New Design: Wizards...

[Slander]

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.

Gotta agree with IR. Any books attempting to explain a set of rules (e.g. RPGs, math books, computer programming books) are much easier to understand if examples are given showing how the rules are applied. As long as the rules themselves aren't built on/around the sample traditions, I absolutely believe they should be included in the core books.

Requiring new players to pay another $20-$50 book to see the rules in action (i.e. a setting book) is not the way to go. Those of us already in the know are more than capable of ignoring the samples.

 

[Andor]

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.

Bow before me mortals! For I wield the might of the allmighty SAMMICH!

 

[Charwoman Gene]

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13826013&postcount=23

Dave Noonan replies in part...

Another thing about implements and the "Iron Sigil"-style disciplines/traditions: They're extensible. I've read a lot of threads that essentially say, "Here's how I'm going to make it work in my campaign..." Yes! That's exactly what we had in mind. You can add your own implements and disciplines/traditions to the mix. Doing so takes some work, but it's not a massive undertaking.

 

[Exen Trik]

One more thing to think of. Three foci, three forms of defense.

Staff Foci spells work against Fortitude
Orb Foci spells work against Will
Wand Foci spells work against Reflex

Well now, that is nice and simple, and it fits with the orb, but nothing seems to indicate that separation between wands and staffs. They all seem to blast in different ways, and in the new article fortitude type spells don't seem to come up at all.

And that is why they dropped tome.

I would be willing to bet during one incarnation of this article, AC was still going to be the 4th defense and that is what tome would have handled. But since that time they have decided to go with 3 forms of defense and tome was dropped.

On the other hand, the original description for tomes was strongly tied to fortitude and will (via the "debuffs" theme), not AC, so I doubt it would have been dropped for that reason. If any version was going this direction, the wand or staff would have more likely taken the AC aspect.

According to the new info wizards will be strongly tied to their chosen implement, so they probably wouldn't be swapping them out just to effect a different kind of defense.

 

[Jer]

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.

You're right, of course - I'd forgotten about that because I've never had a player come to me with two domains and no god or philosophy that he wants his cleric to follow. Ever. I've had one player who wanted to be an "atheist cleric" who followed a philosophical path instead of a god. But I've never had a player who wanted to play a cleric who didn't have some kind of idea of what his character's religious belief was going to be like.

I think if I did, I'd insist that he come up with at least a philosophy to follow - even if it was the philosophy of "killing evil things and taking their stuff" - I mean, you have to insist on at least a little bit of effort for these things, even if the rules don't technically require it.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

You're right, of course - I'd forgotten about that because I've never had a player come to me with two domains and no god or philosophy that he wants his cleric to follow.

Well, because I'm an incorrigible munchkin, this happens to me every time I want to play a cleric. I build my concept around the domains and probably the favored weapon, and then spend more time than I should trying to find a deity who has everything I am looking for-- AND serves the race of my choice. And there's never a perfect fit, so I end up having to give something up with respect to what I envisioned.

I can't believe that experience is unique to me.

In other news, from Dave Noonan's most recent reply:

And it probably won't shock you to learn that we might crank out some new implements and disciplines/traditions ourselves at some point.

I think this pretty much shoots a hole straight through the "Wizard disciplines are more like deities who grant you domains" theory and falls back squarely on "Wizard disciplines are like fighting stances" theory, and then drives straight over the cliff with, "And we can't wait to give you a splat book full of new weapons and fighting stances, except they're for your wizard."

It looks like the fluffy-puffy bloated rulesbeast I was originally afraid of.

 

[Driddle]

I've never had a player come to me with two domains and no god or philosophy that he wants his cleric to follow. Ever. I've had one player who wanted to be an "atheist cleric" who followed a philosophical path instead of a god. But I've never had a player who wanted to play a cleric who didn't have some kind of idea of what his character's religious belief was going to be like.

I think if I did, I'd insist that he come up with at least a philosophy to follow - even if it was the philosophy of "killing evil things and taking their stuff" - I mean, you have to insist on at least a little bit of effort for these things, even if the rules don't technically require it.

Last time I played a cleric, I chose the animal and healing domains and defined the character's beliefs as a variant interpretation of the religion of Ehlonna. I wanted something that was outside the given god description, so I made made it myself in accordance with the rules. True, the DM had a loophole for disallowing church-related favors to my PC during the game, but that never really came up.

 

[Mercule]

On the other hand, the original description for tomes was strongly tied to fortitude and will (via the "debuffs" theme), not AC, so I doubt it would have been dropped for that reason. If any version was going this direction, the wand or staff would have more likely taken the AC aspect.

It's also possible that wands (randomly chosen) were originally going to be vs AC. When they decided to drop AC, they got rid of the weakest implement (aka tome) and moved wand into its place.

I'm not saying that's what happenned. Just pointing out that whatever else they changed between the "oops" post and the revised version doesn't have to be a 1:1 change with the removal of tomes.

 

[Victim]

I think if I did, I'd insist that he come up with at least a philosophy to follow - even if it was the philosophy of "killing evil things and taking their stuff" -

"Sorry, guys. Right now, I can only cast Atonement - I screwed up following my philosophy when I sundered that sword instead of saving it to loot."

 

[senna]

I think this pretty much shoots a hole straight through the "Wizard disciplines are more like deities who grant you domains" theory and falls back squarely on "Wizard disciplines are like fighting stances" theory, and then drives straight over the cliff with, "And we can't wait to give you a splat book full of new weapons and fighting stances, except they're for your wizard."

It looks like the fluffy-puffy bloated rulesbeast I was originally afraid of.

I don´t see it that way. They gave us new domains and expanded the "core pantheon" in almost every book that touches the matter of divine magic, be it defender of faith, or frostburn or complete divine. Disciplines are ideas at first and names that needs changes at worst, like a lot of people replied a base is beter for those who are new to the game and they can sparkle imagination on who cares to read them in a way that he must used them.

To me there is no down side in put sample names and organizations, except for a couple more words that have their uses, like i said above.