Double post but the update is live! Major overhaul to both The Mage and The Artificer, check 'em out.

Not that you asked for them but here are my thoughts on the Mage template updates:

Separating damage spell-casting rules from regular spell-casting is a good choice in my opinion. It allows you to keep the non-magic damage dice low and keeps another character who multiclasses into Mage from getting all the magic goodies (has to choose between attack and utility magic) However, instead of having Two Targets as one of the Black Magic tags, why not treat it as any other class who attacks multiple foes: roll damage regularly and divide up the result as equally as possible to all of the targets. Also, since the Mage template allows for freeform magic which makes it an extremely capable class in most non-combat situations, maybe the spell damage could be reduced a bit. Maybe the 7-9 Black Magic roll does 1d6 and the 10+ does 1d8?

I like the idea of giving the Mage a move to "know about magical stuff" but Arcane Learning seems a bit underwhelming. Not sure what I would suggest instead though. Maybe there is no need for a starting move like this since the fiction of the Mage states they would know about magical stuff. Thus, the GM would tell them honestly about something magical or at least allow them to roll Discern Realities or Spout Lore in situations where the other classes wouldn't be able to.

I like the concept of choosing offense or defense magic to start but I wonder how real that choice is. Will any players really forgo all offensive abilities? If so, wouldn't Black Magic be a no-brainer choice for their second level move? Maybe Black Magic should just be the standard starting move and Counter Spell should just be an Advanced Move? Or maybe Counter Spell just replaces Arcane Learning? Or… maybe Counter Spell becomes an advanced move and Ritual replaces Arcane Learning?

The human racial bonus seems a bit odd to me. From what I can tell, in order to give it value, you have to restrict Elf Mages from offering to cast a spell as leverage which seems like trying to force the fiction to match the mechanics. However, I can’t think of what to suggest as a replacement since most human bonuses add some additional breadth/variety to a class and the Mage’s spell move is already VERY broad.

I really like the direction you’ve taken with the Foci. Adding a Look component is a nice touch.

I still worry that the Mage’s talents might be too universally applicable leading them to steal the spotlight from other classes/players. As they stand now, the core classes seem pretty well balanced (except maybe the bard) but when I compare the Mage to the Wizard, the Mage seems obviously superior which reinforced my fear. Have you considered a simple Mana system? Maybe you have as many points of Mana as your INT + 2 and spells that are neither Aligned nor Opposed use up a point of mana? Or maybe any spell that rolls less than 10+ uses up a point?

Anyhow, I really like freeform spell casting in theory and haven’t playtested the Mage so maybe my balance concerns are unfounded. Perhaps the granteed minimum of one complication (even on 10+) means the Mage will hold off from trying to solve every problem with magic.

Thank you Alfred, that advice helps a lot. I read the Game Book and Beginner's Guide so I thought I would be pretty well prepared to GM, but the more I read these forums, the more I realize how little I understand and how much I still have to learn.

uh, maybe you can find some answers here:
http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=5949.0

Thank you for the link, it seems we both noticed the same issue. I don't need my games to be 100% balanced but I wish there was some more description on how each of the companion attributes could be useful.

Anyhow, I am still wondering about my second question. Can a companion wolf stay and guard something even if it does not have "Guard" training? Can a companion mule carry some load if it does not have "Labor" training? Can a horse be ridden on a journey without the "Travel" training?

I think a lot of my questions would be answered (or at least clarified) if they had added companion attributes to the big list of tag descriptions shown at the end of the book.

The way I play it is that each "use" of Adventuring gear isn't a strict "use." It's a blank spot in your inventory that you can fill in and define as you need it.

So, your character needs a rope? Cool, mark off one "use" and now you have a rope for the rest of the adventure (unless the rope worms eat it) and four more blank slots to fill. A couple hours later when you've defined your Adventuring Gear as rope, chalk, mirror, lantern, and towel, and you really need an iron spike, then you're out of luck.

Oh, I really like that  a lot. There are so many great ideas and clarifications on this forum. They could almost do a revised or second edition of DW with all of it.

I kinda felt like the companion is supposed to stay by the Ranger's side. The move says "when your animal companion and you attack the same target..." Like, it's just an animal so how hard is it to kill? It's not a D&D style thing where it gains crazy hit points, it's just a well-trained dog or whatever, right? Sounds like he was really throwing it in harm's way by sending it off on its own to fight someone.

I envisioned the animal companion the same way but my player created a ferocious burly polar bear that was trained to fight monsters. I had a hard time thinking of a reason why his polar bear had to stay at his side and couldn't be sent on it's own to attack a small group of gobins.

For the other smaller and more nimble companions, I can really see how they can assist in a fight by adding or reducing some damage but the bear just doesn't seem to fit that roll. It's fiction is too big, powerful and meaty to just absorb or give a few additional points of damage. Maybe I should have ruled the bear is a runt?

I feel like the Game Book should have explained how companions are supposed to fit in the game in addition to including descriptions/ideas/examples for what the various companion tags mean (strengths, trainings, and weaknesses). My player asked if his polar bear could carry some equipment if he took the labor training and if so, how much weight. I really had no idea and couldn’t find descriptions for those tags anywhere in the book.