|
1 year ago ::
Mar 06, 2012 - 12:03PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Feb 14, 2012
|
So in 3.5 wizards had the option of specializing in a spell school, allowing you to be a(n) abjurer, evocater, necromancer, etc. should this system return, what changes to it should be made? How did/do you feel about the implications and application of this system?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 06, 2012 - 12:08PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 18, 2012
|
So in 3.5 wizards had the option of specializing in a spell school, allowing you to be a(n) abjurer, evocater, necromancer, etc. should this system return, what changes to it should be made? How did/do you feel about the implications and application of this system?
That was part of 4e too, so I see it being in 5e.
4e has (iirc) evoker, summoner, illusionist, nethermancer, enchanter, and pyromancer. I can't recall if necromancer or abjuerer made it in, though nethermancer is close enough to necromancer in theme. 4e also had builds specializing in different implements rather than different types of spell.
The 4e essentials implementation was clean, didn't limit spell choice (but did reward going with your chosen schools), and gave good mechanical flavour to differentiate wizards.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 06, 2012 - 12:12PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
I don't think that being a generalist should be an option, at least not at low levels or by default. Specialization should be the default, with Wizards only having access to two or maybe three schools of magic at most. This should play out like the Beguiler, War-Mage, or Dread Necromancer of 3.5, very different from one another.
I view generalist Wizards like Harry Potter. Yes, that's a great story, but realize that because Wizards in that universe can do everything, pretty much every character that matters is a Wizard. There's very little point in being anything else. I don't want to play a D&D where there's no point in being anything other than a Wizard.
Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TMSpeaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 06, 2012 - 12:13PM
#4
|
|
|
So in 3.5 wizards had the option of specializing in a spell school, allowing you to be a(n) abjurer, evocater, necromancer, etc. should this system return, what changes to it should be made? How did/do you feel about the implications and application of this system?
I personally think specialization should be required to cast the highest level spells. IN terms of 1st through 3rd edition, a generalistr wizard should eb able to cast spells up to 9th level from the universal school, and spells up to 6th level or so from 3-4 other schools. Specialist wizards get universal and 2 schools to 9th level. Or something like that.
It makes each wizard unique, rather than the ability to cast any spell from a grab bag of abilities. It also provides niche protection, and can help shape sub class roles (evokers = strikers, transmuter/abjurer = leader, etc).
No single wizard should have the potential to cast all types of magic, at the highest level of ability. The specific tool should always be better than the swiss army knife.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 06, 2012 - 12:26PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jan 18, 2012
|
I don't think that being a generalist should be an option, at least not at low levels or by default. Specialization should be the default, with Wizards only having access to two or maybe three schools of magic at most. This should play out like the Beguiler, War-Mage, or Dread Necromancer of 3.5, very different from one another.
I view generalist Wizards like Harry Potter. Yes, that's a great story, but realize that because Wizards in that universe can do everything, pretty much every character that matters is a Wizard. There's very little point in being anything else. I don't want to play a D&D where there's no point in being anything other than a Wizard.
I don't think I've ever seen a generalist wizard in d&d. The Harry Potter comparison dosn't stand up. The boy wonder has access to hundreds of spells, a 1st level 'generalist' wizard has only 2 or 3. As wizards level up they get a greater range of spells, but might choose to specialize towards a theme for optimization and playstyle.
A wizard can choose to be all over the place with regards to spell selection as they level, but that is a choice that should be left to the player of the wizard not imposed by the system. Besides, the wizard has always been conceived of as a swiss-army-knife, sacrificing damage output or foe-lock-down or hp for a wide range of utility in different situations.
However...
The wizard should never outshine other classes. In earlier editions the linear fighter / quadratic wizard problem saw the wizard not being good at everything but better at everything - and that is the real problem. It dosn't matter if the wizard can fly, heal, shoot webs, throw fireballs, become invisible, charm people, and turn stone to mud - provided the fighter can still be the best at fighting, and the rogue is the best at sneaking, and the cleric still the best at healing.
|
|
|
