Exclusive spells: Yea or nay?

[Hypersmurf]

I didn't like the idea of having arcane spells exist if a wizard had no access to them at all.

Cure Light Wounds? Silence? Modify Memory? Song of Discord?

-Hyp.

 

[eris404]

Love exclusive spells. I think it's great flavor, and in our group, I have not seen a player with a wizard character get upset about not having access to certain (new?) spells (I think it's because our players tend to play specialists and are used to having restricted access to spells). I'm glad we're starting to see more spells for "minor" casters (bards, assassins, etc.), too, because it really gives those classes a little something special.

 

[Tonguez]

If there was a system of 'traditions' where Wizards were better at spells of their tradition but worse (ie really bad) at others I would be happy for a Wizard of the Nature Tradition to research any Nature-related spells

but since this doesn't exist (because Schools don't work like this) I say Unique traditions for different classes is the way to go!

The ideal system would involve each Wizard choosing three schools and an overriding tradition (eg fire spells) and then being able to create any effect base on that tradition and school

Apparently Ars Magica works like this but I haven't played it (although I did download the free copy)

 

[Dragonhelm]

Identity

I think it's fine for some classes to have exclusive spells. By having spells that only they know, that helps to set their identity.

Right now, what's the difference between a wizard and a sorcerer? Just prepared spells vs. spontaneous casting for the most part. There's not much to really differentiate the two.

From an in-world flavor standpoint, that's relatively dull. From the player's standpoint, it doesn't give one much reason to pick one over another.

There really isn't much identity to either class, at least according to the PHB.

Exclusive spells help to give definition to spellcasters. It helps both from the player's standpoint and from an in-world standpoint to provide differentiation.

And, if you want your wizard to learn a wu jen spell, then the DM can allow for it, or you can create a feat like the psionic expanded knowledge feat.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think that if you need to write out a whole raft of new spells, just to differentiate a new class from an already existing class, then maybe you should just write out spells and have some roleplaying notes, and not bother with the class.

I mean really - is there anyone here that thinks that the wujen was in any way necessary? That your average player couldn't easily make an orientally-themed wizard using the regular class with about 5 seconds of thought?

 

[Psion]

If you are going to bother to make a unique spellcasting class, don't you think the least you could do is make some unique spells for it? Spell choice are a great way to characterize a spellcasting character; a list of available spells chosen to highlight the nature of a class is a great way to helps better define the nature of a spellcasting class.

(Though there were more than a few Wu Jen spells that could have afforded to have been cross listed)

 

[Tuzenbach]

Exclusive Spells didn't start with the Wu-Jen, nor with Wizards. They show up in the original OD&D booklets, where the magic-user and the cleric have their own exclusive spell lists.

True.

Actually, my inspiration for the thread didn't arise from the Wu-Jen issue, but from 1E Advanced and its differentiation between the Magic-User vs. the Illusionist. Sure, you *could* be a Magic-User, but you'd never be able to cast those cool Illusionist-exclusive spells.

 

[Crothian]

Ya, in fact there is too much cross polination of spells as it is. THey need to have more spells that are unique to only one class. Heck, we should have seperate spell lists for the wizard and the socerer as well.

 

[Tuzenbach]

Double post. Stupid University server!

 

[Mokona]

Spells should only be exclusive for game play (balance) reasons. Flavor can be left up to DM fiat (and ultimately with house rules it will be).