Tome of Radiance: Mastering the Power of Love and Justice

[NineThePuma]

There are stupid people in this world. Some will overlook pronouns, given the fact that pronouns are interchanged fairly regularly in RAW. Others will see the term "Magical girl" and make the assumption that no male characters can take the class.


As a Rules question for Selinia:

Can Non-Magical Girls take Soulbond feats?

[Lix Lorn]

Because it's HOMEBREW and thus doesn't require being setting-neutral, so why the hell SHOULDN'T we just call it what it is?

It's a magical girl. No matter how you try to deny it or how many alternate names you use for it, it's a fething magical girl.

If your DM wouldn't allow it as written he's not likely to allow it with MINOR COSMETIC CHANGES anyway, so don't bother beating around the bush. Just keep it simple.

They're magical girls, and that's all there is to it.

I agree entirely with this post. Especially the warhammer swear word.

[Falcon777]

While I am not particularly against the idea of magical girls, the term isn't really appealing to guys in general. Also, the mechanics of the ToR don't really have anything to do with the female gender. On the other hand, fans of the kinds of shows that this is based off of are of a very strong opinion that it should not be changed and that anyone who thinks it should be changed are idiots.

@ Selinia: So basically it boils down to two things: the strong emotions the long term fans have of the term magical girl, and the lack of interest some new people have of it. The fans say that the fluff is absolutely essential to the Tome while some new people (not all) say that it is holding back people from being interested. So whether or not you change it probably ought to take into consideration the ramifications of choosing either option.

My opinion is that the only detraction the term magical girl has is that it is lowering the amount of traffic this thread would otherwise see. I can certainly work with how it is now as there isn't any actual requirement for a character made from the tome to be female or have female characteristics. So basically I'd call myself a moderate in consideration of the argument. Personally, I'm more interested in hearing your opinion (Selinia) than seeing it stay the same or get changed.

[AmberVael]

Then an adaptations paragraph so DMs don't disallow it because they think it sounds corny?

While I would say those DMs need to be more open minded, I think a well implemented Adaptations "sidebar" could be a nice addition. I'm always for refluffing anything and everything (I've interpreted Personas as sort of magical martial arts forms for my current character, for example), and I while I am completely fine with magical girls, I could see them having thematic issues in a number of games. Love, justice, and friendship beams don't fit into every world after all.

While I am not particularly against the idea of magical girls, the term isn't really appealing to guys in general. Also, the mechanics of the ToR don't really have anything to do with the female gender. On the other hand, fans of the kinds of shows that this is based off of are of a very strong opinion that it should not be changed and that anyone who thinks it should be changed are idiots.

@ Selinia: So basically it boils down to two things: the strong emotions the long term fans have of the term magical girl, and the lack of interest some new people have of it. The fans say that the fluff is absolutely essential to the Tome while some new people (not all) say that it is holding back people from being interested. So whether or not you change it probably ought to take into consideration the ramifications of choosing either option.

My opinion is that the only detraction the term magical girl has is that it is lowering the amount of traffic this thread would otherwise see. I can certainly work with how it is now as there isn't any actual requirement for a character made from the tome to be female or have female characteristics. So basically I'd call myself a moderate in consideration of the argument. Personally, I'm more interested in hearing your opinion (Selinia) than seeing it stay the same or get changed.

I take issue with the words you're putting in my mouth. It is my personal view that fluff is rarely essential to mechanical work, and that heavy reinterpretation and adaptation can often be just as creative and interesting- and sometimes even more creative and interesting- than simply trying to make something new.

However, this does not mean I want things to be created in a thematic void, or to render themselves generic. Selinia intended to make something that would accurately reflect magical girls. And then did. And I think that unique flavor and style, combined with the good mechanics, are what have attracted many people to this work.

My objection is not that I think the fluff is absolutely necessary to these classes. The opposite, in fact. My objection is that it hardly needs to be rendered more generic in order to be changed or used in a completely different way as the user desires.

The only point raised against the terminology so far that I am inclined to agree with is the first one raised by NineThePuma: That is, that when a mechanical term is needed to refer to all three classes, it should probably be Evoker, simply because that is the term that has been used across the board, and consistency in mechanical terminology really makes things easier.

[Draken]

Reading the first few posts again, I noticed that the most clustered instances of Magical Girl actually refer to the old thread in the introduction.

Now, granted, the Illuminations entrance needs a pass due to terminology issues, but there are barely any mentions of magical girl referring to the three classes themselves.

I must also inform that I suggested that Selinia disregard this entire line of argumentation because it is pointless in the extreme. Nobody ever argued that the Warlock needs to be called "Witch" sometimes, to make it more fair to the opposite gender.

----

Also, because someone asked before, Craft Soulbond has no prerequisites, it can be taken by anyone regardless of class.

[AmberVael]

I must also inform that I suggested that Selinia disregard this entire line of argumentation because it is pointless in the extreme. Nobody ever argued that the Warlock needs to be called "Witch" sometimes, to make it more fair to the opposite gender.

I approve of this recommendation.

[vasharanpaladin]

While I am not particularly against the idea of magical girls, the term isn't really appealing to guys in general. Also, the mechanics of the ToR don't really have anything to do with the female gender. On the other hand, fans of the kinds of shows that this is based off of are of a very strong opinion that it should not be changed and that anyone who thinks it should be changed are idiots.

I'd like to preface my next reply by pointing out that the first to say "idiot" is the idiot.

I'm vehement about not changing the fluff because there is no reason to. The thread title contains such cheesy crap as "power of love and justice." Anyone who's going to be turned off this stuff by reference to magical girls is already biased against it. And a DM who'd be turned off it by the same reason wasn't going to let you use it to begin with.

And now, I'd like to finish this reply by pointing out I don't particularly care for the "magical girl" genre at all, at least in the classical sense. I like Nanoha. That's about it.

[Dragonus45]

Gals, guys, i would just like to point out that this is a thread dedicated to a class that represents defeat of evil through light, friendship, the power of determination, friendship, and mecha class beams fired from magical wands, of friendship. Perhaps keeping that in mind we could keep our tone a little friendlier with each other. Also as the person who feels like they sort of accidentally started this whole conversation a few pages back asking about how to get my play group to check out the class i would point out that nothing can separate the full of this class from it's direct inspiration. I wouldn't want it any other way. The problem is with other people not realizing that Nanoha My Little Pony Magical Girl shows are legitimately good in there own right and not always solely for young children.

[Qwertystop]

Reading the first few posts again, I noticed that the most clustered instances of Magical Girl actually refer to the old thread in the introduction.

Now, granted, the Illuminations entrance needs a pass due to terminology issues, but there are barely any mentions of magical girl referring to the three classes themselves.

I must also inform that I suggested that Selinia disregard this entire line of argumentation because it is pointless in the extreme. Nobody ever argued that the Warlock needs to be called "Witch" sometimes, to make it more fair to the opposite gender.

Not taking sides, but I opened all the spoilers and did Ctrl+F for "magical girl" no quotes, and it shows up basically everywhere other than the classes - all over the place in Illuminations, and a large smattering through Devices, Costumes, and some of the feats.

[Falcon777]

Why don't I play a little bit of devil's advocate here. Those for the term staying seem to see me as being against it, when in fact I simply have a(n unprovable) concern that it may be hindering traffic. So I'll put forth a proper argument against the term being changed:

The problem with the argument that there may be less traffic for the thread because of the term "Magical Girl" is that people are lazy.

If there is something that people do not like about that term, very few people have stated as such. Dragonus pointed out that his main play group didn't like the Tome because of, and I'm paraphrasing here, the fact of how it is based upon girly shows. The truth of the matter is that said dm has not actually come onto this thread and stated such a thing. Does that make Dragonus a liar? Certainly not. But it doesn't provide proof of his statement either. And the truth of the matter is that given that this is homebrew, if someone doesn't like the fluff of the thread, they are far more likely to simply leave than they are to continue to read until the end and subsequently argue that the fluff of the thread ought to change. Many people love to argue about things, but as of yet I'm the only one to have written anything extensive about the possibility of there being less traffic due to the fluff of the Tome. Is it possible that the fluff is hindering the thread? Yes, it is. Can that possibility be proven? Not without a lot of people coming onto the thread and stating that they do not like the term (or the rest of the fluff). And if there are such people, they are not here voicing their opinions. Ergo there is no proof to the argument that the fluff of the tome is hindering traffic.

Since there is no proof as of yet that the fluff of the Tome is hindering traffic, it ought to stay the same.

There you go.

[Qwertystop]

Was that intended as a parody of a fallacy? Correct me if I'm misreading, but it seems like you're saying that because people haven't actually said "I'm not reading this because it says Magical Girls," we can assume that there would be no increase in readers from removing the phrase.

The problem with this is that it's very rare to see people show up solely to say they're not reading it.

The way to test it would be to remove the phrases and see if there's a notable increase in new posters.

The problem with that is that new posters are rare in just about any topic - new people don't join the big ones very often most of the time anyway.

[Dragonus45]

Also me and my group are a bit of a bad statistic to go with since they have a slight dislike of homebrew in general. Only me and one other guy tend to put a lot of effort in to finding homebrew we like and incorporating it into things.

[Falcon777]

Was that intended as a parody of a fallacy? Correct me if I'm misreading, but it seems like you're saying that because people haven't actually said "I'm not reading this because it says Magical Girls," we can assume that there would be no increase in readers from removing the phrase.

On the contrary, the argument I put forth was not that we could make assumptions, but rather that there isn't proof of the very concern that I have waxed on about (namely that there MAY be less traffic). The attitudes that can be inferred from those that are for the term staying the same are at the very least unfriendly towards me bringing this idea up. I did not like the fact that they could not (mostly because of the medium I'm working with, aka, text) see that I am not actually antagonistic towards their stance on the argument. I also didn't like the fact that they stated their wasn't any point to the argument and that there was no point to changing the term rather than pointing out THE largest problem to my concern. As such, I decided to show that my concern (namely the other side of the argument) had no proof to back it up.

The way to test it would be to remove the phrases and see if there's a notable increase in new posters.

The problem with that is that new posters are rare in just about any topic - new people don't join the big ones very often most of the time anyway.

Aye, that is another way of saying the main point of the argument I just put up: you would, at the very least, have a hard time of proving that there is less traffic to this thread because of the fluff. At most you would not be able to find proof.



Essentially I'm showing that while I have some concern for the amount of traffic that this thread is getting because of how cool this homebrew is, that is all it is: just concern. I am not against the term itself, nor am I against the inspiration for this work of art. Rather, I saw someone make a post showing a particular concern that had been bouncing around in my head for 17 pages and I subsequently came to the conclusion that I may have been right. As such, I made a suggestion. When people reacted negatively to that suggestion, I attempted to clarify my position. The fact that people continued to react negatively to it was enough for me to drop the suggestion. Later, someone else brought it back up, and as I stated before, I was more interested in what Selinia had to say than the actual argument. When people reacted negatively to what I had to say AGAIN, I decided to play devil's advocate in the hopes that people would drop the argument and accusations and just leave it how it is.







In other news, is it just me, or does the Empath class seem a little bit.....empty? Sure, they can do a lot with all of those fancy personas, but that makes the class a bit...jumpy, doesn't it? What I mean is, a person playing an empath gets large jumps in power whenever they acquire a new set of personas they can use. While it would make the class stronger (which has been a concern for some), it might make leveling up slightly smoother if there were things the class gained other than illuminations in the levels between when it gains new personas. What do you all think?

[Draken]

Tome of Radiance is one of the most viewed threads in homebrew, you know.

[NineThePuma]

The female flavor originated when the class was called The Magical Girl.

The flavor is completely fine, and the mechanics are solid, but there are, from a design standpoint, random and arbitrary uses of the term "Magical Girls" in rules text. The uses of the term should be replaced with "Evoker", which is the term used by most of the rules text to refer to the collection of classes. We've had people complain about the implication that males can't be Evokers, so lets just remove the thing causing those implications. It's right there in the opening that this class was inspired by Magical Girls, but if it's actively causing problems for people who want to play this class, shouldn't the troublesome aspects be fixed?

I have concerns about the usage of the term "magical girls" in rules text, given the fact that an Evoker is defined and a "magical girl" is not in said rules text. The fact that Evoker is gender neutral is a perk if we have someone turn up and be confused as to whether male magical girls could exist, which I believe we have had.

[Dragonus45]

On a side note, i've been thinking of doing a Ponyfinder specific prestige class. Anyone want to weigh in on the concept, i have a few ideas but i would like to hear what anyone else thinks.

[Hartwig]

Glad to hear it! The Tome of Radiance is... actually more complex in some ways, but its complexity is highly granular. Rather than attempt to create subclasses and archetypes for every possible magic girl, my goal here is to break the very idea of a magical girl down into components that can be assembled any way the player wishes.

First of all, it's not a big deal, so I'll stop after this post.

Changing Magical Girl to a less meaningful term would still allow that sort of character to be made and would expand the class to all kinds of light-based characters. Imagine if Arcane Magic were called Dragon-blooded magic. It might be truer to the inspiration (read Sorcerer's description), but would narrow the flavor so only 1 kind of flavor would make sense for any character. I'd much prefer to be able to take the componants of this class and its foundation, namely, illuminations, and piece them together into a character not bound by the constraints and not carrying the connotations of a genre I know nothing about, however good it may be. I'd like this class to stray as far away from the monk/Paladin problem as possible. An adaptations paragraph would probably be good enough.

Lastly, what defines these classes? Is it not the light-based powers? And is 'Magical Girl' broad enough to encompass every single character built on the theme of light and compassion, from the benevolent yet strong king of Arnuyia to the hard-working lamplighter whose duty it is to defend the road from all evils? If so, I am content.

[Edge]

A long-time lurker on thread here, just going to throw my 2cp into the debate.

I am not a fan of the magical girl genre - in the sense that I don't watch anything from it, not that I have anything actively against it. At no point was I deterred from the classes by the use of "magical girl" anywhere in the text, because I saw the options the class presented through refluffing. Just as you can play your fighter or warblade as a samurai sworn to a daimyo, or a knight sworn to his liege lord, there is nothing stopping you from playing a champion straight, or using the class' mechanics (and possibly a dark magical girl-inspired prestige class) to create a character not dissimilar to a death knight.

Ultimately, my point is that fluff is mutable. However, I can see the point about making terminology consistent. Therefore, I would suggest choosing to use either evoker or magical girl, and since there is nothing stopping a male character from taking these classes, my first instinct would be to go with the gender-neutral term, which also fits alongside the other gender-neutral terms of spellcaster, manifester, martial adept, etc.

And given how evident the inspiration for these classes is in their default fluff and even in their mechanics, I (personally) don't think it would affect the general tone of their presentation much.

[Falcon777]

On a side note, i've been thinking of doing a Ponyfinder specific prestige class. Anyone want to weigh in on the concept, i have a few ideas but i would like to hear what anyone else thinks.

Um...I don't really understand what the concept is of the class. Is it some prestige class that is good at finding...ponies?

[Dragonus45]

Um...I don't really understand what the concept is of the class. Is it some prestige class that is good at finding...ponies?

O no, its a pathfinder variant that has My Little Pony style ponies for the races. I think that the ToR is perfect for the idea since MLP is in many ways a Western take on the classical Magical Girl genre pre sailor moon Magical Girl Warrior stuff.

[Magatsu Izanagi]

Long-time lurker, first-time poster in this topic. Love what you guys are doing, though I haven't been able to make any use of what you've made so far; 3.5's no longer my thing, and even if there were "official" PF conversions made for these classes, none of the DMs I've tried playing with approve of homebrew that much.

That said, given that the current topic is fluff conflicts, there is a rather minor thing that's been bugging me ever since I first saw it. One of the available prestige classes is called the Ferzian Slave. Only problem is, what the heck's a Ferzian? Google tells me that it's a rather uncommon Armenian surname, but what exactly does that have to do with magical girls?

[Falcon777]

That's a pretty good question. Unfortunately, I don't really know. I know that the ferzian slave class is pretty much like a kick-butt butler instead of an actual slave...so there might be some kind of a connection there. Other than that, I'm not really sure.

[Qwertystop]

Didn't it used to be that if you Friendshipped an Alignment Outsider they'd change into the nearest equivalent type for their new alignment?

[NineThePuma]

Outsiders don't need to be their alignment. There's an Paladin Succubus around somewhere.

[vasharanpaladin]

Outsiders don't need to be their alignment. There's an Paladin Succubus around somewhere.

Wouldn't happen to mean Eludecia, would you?

[NineThePuma]

I did, in fact.

[Qwertystop]

Outsiders don't need to be their alignment. There's an Paladin Succubus around somewhere.

I know that - but I thought there was a thing in Power of Friendship that did something like that anyway. Or was it part of a PrC or the original? I liked the image of changing a devil, stage-by-stage - Demon to Slaad to whatever the CG ones are called.

Actually... putting Slaad in there changes the image a bit. Maybe Devil to Modron to LG?

Bleh... the problem is those LN and CN stages. Those things are just weird and unfortunately there's no way not to go through them unless you're converting on both axis and go Demon/Devil to Daemon to TN to NG to LG/CG, or you're starting with a Daemon.

But I liked the general idea anyway.

[Snowfire]

You're thinking of Child of Light. If I may quote:

An End to Darkness (Su): Magical girls can always find the best in those around them, even the darkest of devils and demons. To their sight, even in those monsters of darkness and blood there is the faint spark of Light. Hidden and caged maybe, but there. And whilst most find this spark so very hard to unearth, the reincarnations of Heroes can go one better. A Child does not simply change the alignment of an outsider. Her radiant power is capable of utterly changing them, rewriting their essence into a form fitting for their new view of life and their reality and freeing them from the shackles of their old life.

At level six, the Child of Light ignores any penalties to using Power of Friendship that may stem from their target being an Outsider (or similarly alien creature). Furthermore, should they succeed in bringing their new friend to the side of Good, they immediately go through a miraculous metamorphosis. Encased in a shell of light, they emerge from it as a butterfly, their entire being purified of their former sins and essence as an unique Outsider of the appropriate subtypes. Their appearance changes to suit the aesthetic of their new alignment but they are otherwise unique creatures. The DM should adapt the newly purified Outsider as best suits his campaign and the spirit of this ability.

[Qwertystop]

You're thinking of Child of Light. If I may quote:

Yep, that's it. But since it has to be two steps (Evil - Neutral - Good), are they still their original evil-subtyped species when you've only got them to Neutral? "to the side of good" implies that, but the fact that it seems fluffed as changing them magically all the way through the process (as inferred from not getting the Outsider penalty on any step of it) disagrees with that.

[Snowfire]

Yep, that's it. But since it has to be two steps (Evil - Neutral - Good), are they still their original evil-subtyped species when you've only got them to Neutral? "to the side of good" implies that, but the fact that it seems fluffed as changing them magically all the way through the process (as inferred from not getting the Outsider penalty on any step of it) disagrees with that.

The change only kicks in when they hit good alignment. And even after they've been purified, they still look pretty much the same - although with some differences dependent on how your DM decides to fluff it.

The main difficulties with outsiders fighting their nature are explained quite plainly in the Succubus Paladin link above, however it goes deeper then what's there. Outsiders are, by every definition I have read, literal manifestations of the alignment that they spring from. They are not human. The do not think like humans. They do not see the world as a human would.

A devil is, in general, quite happy being a devil. Sure, they're evil, but that's their job. That's what they are. And that's the reason that as stated in the linked article, it takes magical assistance - powerful assistance - to change the nature of an Outsider's alignment properly. Oh, you can try and try and try. And yes, you'll be able to keep going for a while - note, for Outsiders 'a while' can mean multiple mortal lifespans - but in the end you can't fight what you are unless you actually change what you are. And for beings that are in some cases literally formed from the energy of their alignment, that change isn't something that can be done alone.

Hence why we have a particular template from BoED I believe, going with a spell that can turn Evil Outsiders Good. Of course, it can also kill them, but when you're messing with this sort of thing that's rather understandable.