Community

They seem fine to me, with the caveat that I am under ther assumption we willl see a lot more illusion spells in the "real" game.

One crucial point: you can still learn spells from spell books and such!  So the scholarly wizard's extra spell known each level just means they learn more spells by leveling up, that is a decent bonus, but given time any wizard can learn just as many spells by finding them in enemy spellbooks and such.

The invoker's ability to AOE without hurting allies, that is HUGE.  Seems overpowered even, Fireball has always been a strong spell but being able to cast it into the middle of a small room and fry all the enemies without hurting any party members seems almost too strong.

The illusionist's +2 DC to illusion saves, well the problem is lack of higher level illusion spells in the playtest packet.  With spells like Phantasmal Killer or Weird that +2 DC is incredibly strong, so hopefully those spells make it into the game. 

Jan 10, 2013 -- 1:35PM, Eisenritter wrote:

Irrelevent.  Generalist spellcasters need to die, for the good of the game.  They are not a trope and thus aren't an option.  Period.  It's bad enough the wizard's gotten back unrestricted access to every spell on its list, it doesn't need to have the ability to cast them as well!

What in the...?

Not a trope? Show me 5 examples of spell-users that are tropes - for whatever reason that is supposed to matter - that are also limited in the magic they can wield by anything other than "haven't figured it out yet."

Tolkein wizards - not actually restricted in the spells they know, but choose carefully what magics to use.
Harry Potter wizards - no one is restricted in what they can cast by anything other than "haven't learned that one yet."
Harry Dresden - not a specialist, limited only by his experience and how much mojo (for lack of a better word) he can muster.

...then we get to where the only other wizards I can think of are actually D&D wizards...

Next point: There is no such thing (outside the cleric class since 3rd edition forward, excepting 4th edition) as a class that has "unrestricted access" to their spell list - having to go out and find the spell is a restriction, and a pretty solid one at that.

Jan 10, 2013 -- 4:12PM, Eisenritter wrote:

Tolkein wizards - don't exist.  Gandalf is a plot device, not a player.
Harry Potter wizards - don't count.  If everyone is magical, no one is.
Harry Dresden - won't be touched due to my lack of familiarity.

You are not refuting my arguments and participating in conversation so much as you are stuffing your fingers in your digital equivalent of ears and going"Nuh uh! not listening! la la la la la!"

...but yet I am stuck at home with no idea what I'd rather be doing, so I will keep responding:

Gandalf might be a plot device, but he is still a wizard and magic is still an established thing that people can learn - and it does not involve an inherent limitation as to what types of spells they can learn. There are Wizards or Magicians - there are not "well, Saruman is a Transmuter, but Gandalf is a Diviner and elves tend to be Conjurers" or anything even remotely equivalent going on.

Harry Potter does count because every character focused on happens to be  magical, but comprise only a small portion of the world population which a massive majority of are completely mundane and oblivious to the existence of magic - the character's one might find while exploring a Wizard's academy in D&D are no less magical just because no mundane characters happen to be inside the academy.

...and as for finding other examples of generalists outside of D&D, I absolutely should not have to in order to prove that generalists have a place inside D&D, and every wizard ever written into a D&D novel that happened to be a generalist reinforces my stance that they absolutely do have a place.

Matter of fact is that the word "wizard" or "mage" by itself is actually refering to a generalist in almost every case, and the specialist types that you seem to insist are more prevalent while also refusing to provide any evidence are typically referred to as a "wizard" or "mage" only with a qualifier added, such as being a "fire mage," or a "black mage," or even an "ice wizard."

Jan 10, 2013 -- 4:12PM, Eisenritter wrote:

Next point:  If you do not have a limited number of spells known that is only increased by gaining levels in your class, you have unrestricted access to your spell list.

A quick stop at a local dictionary has provided me with the following definitions of the word "unrestricted":
1) Not subject to or subjected to restriction.
2) Free of restrictions on conduct
3) Accessible to all.

And these defintions for "restriction"
1) A limiting condition or measure, esp. a legal one
2) The limitation or control of someone or something, or the state of being limited or restricted.

So we see that something that is limited, such as the number of spells that a character is entitled to know based on level, is by definition restricted.
Further, we see that anything which someone else can tell you "no" about is limited, and by definition restricted - and a DM can control a player's spell acquisition in that manner of saying "No, I don't think you should take that spell," or "No,  your character doesn't find any new spells to learn."
And last, but not least, we see that anything which someone does not have access to is by definition restricted - and wizards do not automatically have every spell on their spell list also in their spell book, and so have only restricted access to their spell list.

A wizard could theoretically possess unrestricted access to their spell list, but it is by no means the default nor assumed state - unlike the case of clerics and their spell list.

You guys were probably writing these things while I was reading them, it depresses me that some mutual agreement could be reached even if opinions would not be compromised. I would like to see more Specialist wizards but I usually like generalist types unless going for something specific, which, as I don't personally go for wizards that often to begin with, means I don't often ... thought lost here. I've seen my cousin (a player while DMing) go evoker once, and necromancer another time, I think that second one. I think he likes the sizzle and bang, I am a bit more mechanically minded and try to get the most out of my characters and tend towards general use. [This all being from 4th and 3.5 Editions I'm talking here]. So please go on I’m curious on some more thoughts, do you see possible suggestions to fix it?
 

Jan 10, 2013 -- 1:12AM, AlmightyK wrote:

perhaps bring back signature spells? of course, allowing the player to choose their signature spell, but perhaps this would make specialists a better option

I'd LOVE to see them come back.