Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Bards & Sorcerers & Summoners & Warlocks & Witches & Wizards oh my!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cadence" data-source="post: 8309398" data-attributes="member: 6701124"><p>I keep flip-flopping between wanting the wizards to have access to everything (since they're the folks who study all of magic) and wanting there to be some things only accessible to certain mortals because they have something granting them that power (in this case the gods, or beings from the spirit realm, or connection with nature). At the moment I'm leaning towards the later. I certainly think the levels of specific spells should be related to class and sub-class/archetype. And since I'm picturing an E6 game with the spells topping out at 3rd, that would stop some classes from getting some spells.</p><p></p><p>For the four that get spells by studying, I'm having a hard time seeing the Sorcerer [Bloodline sparked] and Witch [Pact sparked] not having access to the Wizard [schooled] spells, except for level problems. Maybe the extra formal schooling of the Wizard, or blood of the Sorcerer, or patron of the witch makes some of them easier or harder. It feels like there should be very few Sorcerer and Witch spells that the Wizard can't do.</p><p></p><p>I can picture the Bard [sing it] having a different list because of the way they're doing it (they wouldn't be able to just use a spell-book and vice-versa). Maybe some having to do with thoughts/emotions would only be doable through song and not through the usual VSM spells of the other classes? Maybe a lot of the wizard spells don't fit the idiom at all. Is that a justification for Bards to have healing but not Wizards? But why shouldn't Wizards be able to heal (maybe a level behind)? I mean, they can do necromancy. Should Witches have healing?</p><p></p><p>For the limited spell book ones (Scion? and Warlock?) I picture them having very tailored lists depending on bloodline or patron. Maybe there are some things on their list that would be shared by the Sorcerer and Witch respectively and not Wizard.</p><p></p><p>I picture the Clerics, Shaman, and Druids having more limited spell lists than the Wizard/Sorcerer/Witch/Bard, but being much more expansive than the Scion/Warlock, and having them tied to the power source. I keep picture them being very different than the spellbook kind, but then there are some priests in fiction that study magic and some things the shaman does I picture a Witch (but not Warlock) doing.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't picture the Wizard, Sorcerer, or Witch (full studied casters) being so different a subclass couldn't cover it. The spell casting would be the same, but the school/bloodline/hexes or whatnot feel like they're on the same level. I guess my question (based on another thread) is if people are annoyed by sub-classes? Will the person who really, really, really wants a Witch be annoyed that they're a wizard sub-class? </p><p></p><p>Is that just "marketing". If you imagine a page labeled "Incanists" in a big faded font, with Wizard, Sorcerer, Witch, and Bard in medium sized, non-faded colored font, with a picture of all four at the bottom of the page... does that make the person with their heart set on something feel like they aren't being slighted?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So if I imagine a full-caster Cleric, half-caster War Priest, and splash Paladin, do the other classes have a similar breakdown? Do you make the half-claster a sub-class of the full class? Or do you just say multi-class things and give some feats or powers available only to multi-classers? </p><p></p><p></p><p>That's where I'm leaning, but then I read the Witch thread, or folks wanting a Warlord, or...</p><p></p><p></p><p>It feels like even the classic way, like in Pathfinder, ends up with a lot of tags on things. Luckily if I'm only going E6, limiting to 3rd level spells cuts things own a lot! Thinking of it like Cook did might help me make the lists by class/sub-class if I choose to go that way though.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The reverse of that (Just classes. No Levels.) is close to another question I'm mulling. Picture a game where you level advance to a point, and then you just get new feats (some of which are more advanced powers). How many levels do you need for it to still feel like DnD. Is it better to go to 9 or 12 levels (with smaller advances in power between) than just have 6? If it's just 6 is it better to ponder a game where everything is ad-hoc advancement? (Is that how VtM 2e was?).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cadence, post: 8309398, member: 6701124"] I keep flip-flopping between wanting the wizards to have access to everything (since they're the folks who study all of magic) and wanting there to be some things only accessible to certain mortals because they have something granting them that power (in this case the gods, or beings from the spirit realm, or connection with nature). At the moment I'm leaning towards the later. I certainly think the levels of specific spells should be related to class and sub-class/archetype. And since I'm picturing an E6 game with the spells topping out at 3rd, that would stop some classes from getting some spells. For the four that get spells by studying, I'm having a hard time seeing the Sorcerer [Bloodline sparked] and Witch [Pact sparked] not having access to the Wizard [schooled] spells, except for level problems. Maybe the extra formal schooling of the Wizard, or blood of the Sorcerer, or patron of the witch makes some of them easier or harder. It feels like there should be very few Sorcerer and Witch spells that the Wizard can't do. I can picture the Bard [sing it] having a different list because of the way they're doing it (they wouldn't be able to just use a spell-book and vice-versa). Maybe some having to do with thoughts/emotions would only be doable through song and not through the usual VSM spells of the other classes? Maybe a lot of the wizard spells don't fit the idiom at all. Is that a justification for Bards to have healing but not Wizards? But why shouldn't Wizards be able to heal (maybe a level behind)? I mean, they can do necromancy. Should Witches have healing? For the limited spell book ones (Scion? and Warlock?) I picture them having very tailored lists depending on bloodline or patron. Maybe there are some things on their list that would be shared by the Sorcerer and Witch respectively and not Wizard. I picture the Clerics, Shaman, and Druids having more limited spell lists than the Wizard/Sorcerer/Witch/Bard, but being much more expansive than the Scion/Warlock, and having them tied to the power source. I keep picture them being very different than the spellbook kind, but then there are some priests in fiction that study magic and some things the shaman does I picture a Witch (but not Warlock) doing. I don't picture the Wizard, Sorcerer, or Witch (full studied casters) being so different a subclass couldn't cover it. The spell casting would be the same, but the school/bloodline/hexes or whatnot feel like they're on the same level. I guess my question (based on another thread) is if people are annoyed by sub-classes? Will the person who really, really, really wants a Witch be annoyed that they're a wizard sub-class? Is that just "marketing". If you imagine a page labeled "Incanists" in a big faded font, with Wizard, Sorcerer, Witch, and Bard in medium sized, non-faded colored font, with a picture of all four at the bottom of the page... does that make the person with their heart set on something feel like they aren't being slighted? So if I imagine a full-caster Cleric, half-caster War Priest, and splash Paladin, do the other classes have a similar breakdown? Do you make the half-claster a sub-class of the full class? Or do you just say multi-class things and give some feats or powers available only to multi-classers? That's where I'm leaning, but then I read the Witch thread, or folks wanting a Warlord, or... It feels like even the classic way, like in Pathfinder, ends up with a lot of tags on things. Luckily if I'm only going E6, limiting to 3rd level spells cuts things own a lot! Thinking of it like Cook did might help me make the lists by class/sub-class if I choose to go that way though. The reverse of that (Just classes. No Levels.) is close to another question I'm mulling. Picture a game where you level advance to a point, and then you just get new feats (some of which are more advanced powers). How many levels do you need for it to still feel like DnD. Is it better to go to 9 or 12 levels (with smaller advances in power between) than just have 6? If it's just 6 is it better to ponder a game where everything is ad-hoc advancement? (Is that how VtM 2e was?). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Bards & Sorcerers & Summoners & Warlocks & Witches & Wizards oh my!
Top