Multiple Magic Disciplines

[Jaracove]

I know humans can (Versatility), but can non-humans learn other magical disciplines? For example, can an elf Nethermancer also learn the Illusionist discipline?

[PiXeL01]

Yes, if he can find a teacher

[Jaracove]

Whoo hoo!

Never realised that - game just got a little bit more awesome for me

Thank you

[Graymayne]

There is also the matter of Personal Vision.

If the Personal Vision of first (prime discipline) runs into a conflict with the teacher's personal vision is the second (additional discipline) you will likely need to find a different teacher.

Also, consider making the player think about how the second discipline fits with his personal vision of his prime discipline. If he is unable to do so, he is probably not ready for the additional discipline. (at least in my Barsaive.)

[Mataxes]

The degree to which this matters will really depend on the individual table and style of play.

Personally, I'm not generally against any combination at my home table. The player wants to do something? Cool. I might ask that they hold off a bit, set it as a goal for later development. But I don't require a treatise or anything.

[The Undying]

Disciplines have a look and feel that is similar to "classes / jobs" in other systems. However, they are unique from those in that Disciplines also define a fundamental worldview. An Illusionist sees the world in a completely different way than a Nethermancer, down to the core ways in which the world is constructed.

That's why Multi-Discipline characters are often an immediate out-of-bounds for some (many) tables. Even where it is allowed, as Graymayne mentions, there needs to be both a sound justification for how those worldviews can (and should) harmonize and a character must convince an instructor in the new Discipline sufficiently on that point. A character/individual may be completely convinced that Swordmaster-Pacifist makes sense, but how easy will it be convincing a Journeyman+ Pacifist of that. At the end of the day, some fits are much more "natural" than others, but it's hard to apply that to magician Disciplines (except maybe Wizard-*).

Last, even setting justification aside, Multi-Magician has a sharper power creep than other combinations. Because of the heavy overlap between the Disciplines (always existed, but Magicians were more generic-ified in ED4 with more overlapping Talents), Multi-Magician can advance in Circles much faster than other combinations.

That's all just "for what it's worth." My personal opinion ~ if a character can tell an incredible story justifying the mix, and the collision of these worldviews is something that has been building up over time because of game events, that's much more important to me in comparison to mechanics (although, again, Multi-Magician is a bit concerning). And, even regardless of my opinion, it's your table, you should do as you see fit.

[Mataxes]

*Shrug*

I understand the concern about multi-Discipline magicians. But from my experience (and I've dealt with a couple cases of this), I personally don't find it as big a deal as some make it out to be. The main reason: Spell Matrices. A magician only has so many, which means, regardless of how many spells they might know, there are only so many they can have "locked and loaded."

Look, far be it from me (even in my position) to tell people how to run their games. If your style runs toward the more immersive end of role-playing, and you really want your players to justify their multi-Discipline combinations? Go for it! There's loads of adventure and story potential to be found there. It's just not the only way to go.

Yes, a Discipline is more than "just a job". Yes, it should inform your character and how they approach the world. But the degree to which that applies can vary from game to game and people who do it different from you are not doing it wrong.

I want my players to have fun. If that fun involves picking up a second Discipline? Cool. Unless they're a jerk about it, using it to steal the spotlight, or are ruining somebody else's fun.

In one of my long term games, the windling Thief picked up Warrior as a second Discipline. Learned it from the troll Warrior in the group, in fact. Now, Thief and Warrior aren't generally the most compatible Disciplines. But so what? It made sense in the framework of the character's story (the group had recently lost one or two members to death, and the Thief was upset and wanted to be able to do more to protect her surrogate family). I didn't feel the need for any more justification than that. And since she was learning it from a fellow PC, it's not like I could limit access to training.

So... yeah. You do you. (General you, not anybody specific.) As long as everybody at the table is on the same page, it's all good.

[The Undying]

I don't think anyone here is trying to say that a person doing X is doing anything wrong. The Multi-Discipline text is fairly brief, and it describes the type of things I mention (my concern about Multi-Magicians withstanding). Sometimes, it just helps to hear it told differently (and sometimes people just plain forget that some things are even present in the material!).

Does anyone HAVE TO do anything in the books? No, of course not! Are people free to adjust things, be that flavor or rule or anything else? Yes, of course! Should people play the game the way they think and feel best? Totally! Are groups that attempt to "follow the rules" still going to have different interpretations? Almost certainly! No doubt there are unique things across every table of Earthdawn played, none being better or worse, nor "right" or "wrong." Play, have fun.

(By the by, best I can figure, maybe Mataxes thought my post before this was a response to his short post. That's actually not the case - I was actually just writing some extra stuff to build on what Graymayne had said, Mataxes's post seems to have come in between when I started writing and once I posted. The two are actually completely unrelated - my post wasn't an attempt to rebuff his statements.)

[Slimcreeper]

Quick multi-discipline question: Durability is based on maximum circle, right? So you can only have up to 15 ranks of Durability, no matter how many Disciplines you take. If our 5th circle wizard takes a circle of illusionist, he doesn't increase his durability, because they have the same durability? But if he took a rank of Warrior, his 1st circle durability bonus would change from 3 to 7, netting him a bonus of +4?

What about the circle bonus to the Death rating? Is that limited to highest circle, or does the 5th Circle wizard get +1 to his death rating when he takes a circle of illusionist, and again when he takes a circle of warrior, and again when he increases to 6th circle in wizard?

[Mataxes]

Highest Circle.

(Off to the Errata/FAQ!)