New Design: Wizards...

[Wormwood]

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

Yeah, I'm really warming to it.

The tradition names are generic enough to be portable, yet evocative enough to capture my imagination.

 

[sidonunspa]

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!!.

I agree, I saw those names and I was like "Cheesy!!!" I was able to taste the nacho cheese.
I wish they would just keep it more generic instead of coming up with organizations that may or may not exist in your game world.

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.

Hay bro! and yes it's the same avatar I use it on every board even The Paradigm Concepts Message Boards

keeps things simple

 

[Celebrim]

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

Except 4, and not 3, is the mystic number in my homebrew (and I think it is 8 in Terry Prachett's Diskworld). Not that that matters, but it just shows how it can become a problem if you make too much fluff out of your crunch. (I'm assuming that that is what is going on here, since I wouldn't expect Mearls to make the opposite mistake of making too much crunch out of your fluff.)

 

[sidonunspa]

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

http://www.d20srd.org/

It’s not that we don't want fluff... it's in the way you present it...

For example; Name the discipline in a generic way, in the fluff text mention the orders that specialize in that discipline. Now you have fluff but you have not tied the GM down to using cheesy names as the names of his disciplines.

What they want the D&D game to be as cheesy as the D&D movie?

 

[gothmaugCC]

What they want the D&D game to be as cheesy as the D&D movie?

Oh dear God NO!

Pete, don't scare me like that! We'll at least I know Arcanis will keep it real and exciting

 

[sidonunspa]

Bingo!

Umm except that you have the tools in 3e to make new gods (they have domains.. done) if they tie the schools of magic to organizations, well, that now makes you need organizations.

They don’t have generic names for the traditions... If they did, it would be a LOT easier to change to fit your world.

For example, let’s say I want a school to teach more than one tradition... Now I need to come up with names and explain to my players that Spell School X = tradition Y

 

[Imaro]

I agree, I saw those names and I was like "Cheesy!!!" I was able to taste the nacho cheese.
I wish they would just keep it more generic instead of coming up with organizations that may or may not exist in your game world.


keeps things simple

Yep, this basically sums up my feelings on it. Sorta like Prestige classes(as originally envisioned), let me provide the non-generic fluff.

 

[Badkarmaboy]

I'm thinking that maybe...just maybe...those "school" names might just be tied to a talent tree or some such and do not pertain to some big organization.

Watching folks come unhinged over this is a hoot, though.

"ZOMG! Names of magic schools! ARRRGH! DO NOT WANT! MUST NOT BUY 4E!"

LOL

 

[DaveMage]

I've often felt theurge to do just that.

Lock phasers on target...

 

[sidonunspa]

Oh dear God NO!

Pete, don't scare me like that! We'll at least I know Arcanis will keep it real and exciting

Bro stop that.... people are going to think I pay you to come here and post

Don't worry, we have never been scared to cut out or change the rules, hell just look at all the core classes we have in Arcanis...

I hope someone from WotC looks at this and takes my comment above to heart.