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" ( 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" ( 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.

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):

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.