|
2 years ago ::
Dec 15, 2010 - 11:01AM
#401
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
The closest games get is the Final Fantasy series, where they are all still called spells, but there is blue magic, green magic, etc.
Um, you are, of course, aware that in the Final Fantasy series all spellcasters are called mages, and they all have to study to learn their magic? Seems like a single type of wizard with multiple schools of specialization to me.
The shift is more of one where the class in question has no ability to cast certain types of spells.
That is not a cultural shift. It is old news, and it is the result of the way fantasy has been influenced by Dungeons and Dragons. Back in 2e specialist wizards could not cast spells that came from the antithesis of their specialized school. I am pretty sure that was a feature of 1e as well, though I am not 100% certain (I started actively playing the game in the 2e days).
For example, Allods Online (and yes, most of this shift has happened in Online games so far) Has an Archetype known as Summoner, but this is a bit of a misnomer as the archetype has 3 classes (Demonologist, Savant, Defiler)with the same overall ability tree linked to using death magic to summon the dead, strike with horrible diseases and poisons, and transfer life to allies. They don't overlap with the Mage archetype, they don't even come close, so all their spells are class (well archetype) specific. I can look for others if you want me to.
I just checked the game out. First of all, I see no fluff that claims that the summoner does not learn arcane magic through study (though I could be mistaken. I have never even heard of the game until you mentioned it). All I see is a mechanical separation between an elemental magic user and a necromantic magic user. So, where is this cultural shift towards the notion that the necromancer is not an arcanist? And, if we accept that the necromancer is a form of arcanist, why should we not expect D&D to build the necromancer using mechanics inspired by the game's historical system of organization? A wizard with multiple schools of magical specialization is the way D&D has always organized its archanists. I don't think it is very reasonable to expect D&D to change that simply because you like Allods Online...
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 15, 2010 - 11:08AM
#402
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
Heroes of Horror, a 3.5 supplement. The Dread Necromancer class has no ties to the wizard (uses a lot of spells that are from their list, but so does every spellcasting class). It is arcane, but the druid was divine; there's precedent for a power source to be carved out from the theme of the class. Better yet, this is a class that has already existed, alongside the Necromancers of old.
I'm not one of the people arguing that there shouldn't be a Wizard that is called a Necromancer. I am arguing that Necromancers also deserve a take as a full-on shadow class. E.g., the Dread Necromancer that has already been a part of D&D in the past. There's precedent that shadow magic can be used to raise the dead and stuff. It's kinda the entire Shadowfell.
1) I agree with what Crimson Dawn said. I don't really see a cultural shift towards a necromancer that is not a form of archanist.
2) I can see how this might be viewed as a cultural shift towards mechanics which build the necromantic archanist as its own class. I would not at all be bothered, for example, if WotC decided to build separate classes for each form of archanist. I am also not bothered by them building a single overarching mage class, and building each form of archanist as a build of that class. In fact, I think I kind of prefer that method (because it reminds me of the D&D I have played since the 90s, and it is a logical way of representing what amounts to a group of different archanists who, from the point of view of fluff, only differ in so much as the type of magic they have chosen to specialize in). So, I guess I am saying that I would not be bothered if they released another "Necromancer" class as a stand alone class in the future. I just don't see any reason why that avenue of mechanical representation is in any way a preferable method of producing the necromantic archanist archetype (and I see no evidence to support the idea that the necromancer has culturally moved away from the idea of it being a type of archanist). On the other hand, I do see reasons why their current method is a preferable method of producing the necromantic archanist archetype.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 15, 2010 - 12:15PM
#403
|
|
|
I think it was important in 3rd to make these spontaneous specialist wizard/sorc classes as a normal sorc could not get all the spells to make a really good specialty caster. 4e does not have this problem so while I would not get angry I would think it was redundant in 4e to have 2 necromancers unless you can make them different enough to warrent different official classes (Personally I think if they made it now the sorcerer would be a mage build that was a striker).
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 15, 2010 - 12:42PM
#404
|
Date Joined:
Oct 20, 2010
|
The closest games get is the Final Fantasy series, where they are all still called spells, but there is blue magic, green magic, etc.
Um, you are, of course, aware that in the Final Fantasy series all spellcasters are called mages, and they all have to study to learn their magic? Seems like a single type of wizard with multiple schools of specialization to me.
Speaking as a Black Mage in Final Fantasy XI Online, FF's "mage" classes are very different.
Black Mages are basically Wizards, true. White Mages are closer to Clerics, with their ability to wear certain kinds of heavy armor and their bladed weapon restriction, plus white magic itself is more like divine spells. Red Mages are more like Swordmages or Bards than anything else, and Blue Mages are melee combatants with powers derived from the monsters they kill. (Interestingly, they're also the only ones in FFXI who get to prepare their spells!)
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 15, 2010 - 2:06PM
#405
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
I think it was important in 3rd to make these spontaneous specialist wizard/sorc classes as a normal sorc could not get all the spells to make a really good specialty caster. 4e does not have this problem so while I would not get angry I would think it was redundant in 4e to have 2 necromancers unless you can make them different enough to warrent different official classes (Personally I think if they made it now the sorcerer would be a mage build that was a striker).
... I am pretty sure your use of spontaneous, in this instance, is catachrestic. Otherwise, I really don't understand what you mean by a "spontaneous specialist." I do agree with your overall point though. Except that bit on sorcerers. I don't think sorcerers would be built as mages, because there is a very different idea behind how they are supposed to operate in the D&D world. One is supposed to be the learned bookworm, the other is supposed to be someone born with magic in their blood who develops spell-like natural abilities. The mage's spellbook feature just doesn't make sense for a D&D sorcerer.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 15, 2010 - 2:10PM
#406
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
The closest games get is the Final Fantasy series, where they are all still called spells, but there is blue magic, green magic, etc.
Um, you are, of course, aware that in the Final Fantasy series all spellcasters are called mages, and they all have to study to learn their magic? Seems like a single type of wizard with multiple schools of specialization to me.
Speaking as a Black Mage in Final Fantasy XI Online, FF's "mage" classes are very different.
Black Mages are basically Wizards, true. White Mages are closer to Clerics, with their ability to wear certain kinds of heavy armor and their bladed weapon restriction, plus white magic itself is more like divine spells. Red Mages are more like Swordmages or Bards than anything else, and Blue Mages are melee combatants with powers derived from the monsters they kill. (Interestingly, they're also the only ones in FFXI who get to prepare their spells!)
Yes, they are very different. The game as a whole uses very different fluff. But it is important to note, that within the context of FF, all of the mages are considered to be archanists. Each color of magic is considered to be a school in which one particular mage specializes. The fact that each school leads to a very different type of mage is fairly irrelevant to that point. It is an issue of mechanics and not fluff. It does not indicate that their has been a cultural shift away from the notion of necromancers being a form of archanist.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 15, 2010 - 2:22PM
#407
|
|
|
I think it was important in 3rd to make these spontaneous specialist wizard/sorc classes as a normal sorc could not get all the spells to make a really good specialty caster. 4e does not have this problem so while I would not get angry I would think it was redundant in 4e to have 2 necromancers unless you can make them different enough to warrent different official classes (Personally I think if they made it now the sorcerer would be a mage build that was a striker).
... I am pretty sure your use of spontaneous, in this instance, is catachrestic. Otherwise, I really don't understand what you mean by a "spontaneous specialist." I do agree with your overall point though. Except that bit on sorcerers. I don't think sorcerers would be built as mages, because there is a very different idea behind how they are supposed to operate in the D&D world. One is supposed to be the learned bookworm, the other is supposed to be someone born with magic in their blood who develops spell-like natural abilities. The mage's spellbook feature just doesn't make sense for a D&D sorcerer.
When I say spontaneous specialist this is what i mean.
1) Wizards have specialists that specialize in the use of one school of magic to the detrament of their other spells.
2) Sorcerers are spontaneous wizards.
3) Dread necros, warmages, and beguilers are all spontaneous so they are a variant on the sorc idea.
4) Dread necros specialize in necromatic spells, warmages evocation, and the beguiler enchantment/illusion. They do this to the detrment of them casting other spells in general. So to me they fill the niche of a specialist wizard with sorcerer style casting.
On mages being used with the sorc class. Well you would build that magic in the blood part as part of the fluff and give them "blood" benefits as "specialist" benefits and you would eliminate the mage book feature and give them a striker feature or something. you could make it work and then sorcs would have access to wizard paths and feats. You would then make it an int based caster with cha riders I would think.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 15, 2010 - 2:23PM
#408
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2002
|
On mages being used with the sorc class. Well you would build that magic in the blood part as part of the fluff and give them "blood" benefits as "specialist" benefits and you would eliminate the mage book feature and give them a striker feature or something. you could make it work and then sorcs would have access to wizard paths and feats. You would then make it an int based caster with cha riders I would think.
Or... Just use the existing class based around a magic user with magic inherently running through their veins? Perhaps?
Yes, the latest book/release that you don't like is a blatant attempt by Wizards of the Coast to make money off the fanbase. They all are. That's kinda the point of the Free Enterprise system, companies are in it to make money... Spoiler:
Show
You can't! I tried... and the next night masked men came into my house and beat me until I burned up my ranger character sheet and rolled a scout. They told me... if I ever thought of making a non-essential character that they would kill mitsy..... OH GOD THEY ARE COMING BACK AND ARE FORCING ME TO BUY HEROES OF SHADOWS! SOMEONE STOP THEM PLEASE!
Your DM is your friend. He's not trying to screw with you, or dick you around. Play your character how your character would act. Accept that your character won't always be able to do what he's best at, but also know that as a goddamn HERO, he's gonna try to do his best at what he can do.
Roleplay your goddamn character, make the decisions he would make, and roll appropriately. Everything will be fine.
But filling a post with vitriol, hate-filled comments, like "these people should be fired", swearing at us or other ambiguous members of the company - there really is no reason for that. Please share your feedback respectfully, and consider how you would share your ideas if this were a face to face conversation between real people, not faceless names on a screen.
If you see me posting in a thread about editions or Essentials (that isn't simply a rules thread or similar) remind me that I'm trying to stay away from them. (My blood pressure will thank us both.)
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 15, 2010 - 2:29PM
#409
|
|
|
On mages being used with the sorc class. Well you would build that magic in the blood part as part of the fluff and give them "blood" benefits as "specialist" benefits and you would eliminate the mage book feature and give them a striker feature or something. you could make it work and then sorcs would have access to wizard paths and feats. You would then make it an int based caster with cha riders I would think.
Or... Just use the existing class based around a magic user with magic inherently running through their veins? Perhaps?
Oh I can but I was remarking you could make a sorc class using the mage chassis with little problems and if they had not made a sorc already they may have gone this route in essentials. Think there would not be wizard/sorc comparisons as classes if they were just different builds.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 15, 2010 - 4:29PM
#410
|
Date Joined:
Mar 27, 2004
|
I have to put this in. In 3.5, there was two wizards, The Wizard and The Sorcerer. The only difference between the two was mechanics, nothing else.
Why they didn't use the Sorcerer mechanic to cast spells for all spell casting is beyond my understanding, and whey the Wizard kept the memory loss for Dailies (And Encounters now for the "Mage") is mind boggling.
Spontainious is the fact that each casting of a spell, the caster can choose any spell of that slot's level or lower that he/she knows or has memed (For the Mana Rules in UA). It is immaterial for 4th edition, as it is designed with a different scheme all together. That the Wizard still has the overall hold over for this is amazing.
Terms you should know... Spoiler:
Show
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner)
Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level.
Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds.
Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
ha ha
Show
They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2.
The new sub-sub-classes will be:
* Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks.
* Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank.
* Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture.
* Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things.
* Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind.
Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2).
These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing.
(Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
|
|
|
