New Design: Wizards...

[GreatLemur]

Boy, I really don't like those discipline names. They sound way too kung-fu/Exalted-ish for my tastes.

They sound like typical fantasy fare, to me. But I'm still not too happy about them. I don't like the idea of the core rules hooking class abilities into prestige-class-like, campaign-setting-specific fluff. Of course, I can ignore that stuff as easily as I've been ignoring the Tome of Battle discipline names.

But I hope I'm not going to find that the mechanics themselves somehow link cold-based attack spells with acid-based attack spells, or other such absurdity. That'll be more annoying to houserule out.

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

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

Complete agreement.

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.

I think simpler, more descriptive (as opposed to evocative) terminology would be preferable. I always really dug the way Mage: The Ascension labelled its "spheres" of magic: Mind, Time, Forces, Matter, etc. Arguably even more logical that Conjuration, Illusion, Enchantment, and so on, and clearer, too. (Of course, nothing else about the game was especially logical or clear...)

Of course, we could all be Chicken Littleing it up over nothing, and maybe WotC hasn't erased the division between schools of magic and schools of magicians. As always, it's wise to wait, see, and give the pros the benefit of the doubt.

Tome is not only a bedrock of D&D, but it's a much loved part of the archetype and original source material, no, not just Tolkien. Bring back the Tome!

I'm thinking that this edit only means that all Wizards will have tomes--that is, spell books--just like they do in previous editions.

 

[gothmaugCC]

I hazard a guess that most DMs would not appreciate this.
.

Wulf is referencing the named presented for the various "spell diciplines' or whatever were calling them.

WEll Wulf, I think your right in that most DM's probably will want to make thier own schools. That said, the DM's tend to be the most creative of the DND crowd. The real question that needs to be asked is "Will the average player enjoy the flavor provided"? Looking at the ecletic mix of hardcore gamers and casual players I sit with on a regular basis, I'd say that Yes, the players will love it. It makes thier lives easier, they dont have to create anything fancy, its already thre for them in Black and White. Sure the hardcore gamers will moan about the fluff, and pine over their own creations, but the average player (and especially the younger crowd) will eat it up.

And since players outnumber DM's, what, 6 to 1? Its the players that WoTC is trying to appease.

 

[Rechan]

I promise you, those who want your PHB without fluff, will be able to. They even have a 3e version!

http://www.d20srd.org/

 

[breschau]

What I find interesting is a sentence in the changed last paragraph:
"But if he does have a magic staff, it aids the accuracy of his attack, and his mastery of the Hidden Flame technique allows him to deal more damage with the spell."

So the Wand/Staff/Orb add in the accuracy and the tecnique (Talent-Tree?) inceases the damage...

Nice catch.

I just thought it was funny that they got such a positive response, then they changed it. It's almost like they're watching the boards and changing things to make more people dislike it rather than more people liking it.

 

[Yergi]

Nice catch.

I just thought it was funny that they got such a positive response, then they changed it. It's almost like they're watching the boards and changing things to make more people dislike it rather than more people liking it.

As has been stated earlier in the thread, I seriously doubt they changed the write-up based on a few messageboard threads.

First off, that's not a large enough or representative enough sample for them to justify changing design rules as drastically as the differences in the two versions seem to suggest.

Second, there's no way that after a few hours of being up they'd have written an entirely new version and have it go through the entire internal approval process that would be necessary before revealing it to the public. I think it's just like Bart Carroll said on his blog: They accidentally posted an old version, the article currently up is the one that was meant to go live.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Well, put me in the minority that likes the new version more than the prior version.

I am very optimistic that the feel of magic will be the best feel for what I want. Because it's still D&D magic, with it's inherent D&Disms, I'll never fully embrace it. This may turn out to be the edition of D&D that is most to my liking.

 

[GreatLemur]

How? Changing 'Serpent's Eye' to 'Mesmerite' or 'Royal Order of That Wizardy Kingdom' or 'Deity's Veil' is hard?

No, but it's annoying to run into the "implied setting" right there in the Wizard's class features.

More to the point, though, I'm a little bit concerned about things that aren't really fixable by renaming. For example, it sounds like Emerald Frost spells include both cold-based and acid-based attacks. Personally, I think that sounds like a wildly illogical pairing, so I'd like to split these two properties up. Will there be any way to do that without walking the game balance tightrope? I dunno. I'll have to wait and see.

 

[TheArcane]

How? Changing 'Serpent's Eye' to 'Mesmerite' or 'Royal Order of That Wizardy Kingdom' or 'Deity's Veil' is hard?

Changing names isn't hard. However, it means that such organizations must exist in some form. What if you don't want to? What if it doesn't fit your campaign? It's either modifying your campaign, modifying the class, or just ignoring the "silly names in the book" altogether, which just makes the class fit even less.
Anyway, before anyone gets angry at me, I do realize that this is only a preview and possibly the PHB will have nothing of the sort. I just hope it indeed doesn't, for the reason stated above among others.

 

[Wormwood]

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.

Bingo!

 

[Pygon]

Well, changing from four implements to three might satisfy those that for whatever reason find 3 to be a more mystical number.