Hello all,
I just picked up the book and have been reading it. I really like this system because it seems to contain all that I want in an RPG: generic (cross-genre), hit points as opposed to abstract damage tracks, plenty of optional rules to add depth to the game but which are not necessary, plus others.
Yesterday I got down to the task of creating a character so as to make the rules sink in better. I wanted to get acquainted with the magic system, so I made a wizard character. I've always been put off by the classic Vancian system of magic found in (A)D&D because, IMO, it is severely limiting to spellcasters. When I played HARP a while back, I was delighted to find that it has a "spells as skills" type of magic system powered by power points--much like BRP. As I was checking out the spell section of the BRP book, however, I found this on p. 91: "If your character wishes to use magic spells, he or she must have them committed to memory. A magic spell caster can only memorize a number of spells at a single time, equal to 1/2 his or her INT (round up)."
My question is: Why bother with this? If the purpose is to limit the spellcaster's magic repertoire in the interest of game balance, I ask: Isn't the use of power points and skill points sufficient to provide such balance? If the spellcaster wants to cast a particularly powerful Blast spell, he does so at the risk of running out of power points with which to cast other spells, and his chance of success is dependent on how many skill points he has devoted to that spell. As the saying goes, "You pay your money and you take your choice."
YM
