Topic: Musings about Base Lists in RMU

[Thot]

Base lists in RMU are a curious thing. They are the only feature that is encouraged to be severely limited in accessibility. Everything else you can learn (with one other exception, which is other realms of magic), but Base Lists are supposed to be rather inaccessible to other professions.

I find this a bit odd - so much so that I sometimes think Base lists should just be regular Closed Lists, and the choice of Base lists should be entirely up to the individual character: By selecting 6  lists among all the Closed and Base lists of their realm(s).

But even if you want to keep the concept of Base lists as exclusive things: If you use the profession creation rules in Core Law, you can make, say, a Semi spell caster that has no base lists, and just pays 4 aptitude levels less in Closed lists and Open Lists. A Paladin-based profession of such a type would pay maybe 3/4 for Open and 3/5 for Closed Channeling lists, or even learn Open at 1/3.

Or you could even make a Magician Without Base Lists who learns all the Closed Essence lists at 1/2, as well as Ritual Magic at 1/2.

Such possibilities are fascinating to me. Especially as it allows for a lot of additional variety in the professions without having to balance new base lists. And they do make more sense to me than the concept of base lists as we have it, from an in-universe point of view.

[jdale]

I'm running a customized setting with different realms and different spell lists (although many are based closely on the SL lists). So, originally rather than constructing base lists, I just gave all magic-using professions free choice of 6 base lists. Personally, I do not recommend this. It really only takes one base list to get most of the combat functionality of a magician, and similarly for whatever other functions you want. You get a big power boost for your spellcasters while the real functional differences between them start to disappear. And by power, I mean both that they are more potent and also, more importantly, they step on a lot more toes overshadowing the roles of other party members.

Since then, I have narrowed it down so pure casters get a choice of 6 out of 10-12, and semis get a choice of 6 out of 8-9 (although in practice most semis only take 3-5). I'm happier and my players like it better too.

General feedback on the forum in the past has been that even opening things up that much is a bit much, and it would be better to have a couple specific packages that are treated as variants on the original profession. E.g. you might have a variant magician specialized in one element, who gets an existing Law list, the two most related elemental Law lists, a variant list on their main element (e.g. the Mastery lists from the Essence Companion), an elementals list, and something else. But it's a fixed thematic package, you get that or the original package, you don't pick and choose.

[Thot]

So also wouldn't, from your experience, recommend to introduce "base-list-free" spellcasters, that is, lower cost for (for example) Closed lists, and removal of Base lists?

[Thot]

On a different note - how to handle Base Lists in a classless (all are "No Profession") setup.

One obvious solution to make them special would be to make base lists Restricted AND only available in very secretive circles, like the upper ranks of mages' guilds or cults, or mentalist monasteries. So you'd need to have contacts to even be able to learn them, AND they'd be rather hard to digest.

[Wolfwood]

On a different note - how to handle Base Lists in a classless (all are "No Profession") setup.

One obvious solution to make them special would be to make base lists Restricted AND only available in very secretive circles, like the upper ranks of mages' guilds or cults, or mentalist monasteries. So you'd need to have contacts to even be able to learn them, AND they'd be rather hard to digest.

One might also add that you cannot gain ranks in a spell list that is not taught by the order/cult/school you attend. So, you could theoretically have a character switching schools every so often, but their skills in the schools they have left behind would no longer increase. And, of course, some orders might be suspicious and unwilling to accept students who have attended a competing/hostile school previously.

[MisterK]

One might also add that you cannot gain ranks in a spell list that is not taught by the order/cult/school you attend. So, you could theoretically have a character switching schools every so often, but their skills in the schools they have left behind would no longer increase. And, of course, some orders might be suspicious and unwilling to accept students who have attended a competing/hostile school previously.

This has the potentially immense drawback of suffering from the 'hen and egg' problem - if everyone must be taught, then no one could be taught first, so the list cannot exist.
Unless all base lists have a supernatural origin (gods for Channeling, for example), but while it might fit some list and some settings, it is not a universal solution.
You must have a way to "discover" (research) spells and assemble them into lists. And this is not trivial, because if someone knows Fire Mastery (closed essence list) that includes a number of spells that are *also* in the Fire Law base magician list, does it mean that person has a head start on researching Fire Law ? Do they need to research the duplicate spells at all ? Is it possible to mix and match, creating a list that gets part of Fire Law, part of Fire Mastery and some other parts related to fire ?

I don't believe in training being *required*. I do believe training being a good prop when one tries to learn a spell list. And that prop should *not* be included in the DP cost (the default cost should not include the benefits of training, because training can take many forms and practices and all are not equal). Training should *reduce* the cost in a way commensurate with the quality of training benefits.

[this applies to all skills, obviously, not merely spell learning]

[Wolfwood]

This has the potentially immense drawback of suffering from the 'hen and egg' problem - if everyone must be taught, then no one could be taught first, so the list cannot exist.
Unless all base lists have a supernatural origin (gods for Channeling, for example), but while it might fit some list and some settings, it is not a universal solution.
You must have a way to "discover" (research) spells and assemble them into lists. And this is not trivial, because if someone knows Fire Mastery (closed essence list) that includes a number of spells that are *also* in the Fire Law base magician list, does it mean that person has a head start on researching Fire Law ? Do they need to research the duplicate spells at all ? Is it possible to mix and match, creating a list that gets part of Fire Law, part of Fire Mastery and some other parts related to fire ?

I don't believe in training being *required*. I do believe training being a good prop when one tries to learn a spell list. And that prop should *not* be included in the DP cost (the default cost should not include the benefits of training, because training can take many forms and practices and all are not equal). Training should *reduce* the cost in a way commensurate with the quality of training benefits.

[this applies to all skills, obviously, not merely spell learning]

You make a good case and I find myself agreeing - and it is the way I work with normal skills in my system. Making spell lists work differently would be quite silly... :/

[Thot]

Well, research rules for spell and spell lists exist. One could just use those for anyone who has no appropriate contacts.

[jdale]

So also wouldn't, from your experience, recommend to introduce "base-list-free" spellcasters, that is, lower cost for (for example) Closed lists, and removal of Base lists?

Haven't tried that. The base lists are generally better than their open and closed equivalents (even when equivalents exist), so a spellcaster without any base lists is at a real disadvantage vs one who does have them. The balance might work out properly if you determine the open/closed costs as normal, don't give any base lists, and don't charge the aptitudes for base lists. As a player, I probably wouldn't pick such a profession though.