|
1 year ago ::
Jan 10, 2012 - 2:05PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2008
|
Ditch the most iconic archetype of fantasy?
Yeah, totally gonna happen.
I assume you mean the most iconic archetype for the deus ex machina and not for the actual protagonist, right?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 10, 2012 - 2:05PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
At best, the martial comparison would be a fighter who uses multiple weapon types for a variety of effects. And such a thing is totally possible in 4E. It's the whole reason behind the Master at Arms feat. Add to that a variety of weapon-specific encounter powers, and boom -- martial generalist. There are other bells and whistles you could add to such a build, but you get my point.
So yeah, no. This idea will never fly.
A martial controller needs to create zones with caltrops and fire and smoke bombs and impromptu dust storms, inspire into flight with intimidation, force openings for there allies, lock down enemies and so on. as well as beat people up with long weapons like spears and chains and whips, sheesh oh, pin them with crossbow bolts and ..
Oh, We were talking martial generalist... not controller.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 10, 2012 - 2:26PM
#23
|
|
|
The funny thing is that they already did what you guys are talking about. In 2e they had the specialist schools of magic. As a wizard, you could take any spell you wanted. But you could also choose to specialize in a particular school; basically you got a bonus to spells from that particular school, had to choose at least one spell per level from that school, and couldn't cast spells from the "opposing" school. This was reflected in other classes in the form of "kits", like specialty priests, etc. You could be a generic priest (cleric) of a particular deity, or you could be a "specialty priest" that got some particular themed advantages and lost some of the versatility (for instance, you got to use certain spells for free once/day, but you couldn't turn undead till level 7).
I didn't play 3.x, but I'm assuming they had a similar sort of arrangement. 4e didn't introduce Schools of magic until Essentials, and it never really did make much of a difference. Almost every other edition it did, though.
All you'd have to do is have a little graphic showing the opposing schools of magic and say "if you pick to specialize in one, get a bonus to attacks with that school and you can't take spells from the opposite one". Problem solved.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 10, 2012 - 2:28PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2004
|
The funny thing is that they already did what you guys are talking about. In 2e they had the specialist schools of magic. As a wizard, you could take any spell you wanted. But you could also choose to specialize in a particular school; basically you got a bonus to spells from that particular school, had to choose at least one spell per level from that school, and couldn't cast spells from the "opposing" school. This was reflected in other classes in the form of "kits", like specialty priests, etc. You could be a generic priest (cleric) of a particular deity, or you could be a "specialty priest" that got some particular themed advantages and lost some of the versatility (for instance, you got to use certain spells for free once/day, but you couldn't turn undead till level 7).
I didn't play 3.x, but I'm assuming they had a similar sort of arrangement. 4e didn't introduce Schools of magic until Essentials, and it never really did make much of a difference. Almost every other edition it did, though.
All you'd have to do is have a little graphic showing the opposing schools of magic and say "if you pick to specialize in one, get a bonus to attacks with that school and you can't take spells from the opposite one". Problem solved.
Didn't work so well, and anyway the spells changed radically.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 10, 2012 - 2:29PM
#25
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I blogged about that very thing here and here.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 10, 2012 - 3:23PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jun 12, 2007
|
wrecan, I glanced through your blog posts and plan to read them when I have more time. They look well thought out.
To most of the other people posting in this thread; I'm fairly certain that the OP isn't actually suggesting a complete removal of wizards from the game, yet you're acting like he is. Did you read anything besides the topic title?
I actually like the core premise of the idea. Wizards really were too versatile in previous editions (and lame in 4e). I don't think that asking them to specialize is a huge leap, for numerous reasons.
Since game balance is already being discussed, I'd like to address the greater narrative. Did you notice that the bad guy is always a necromancer, evoker, witch, or other "special" type of arcanist? Then the PCs run around as generalists with the abilities to do the exact same things? "Let's go kill that evil necromancer. We shall do it by means of my Create Skeleton Army spell. Oh, don't worry though, I'm not a necromancer ... I'm just a normal wizard." It seems that every finger wiggler is labeled, tagged and specialized whereas the PCs get to be gods of everything.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 10, 2012 - 4:10PM
#27
|
|
|
you don't need to limit the list they choose from. what you need to actually limit is how many spells they may know. and we can do this by removing the spellbook mechanic and limiting thier known spells in a fashion similar to a sorcerer.
an infinitely large list of options doesn't matter if you are limited to only so many of them at once. limiting the spells known as per a sorcerer encourages specialization. especially if each of the later spells have simple prerequisites attached. like they did in the book of 9 swords.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 10, 2012 - 4:29PM
#28
|
- Favourite Non-Member Member
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2002
|
I would like to see the highest level of spells locked off from generalists, with specialists able to access the highest level of spells in their field.
At least I have my proper avatar now, I guess. But man is this cloud dark.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 10, 2012 - 4:46PM
#29
|
|
|
I could get behind a specialist system.
There's a sort of framework for it in 4e in the Mage schools of magic.
Instead of saying, "you get bonuses with these spells."
It could be that your spell selection is tied more closely to your class.
Perhaps you get access to so many 'generalist' spells, ones any wizard can take without cost.
Then you can take a good number more 'Pyromancer School' spells. These are the ones that function more directly with your mage schools particular bonuses.
This keeps some of the best spells still available to everyone, but the ones that are 'best for you' are not competing with a good generalist spell.
And then a generalist wizard gets access to all general spells, but only gets to pick a few schooled spells at a time.
This same concept could work in other classes as well, but perhaps not in all of them.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 10, 2012 - 5:29PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2010
|
Not only do I think that dumping the wizard class is a HORRIBLE idea, I think that they should also bring back the classical concept of spell research. One of the many things that I absoluted HATED about the 4th edition wizad was the fact that at some point, you had to LOSE spells. What wizard in their right mind would acquire a spell only to throw it away. The only way this scenario works is if they start having spells like Lightning Bolt I, Lightning Bolt II - in which each replacement is simply a more powerful version of the same spell.
Another thing they need to do for the wizard is to stop splitting the class into multiple smaller and unequal versions. I mean really? Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Witch...etc... Really?
Finally, if they are going to insist of wizards throwing these AOE bombs all over the place, how about making it damage "enemies only". Other spellcasters did it, so why not the wizard. Magic is magic, regardless of its source.
|
|
|
