|
5 years ago ::
Sep 02, 2008 - 12:05PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 02, 2008 - 11:43PM
#12
|
|
|
have you seen the illusionist section in Dragon? it has a whole section on it
Knew it existed, but didn't want to plagiarize it. Er, oddly, I guess.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 03, 2008 - 11:28AM
#13
|
|
|
I loved the old draft. Please update it soon! I want to see the illusionist! We already have a half-orc, a monk and a druid in our party!
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 03, 2008 - 8:58PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Thank you, Stormonu, for considering my input on the druid. It feels a lot more balanced this way while still offering the sort of versatility that "computer gaming druids" have spoiled us with. (I should know, I have a 70 druid on the "other game.")
The illusionist is especially nice, if for no better reason than it's been desperately needed since the closing of 1E. One of my pet campaigns has an iconic hero who is a gnome illusionist/rogue... I've fought since 2E on how to break up the generalist wizard so that specialists were more distinctive. You're doing a wonderful job of that so far.
Thanks again for all of the hard work!
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 03, 2008 - 9:06PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
"The wizard may learn spells from any other Arcane-powered class of his level or lower. He may not learn spells from prestige classes that he is not a member of. However, he does not gain any of the special abilities from other arcane classes to use with this spells, which may diminish his prowess with these spells or make them unusable."
What do you think? Does it invalidate the other classes or make the Wizard too powerful?
IMHO, it doesn't make the wizard too powerful (I'm sure that they'll introduce more "spell powers" to the wizard just as they did with the illusion spells in Dragon Magazine). However, if you do that for the wizard, you might look at strengthening the distinctiveness of the class features of the "specialists," much like they did in 3E with Arcana Unearthed.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 03, 2008 - 9:54PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2007
|
I want my wizards to be able to generalize. I like it! I love it! I want some more of it! I have been kicking this idea around myself for awhile, but still wanted to keep the specialists, well, special. I can't wait to see what comes of all this!  :D (Yes, I'm trying to think of anything I might suggest to help the process. So far nothing has cropped up.)
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 04, 2008 - 7:37AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2004
|
IMHO the bard is way too powerful. It can heal as well as any leader and it seems to have just about every leader power AND every controller power. Basically, it is a wizard with higher hit points and full leader powers. On pure mechanical reasons, I would never play a wizard above this bard.
I like the some of the ideas in the bard. It seems to give up damage to be a REALLY good leader. And, that is cool. But, the fact that it also has massive area effect and significant status effects just makes it too powerful. I think the nail in the coffin for me was the area burst 2 power it had as an encounter level 1 power (that also added a status effect). No wizard encounter level 1 power even gets close to being this effective at control.
-SYB
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 13, 2008 - 6:23PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
After I took another look, I see where Syb is coming from.
I hate to admit it to you, Stormonu, but I am seeing that the originals from which you drew the bard and the druid could probably stand to stay as they were. Adding to them seems to either make them too versatile or too powerful.
The druid has taken a wonderful direction in the right direction, though. Thank you for considering my ideas and implementing them as you saw fit. I also like the work you've done in the specialist wizard classes. While I want to empathize with people who agree with ShiftKitty, I'll admit I'll take eight well-defined specialists even if it means no real generalist.
Now that we've learned there is going to be a Tempest build for the fighter coming out in the Martial Powers sourcebook, I have to admit the ranged fighter options may not be as far-fetched as I first believed.
Speaking of class builds, that might be an option for your wizard issues. Rather than try to build a seperate class for each of the specialists, simply present them a new build option for the wizard class. The powers themselves would make each specialist distinctive, purest players will follow the build advice and use the powers presented for the build, and mavericks wanting a more "generalist" build could mix and match to their hearts' content.
Yes, that runs counter to my "the druid is way too versatile" tirade, but admittedly the wizard is already "too versatile" by its very nature. I mean, you learn two powers per slot and get to pick which one to "memorize" each day? And you can learn others beyond that if you have the time and the spellbook space? You might as well just make the specialists "builds" and trust players to keep within the spirit of the rules.
You could add "specialist feats" to make sticking within the spirit of the builds more enticing, too, as an idea. Give bonuses to using spells from the particular build you're specialized in.
Just my two cents' worth.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 14, 2008 - 10:26AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2007
|
How about making the specialist classes similar to the warlock's various pacts? If you selected a specialty of any sort for your wizard, certain spells would have a small boost. For example, if you take the Illusionist specialty class feature, spells with the Illusion keyword would be harder to save against. A PC taking the Conjurer specialst class feature would have his conjurations do a bit of extra damage or something. If you don't select a specialty, you don't get the nifty little extras. (I wouldn't use 'banned' or 'opposed' schools.)
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 15, 2008 - 10:30AM
#20
|
|
|
Using one wizard class with different specialist builds probably would have been the easiest way to go, but I thinking having a different class for each will eventually allow for a truly different "feel" to each of the classes. For example, I don't think the necromancer could have been done very well as just a subset of wizard; it has a much different feel than either a cleric or wizard could do alone. Transmuter, on the other hand, would likely have been fine as a build option for wizard.
The latest class I've popped in there, Sorcerer, needs a firm looking at. I'm fearful that as it is now it would be too powerful as a "wizard +". I'm hoping the powers are just different enough that the class is distinct and does not overshadow the wizard as much as give him a run for his money. I also had a lot of fun sneaking the "Heritage Form" names into the powers, giving interesting fluff names while also granting useful forms. The only one I'm concerned about is Glabrezu's Whispers, since it's actually an epic level creature and you can't use the Heritage Form until far after the Paragon level it's available at.
I'll also go back and look at the bard. Are there any specific powers (beside the Enc 1 power) that are troublesome?
|
|
|
