gain the circle of power III class ability.
Path of Magic II: You gain the circle of power IV class ability.

For what it's worth I'll be houseruling that to "choose one magic School..." right away.  Still avoids most crazy combinations, and will be an extremely powerful feat for a specialist mage if they have a suitable alignment.  In keeping with that I'll probably also only allow certain schools based on alignment [A necromancer-ey alignment might get Reaper school for instance, but no others].

[Crafty_Pat]

here's a question:

are there any plans for a Fantasy Craft campaign setting?  There is so much neat fluff built into the rules, I, for one, would like to see it all fleshed out into world.

Yup!

[pawsplay]

Since Path of Magic has become the crux of balance issues throughout both the arcane and divine magic systems, we're going to get a little more radical with the edit here.

Path of Magic (page 313): The text is now:

Path of Magic I: Choose one magic Discipline (see page 111). You may learn spells from that Discipline, purchase ranks in the Spellcasting skill, and cast Level 0 spells you know. You also gain additional Spell Points each scene equal to 2 × your Magic Step.
Path of Magic II: You gain the circle of power I class ability.
Path of Magic II: You gain the circle of power II class ability.
Path of Magic II: You gain the circle of power III class ability.
Path of Magic II: You gain the circle of power IV class ability.

Hm, to me this looks like you're encouraging a dip into Mage for breadth and using  this Path for might. That seems almost backwards. I really liked the suggestion of making Magic I be subtle and quick to anger (or a spellcasting feat) and pushing the extra spell points back to Magic II and higher. In that case, spending a feat on Blessed would be a neutral choice for a Mage, but a multiclass Mage/Priest worshipping a god of magic would actuallly get a little oomph.

[prototype00]

For what it's worth I'll be houseruling that to "choose one magic School..." right away.  Still avoids most crazy combinations, and will be an extremely powerful feat for a specialist mage if they have a suitable alignment.  In keeping with that I'll probably also only allow certain schools based on alignment [A necromancer-ey alignment might get Reaper school for instance, but no others].

Hmmm, It's a good change, I think. Though for my purposes I'd be inclined to use the house rule outlined above. Instead of giving them a whole school at path level 1 however, I'd break it up so they choose one discipline at 1st path step, one at the third step and one at the fifth step. That way they ironically get versatility if they specialize in the path of magic.

prototype00

[Crafty_Alex]

Just a point of order - I am working on Spellbound right now, in and amongst many other projects, and many of these changes are important in that context (where there are nearly 900 spells and a whole sh!tload of new Spellcasting feats and classes).

I agree. While it certainly restricts the path's powr substantially, it also provides an opportunity to tie into a Priest's other paths (for example, Path Of Weather and the ability to cast Weather spells, or Path of Fire and the Energy Discipline). With that said, it does put some very hard limits on the range of spells they gan gain (e.g. Calling only has 5 spells available at the moment), whihc will be fixed somewhat by Spellbound.

Right. The flavoring is a huge point. Spellbound should fix concerns about spell selection in spades - there will be 37 spells per Discipline when that book hits the stands.

How would you feel balance would be tipped by granting an additional discipline at each path step? Perhaps restricting them to disciplines from other schools that those they already have chosen (They could take Energy at PoM I, then Word, but not Weather, at PoM II).

It doesn't fit the balance of our system. In the Path system, a feat will fill a single Step by itself. Spellbound has the Extra Discipline feat which grants one Discipline - adding this feature with COP progresion makes a PoM Step twice as powerful as a single Step anywhere else. If anyone wants to make a more rounded spellcasting Priest, they can easily do so with PoM + Extra Discipline (which, incidentally will also increase the save DCs of their spells).

For what it's worth I'll be houseruling that to "choose one magic School..." right away.  Still avoids most crazy combinations, and will be an extremely powerful feat for a specialist mage if they have a suitable alignment. 

All that does is undermine the specialist caster instead of the mage, which I am not going to do (see note about protecting class integrity above). You have to consider this against the Extra Discipline feat, which will be appearing again in Spellbound and only gives a single Discipline - POM, if done as you suggest, would be allowing 3. Once Spellbound is out, 1 level in any specialist caster can do the same thing as you want.

In keeping with that I'll probably also only allow certain schools based on alignment [A necromancer-ey alignment might get Reaper school for instance, but no others].

The Alignment break already exists in the game - PoM is not available if you don't attach it to any alignment - but that has been repeatedly proven by the fans to not be enough of a limitation. I'd say play a Reaper if you want to be a Reaper. A Priest of Death can (and IMO should) feel different.

Hm, to me this looks like you're encouraging a dip into Mage for breadth and using  this Path for might. That seems almost backwards.

Not sure where you think this is mightier than the current rule. Yes, you get COP but you have very limited casting selection provided you don't spend more feats on Extra Discipline or Spell Library. But ultimately, if you want to be a generalist caster, I would suggest playing a mage rather than jamming a Mages abilities into the already-cool and powerful Priest.

I really liked the suggestion of making Magic I be subtle and quick to anger (or a spellcasting feat) and pushing the extra spell points back to Magic II and higher. In that case, spending a feat on Blessed would be a neutral choice for a Mage, but a multiclass Mage/Priest worshipping a god of magic would actuallly get a little oomph.

What you suggest is what we had - we peeled off the spell points to start at Magic II and solved the mage problem, but the problem of specialist casters just using Blessed to overcome their limitations raises its head again. S&QTA has already been errataed to provide a spellcasting feat if you already have it, but that does not stop abuse from those jumping out of limitations of their niche using just one feat.

[Crafty_Alex]

Hmmm, It's a good change, I think. Though for my purposes I'd be inclined to use the house rule outlined above. Instead of giving them a whole school at path level 1 however, I'd break it up so they choose one discipline at 1st path step, one at the third step and one at the fifth step. That way they ironically get versatility if they specialize in the path of magic.

prototype00

That's an interesting idea. My concern, of course, is that a priest with Path of Magic becomes increasingly like a specialist caster, not his own thing.

[prototype00]

Hmmm, It's a good change, I think. Though for my purposes I'd be inclined to use the house rule outlined above. Instead of giving them a whole school at path level 1 however, I'd break it up so they choose one discipline at 1st path step, one at the third step and one at the fifth step. That way they ironically get versatility if they specialize in the path of magic.

prototype00

That's an interesting idea. My concern, of course, is that a priest with Path of Magic becomes increasingly like a specialist caster, not his own thing.

Just totally out of curiousity, what is a Priest of Magic's own thing? What is the vision that you guys have for someone with the path of magic? I'm not in any way trying to be snarky here, I really don't know. He's not a full blooded mage, that we know. Is he like a dabbler then? I chose the specialist mage model (though watered down of course, I'm sure a specialist mage gets more magical boons than a priest of magic) because I can see a priest learning necromantic type magic or trickery type magic depending on the god he/she worships and the increasing number of disciplines as a kind of increasing divine guidance. But if a priest of magic isn't specialist magey, then what is he/she?

prototype00

P.s. The more I think of it the more I like it, it makes players not just want to dip into path of magic, but if they do dip, they get a shallow (one discipline's worth) boon.