New Design: Wizards...

[sidonunspa]

three implements is better than four, I think.

I agree

But I dont know if I like the "traditions" I rather go back to schools of magic.

Now I know for sure one thing I need to re-write for the Arcanis setting.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Yes, except there's a bit of a difference between a talent-tree (which could be interpreted as being disciplines within the wizardly arts) and what we have on that article, which specifically mentions Wizards of the <whatever>. Now, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but this implies a number of colleges, societies, cabals or guilds which organise and regulate magic (like the Traditions of M:tA). I argue that, in a Points of Light setting, wizards should be usually loners, teaching their craft in a one-on-one master/apprentice relationship. And removing that organisation is harder than just changing their names around... :\

Honestly? My guess is, it won't be hard to remove such organizations, assuming they exist at all. This is still an implied setting. While these hypothetical organizations may be detailed in some supplement somewhere, I strongly doubt they'd be given more attention than maybe a few lines each in the PHB1. That means that, at least where the rules are concerned, the names are just that--names. Any organizations would be optional and easily ignored, much as the organizational info was easily stripped out of most PrCs in 3E.

Again, just guessing, but I'd put money on it.

 

[breschau]

Bart Carrol's blog
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=911366

It was a draft that was suppose to be changed before it was released and the original was incorrect.

Let's hope they change it back before the book comes out. Good thing I copied the entire original article in the OP. All that Iron Hand crap and Frosty Mug wizard stuff is lame.

More likely the original wasn't meant to go out because it's closer to the final text in the PH and the "updated" is the "piss the fans off" version.

I'd say that just form this thread, what almost 400 posts (in 15 hours), the vast majority of them positive about the original article, that WotC should keep the original as posted.

Great. 4th Edition hasn't even release and they're already on 4.5. (Yes, that's a joke people, well, sort of.)

 

[Yergi]

Yes, except there's a bit of a difference between a talent-tree (which could be interpreted as being disciplines within the wizardly arts) and what we have on that article, which specifically mentions Wizards of the <whatever>. Now, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but this implies a number of colleges, societies, cabals or guilds which organise and regulate magic (like the Traditions of M:tA). I argue that, in a Points of Light setting, wizards should be usually loners, teaching their craft in a one-on-one master/apprentice relationship. And removing that organisation is harder than just changing their names around... :\

You could still have these traditions in a Point of Light-type setting, methinks. Instead of thinking of them as "huge mage college with lots of students running around" a la the White Tower (RIP Robert Jordan, we'll miss you!) or whatnot, just have it be a master-apprentice type thing. The traditions are carried down by individuals in this way, and maybe a master has 2 or 3 apprentices at a time. That also opens up lots of cool flavor things you could add like magic being discovered by six different beings that view it in different ways (ok maybe that's a bit too Harry Potterish but you get the idea).

 

[Mouseferatu]

"I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor." Quick, identify the source!

Apparently, Tolkien is too anime.

 

[gothmaugCC]

Well they had me on the staff/wand/orb thing until they decided to give each discipline its own cheesy name. Half the fun of making your character is creating the cheesy orgainazion/school/discipline he belongs to!!

Well those names are going out he window in my home games. Players can call them waterever they want.

Oh and Pete, Nice to see you. Nice avatar, same one from the living city boards i see.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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.

Agreed.

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'.

Disagree. That seems like pointless sniping. I have no beef with the visual presentation and layout. (Although you could twist my arm a little bit with regards to ram-horned tieflings and the like, whose visual representations are needlessly intrusive on DMs.)

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.

I don't read the fluff of any particular supplement and assume that the core rulebooks will take the same shape. It's useful as a gauge of a particular Designer's style, but no more than that.

 

[Mouseferatu]

You could still have these traditions in a Point of Light-type setting, methinks. Instead of thinking of them as "huge mage college with lots of students running around" a la the White Tower (RIP Robert Jordan, we'll miss you!) or whatnot, just have it be a master-apprentice type thing. The traditions are carried down by individuals in this way, and maybe a master has 2 or 3 apprentices at a time. That also opens up lots of cool flavor things you could add like magic being discovered by six different beings that view it in different ways (ok maybe that's a bit too Harry Potterish but you get the idea).

That's actually a really cool idea, and I'm a little ashamed I didn't think of it.

It makes perfect sense, though. If we consider the tradition names to equate, not to some big college, but to the name of (say) a martial art, then it becomes an issue of passing down the teachings as the master learned them. It no longer matters if any given tradition has 5 practitioners, or 50, or 50,000.

 

[Cadfan]

I'm sure that schools of magic will be forced into your homebrew campaigns exactly the same way that the generic pantheon is and will be forced into your homebrew.

 

[Snapdragyn]

I liked the old version, & like the edited version better.

I don't get all of the hang-up about the names. Don't like it? Change it. It gives us a label for the (school? tree?) that's less awkward than 'Spell Set 1', 'Spell Set 2', or whatever. We don't know if there will be any more detail than what is shown - e.g. history, notable figures of the school, locations of colleges. Personally I wouldn't object to some bare minimum here (like a one-sentence mention of a wizard for each school, something like '<famous wizard> of <tradition> was best known for <notable event>' or '<tradition>'s <famous wizard> once remarked <witticism>').

Seriously, if this is all it takes to convince someone to abandon 4e, I'd have to question if they were ever going to play it in the first place.

I also really like the idea of these as teachings passed from one wizard to his apprentice, and she to hers, and on down the line. One of them at some point could found a 'school' of magic if it fit a setting to have that, or they could remain hidden traditions.