Philsys Revisions!

[Archmage144]

Editting this into the first post for the convienance of others - Idran

Current changes so far

For those of you still using or who still want to use Philsys, I have a short list of things I want to address regarding potential minor fixes to the system for balance issues and whatnot:

Philsys: What's 'Wrong' Here? A List of Suggestions and Objectives

Goals:

<ul>To create a system that is flexible.</ul>
<ul>There are other goals, but I don't feel like listing them all right now.</ul>

Current Flaws:

<ul>Over-reliance on Gamemaster intervention in character creation and development.</ul>
<ul>Possible disparity between mage characters and physical attackers in terms of damage potential. Do some mathematical calculations to see how this works out.</ul>

Potential Corrections:

<ul>Multiple attacks. Divide weapons into light, medium, and heavy. Extra attacks are gained at 8/10/12 or 8/12/14, do some math</ul>
<ul>Skill level cap = base stats + 6 instead of the d6 roll.</ul>
<ul>Consider combining DEX and AGI into one stat. Reduce stat points to 18 at 1st level</ul>
<ul>Barefist base damage is equal to Rank+STR+1d6/Rank+STR*2+2d6.</ul>
<ul>A more comprehensive (and potentially limited, but still expansive) standardized list of skills.</ul>
<ul>Formulae for creating techs that picks up where the spellbook left off.</ul>
</li>

My current "absolute recommendations" as opposed to "what do you think we should do heres" are the extra attacks thing at 8/12/14 (I did the math, I'm C&Ping from my notes from a couple months ago) and the combination of DEX and AGI into one stat (simply called DEX). For existing characters, this means add DEX to AGI and then subtract three points from your character's overall attributes (the subtract three points thing I'm willing to negotiate on if someone has a better idea). Any skills that referred previously to one or the other now simply refer to the unified DEX stat.

While we're on the subject, what do people think of these ideas, and does anyone actually want to work on some of the suggestions/problems? If you want a thorough explanation as to what I might think is a good idea or what direction something should be taken in, or why I decided some of the things that I suggest to be changed should be changed, ask!

Edit: When I say 8/12/14, I mean one extra attack every 8/12/14 skill ranks for light/medium/heavy weapons respectively. An example of a light weapon is a dagger or rapier. A medium weapon is a longsword or hand axe. A heavy weapon is a greataxe, warhammer, or halberd. <p><EZCODE>

---

<EZCODE><EZCODE><div><EZCODE><EZCODE></div><EZCODE>

</p>Edited by: <A>Idran1701[/url] at: 3/20/06 13:59

[FlamingDeth]

Hi! Here's a disjointed and disorganized commentary on Philsys revision suggestions!

The goals are fine. I like goals.

As far as GM reliance goes, I...don't see it so much. Pretty much, you roll your dice in the chat, and then make your modifications. And it's not like any one specific person is a balance GM -- if anyone sees an unbalanced spell or tech, they're probably going to say something about it. And to my knowledge, folks are comfortable with asking a variety of people about balance issues.

The mage/not-mage disparity! Part of this is the amount of stats you need to focus on with each. Mages: Int, Wis, Mag, possibly one or two others, depending on techs and support skills. Fighters: Cou, Agi, Str, Sta, probably Dex, possibly more depending on techs and support skills.

The combining of Dex and Agi will help. It'll make it easier for two-weapon fighters to make a decent build, and it'll make a hybrid ranged/melee guy more plausible. A clearer, simpler multiple attack formula will help with Agi (or is it Dex now?)-based fighters. It'd be nice to see Dex/Agi factored into the multiple-attack formula somehow, though.

I'm not sure about the actual damage disparity. While I see how it's possible, it just seems that people need to be more creative about their techs.

As for the Barefist damage...I dunno. I guess it could be revised. My standard method of dealing with it is a short series of low-cost techs that customize it more to what I had in mind for the character. Man, techs are awesome, especially if used creatively enough. :D

The list of skills is pretty fucking comprehensive as it is. Considering that it was just supposed to be sample skills in the first place, I think that if anything, it needs to be trimmed down. You know, to get rid of redundant and pointless skills. Honestly, is there anyone that isn't me who is going to use the "Unique Weapon - Kogan Anki" skill?

I have nothing really to say about skill level caps. I might say something about a tech-making formula, but I don't recall what it says in the spellbook, and I tend to have no trouble making techs anyways.

These next things are suggestions about things not adressed in your post! Feel free to ignore them if you'd like.

I would like to see something that makes TP less concrete. As it is, if you want someone to do a lot of techs, you can't increase TP in the way that a mage can increase MP. The problem is that mages ALSO use TP, so it'd be difficult to change it without screwing up existing characters. And I'm not sure what the formula or whatever for it would be, but hey! The idea is out there.

As a minor note, I've never liked the Thrust/Slash/Chop terminology, as it doesn't work with like, 90% of weapons. A minor wording change there to "Light/Medium/Heavy" would be nice, and then people could assign a name to those for each weapon, if they'd like. This is really just a pet peeve, though.

The two-weapon fighting stuff has also seemed really strange, coming from a classical fencer/martial artist's point of view. Most who use two weapons that I know are not ambidextrous in any way. So...yeah. I would say axe the need for two additional skills. Make it so that you just need a "two weapon fighting" skill, and it'd be keen!

There's also two-handed weapons, which just confuses me. I've never seen the logic in requiring an extra skill in order to use two-handed weapons. In all honesty, it's easier to use them than one-handed weapons. :(

As a side note that I've brought up to random people before, something that I've found irritating is the inability to increase Mag. What this does is make it so that if something happens at some point and you want to turn a fighter character into a mage, you can't, because he's stuck with little or no Mag. If you want to turn a mage into a physical fighter, on the other hand, no problem! Toss a couple points into physical stats and you're good to go!


And regardless of how much crap I give it (and Brian, about it!), I'd like to note that until everyone purchases a BESM book, Philsys is and will remain my system of choice here, and I'm perfectly willing to assist in revising it. I'm just hoping that this thang is coherent enough to read. :D

Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=flamingdeth>FlamingDeth</A] at: 4/12/05 16:29

[Archmage144]

Light/Medium/Heavy is cool. I like that better myself in a lot of cases. Getting rid of Ambidexterity is also a good idea--D&D did it, we might as well too. Ditto on the Two-Handed skill--I blame Phil for that stuff. So let's just have one skill called "Two Weapon Fighting" that functions as the rank for your off-hand weapon, whatever it is.

Making MAG increasable is a good idea.

Mages need COU, too, if they want to survive spell attacks from foes. It's way more helpful than INT since it counts double. Melding DEX and AGI will help. I also find that STA is in some ways the least important stat unless you want a really beefy fighter, in which case you should possibly sacrifice AGI anyway. This isn't wholly realistic, but it kinda works for balance purposes--Philsys was always designed to work around "don't get hit" rather than "soak damage" anyway.

I'm still a little baffled about handling barefist damage.

I altered the skill level caps as a result of a comment from Shaun--it really sucks to fail a skill increase roll. Really, really sucks. I want levelling up to be exciting and fun, not an "oh shit, I blew my skill increase rolls and learn no new techs this level" experience or whatever. It rarely comes into play, but it can. Also, Phil's original wording on how those rolls worked was "WRF are this dumb shit" and I'm not even sure if I translated it into its proper form.

I agree with you so much on the creative techs thing helping with the disparity, but the problem is that unless you have someone else to double check you or are very familiar with the system, techs can be hard to design. That's odd, because they were intended to be easy. They should be, since a lot of the time, they mimic stuff you'd find in CRPGs. With no hard-and-fast formulae for techs, learning the system can be a little daunting--and even for vets, it's sometimes a little uncertain as far as the question of "is this really balanced?" The only reason, on that note, why I'd want to make a more definite list of skills is to pare down a lot of redundant ones and make sure that people with the same skill use the same base attributes for it.

TP increases--perhaps they can be based on COU or STA. That would be neat and make sense!


<p>

---

<div style="text-align:center"></div>

</p>

[NebulaQueen]

Following up on FD's note about TP and MP, maybe there could be a stat behind it that could explain how a person would get more TP.

EXAMPLE

TP allows you to do stuff, right? And doing stuff requires energy. So, Sta could be used to increase how much TP you get, much like how Int (being perceptive to the astral flow) and Mag Apt (how receptive a character's aura is to magic) can help increase MP (how much mana you can channel).

Comments on other stuff to come later.

Edit: TEACHER TEACHER BRIAN STOLE MY ANSWER. <p>

---

"My naturally quivering state makes any display of fear deliciously arbitrary" - Manowar Leader, Scary-Go-Round</p>Edited by: NebulaQueen at: 4/12/05 16:43

[FlamingDeth]

Wow, I'm dumb. Most of the time I end up thinking, "Why is Brian doing it in this strange way?", without stopping to think, "Hey! That's right, Phil originally designed Philsys!"

Yay! Though it would probably be more "this skill is the off-hand cap", rather than the offhand skill, since knowing how to use two weapons doesn't mean you know how to use an axe. That's pretty obvious though, and probably what you meant, but it's just a bit of added clarification.

Don't get hit, eh? That's another minor point that I hadn't thought of before! While it's true that armour does soak up some damage, D&D also had it at least partly right, in that a lot of the time it works because the hit doesn't really even land. Hits the armor, and slides right off. 's why it's angled the way it is, you know. Not just for aesthetics. :O

Creative techs! Maybe a list of people that could help with balance purposes, that can be contacted via AIM/email/whatever? I think there's a list like that around here somewhere, actually. All I know is that whenever I feel like I'm pushing the envelope of balance, I harass Alex and Shaun. Hi, Alex and Shaun!

TP increases could possibly be based off both Cou and Sta! That way, it has a bit of redundancy, sort of like how MP is based off of three different stats.


EDIT: Doug brings up that fighters need Int, as well! And also Wis, if they want any amount of skills. I don't know how I missed that, given that I like skill-based fighters. <p>
<hr width="70%"><center>
This month's "Transformer of the Month" is Grimlock in a Santa hat! He's quite jolly.</center></p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=flamingdeth>FlamingDeth</A] at: 4/12/05 16:54

[Squintz Altec]

As I see it now, there needs to be a little bit of standardization in the techs. Though a lot of people just make them up on the spot, there needs to be something to base their skills off of. Now, I mean techs, not spells. We have the spellbook for that. Techs are powerful and represent a good portion of the damage potential for a character. Thus, there should be some things lined out, so someone who wants to be a melee-type-guy doesn't have to go, "Oh, damn. I gotta make a lot of techs by myself or ask a GM." They can look some stuff up, tweak as necessary, and be good to go.

Otherwise, I like the new reccomendations.

[NebulaQueen]

Cou and Sta are both feasable. Sta could explain how much energy you have to do stuff, and Cou could measure personal strength/how much you're willing to do. Sort of like mind over matter.

Dex: Personally, I like the distinction between Dex and Agi; just because you're a whiz at intricate mechanical constructs, doesn't mean you're any better at dodging a rampaging bear.

However, I do admit that combining them would make things simpler. Details like this, as well as other things (such as wealth and other personal advantages that can't quite be explained by a tech/skill) could be worked out with something like a merits/deficits system as seen in BESM, GURPs, and White Wolf. Personally, I'm a big fan of this idea, and it would help provide balance to less tangible RP aspects. Alternatively, something like feats could be worked out if you're looking for something simpler.

It would be best, though, to hold off discussing that until other stuff is out of the way first.

Skills: One of the advantages of skills in PS is that it isn't completely standardized; you can create any skill you want as long as it's reasonable. This is usually a pretty good thing. However, standardization of support skills would be useful. Sure, it says in the guide that some might have side effects such as extra costs or required skills, but which ones? Only a few are mentioned in the addendum.

So, maybe a list could be made of the most used support skills, and more information given on them?

Barehanded fighting (and weapons, to boot): I approve of the changes to unarmed damage. However, as previously mentioned, the best way to balance physical and magical attacks is creative techs.

I'm not too good with creating non-magic related techs, though, so I don't have anything to add to this. :/

Edit: Doug is right, fighters do need Int! Especially if they'r e using other skills in their techs (like Chink Detection and Observation!)

Also, something I forgot to mention on the Magic Aptitude.

The reason why Magic Aptitude was "frozen" so to speak was because of how magic seemed to work in Gaera. Perhaps an explanation of how someone could increase their raw magical potential (outside of PS terms) would be good.

Edit 2.0: This here's a log between Shini and I regarding TP increases, in which some good points are brought up.

TheWaiChibiAngel: *Also, I had the Sta = TP idea awhile ago.

Jak shot it down. :(*
NebbieQ: Whyso? :( I'm curious, and it could be useful to mention.
TheWaiChibiAngel: *Because TP is not solely limited to physical junk.*
NebbieQ: I think Cou or Int could help cover that.
NebbieQ: If more than one stat is used to determine TP.
TheWaiChibiAngel: *That would make it overly complicated, or make it so TP gains would be massive.*
NebbieQ: Point. But it would be nice if there was something else to help determine TP.
TheWaiChibiAngel: *Why? Is 3 +1-3 TP not sufficient?*
NebbieQ: ...actually, it just occured to me.

Techs aren't nearly as expensive TP wise as spells are MP wise. I don't know how that slipped my mind.
TheWaiChibiAngel: *Indeed.*
TheWaiChibiAngel: *It's meant to balance out that way.*
NebbieQ: *nod* So, unless techs cost as much as spells, TP cost could be fine for now.

However, it isn't just about the TP expense, so much as choice in TP control. People would like to see their character's abilities influence it, sometimes.
TheWaiChibiAngel: *Well, the thing about TP is that it's not supposed to be related to anything at all.

It's just there to limit people from doing, say, Erech's Counter Stance/Insult combo too many times.*
TheWaiChibiAngel: *Erech requires TP to insult someone.

Does it tire him out to call you a moron?

No.

But his calling you a moron has an effect in battle. Thus it needs to be limited.*
NebbieQ: *nods*
NebbieQ: I'm gonna post this convo in the thread, if you don't mind. If nothing else, it'll add another opinion to the discussion.
TheWaiChibiAngel: *That's ifne.*
TheWaiChibiAngel: **Fine* <p>

---

"My naturally quivering state makes any display of fear deliciously arbitrary" - Manowar Leader, Scary-Go-Round</p>Edited by: NebulaQueen at: 4/12/05 17:43

[Uncle Pervy]

I like these points.

I would like to say, however, that in turn for two weapon being one skill, that double weilding without penalty should have a minimum Dex (new dex or old dex) associated with it. I'd suggest, like, 3 for two small weapons, 4 for one medium and one small, and 5 for two mediums.

I mean, double wielding is hard shit to do, and getting a bonus attack from it is a big thing in PS. <p>---------------------------

Your are not supposed to be reading this!</p>

[Archmage144]

Technically, with the way PS works, the way armor helps you to not get hit is to reduce damage to 0 or very nearly 0, which is effectively the same thing. One thing I want to do is cut or eliminate completely the AT penalties associated with armor, because in retrospect (again, Phil set up those penalties in the first place), they don't make sense. According to GURPS, "despite what you might think, it is not much more difficult for a trained fighter to move around in armor than without!" I'm taking that to mean that it won't hamper your ability to, say, swing a sword, but I'm still going to apply the PA penalties--by wearing lots of armor, you're opting to absorb most damage (i.e., reduce it to 0) as opposed to dodging it. A critical hit might still get through, and a lot of other things might potentially (techs or other special armor-defeating methods come to mind), but a lot of armor should help. Also, eliminating AT penalties should encourage fighters to wear armor, because almost no one does. o_O

I agree with basing TP off both. Perhaps an average?

As far as "what stats do what character archetypes need" goes, here's my view on the subject:

Mages need primarily INT (for spellcasting bonuses and resistance bonuses), WIS (for skill points), MAG (duh), and COU (for resisting spells and a somewhat improved AT/PA). That's four stats, and if you ignore all of the others for some reason and divide your points evenly (let's go with the 8 stat, merged DEX and AGI model), you'll wind up with a +4 in each and 2 points left over.

Fighters need primarily STR (for damage), DEX (for AT/PA and skills), COU (for AT/PA), WIS (if they want a lot of skill points), and STA (not as important as the others, technically, but helpful). Divided evenly, That's a +3 in all stats mentioned with 3 points left over.

These notes, incidentally, ignore CHA, which is actually somewhat important, but we're thinking in terms of pure combat use right now, more or less. Arguably, a fighter needs to put points in more stats than a mage to be just as effective. Or does he?

With this setup, the average fighter will have an AT/PA of 9/9 before skill adjustment (and assuming his extra, "left-over" points don't go into his "main" stats). Suppose an even distribution of ranks, which makes it 11/11.

The average mage trails behind at 8/8, adjusted to 10/10. But the average mage is going to have low STR, so he probably will do most of his fighting with spells. With these stats, his base MAtk is 12. Factor ranks, and he winds up with a spell power of 16 for any magic school he's maxing out.

A typical first-level fighter's attack roll against an equally competent target, assuming the target can defend, then, is against 11+d20. They are on perfectly even footing. A typical first-level mage's spell roll fighting a target with stats identical to his own is against 22+d20 (10 + 8 for COU + 2 for INT), and the defender gets a roll no matter what! And if he's attacking that fighter from earlier, he's still rolling against 16+d20--which means that his chance to hit the fighter with his spell is equal to the fighter's chance to resist, assuming that the fighter puts no points into INT.

This means that even though a fighter technically has to put points into "more" stats (assuming he values STA equally with other attributes), his chance to hit a similar opponent is much better than a mage's at first level, and his chance to defend against a mage is also better than the mage's chance to hit him. This partially explains why the mage's spells deal more damage--even at low levels, if the opponent has decent stats, he will be less likely to hit.

The issue of skill ranks as these characters increase in level means that as the fighter grows in power, his gap in physical offensive power versus the mage's chance to parry is going to grow wider (unless for some reason the mage spends a lot of points on weapon skills, which will increase AT/PA much faster than increasing stats). Likewise, the mage's ability to hit with a spell is going to increase, and a mage's ability to hit with a spell is likely to increase faster than the average opponent's ability to defend against it (which is part of why high-levelled magic users are so powerful unless their opponents take special measures, such as wearing magic-resistant gear). Also, this exercise does not factor in magical equipment or armor--and armor, in particular, is denied to a mage as a result of the PA penalty being exacted on all of his spell rolls (ouch)!

The point here is that at first level, even though he has to invest points in fewer stats, a mage's spells are easier to avoid than a fighter's sword. Any character with a significant investment in COU will have a pretty easy time resisting spells cast by a mage of a similar level, or at least, will be on equal footing--the mage is just as likely to hit as he is to miss. And this system allows for some fluctuations--a mage could up his physical defense, but sacrifice skill points, by investing in INT instead of WIS, or a warrior could increase his magic resistance and his fighting ability at the expense of his hit points by upping COU instead of STA. Plus, those "left-over" points are still unaccounted for (in the examples above, it's assumed that they're jammed into CHA or something).

Anyway, that's why I'm going to say that as far as the issue of distributing stat points goes, fighters and mages are balanced. Hopefully all of that made sense. A fighter does not need all of his stats to be high--he should choose based on his archetype. A strong fighter should obviously choose STR for maximum damage. A crafty fighter should focus on INT, because it increases skill points at character creation and helps with many skills as well as AT/PA. A strong-willed fighter who wants to resist magic should pick COU as a focus. DEX (the new, merged DEX) is a good choice for characters that use ranged weapons or want to be really good at dodging, since it's the prereq/base for [s] skills like [s]Improved Parry. If a fighter wants extra skill points at each level-up, he can put some of his "left-over" points into WIS.

We'll keep working on the techs thing.

NQ's note on MAG is, well, noteworthy--but I suppose for system purposes we might as well decide that it can increase as a result of being latent or something. So it's technically a fixed value, but it can increase because of "OMG PLOT REASON THAT JUSTIFIES IT."

Pervy's suggestion is also very good. I also like the numbers he has associated with it, except that I might increase then to 4, 5, and 6 just because it should indeed be fairly difficult! After all, D&D requires DEX 15 as a prereq for the Two-weapon Fighting feat. <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center"></div>

</p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=archmage144>Archmage144</A]&nbsp; at: 4/12/05 18:13

[FlamingDeth]

Here's the problem. While it's true that spells cost more than techs, some people still have considerably more MP than others. This allows them to be able to sustain a greater volume of spells. If you want to sustain a greater number of techs, what can you do? Lower the TP cost! But then it becomes unbalanced, so you can't do that. Dig?

I like using Cou and Sta as the bases. If we consider 3 to be the average number for a stat, then we could go [Cou+Sta]*3 or 4 to be the formula for TP. That way it wouldn't require much retroworking on old characters to make them conform. As for Sta being physical, keep in mind that INTENSE TASKS OF TEH MENTAL are also exerting. Has no one felt tired at all after like, a bunch of stressful, difficult tests? :(?

I'm not so sure I like the whole "merits and deficits" thing, though. It could, potentially, balance a few things out, but then it makes things less...freeform. I don't see how you could do it without making more things standardized. And we already do it, kinda, when we put down the [Innate] things in techs.

As far as Mag being frozen, I think that Gaera is like that because that's the way Phil wrote it into the system. Basing the setting off the system doesn't seem like a particularly good plan to me.

On Pervy and dual wielding: Yeah, it's not the easiest thing in the world. But as it stands, both the skills currently associated with it have Dex as their only base. So if you have a low dex, then you ain't raising that skill up too high anyways. Also, if Dex and Agi end up being combined, then haveing a low Dex will also mean that you aren't going to be hitting a lot with all those extra attacks. <p>
<hr width="70%"><center>
This month's "Transformer of the Month" is Grimlock in a Santa hat! He's quite jolly.</center></p>

[Archmage144]

I don't want to make TP based on some flat multiplier related to COU and STA. A mage gains MP each level even if his stats don't increase--TP should operate similarily.

If we decide to keep 20 as the "base" TP and only make the increases based on stats, that might work. But so far the problem I'm running into there is that with "average" stats, giving a character TP each level equal to the average of COU and STA only works out to 3 bonus TP per level, which is less than the current 4-6 TP.

Maybe a better idea is to let the player choose which stat matters and use the better of the two. A character with higher COU will choose that, whereas a character with higher STA will opt for that. The character then gets (stat) + 1d4 TP per level? Or is there some other possibility? <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center"></div>

</p>

[FlamingDeth]

As a side note, I meant to start. The raises to MP per level are still based on a stat, even if the stat is static, so I had assumed that it would end up being the same for TP. <p>
<hr width="70%"><center>
This month's "Transformer of the Month" is Grimlock in a Santa hat! He's quite jolly.</center></p>

[Archmage144]

Oh. In that case, (COU + STA) * 3 seems pretty good, adding either COU + 1d4 or STA + 1d4 TP per level? <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center"></div>

</p>

[Jak Snide]

My past argument for Sta != TP seems flawed in light of FD's comment. It'd also be nice for fighters who invest in Stamina to get something else out of it. As for Courage, I'm at a quandary. While it does seem like a stat that should affect TP it also affect a whole bunch of other stuff already, and I remember people calling it an uber stat from before.

As for the Dex/Agi merge, I like it and don't like it for the same reasons Neb does. Makes things easier on the martial characters, but Dex=/=Agility. Using an example from real life, the gamer; dexterity comes into using a keyboard/controller and coordinating their actions with what's going on. This doesn't mean pro-gamers can compete in the Olympics, though. Dex and Agi are tied in ways, but they're far from the same thing. Thinking more, though, feats of agility generally require dexterity for careful footing/hand placement/etc. So a merge called Agi rather than Dex would be better, although the difference is only in name. =P

[s]Two Handed Weapon fighting was there to make powerful two handed weapons more of a biggy to use. In retrospect, though, it's stupid and should be axed. You use a two handed weapon and you sacrifice using your off hand for a shield/extra weapon/countless other stuff that might pop up in combat.

New Dex/Agi requirements for Two Weapon Fighting suits me fine, as does axing ambidexterity. At the moment two weapon fighters need to invest double the skill points that a normal fighter does for that extra offhand attack. Removing AT penalties for armour also appeals to me, because, as you said, at the moment almost nobody uses heavy armours. A recently made 2nd gen character took a new support skill just lessen the huge penalties of wearing plate.

As for Light/Medium/Heavy, I've been using that for a while already for simply cosmetic reasons. Sadly, the equipment stats still reflect the old system, and thus spears can only perform "light" attacks, so that'll need a work-over.

As for un-fixing magic, I'm partially in agreement. Anyone who frequently uses magic is going to be more and more at home with it. On the other hand, ability for magic is something that many people aren't born with in Gaera. So someone upping their magic from 1 to 2 shouldn't be that big a deal, but someone going from 0 to 1 should be impossible if they're magically blunt, or take a whole lot of training and effort if they have magical potential but just haven't tapped into it yet.

[Archmage144]

Part of the reason for the DEX/AGI merge is a result of the fact that the vast majority of characters almost completely ignore DEX because it does nothing, currently, aside from affect max missile weapon rank and rogue-type skills, which few people actually seem to use anyway. A lot of other systems don't differentiate between the two explicitly, and it just seems like a good idea.

The other drawback to two-handed weapons is that they generally have heavier penalties as others, so eliminating that skill makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.

The issue with COU affecting as many things as it does is a potentially troublesome situation--at current it affects AT/PA, initiative, and magic resistance. However, a fighter with high COU won't actually do all that much damage compared to a fighter with high STR, and its usefulness in skills is generally limited to weapon skills, whereas DEX is required for a lot of support skills. So far, I'm inclined to think it'll work out alright.

One idea, on that note, might be to eliminate or reduce the effect of COU on your initiative bonus. In any case, actual speed (DEX) should be weighted more heavily than willingness to fight for most combat situations. However, I always thought of a fighter who specialized in COU as being a more defensive, tricky combatant and a fighter who specialized in STR as being a heavy hitter. Of course, you could always make COU and STR both high, ignoring DEX, but that shoots your ability to invest in multiple weapon fighting skills or any defensive support skills. If you're going to cut back its effect at all, it should be in the initiative department--otherwise, it ought to stay as it is for the most part. If we eliminate or reduce that benefit, it's really on par with STR as far as how "useful" it is.

What Jak said about magic, more or less.

And the issue of the old equipment list reminds me of the fact that a lot of changes are going to have to be made by updating the documentation available on the site, or at the very least updating the information available somewhere. I think retroactively updating character sheets should always be the responsibility of the player, though, since now we store them in the character closet and not on RPGWW. <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center"></div>

</p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=archmage144>Archmage144</A]&nbsp; at: 4/13/05 15:44

[FlamingDeth]

Here's an idea. Make it so that if on levelup someone wants to go from 0 MAG to 1 MAG, they have to make both their stat rolls. Maybe.

Also, I don't see COU as making someone defensive and tricky. I tend to go with INT + AGI being defensive and tricky, with COU + STR being Axegore the Crushinator. <p>
<hr width="70%"><center>
This month's "Transformer of the Month" is Grimlock in a Santa hat! He's quite jolly.</center></p>

[Idran1701]

Except given the current stat check rules, you'd have an instant success trying to boost 0 MAG on the primary check, so you'd need to do something about that as well. <p>

---

"Never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
</p>

[Jak Snide]

I'd honestly just prefer it if the character took some time out to get tutored by a mage, or teach themselves or something similar, rather than "Ding, I know magic!"

[Archmage144]

Surely, it would require some sort of IC explanation as to why the character realized their magical potential.

Also, when I said defensive, I meant more "strong-willed." The defensive aspect relates primarily to resisting spells. I suppose that in the nature of the true witty trickster, you would indeed want INT for the extra skill points and other benefits (and it does provide some magic resistance, just not as much as COU).

At some point today I'm going to outline all of the proposed changes and see if there's anything else we might want to do before we settle on a set of potential changes for this revision--though of course, more things can change in the future. Maybe someday we'll hammer the kinks out of this system a little better than we have been able to do so previously.

[Jak Snide]

Ducky thinks of stuff that skipped my mind! Yes, discovery of a character's potential to use magic would be needed, rather than just "y'know, with magic I could buff my weapon real good!"

[Uncle Pervy]

I have a character (Tristan) with whom I have "staggered MAG". What I did was spent the points ahead of time, and started him on zero MAG. Then, I let his MAG raise as appropriate actions and plot points occured.

Why shall be explained in time, but that's how I've run someone realizing their magic potential. <p>---------------------------

Your are not supposed to be reading this!</p>

[FlamingDeth]

I'm doing that with a character that I'm making now. However, it would still be nice to use all the points at creation, and being able to raise MAG would also be helpful if you didn't plan on whichever character being a mage from the begining. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't plan my characters ahead any further than their current level -- you never know what sort of interactions and the like they'll have, and how it'll affect them. <p>
<hr width="70%"><center>
This month's "Transformer of the Month" is Grimlock in a Santa hat! He's quite jolly.</center></p>

[Uncle Pervy]

Generally, if a character is learning magic, it makes more sense to raise their ranks in the magic skill as opposed to MAG. In my case, it's an unlocking process of sorts due to the fact his MAG was repressed. (Thus no benefits MAG gives outside of raw spell use, like astral sensatitivity.) <p>---------------------------

Your are not supposed to be reading this!</p>

[Archmage144]

And why can't level-up increases represent that unlocking process? Magic skill and aptitude are completely different--it's like a musician who sits down with a flute for the first time and can produce wonderful sounds versus the guy who spends a year trying and can't get the instrument to make a sound.

If a character's magical aptitude is latent or unrealized, and this comes out over the course of his or her development, his player should have the opportunity to raise the stat later on to represent such. He should not be penalized and forced to spend his character creation points on a stat that will do nothing for him simply because he wants his character to have latent power that is discovered later.

Phil's original statement on increasing MAG was that it should not be "increasable by normal means." That just means that you have to have some justification for why you're increasing it. It does not mean that MAG was intended to be 100% static or that you need to invent some weird, twisted rules regarding handling its increase. In general, the more universal the rules can be, the better. <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center"></div>

</p>

[Uncle Pervy]

It was tailored to my situation; and I would do it if MAG were normally raisable as I don't want to wait for level ups to have it happen (Mostly due to a plot tie-in). I do think it's a good alternative means, though.

<p>---------------------------

Your are not supposed to be reading this!</p>

[Archmage144]

I am generally opposed to the idea of having to make up new rules that only apply to one character, but it's not the first time one of your characters has had something like that happen. In any case, what you did was fine, but I want a generally accessible rule anyway.

Certain changes:

•Incorporate AGI and DEX into one stat, DEX. 18 stat points at creation. Existing characters add their scores together and subtract 3 points (from anywhere).
•Extra attacks are gained at weapon skill rank 8 for light weapons, 12 for medium weapons, and 14 for heavy weapons.
•The maximum cap for skills is now (base stats + 6).
•Change terminology of thrust/slash/chop to light/medium/heavy. Potentially include attack type damages for weapons that previously lack them (like a "heavy" attack for a spear).
•MAG stat is now increasable. Obviously, this still needs a plot reason/explanation. The success roll to increase MAG from 0 to 1 automatically succeeds with plot justification.
•[s]Two-Handed Weapons is now eliminated. The only thing needed to wield a two-handed weapon effectively is the appropriate skill.
•Ambidexterity is eliminated. Two-Weapon Fighting <Dex/Dex/Str> now covers the maximum effective rank for an off-hand weapon.
•Armor no longer has any AT penalty, except for certain very large and cumbersome shields.
•Official addition to the rules: Double the PA penalty of any armor worn is applied to any spellcasting rolls.

Changes open to debate:

•TP at first level is now equal to (COU+STA)*3. TP gained per level is equal to STA + 1d4.
•Initiative is now DEX + (COU/2) + 2d6. Fractions are rounded down.
<p>

---

<div style="text-align:center"></div>

</p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=archmage144>Archmage144</A]&nbsp; at: 4/13/05 20:46

[Archmage144]

You know, if we're going to make these revisions permanent and incorporate them into Philsys, perhaps we should make some sort of formal agreement and then post/edit the character closet stuff about "Philsys 2.0?" <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center"></div>

</p>

[JasonAB17]

Rather than converting my character from 1 to 2, I'm just goign to restart his sheet for 2. Most of my other characters don't have the problem of being above level 1/2 for this...

In the meantime, I'm waiting for someone to step up and say it's tiem for these changes to be official. <p><div style="text-align:center"></div></p>

[FlamingDeth]

It's time for these changes to be official! <p>
<hr width="70%">This month's "Transformer of the Month" is Grimlock in a Santa hat! He's quite jolly.</p>

[JasonAB17]

Kay.

Edit: I see no obvious problems with the adjustments to TP and Init. I'm makign a character sheet righht now to use an an example of how a level 1 character in the new system looks, with the changes open to debate. I'll edit this with said character soon.

Edit 2: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=jasonab17>JasonAB17</A]&nbsp; at: 4/19/05 14:54
[/i]

[Archmage144]

I'm going to unsticky the goofy "Philsys 2.0" thread in the character closet that is now full of inaccurate rules and replace it with something else as soon as possible. In addition, one plaintext post is not sufficient for Philsys--there are too many rules to cross-reference, and too many things to list. The core rule mechanics should not include the rules for status effects, scrolls, or whatever else in the same post. Philsys really needs a website or hotlinks that let you go wherever you want. If Philsys should be posted, in condensed format, somewhere in the character closet, all it should contain is the character creation steps.

Also, I wouldn't go calling this Philsys 2.0. It's not a total overhaul, it's minor rule revisions that are an overall improvement. At most, it's like Philsys 1.3 or something, and depending who you ask, Philsys as a "game" is still in alpha or beta stages...

Edit: I also want to start making some of the rules "harder." Technically, all rules are suggestions, but I'm going to stop stating that with every rules variant in hopes that all PS GMs will come to use the same, mostly-consistent rules (if they don't already).

Edit the second: Dear God, when did I define a combat round as a minute of real time? Did I even do that? I mean, damn, Philsys is cinematic, but seriously. At most, each character's individual action should take no more than a few seconds...going to have to rethink that one. Maybe each combat action takes 3 seconds?

Edit the third: Some compatibility issues in GMing styles prompt me to wonder about things like magical items or item creation abilities. How should item creation abilities work in Philsys to ensure that no player can arbitrarily decide that his character has made a billion longswords of firey death?

Edit the fourth: I think falling damage for "30 feet" needs to be reduced so it isn't necessarily fatal. It should hurt, but people can and do survive 30 foot falls as long as it isn't onto cement face-first or something. 40 foot falls might not be instakills with this revision--50 foot falls, however, will be.

Edit the last, I swear: Delaying initiative shouldn't give a +2 bonus except in specific circumstances. The penalties for being wounded (among other things) should be hard, fast, and consistent--GM improvisation is still allowed (obviously), but there should be a table or other reference guide for determining exactly what bad things happen to you when you're being wounded. Talking to players and GMs, I hear some weird things about GM inconsistencies when it comes to assigning penalties to things like fighting blind, being in critical HP status, or having a broken arm. <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center"></div>

</p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=archmage144>Archmage144</A]&nbsp; at: 4/19/05 16:27

[Uncle Pervy]

Hmmm. I'd ask Kelne on that issue. He plays one of the few active enchanters.

In the case of Inverse, who possesses a quantity of disposable healing potions, I generally go with what's on my sheet, usually after asking the GM (If there's too many for the GM's taste, I can generaly chalk it up to a shortage/they were used earlier and not yet restocked). <p>---------------------------

Your are not supposed to be reading this!</p>

[JasonAB17]

What I'd heard so far was that things like potion created inside of an RP were generally dispensed after the RP was over, whether ICly used or not.

I've never actually seen someone make a magical weapon in PS before to comment, but I'd say that it should be expensive, require in RP aquisition of the materials required, and then when/if it's successfully made, it has to be marked on your sheet. If you want to use it in another RP, it has to be on your sheet at the begining of the RP. .. Generally speaking, I think people are mature enough not to abuse this. o.o <p><div style="text-align:center"></div></p>

[Archmage144]

Yeah, this has never been an issue before, but I'm considering how it might be beneficial to standardize things like character inventories. I don't think keeping track of individual character monetary wealth is necessarily required, but we ought to consider it. I'm taking a leaf out of D&D's book here, but what I've been doing lately is making parallels between the two systems and trying to improve Philsys based on things D&D (as well as other systems, like GURPS) does right while trying to avoid the mistakes I find in those systems at the same time.

As far as enchanting goes, two of my characters are enchanters, so I know it's not just Kelne's one character that has the ability to do so. The idea of it being "expensive" is meaningless in Philsys as a function of almost no characters having defined wealth--calling something "expensive" means that characters that have been vaguely defined as "wealthy" can afford it and everyone else cannot.

Personal notes thus far with regard to comparisons:

In GURPS and D&D, characters have a specific amount of money to spend on gear at creation depending on GM whim/character level/setting. Philsys guidelines are "be reasonable"--this is no problem, really.

In GURPS and D&D, character equipment and inventories have a huge impact on an individual session. Did the GURPS Cyberpunk ninja hacker bring his night vision goggles, or did he forget them at home, not wanting to bother with the weight? Does the D&D wizard have his spellbook, or did the bard bring his harp of charming? In Philsys, equipment is almost always largely irrelevent. Few characters have detailed inventories, and few players keep track of them. Characters are assumed to have needed items unless there is some reason they shouldn't. Players have no need to keep track of monetary awards--usually, there either are none, or there is no reason to bother since there is generally no standard list of items to buy or opportunity to spend the money in the first place.

In D&D in particular, magical weapons, armor, and other stat-enhancing trinkets make the difference between winning and losing. Characters are expected to be equipped appropriately for their character level, or they will struggle in combat and in overcoming other challenges, as they will lack necessary tools or be too weak to defeat opponents for their designated level. In Philsys, such items are largely irrelevant in most cases. GMs either ignore them or only distribute magic items with very minor effects. No magic item has a great impact on a character's strength, and since challenges are scaled by the GM to meet the players instead of by selecting monsters from a list supposedly fair for the level of the PCs, there is no issue of characters being "too weak for their level." Character growth is supposed to take place via levelling.

In Philsys, emphasis is on making sense, devising interesting characters, and looking awesome by means of creative fighting styles and magic spells. In GURPS, emphasis is on making sense, devising interesting characters, and playing them within their abilities in an entertaining manner. In D&D, rulebook emphasis is on gradually becoming powerful and looking awesome by using the system to do so as rapidly as possible, but roleplaying is encouraged, and the GM should continue to encourage it.

So, to compare the three systems in a nutshell:

D20/D&D: Rules are structured more like an actual game than a storytelling system. Character class and alignment "stereotypes" can be used to define characters, or can be largely ignored if appropriate. These facts do not impair RP in any way if the players are encouraged to roleplay and want to do so in the first place.

GURPS: Rules are structured to create very complex characters for storytelling purposes. Characters are at least partially defined by chosen abilities and flaws that are worked into the numerical backbone of the system. Encourages RP, penalizes players for not roleplaying disadvantages and using them solely as a means to earn points.

Philsys: Rules are structured to create complex characters for storytelling purposes. Most character definition happens off-sheet and outside of the boundaries of the system, and a character's numerical skills and abilities are intended to represent their boundaries accurately with as few constraints as possible. Game balance is secondary to faithful reproductions of character concepts. Encourages RP if GM does.

Some problems:

Tracking character wealth and inventories in Philsys is a nightmare, because it generally means tracking a character's acquisitions outside of PS RPs as well, unless the character is solely constrained to Philsys RP sessions. Players can designate arbitrary amounts of gear as long as they seem reasonable, which means some characters are filthy rich or have access to vast resources without consequence (Hakaril, Aya, Pervy, King Charles, more or less anyone else who works for Doma Castle). Limiting characters to what they earn in PS RPs makes sense (and is what is basically done), but violates some logical tenets. Without standard buy lists or prices for goods and services, character wealth is worthless anyway.

Anyone have thoughts? <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center"></div>

</p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=archmage144>Archmage144</A]&nbsp; at: 4/19/05 16:55

[JasonAB17]

There are actually a few jobs where salary amounts have been thought up. Last I heard, wokring in the guard earned you a wage of 35 Gil or some such... Though I can't recall whether this wage was weekly or monthly. Since that comes to about $17.50, I'd like to think it was per day, but it doesn't sound that way.

Pervy did make a social monetary standing chart a while back, which could be used for this. Just remember once a month to update your character's wealth. The system accounts for your personal physical requirements, and states what amount of play money you should have left over afterwards.

Then all you need to do is while you're modifying the equipment list, add some sort of monetary value to equipment pieces. Then, if someone wants to buy something in a CI... ... That's when it gets fuzzy I suppose. The problem here is that while we're all mature enough to handle this properly, you want us to look at this with a more concrete set up to ensure no one cheats.

Which, by definition, really demands that no one can buy anything in a CI. Because there's no being certain that someone won't say "Yes, I have the 5,000,000,000 gil requried for this weapon! Here you go shop keep!" When we all know that it's a load of crap, and this person will never update the subtraction from his/her funds. The only environment that really works in even 90% is in real time, face to face, constantly GMed RP done with pencil, paper and dice. :{

Edit: About Lockpicking. I have no problem with the skill being used as any other skill is used. However, I'm curious as to whether or not the quality of your lock picking materials is considered. There's a big difference between having a few sticks to work with, and having a specially made metal rod with slots carved into it to trip commonly placed tumblers.

SIMILARLY: Has anyone taken trapped locks into consideration?

Finally: Are we still using the concept of Agi (now Dex) based enhancement of your number of attacks in combat? Or are we going purely with the skill based enhancements you list above? <p><div style="text-align:center"></div></p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=jasonab17>JasonAB17</A]&nbsp; at: 4/19/05 17:35

[Archmage144]

Purely skill-based. There is no reason to incorporate DEX directly into the attack formula. D&D doesn't do it, GURPS doesn't do it (GURPS technically doesn't even allow for multiple attacks except in cinematic games), and the max skill rank is based at least partially on your DEX anyway, which means that your DEX does affect how good you can be at multiple weapon attacks. Incorporating it just creates too complex a mathematical formula for simple usage, and it doesn't correct the damage issues for fighters unless you either have very high STR or very high DEX. The last attempt at determining multiple attacks made me sick as a result of it having approximately eight numbers. Also, I think I'll go ahead and go with the idea that you can trade one of those extra attacks for an extra parry roll instead.

A GM should definitely assess a penalty for lockpicking without proper tools. As I previously mentioned, though, most characters would be assumed to have them unless there were some reason they wouldn't. Given that for a skill check, 10 is easy and 20 is harder, with the average first level character being assumed to achieve about a +12, I'd suggest that lockpicking without proper tools result in a penalty of -4 or more. Shouldn't necessarily need special generic rules for trapped locks.

Back to money: The passage of time in Gaera is not a standard thing. Sometimes we record it in real time, referencing things that happened in a CI a week ago as having happened in real time in game. Sometimes we skip weeks or even months of RP time, and what the characters did in interim is anyone's guess. I also seem to remember timelapsing the "present" several months at one point. Since time itself is not standardized, monthly income, likewise, cannot be standardized.

You'd like to think guards make $17.50 a day? That's not exactly historically accurate, if you want to poke at that sort of thing, but that's a digression that's largely irrelevent. Most laborers in the past couple centuries were lucky if they could afford one or two basic meals a day, and last I checked, your average tavern meal in Gaera only costs a few dollars. That sort of accuracy/realism, however, is almost completely unimportant to me, so that's just a minor note.

Quote:

---

The only environment that really works in even 90% is in real time, face to face, constantly GMed RP done with pencil, paper and dice. :{

---

This is not entirely true.

It does not have to be face-to-face--net RP works just as well. Less mature gamers than ourselves participate in online D&D campaigns and are honest about their equipment and wealth. CI can take place (with no rules or pencil and paper) without any issue as long as no one buys their +4 sword of stabberings in a CI RP without marking it on their PS sheet. CI happens during PS RPs--the two are not wholly divorced concepts. Characters are the same people whether or not their sheets are being used to represent them.

I would like to and do intend to edit the equipment list to remove some of the completely fucked up items Phil stuck in there (WTF is a catchogre, anyway?), as well as assigning some basic prices. What becomes complicated is the issue of items beyond the basic longsword or robes. What happens if a player wants to buy a magic sword, or a protective amulet, or a decanter of endless water? Should this be impossible without GM consent? And if so, which GMs can give consent? Isn't everyone potentially a GM? If we as a community are going to decide that magical equipment is simply not a part of our RP, so be it. But that seems contradictory to past behavior, because I know I've given out several magical items--daggers, rings, amulets, staves, a couple of swords, wands, potions, crowns, robes, whatever. Somewhere I have a list of every item I've ever awarded in an RP, but it's not necessary to dig that out right now. What the issue here is is that the current system reduces player inventories and magical gadgetry to items that they are explicitly given by the GM. They cannot go out and buy anything on their own, either because GMs rarely if ever give out monetary rewards (raw treasure) or because it's impossible to keep track of how much money characters should have.

Is there a solution to this problem? Or is the solution to just ignore the existence of magical gadgetry outside of items awarded specifically by a GM, even if a character ought to logically be able to buy a magic sword at the local wizard-owned armory? <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center"></div>

</p>

[Uncle Pervy]

I've always protrayed enchanted weapons as being fairly hard to make, and thus expensive enough that buying one is fairly pricey.

However, I also tend to see it like this: if a wizard is going to sell something, why would they make adventuring items? A self-lighting stove is going to have more of a market than a mace +3, if only because more people have a use for the former.

So the way I've seen it is that adventuring-specific stuff is fairly hard to get off the shelf. It's something that, I think, would usually have to be self-made or special ordered. Healing potions proliferate, for instance, not because adventurers use them, but because people in general have a use for them. People in general don't have a use for an amulet that protects from dark magic (Some Domans may argue against that, though :K).

I'm curious as to Kelne's approach to this. I know his character actively enchants his own gear from time to time.

<p>---------------------------

Your are not supposed to be reading this!</p>

[Idran1701]

Quote:

---

(WTF is a catchogre, anyway?)

---

Apparantly, it's a weapon from a game called Realms of Arkania II. <p>

---

"Never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
</p>

[JasonAB17]

The thing is, it's easily possible not only to have substandard equipment for locking, it's also entirely possible to have equipment that's specialized for an occasion, or is simply better than what you would find on Average. I've just thinking about the possibility of equipment that confers bonuses, instead of just recieving penalties for not having appropriate equipment.

After reading the Dex reply a few times, I think I understand. Although the new formula doesn't include anything like 8 numbers, I'll go with the new system of simply using skills.

I still feel that you're not going to get a fair, balanced system going for the sale and use of magic items outside of a GMed RP, but then you seem to already have made up your mind on the issue.

And while we haven't had any time jumps since... what, The Hit? If we have no real concept of time in Gaera, then we really can't have a real concept of regular income.

Finally, about Guard's wages: Admittedly, I hadn't accounted for the standard of living difference, since today if I made romethign in the range of 18 dollars a day, I'd either need to steal to live or starve/die of exposure/what have you. You seem to have alot of confounding variables for how our recognition of Monetary value in Gaera is really meaningless though, since thus far everyone I've talked to has been assuming that the dollar value, once converted, translates over directly. That does include meal prices, by the way.

Edit: I managed to read your post jsut after you made it, but got pulled off. Didn't get to hit send until just now. <p><div style="text-align:center"></div></p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=jasonab17>JasonAB17</A]&nbsp; at: 4/19/05 20:46

[Archmage144]

Idran explains the question that's been puzzling me forever.

I figure that in a world where people do a lot of fighting, especially in frontier towns (fending off demons or bandits or dragoons or whatever), there're probably a fair number of magical weapons. I agree with you on the idea that the market for items that have more domestic purposes is definitely larger in terms of audience, but those items aren't really going to be any easier to make. Presumably, they're going to be equally expensive. Some of the more common potions might not even require magic to make (just alchemical know-how), and as a result, they'd be relatively inexpensive.

Also, RPing is not concerned, generally speaking, with the lives of the commonfolk--it is concerned with the lives of adventurers. And while there might not be a Gaera-Mart where you can walk in and pick from dozens of enchanted blades right off the shelf, the market for magic weapons and armor extends beyond the adventurer and into the realm of the military. While most conscripts will use very cheap weapons, and ranking guardsmen will likely have very well made (but not usually magical) weapons, officers, ranking knights, and various other members of an army might have enchanted stuff. Plus, there are probably specialty shops that do sell or have comparatively large stocks of fairly generic magic weaponry for the discriminating customer. Likewise, there are probably pawn shops that claim to hock magical weaponry for cheap that are simply selling dummy items to uneducated townsmen (which would be the kind of scam Hakaril would be the first to crack down on as soon as he found out about it).

So yes, it's hypothetically more practical to fixate on the simple stuff, but it's more exciting to talk about enchanted gear in terms of shiny armor and flashing blades and boots that let you walk on the ceiling. Until you get into the really crazy powerful stuff, I'd imagine that most of it isn't honestly all that hard to make (in fact, easy weapons and armor might only take a few days if the enchanter puts all his effort into it according to the Enchant Philsys spell, which Hakaril has on his sheet). <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center"></div>

</p>