New Design: Wizards...

[Kid Charlemagne]

Strangely that is exactly how I took them. I thought of them more like just vague examples for some flavor and not some defined traditions that are a necessary part of play.

I'm also hoping this is the case.

 

[Jer]

The 3rd edition PHB would be significantly improved if the gods were removed and "Pick any two domains" was the default ruleset. (Actually, this is acceptable as written in the cleric class description, but nobody I know plays it that way-- everybody assumes that "Choose the diety, then choose your domains..." is the only way.)

That's almost entirely a function of the level of control the GM has over the setting in comparison to the rest of the table. If the GM has a whole world mapped out - whether his own or a prepublished setting - there's not much room for a player to just pick to domains and make up a god around them.

OTOH - this is exactly how I run things in my games. I've mostly gotten away from doing extensive worldbuilding before a campaign starts, and since I don't have a list of gods and their domains I'll ask the players who want to have clerics to pick out a couple of domains and describe a god that they're associated with. If they want to come up with a name that's fine - if not I'll come up with one or ask the other folks at the table if they have a good name.

I certainly hope that the names given in that design and development article are easily replaceable fluff and not something intimately tied to the rules -- and I don't mean "well, you can have another group that has acid and cold spells but named 'The Cold Hunger' instead of 'Emerald Frost'". The same with the wizard implements - if I want to replace "staff, wand, and orb" with "flame, chalice and athame" or "bell, book and candle" or even "bacon, lettuce and tomato" I should be able to do it without having to rewrite rules.

 

[Cadfan]

I kind of hope that the schools are actually enforced parts of the rules.

Lets face it. Being an Evoker or an Enchanter made almost no difference whatsoever to your character in 3.x. So you got an extra spell per spell level that had to be in your specialty. Big freaking deal. My Evoker could out enchant your enchanter if that's what i felt like memorizing that day.

If schools of magic with enforced limits on how much you can dabble between them are what it takes to avoid that, sign me up.

If I don't like the specific school names and flavors, or organizational histories, or whatever, I'll ignore them. I'm only interested in the crunch distinctions.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

That's almost entirely a function of the level of control the GM has over the setting in comparison to the rest of the table. If the GM has a whole world mapped out - whether his own or a prepublished setting - there's not much room for a player to just pick to domains and make up a god around them.

The rules as written permit a cleric player to have "no particular deity" and instead just pick two domains based on his "spiritual inclination," with further abilities limited by his alignment.

If you force a cleric to choose a deity, technically, you're house-ruling that restriction.

Seriously, it's right there-- read the class description.

It's just that, as I said, nobody plays it this way, though it is completely supported by the rules as written.

 

[TwoSix]

But with the revised system, it's like they're working backwards. They're starting with those organizations, and then forcing individual spellcasters to decide on their spells based on those organizations and using implements that have seemingly no connection to those spells other than tradition. Organizations and traditions should be the result of a strong, flexible magic system, not attempting to be the underlying cause of one. To me, that's bad design.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't game-breaking or anything. I imagine I'll be able to willfully ignore most of it. But there will always be the thought that the implements now seem to be completely arbitrary (why can a wand channel frost and force but not fire or thunder?) and that they could have been a lot better; in fact, for a few days they were better, in my opinion.

Agreed...you captured the exact issue that was nagging at me.

 

[TwoSix]

For that matter, given how little we actually know, isn't it possible that these sample names/traditions/organizations/whatevers are just that--samples? For all we know, the wizard picks from a variety of "talent trees," schools of magic, or some other means of dividing powers, and these names simply refer to some organizations that combine them?

In that respect (and I think someone else may have suggested this), the Iron Sigil then becomes the wizardly equivalent of a god, such as Asmodeus. Worshipers of Asmodeus (using 3E as a baseline) tend toward LE alignment, and have access to domains X, Y, and Z. Similarly, wizards of the Iron Sigil tend toward blah personality, and have access to orb spells of effects A, B, and C.

And just like clerics need not choose from the default list of gods, unless the DM decides to use them in his campaign, wizards need not choose from the listed traditions, unless the DM decides to use them in his campaign.

Obviously, I have no way of knowing if this setup is how they're going. But I think it's no less feasible than anything else, and the fact that it's at least possible just goes to show how little we actually know.

(I can say, though, that if these traditions are, in fact, optional, or merely represent a few choices among may, that I wish the article had made that fact clear. It would have prevented a lot of fretting.)

Please tell me where I can preorder this book.

 

[Remathilis]

Anyone else think that the "schools" of magic mentioned might be more akin to the disciplines of the Shugenja in Complete Divine? Each wizard has a select element (staff spells, orb spell) and some free choices, but then has some specific spells that ONLY come from that discipline (hidden flame spells, emerald frost spells). Almost like Cleric Domains in that regard....

 

[BryonD]

I'm going to disagree here. I think it's helpful to provide some samples and flavor, so that new players and DM's have at least a base to work from.

I strongly disagree here.
It is yet another case of forcing something in the baseline when you can readily have the best of both worlds with the addition of a setting book.

 

[herald]

Removing to post in differant thread.

 

[WizarDru]

The rules as written permit a cleric player to have "no particular deity" and instead just pick two domains based on his "spiritual inclination," with further abilities limited by his alignment.

We've never misunderstood it to mean you HAD to pick a deity...but it seems inherently flavorless to do so to most folks I know. Membership in an organized religion is rather a defining flavor aspect of the cleric as a class, IMHO, and to disassociate one from any actual real deity and dogma may be liberating, few people really want to do that.

This leaves aside the perceived RP benefits both to the PC/DM of the assumed cleric structure and the various plug-in ideas of setting that a cleric, more than almost any other class, brings to the table. Being a 'generic' cleric might be a refreshing change once in a while, but overall one wants to be "Brother Desmond of the Cudgel, follower of St. Cuthbert" instead of "Brother Desmond, general believer in Good Behavior".