NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 5538226" data-attributes="member: 5834">I like this idea as well. I wouldn't at all mind seeing this in future D&D design.I also think the sorcerer class can accomplish this same type of limitation. Sorcerers are very limited in the type of spells they can acquire, which limits their versatility and ability to do all things. Yet at the same time well-designed sorcerers can be potent whether a standard blaster or something stranger like a shapechanger focused on melee.If they did away with the generic wizard and focused more on specialized casters, I think it would make world building and magic more interesting. Imagine if teleport wasn't at every wizard's beck and call. Or wish. Or enervation. Or hold monster.If you wanted to do certain things, you would have to pick a certain magical discipline with far more limiations than specialization. While at the same time not limiting magic in the fashion that 4E did. I think this would be an excellent option from both game design and revenue generation. There would need to be an entire book dedicated to magic very, very early to supply options for casting.I can't stand the inherent limitations of 4E magic. I still want to see the variety in magic of previous editions. But limiting areas of magic to certain classes wouldn't bother me at all. Why should a necromancer be able to teleport? Why should a conjurer be able to control minds? Why should a wizard focusing all his time on transmuting materials be able to manipulate the dead?The Pathfinder wizard specialties was a step in the right direction. But I'd like to see them take it even farther if whenever they decide to do somethng different down the line and make specialization much more limited.</blockquote>

Verification