Magic-User Options

[Metroknight]

Most familiars are just enhanced creatures so why can't you start them out as their base int for their type like a cat, bird, or a bat which like a 1 or 2 then just apply the M-U's INT bonus to it.

Say a INT 18 M-U has toad familiar and you use my suggestion this will give that M-U a familiar with an INT of 3 or 4. Would that work? It is simple method.

[Sir Bedivere]

I'm beginning to plan for the third release of MU Options, so I thought I'd kick this old thread up.

Any requests?

Obviously, I'll update the supplements list and, if there seems to be a consensus, add in the material on familiars.

[jackel]

Sir Bedivere, I can't think of any request right off the top of my head, but will sit down and think on this. I might also ask my MU in game. Get their feedback. We are using some in our game.

[Sir Bedivere]

Cool, thanks!

[Solomoriah]

You asked what I don't like about this supplement, so here I am to tell you. Please don't take my critique personally.

1) Too wordy. I'd take a knife to it and pare it down somewhat. (I have to do the same to my own stuff all the time.) At the very least, I'd reorganize it, moving discussion/explanatory elements to a GM's section at the end.

2) You have a suggestion about shifting the spell table, which it appears you are recommending not to do. I found that section confusing to read as your intent was not immediately clear.

3) The section about inscribing spells is incorrect, in that inscribing a spell in a book is NOT the same as creating a scroll. A spell in a spellbook is the caster's notes about how to cast it; a scroll is a magically charged item containing the power of a spell activated by reading the words. You can't cast a spell by reading it out of the book.

I do agree this supplement is needed, but I've been avoiding writing down my problems with it because I didn't want to offend you. I do feel it needs some work, though.

[Sir Bedivere]

You asked what I don't like about this supplement, so here I am to tell you. Please don't take my critique personally.

Nah, I don't. I really appreciate the comments and will try to fix these things in the next revision.

[Solomoriah]

Don't fix them, in the sense that you just do what I say. Think about my complaints, but also keep your own opinions in play. If you feel strongly about something, you should keep it in... it's possible something I've commented on needs little more than a tweak, or perhaps some reorganization, to make it better.

[SmootRK]

Don't fix them, in the sense that you just do what I say. Think about my complaints, but also keep your own opinions in play. If you feel strongly about something, you should keep it in... it's possible something I've commented on needs little more than a tweak, or perhaps some reorganization, to make it better.

Solomoriah has a rigid view on most stuff that alters or piles too much on. Don't let that deter you from producing material that suits you. I would say that most others are not so inflexible.

For my own opinion on this supplement: As stated in other threads, More Stuff is good...however, I try very hard to keep away from "changes" to a class.
For instance, I would not incorporate a change to XP and spell tables... but, I would add on bonus spells for INT.
I would not alter the MU's use of armor, but I would consider a defensive casting ability (it does not exist, but I would perhaps give a MU the ability to "fight defensively through the round (defending from Combat Options; +4 AC), in order to be able to cast his spell last in the initiative order... but a hit through the round will spoil the spell held in this manner").
I would not change armor (or armor rules) to suit magic-users, but adding more equipment/armors is fine otherwise.
etc.

My rule of thumb (and certainly not always followed) is More not Change.
More spells, more items, more monsters, more equipment, etc... not changes. More abilities even fit this (for something like an Arcane Bolt), but not changes to existing framework of rules when I can help it. At least not when I am producing Supplemental material for BFRPG... my houserules break this personal rule in a few places, but it is not often and not for whimsical reasons.

[Solomoriah]

More abilities even fit this

And this is where Smoot and I differ... more abilities is more rules to me. Spells, magic items, monsters, sure. But once you graft your new rule onto a player character, it becomes a lot harder to get rid of. This is why I'm adamant about the Core Rules not accumulating new classes or races. Actually, new spells could be held to a higher standard for the same reason, but in general an issue with a spell can usually be fixed with a revision to the spell.

[Sir Bedivere]

Well, here I think your comments are pretty solid.

I know that I am usually too wordy when I write, so that was no surprise. Also, I kind of had that sense myself; when I finished the 2nd revision I wasn't really happy with the organization of it all, but in the spirit of "release early, release often," I went with what I had, even knowing it still needed some work.

I wanted to discourage the idea of shifting the spell table, but the way I've done it seems confusing. I'm not sure that sort of "don't do this" advice is ever given in this kind of supplement, so I should probably drop it, or maybe make it clearly a warning.

On your third comment, I'm just wrong, so I should correct it.

Anyway, the main thing I want to do w/ r3 is reorganize it, clean it up, and add in the supplements & ideas that have come out since r2. I don't have a bunch of new stuff for it. Naturally, I always want to hear other gamers' opinions for improving it. I want it to be useful.