Class vs. Classless - question

[Deleted]

hi. i really love this system. i'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the quasi-classless-ness of the rules. i actually sent an email to George Dew (from the fantasy trip website) asking for clarifications before i found these forums. i apologize to George for sending that email when these forums exist.

so, after reading through some posts here, i think i'm understanding the intent of the rules. the intent is to be classless. however, one class still exists, the mage. i like the intent but the rules really need to spell this out better to avoid confusing new-comers. i do understand the desire to refrain from calling 'non-mages' Heroes, Warriors, Fighter, or the like because those names imply traits that the character may not necessarily posses. In the case of Hero, it implies the character is a do-gooder and that isn't necessarily true. In the case of Warrior, it implies the character relies on his/her combat skills to survive, which may be untrue if they actually rely on stealth and cunning. The same applies for Fighter. I would suggest calling them Adventurers, but Mages are also adventurers.

assuming that i have finally read between the lines of the rules correctly, here's my grasp of the rules concerning character types/classes:

there are 2 general character classes: Mages and (for lack of a better name) Non-mages. A mage specializes in the study and use of magic. They learn spells easier than non-mages, cannot wear metal armor while casting spells, and may use staves or wands to mitigate fatigue from spell-casting. Other characters may learn spells for a higher XP cost but they cannot use staves or wands. However, they can cast spells while wearing metal armor.

is that last sentence correct?

[mister frau blucher]

Hello, ewookie, welcome to the boards!

I see where the language of "Metal" under magic would lead you think about the last sentence, but no, no character may cast a spell while wearing metal armor. In that sentence, "mage" is used generically, meaning anyone casting a spell.

It can be a bit confusing coming from a class-based system to wrap your head around. Since i played TFT and D&D at the same time, it never threw me, but i knew plenty of people that had trouble with it.

However, from your summation above, you seem to understand it perfectly except for that last sentence.

Bret

[Deleted]

finally thought of some decent wording concerning the 2 types of characters (Mages and Non-mages)...

There are 2 types of characters: Mages and Mavericks.

The definition I found most to my liking of Maverick is from Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maverick):
Maverick or Maverik may refer to:

• Maverick (animal), an unbranded range animal, derived from U.S. cattleman Samuel Maverick
  
• Dissenter, one that refuses to abide by the dictates of a group.
  

I think both definitions are equally applicable in LAW. As a previously unlabeled character type, the Maverick was unbranded. As a character type unbound by any specific class rules regarding their actions or development, the Maverick does not abide by the dictates or rules of any one group or class. However, this does not prevent a Maverick from allying himself or forming an allegiance with a particular group, nor does it prevent a Maverick from one day adopting the rules and customs of a particular order, guild, or other such unified group within a particular campaign setting.

In truth, Mages are Mavericks with a talent and predisposition for the use of the magical arts.

[klingor]

Hi,
TFT and LAW are set in an environment where magic exists.
I simply think of them as Mages and Non-Mages. A Mage is a character whose player has decided that his pre-adventuring upbringing has been directed towards learning magic, at the expense of spending time in rough-and-tumble games and sports. Consequently, he finds it easier to acquire skills which require mental, rather than physical, dexterity. This comes from a study of the language of magic - Sorceror's Tongue - which all Mage characters have. They start with spells rather than skills because their childhood mentors were also Mages and that was what the mentors knew how to teach.
Non-mages did not go down this path. They spent their childhood and adolescence in a more worldly environment so developed an aptitude for learning physically based talents.
In our world, if you have been learning a second language since you were 7, it is much easier to pick up a new language at 17. This is how I see the difference between Mages and Non-Mages, and why they start with spells instead of skills and have different XP costs to acquire the same thing.
Cheers
Colin

[Deleted]

i agree, colin. i just like having a term for non-mages other than non-mages or 'the nameless ones'

[klingor]

Hi, I get your point.
In that case, what about Arcane and Mundane?
Both character tracks have access to and can learn, all the skills/talents/spells that are available to each.
The difference is that some areas are easier to learn for Arcanes then Mundanes and vice versa. Some areas are equally easy, as they combine both Arcane and Mundane concepts to master them, it is simply that to get the skill, Arcanes have to learn as many Mundane aspects of it as Mundanes have to master Arcane aspects.
The bottom line, to my mind, is how the player wants that character to have his upbringing. Is it primarily based on mental development at the expense of physical prowess or is it primarily based on awareness of the physical world and how things work at the expense of a deeper understanding of why things work.
As long as every skill/talent/spell is available to every character without preconditions then it is fair to all, and as long as no path has an advantage in one area without a corresponding disadvantage in another then the rules are equitable.
Cheers
Colin

[Deleted]

i think the rules as they are, are very equitable. your Arcane and Mundane terminology is very similar to something i thought of before Mages and Mavericks...Mages and Commoners. i didn't like the Commoners tag because i don't think any 'adventurer' would be considered common in their world. i really don't like Mundane either for those reasons but that's just my opinion. in my mind, Mundane implies there is nothing special or different about them from the common-folk. i guess Mages and Adventurers would do just as well as Mages and Mavericks but it doesn't sound as catchy then again, Mages and Adventurers is only a shade different than saying Mages and Characters, which is only a capital 'C' different than how the rules are already worded.
i guess i'm being pedantic. i do get obsessive-compulsive sometimes. for some reason, it would really bother me if someone asked me 'what kind of character do you have?' and i have to say 'its not a mage.' or 'its a non-mage'. i get really frustrated when someone asks me a question and i know the answer but i don't know the word/words for the answer. without words, knowledge (answers) cannot be transferred. it can only be demonstrated, which takes much more time.

[mister frau blucher]

This is an interesting discussion. I played D&D as much as TFT back then. It doesn't bug me much, but I can see why many would like things better defined.

As far as what to call your non-magical character, I usually just go with an archetype. A purely combat dude is a warrior, a warrior who has naturalist skills is a ranger, a guy who makes his living in the shadows is a thief or rogue, a mage or non-mage with healing skills/spells is a healer, etc.

This terminology certainly parallels the class concept, but is not as limited.

Not sure this helps, ewookie!

Bret

[Deleted]

that works well in the context of in-game role-playing but when you want to know what kind of character someone is in order to apply the correct rule...seems kind of confusing.
i do realize i'm being pedantic though, so i'm going to bite my tongue on this matter and bare the pain it causes me. the problem resides in me.

[Lord Inar]

I think "hero" was often used, although that implies that Mages aren't heroes!

[Deleted]

i think i already discussed 'hero'...but i'm way over this hangup of mine now. i do think something should be done about it though. i felt like i was missing part of the rules concerning character creation (as in, there was a page missing) until i found these forums...but i get it now.

i'm cool with things the way they are...but here's what i've decided i would do to help newcomers get a grip on the game...

i would go ahead and create classes. the common practices of party creation already support this. a typical party is described as '2 melee/brawlers, 1 archer, and 1 mage'. this is completely off-the-cuff so i'm sure it would need a little refinement...but i would try to categorize the existing skills according to class: fighter, thief, ranger, mage, and general. all classes learn general skills at 10 XP. fighters learn fighter skills (combat skills) at 10 XP and all other skills at 20 XP. thief learns thief skills at 10 XP and all other skills at 20 XP. mages learn spells at 10 XP and skills at 20 XP (nothing changes here) etc. etc.

there would also be a 'rogue' class that sort of mimics the current 'non-mage' class. all skills/spells (including general) cost 15 XP for a rogue.

[Lord Inar]

Jul 17, 2012 10:05:20 GMT -5 @ewookie said:

i think i already discussed 'hero'...but i'm way over this hangup of mine now.

Oops, yeah, I missed that. The Rogue sounds expensive, everything costs 1.5 times as much as it does for a specialist in either class, who usually take one or at most two skills/spells out of their realm.

I had toyed with a Generalist skill where each rank you take in it allows you to take two skills/spells without paying double.
i.e., if you're only taking 1, it's probably not worth it, but if you want two, then it drops the cost of each to roughly 15 xp each. You have to take another round of Generalist to get two more skills/spells at cost.

Of course it's been a while since I made characters for LoAW, and I am notorious for conflating two or more game systems, so this may not work.

[Lord Inar]

Also a Region could have Generalist as a "home" skill, so it could cost 1 pt less.

[Deleted]

Oops, yeah, I missed that. The Rogue sounds expensive, everything costs 1.5 times as much as it does for a specialist in either class, who usually take one or at most two skills/spells out of their realm.

i would have to disagree with that. yes, the general skills (climbing, riding, swimming, charisma, leadership, etc.) would cost more for the rogue than any other class...but the rogue could learn fighter, thief, and ranger skills cheaper than other characters not in that class. also, (and i think this is big) the rogue learns spells at 15 XP instead of 20 XP.

EDIT: literacy and sorcerer's tongue must be learned before spells.

i took me a couple of minutes but i think i figured out your Generalist and Generalist skill concept. if i'm correct, you and i had very different ideas about the 'general skills'. i hope the previous paragraph gives an adequate illustration of what i had in mind.

as far as region (or race and culture) goes, i would leave that sort of thing to campaign specific rules...which should definitely include such things.

[Deleted]

here's a quick and dirty rundown of how i'd divide the skills:

EDITED after giving more thought...

Fighter Skills
Axe Mastery (hatchet, axe, battle-axe)
Bow Mastery
Club Mastery (clubs, maces, staves, etc.)
Dagger Mastery
Pole-arm Mastery
Sling Mastery
Sword Mastery
Unarmed Mastery
Tactician

Thief Skills
Acrobat
Stalker
Stealth
Locks
Thievery
Traps
Streetwise
Merchant

Ranger Skills
Survival
Tracker
Animal Handler
Herbalist
Medic

Mage Skills
Sorcerer’s Tongue
Literacy
Alchemist
Scholar
(spells)

General Skills
Climbing
Riding
Swimming
Charisma
Diplomacy
Leadership
Dwarvish
Elvish
Orcish
Bard
Crafts
Driver
Sailor

CHARACTERS
New characters start with ST8, DX8, IQ8, and eight discretionary points (32 total). Fighters start with 2 points of Fighter Skills and 2 points of any other skills. Thieves start with 2 points of Thief Skills and 2 points of any other skills. Rangers start with 2 points of Ranger Skills and 2 points of any other skills. Magi start with 4 points of Mage Skills or Spells.

Advancement
A character raises his ST/DX/IQ one point by spending XP equal to the next level. Fighters, Thieves, and Rangers raise a skill one point by spending 10XP. They spend 20XP to learn a spell. A Mage spends 10XP to learn a spell and 20XP to raise a skill.

MAGIC
A mage character casts a spell by passing 3/IQ (see Magic Tables). He casts a direct spell by winning IQ against his target. He can only cast spells he knows and are rated his IQ or less. A mage character cannot cast spells while he is grappling.
Direct Spells
A direct spell is a spell cast directly upon a person. A magic user character, being taken down, can cast a direct spell or a magic strike as his counterattack.

Fatigue
A magic user character suffers fatigue upon successfully casting a spell (see Injury & Exhaustion).

Metal
Excessive metal interferes with magic. Mages Characters in metal armor cannot cast spells.

---
NOTE that after editing this, there is no Rogue class. The rules of character creation and advancement are exactly the same. The only difference is how the skills are categorized. Fighter, Thief, and Ranger are just labels that 'trick' a newcomer into 'specializing' the skill-sets of new characters. It's really just a 'jedi mind-trick' of words.
I have included re-wording of passages from the MAGIC section of the rules also. It was my lack of experience with a 'classless' system and the wording of the MAGIC section that really had my head spinning when I was a complete 'newbie' to LAW. My changes and additions are marked by strikethroughs and underlines.

EDIT2:
Actually, you really wouldn't _have_ to re-categorize the skills...
Fighters get 2 Combat Skills and 2 of any other
Thieves get 2 Thief and 2 of any other
Rangers get 2 Survival and 2 of any other
Mages get 4 of any skill or spells.