Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
LOL. I love BECMI and 1E but "magic user" was always a stupid name for a class. Mage and Wizard were both far better. I think I'd be OK with it as a category description, though.
DEFCON 1 said:But do you really need to put these classes into a cute little basket in order to tell people "select the spellcasting mechanics for this class"?
KaiiLurker said:Great, yet another layer of obfuscation for no good reason.
So in this week legend and lore weget alotaboutclasses (buti am sure wotc golem will startthat thread) but the big bomb shell for me was magic user as a class with wizard and sorcerer as builds :/
My knee jerk reaction was "what!?!"
we might introduce an overall class category called magic-user that features wizard, sorcerer, and other options as choices beneath it.
If only half those things were true. But let's face it, the Mage-user category will only apply to Arcane casters (No psions, no divines) and has no other purpose than to be able to stick multiple casting system on the wizard. Do the sorcerer needs to be dragged down with all of this?, I don't think so, I find it pointless to give up the simple caster in order to fix another class I don't care about, at all. There is so much elegance in saying "this is your sorcerer, he/she knows x spells and can use them on any combo y times per day, no need to bother with anything else", making it "this is a sorcerer, he she has these amounts of statistics that apply to the casting system selected by your DM, <see casting systems page yyy>" they just make it harder to built one.It's a useful distinction between them and other classes because they might have a shared "magic mechanic" (or not).
I don't agree.
I think the distinction is that the DM might put a "magic system" in place for the whole world. For instance, the DM might decide to use ADEU, or Vancian, or Recharge, or Defiling/Preserving, or Artifice, or Patron, or Power Points, or whatever.
If the DM does this, than all "magic users" will use the same magical mechanics. For instance, in 2e, all magic-users were "Vancian."
A DM may differentiate in different ways by using multiple magic systems. For instance, a DM fond of dividing up the magic by class may say there's no one "magic system," but that warlocks use At-Will magic, and wizards use Vancian magic, and Sorcerers use Recharge magic, and psions use Power Points.
Or a DM may differentiate by "power source" if they'd like, so that all arcane spellcasters use Defiling/Preserving magic, all divine spellcasters use Patron magic, and all psinoic spellcasters use Power Points.
Or a DM may leave it up to the player so that of the three wizards in his game, one uses Power Points and one uses Vancian spellcasting and one uses ADEU spellcasting.
Because "magic users" may all be using the same spellcasting mechanic (or not), this needs to be a separate category from "non-magic-users," who presumably won't have to worry about that noise really.
KaiiLurker said:But let's face it, the Mage-user category will only apply to Arcane casters (No psions, no divines) and has no other purpose than to be able to stick multiple casting system on the wizard.
KaiiLurker said:I don't think so, I find it pointless to give up the simple caster in order to fix another class I don't care about, at all. There is so much elegance in saying "this is your sorcerer, he/she knows x spells and can use them on any combo y times per day, no need to bother with anything else", making it "this is a sorcerer, he she has these amounts of statistics that apply to the casting system selected by your DM, <see casting systems page yyy>" they just make it harder to built one.
KaiiLurker said:And let's be honest, how many people played sorcerers for the mechanics alone? a good chunk
KaiiLurker said:the last thing any innate caster needs is a spellbook.
KaiiLurker said:No matter how powerfull spontaneous casting could be, it doesn't compare with the ability to switch skillsets overnight and the sorcerer class needs to be treated as it's own thing, no longer as an extension of the wizard.
KaiiLurker said:if you make the sorcerer part of this whole business, there is nothing that can give us back the simple caster we love and care about.
Do the sorcerer needs to be dragged down with all of this?, I don't think so, I find it pointless to give up the simple caster in order to fix another class I don't care about, at all. There is so much elegance in saying "this is your sorcerer, he/she knows x spells and can use them on any combo y times per day, no need to bother with anything else", making it "this is a sorcerer, he she has these amounts of statistics that apply to the casting system selected by your DM, <see casting systems page yyy>" they just make it harder to built one.
looks to me that it isnt going to be a class but a list of classes that use magic
So, should that include Clerics and Druids (as they both use magic)?
So, should that include Clerics and Druids (as they both use magic)?
nah sir, for they are not ARCANE magic users. They could (should) make one for primal and one for divine characters
Ratskinner;6033772) If they're gonna save space by writing up different casting options for magic using classes said:three separate time[/I]s for the different possible power sources...which may not be a concept in Next, anyway. (Different spell lists would be fine, of course. Pointless, IMO, but there's another sacred cow.) I think the Divine/Arcane/Primal thing is silly. One man's priest is another man's warlock is another man's mage is another man's druid.