Low Level Mage

[Krensky]

I didn't really think you misunderstood, but your phrasing was unclear and a few people in this thread did seem to be missing that.

As for Attack vs Save, I haven't looked at it in depth, but I think that attack is preferable to save, simply because skill vs defense is typically a third tier feat benefit with limited uses. Put another way, I'm fairly confident that NPCs will make a save far more often then a good mage won't hit their Defense. I haven't done the math, so it's just a feeling at the moment.

As for the AoE, that's true, but I honestly feel that the trade there is the save for half.

The name's from Tunnels & Trolls.

[Nova]

None of those apply. It's a spellcasting check, not an attack check.

I think you misunderstood what I was talking about there. Remember that if a spell is listed as an attack in its distance ("short range attack") or the like, the spellcasting check IS also equal to the result of your attack. in other words you could succeed in casting but miss with your ray or whatever it was. Polar ray's an "attack" in that sense.

The Soldier's no better off unless he's dumping for Stength, which isn't anywhere as good an idea in FC as it is in D&D.

That was very much my point. That L0 spell is damn good that early in the game.

It's not an attack, it's a spell. It functions like an attack in a very few ways, but it's still a spell. Double Cast is the only thin I can think of in the book that lets you cast more then one spell a round.

But it counts as an attack when cast. In my eyes that should probably disqualify it from being used with, say, surge of speed combined with normal attacks. I did state said combos were 'with whatever weapon you're using'. As in "weapon and spell". Which you CAN do, within your limit of one spell/round.

Only if you have Double Cast. Otherwise one Spellcasting check a round.

I think maybe you assumed every mention of the word attack past that first line (where I was only opening up to explain its a pretty good roll, more accurate than most soldiers this early on)? I need to better define when I say things I guess.

Flat out wrong. High AP + high threat range + long range = absolutely lethal. Bows have a higher rate of fire, but a cross bow lets you stay further away and pretty much ignore armor. Also, if it's available, a Bayonetted Repeating Crossbow and Quickdraw is a great combo for a close in archer. Other then that, it's best to work with the long load times as suggested in the Deadeye write up. They aren't the be all and end all or a rapid fire ranged weapon, but they are a solid choice for long ranged mayhem.

AP is nice but that repeating crossbow has less threat range for the same AP as a longbow, along with a lower range increment and the inability to use those multifire feats. The AP on the heavy X-bow is nothing to sneeze at, but against many targets won't really match up to a storm of shots that deal one or two less. It does nothing versus 'resistance' either, so unless every other target is a full dwarf-plated knight, a lot of that piercing just goes to waste.  Crossbows are great for someone without bow feats who doesn't mind carrying two or three, which is quite fine for a mage. But those long ranges have their price, and many campaigns or GMs you just don't get to use them all that much. Moment you start having feats available for the job, an actual bow or black powder weapon will quickly leave a gap ahead of the crossbow for all but a few specific situations. Pet annoyance of mine, to be honest; I love crossbows, personally.

You can do this the minute you can afford it. Spellcasting isn't a physical skill.

Actually you bring up an interesting point. You may indeed be right, since it's int-based, but then, I can't seem to actually find anything that defines WHICH skills are affected.

 In fact I can't seem to find any actual definition/separation explained anywhere. Spellcasting traditionally suffers penalties for being physically impeded in most systems, Crafting could easily suffer such penalties if you're attempting it in plate, but its int-based too. Search or notice could easily suffer too especially if you're wearing a helmet. Meanwhile Ride could actually be unaffected, especially if properly equipped; more mass can be simply harder to knock about, and may allow some rougher movement/maneuvers than if that branch in the face would poke out your eyes. And resolve? Armor can make you feel a good bit safer than naked, but that's technically 'physical', being CON.

A list would be nice actually, especially if there's some uses of 'physical' or mental skills that should or should not be affected. Spellcasting can definitely be a 'per campaign' deal, but "physical skill" is only mentioned in carrying capacity ('penalty to physical skills'), Unseen Servant and the ACP definition in chapter 4. Most are dead obvious, but still...

[Morgenstern]

I recomend posting a finished 1st level "combat" mage character. Theorizing over efficiency in a vacuum is not going to tell you that much. Beyond spellcasting there is Origin, proficiencies, feats, gear, and (many, many) skill points that can be bent to this purpose. Among other things, the 1st level mage is way harder to kill than his 1st level wizard counterpart. Once that's on the table I'm betting a few suggestions for optimizing towards the desired result will become apparent.

[Morgenstern]

A list would be nice actually, especially if there's some uses of 'physical' or mental skills that should or should not be affected. Spellcasting can definitely be a 'per campaign' deal, but "physical skill" is only mentioned in carrying capacity ('penalty to physical skills'), Unseen Servant and the ACP definition in chapter 4. Most are dead obvious, but still...

Page 8, first sentence about attiributes. Str, Dex, Con are physical. Int, Wis, Cha are mental. Skill checks using those attributes are either 'physical' or 'mental' based on that. No list required.

Giving an armor penalty to spellcasting is something GMs have to add by hand (if they are interested in repilcating the D&D tropes for example). The default rules are ACP does not affect Int based skill checks.

[Nova]

Page 8, first sentence about attiributes. Str, Dex, Con are physical. Int, Wis, Cha are mental. Skill checks using those attributes are either 'physical' or 'mental' based on that. No list required.

Giving an armor penalty to spellcasting is something GMs have to add by hand (if they are interested in repilcating the D&D tropes for example). The default rules are ACP does not affect Int based skill checks.

Well if that's all there is to it, then, good to know, I can dump that off my next armor! Though I don't really mind it either way. Still rather surprising there's no mention whatsoever even in the campaign qualities of such for spellcasting.

[Daedalus]

It could be more or less abstracted in terms of what skills a GM determine sufficient motion to be considered "physical" as well.  The Hidden Spells feat seems only to conceal verbal components of a spell, whereas "somatic" components aren't really mentioned at all.  In a system where armor provides damage reduction instead of making your enemy whiff, taking even one damage can subject a Mage to poison or Fortitude-based supernatural triggers, where they have a distinct disadvantage.  Just wearing armor doesn't make you a melee combatant, as my Mage has found out the hard way on at least two occasions.  It does grant the Mage an advantage against Reflex-based attacks, which would otherwise obliterate them on a regular basis.

[VisualStatic]

I recomend posting a finished 1st level "combat" mage character. Theorizing over efficiency in a vacuum is not going to tell you that much. Beyond spellcasting there is Origin, proficiencies, feats, gear, and (many, many) skill points that can be bent to this purpose. Among other things, the 1st level mage is way harder to kill than his 1st level wizard counterpart. Once that's on the table I'm betting a few suggestions for optimizing towards the desired result will become apparent.

I believe that is what we all were trying to impart on the OP, that there is more to a mage then just tossing spells in FC.  But his contention is simply that there is only 1 combat spell at L0, and that appears to be all he's looking at.

[Krensky]

Well if that's all there is to it, then, good to know, I can dump that off my next armor! Though I don't really mind it either way. Still rather surprising there's no mention whatsoever even in the campaign qualities of such for spellcasting.

Something else on this. In Spycraft 2.0, where skill checks specified if ACP applied, Spellcasting did not have the ACP tag.

[Daedalus]

Threaten is a really good way to dish out damage on lower-level baddies too that hits really hard, especially at lower levels.  The Mage likely has skill points to spare and though it's opposed by Resolve, it should usually hit the mark.  Polar Ray I is Cold damage and subject to armor reduction as such, but Threaten goes right through and does 1d6 stress damage, targeting the Will save of those (hopefully weak-willed) lower level bad guys.  There's also no limit on uses per round, so that's a potential of 2d6 stress damage against a single opponent, or it could be combined with Polar Ray I for the potential to hit up to four targets on a good day.  On the best day, those four targets are standards and all drop.

[aegis]

Cold damage and subject to armor reduction as such

Actually, it isn't. That's what makes him so useful! Even at low level, any standard NPC can own a full scale mail that would be a pain in the ass for any combatant. But with this ray, the Mage goes straight through his DR.

Heat and cold inflict subdual damage, against which Damage Reduction has no effect

This is why I mentioned that at Threat Level 1-2, statistically, more or less a little negligible something, a Mage kills (or rather knocks out, even better) a standard NPC 1/2 of the time with a single Polar Ray I, assuming he hits only one, of course.

[Psion]

Threaten is a really good way to dish out damage on lower-level baddies too that hits really hard, especially at lower levels. 

This is true.

I had a priest/keeper in my freeport game that is a wet noodle in combat, but has a decent intimidate. He's not even maxed out (with stuff like terrifying look and threatening menace), but he provided fire support for the rest of the group by perching on a yard arm and preaching doom-and-gloom to pirates attacking on the deck below.

A nice sorcerer build is to pick up a species or talent with the menacing threat ability.

[Krensky]

Not to mention that the threat of magic often being more effective then it's actual use feels delicously in genre for most fantasy literature.

Smoke and mirrors for the win.

[esoclectica]

Talk about your doom and gloom...  ever see Willy Nelson curse those two guys in Red Headed Stranger?  He gets really nasty.