New Design: Wizards...

[Nahat Anoj]

Sure, Wizards should be paying attention, but making a major change like that--in so short a time span, based on the feedback of a few people in a couple of threads--is about the worst way I can think of to drive any last-minute changes.

Yeah, I don't think WotC would be back down so quickly (and most people indeed seemed fine with tomes).

In any case, I hope tomes will be there - maybe they still are there, but they were supposed to be "secret" for now.

 

[Wormwood]

If this is the case and I am right, I for one welcome the death old-school D&D specialization and welcome the arrival of this new form of specialization based on effects.

Yeah, that's my line of thinking as well.

Loooooong overdue.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Huh. I'm going to have to disagree with ya, Wulf. So long as it doesn't bleed over into the mechanics, and is thus relatively easy to change, I prefer any flavor (even if it's flavor of which I'm not fond) to a completely tasteless rulebook of nothing but mechanics.

I am not advocating that.

You can describe the rules in interesting, flavorful, and evocative ways without resorting to specific fluff.

I can write a description for fireball for example, that is every bit as entertaining as an entry that resorts to references to The Order of the Dread Phoenix.

EDIT: And as long as you mention it, it's possible to write "pure mechanics" in an engaging way, at a level completely above any reference to the game world whatsoever. Gygax was great at this.

 

[Yergi]

Who wants to bet that the six traditions listed will be talent trees for the Wizard?

 

[Wormwood]

Yeah, I don't think WotC would be back down so quickly (and most people indeed seemed fine with tomes).

In any case, I hope tomes will be there - maybe they still are there, but they were supposed to be "secret" for now.

Perhaps Tomes are the one Implement common to all Wizards, regardless of School?

 

[WizarDru]

Funny. Most of them sound like actual mystical/philosophical orders. The East doesn't have a lock on overly dramatic names for esoteric groups.

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn
The Hermetic Brotherhood of Light
The Brethren of the Rose Cross
The Sons of Mars
The White Company
The Free Lances
The Armurer Black Heap
The Knights Hospitaller
The Varangian Guard
The Sovereign Militia of Malta
The Hermetic Sanctuary of Ma'at
The Builders of the Adytum
The Wild Geese

 

[Celebrim]

I HATE the flavor/fluff. Golden Wyvern, Iron Sigil-- DROP ALL THAT CRAP.

Worse than being simply childish sounding (where Gygax when you need him), its all settting information not essential to the functioning of the class. I don't need this sort of flavor or fluff to understand, 'Hey, I'm a wizard' or the rudiments of how the magic system works.

Just give me solid, balanced rules. Do I have to have all this fluffetty-puffetty crap in my rulebooks?

Have you seen how fluffety-puffetty the rulebook covers look? Have you heard how they want to go to a glossier, magizine, look to the rulebook, and get away from the 'textbook' like appearance of the rules? Oh, nevermind. My guess is, 'Yes, you have to put up with all this fluffety-puffetty pokemony crap'.

I just got a shiver down my spine the likes of which I have not felt since Bo9S-- good rules completely overshadowed and undermined by, frankly, really "purple" fluff.

Even if I avoid challenging your contention that the Bo9S rules were good, how in the world did you imagine that it wasn't the future of D&D fluff? Have you seen, for example, 'Expedition to Castle Ravenloft'? That's the future of D&D fluff/layout/formatting/etc. Shake your fist at the clouds however you like, it's coming.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I can write a description for fireball for example, that is every bit as entertaining as an entry that resorts to references to The Order of the Dread Phoenix.

I'm sure you could. But we're not talking about just spell write-ups. We're talking about references to entire schools/traditions/talent-trees/whatever-you-want-to-call-them of magic. I suppose one could write about those without coming up with some kind of name for them, but I think it'd be awkward at best.

EDIT: And as long as you mention it, it's possible to write "pure mechanics" in an engaging way, at a level completely above any reference to the game world whatsoever. Gygax was great at this.

That's debatable. And yes, I'm being deliberately oblique as to what part of that statement I take issue with, because I neither want to imply any insult to Gygax, nor to get into an argument over what the man's strengths and weaknesses were as a writer. Suffice it to say, I disagree with the conclusion, and leave it at that.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Who wants to bet that the six traditions listed will be talent trees for the Wizard?

My thoughts exactly. Another thing that crossed my mind, too: more use of descriptors for spells to help categorize them (like Fire, Sonic, Force... etc.) Monte Cook said he thought they had been underutilized in 3E, and made them more prevalent in his Arcana Unearthed/Evolved setting. Perhaps talent trees will allow a wizard to make his implement more tuned to certain descriptors. A wider use of this mechanic would also make it easier to come up with new magical traditions (such as ones based on the classical elements, for instance, or a necromantic order.)

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Perhaps Tomes are the one Implement common to all Wizards, regardless of School?

Could be. I already had my hopes up for the elimination of the spellbook (I don't mind libraries of magic, quite the opposite, but carrying your magical power around in a single, indispensable book/battery is pretty silly), so I'm kind of keen on tomes.