New Design: Wizards...

[GreatLemur]

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.

This is a damned good point. Here's hoping that the mechanical traits of these schools of magic (or whatever they are) will be just as modular as the default gods' domains.

 

[Reaper Steve]

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.

I agree...I totally like the shakup of the specialist types, but I don't care fot the names. The discipline should have a generic name, and then list a few names of sects. Are all wizards across the world that 'wield fierce powers of fire and radiance through their staves' members of the Hidden Flame? Doubtful. I would think there are many such organizations of wizards that happen to use the same type of magic.

And I love the idea of focusing on cold magic or acid magic, but for the life of me I cannot see how those two go together. I don't want my ice mage mixing in an acid spray.

 

[F4NBOY]

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

Hmmm probably some anime crap!
I'm not sure, but it's surely from Dragon Ball Z or Knights of the Zodiac.

 

[sidonunspa]

This is a damned good point. Here's hoping that the mechanical traits of these schools of magic (or whatever they are) will be just as modular as the default gods' domains.

Well the domains had generic names, they wear ties to non-generic gods...

Now if they have generic schools of magic and tie them to non-generic "traditions" that’s cool.

That way a GM can even have more than one tradition that use the same schools of magic (kind of like the fighting schools of Spain.. they all used most of the same styles, but they would always try to one up each other)

 

[captaincursor]

Anyone else notice that there is nary a mention of necromancy or summoning in either version of the article?

 

[sidonunspa]

Hmmm probably some anime crap!
I'm not sure, but it's surely from Dragon Ball Z or Knights of the Zodiac.

Nope... J. R. R. Tolkien

see even the clasics sound like Anime

 

[Rechan]

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.

If schools of magic don't fit in your campaign, then the wizard doesn't fit in your campaign.

 

[Reaper Steve]

Anyone else notice that there is nary a mention of necromancy or summoning in either version of the article?

Curious.

 

[Rechan]

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.

And that isn't what they did?

I honestly don't see how the presented article ties your hands.

 

[gothmaugCC]

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

I dont think thats it at all. When I sit down to make a character I have alot of fun thinking about that characters personality, background and general look. At any given day I'd come up with a completely new and differnt concept for a wizard, each one new, fresh and exciting for ME. THey may be part of a discipline or school, have learend on thier own, or forced some eldritch daemon to teach them the dark arts. Whatever floats my boat for the day. The point is, I have a totally blank slate to work with.

Being a master of illusion and being trained in "serpent eye" have two totally differnt connotations. By building the style into the class, it says that All wizards fall into one of those pre-chosen catergories. Sure, both use illusionary magic, but one leaves me infinate realms of possibility, the other decides it for me. There's a reason for generalizations in character creation.

I DONT want to make a wizard of my own design, then have to go "Gee I guess Merlin learned the "serpent eye" style of magic." I'd rather just have it generic and say "gee I think merlin is a master of charm and illusion" and THEN take the time to create my own fancy names IF I WANTED IT.

*Shrug* its just fun to speculate on what the final form will take. I have a pet peeve against most of WoTC's fluff names for organizations. They always seem childish and cheesy, like the names for some cultists from a bad B rated movie.