New Design: Wizards...

[Jer]

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.

Like I said - at my table you'd just have to come up with a new deity that fits your domain concept. No need to search through lots of tables and books to find one if you can come up with an idea yourself. If you want to be a priest of a god of War and Fire, I'm more than happy to oblige provided you come up with a name and a few ideas of how your god fits into the world.

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.

And i don't see a problem with this. Wizards is trying to figure out what people want to spend money on. Historically, people have wanted to spend money on splat books. Therefore, Wizards is going to try their hands at - splat books. Shocking.

If they build the rules right it won't matter - it'll be a book like Spell Compendium or Complete Mage but with a bit more flavor.

 

[Zurai]

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.

Name me a splat book that was even vaguely divine-related that did not introduce new deities, domains, or ways to interact with deities and domains.

Furthermore, name me any splat book other than Tome of Battle where fighting disciplines were used at all.

Tempest in a teapot.

 

[Imaro]

Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say these "orders" are probably like the different force traditions in SW saga edition. If that is the case they will be slightly more than just fluff, but not so integrated as to be unremovable or unchangeable with some work. Basically in SW a force tradition gives you access to cetain talents/feats that are unique to that tradition, and are generally geared towards reinforcing the particular flavor of that group. Now my thoughts on that...

It will definitely allow them to publish more splat-books with a bunch of traditions in them, and certainly adds another fiddly bit for players to mess around with. As far as it eliminating the PrC's, that wasn't the case in Star Wars. The traditions only deal with specific feats/talents...in other words PrC's still dealt with class abilities, progrssion for spells etc. So basically it allows another avenue to make more options for, but doesn't eliminate or streamline anything else.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The 3rd edition PHB would be significantly improved if the gods were removed and "Pick any two domains" was the default ruleset.

Oof. I strongly disagree. It goes back to my discussion about evocative RPG writing. I think D&D is far stronger for having a default setting, and providing examples from said setting. A list of deities is one of the major elements of that to be found in the PHB, and I'd be very sorry to see it go. Especially when it is, indeed, clearly called out as optional.

 

[Howndawg]

Oof. I strongly disagree. It goes back to my discussion about evocative RPG writing. I think D&D is far stronger for having a default setting, and providing examples from said setting. A list of deities is one of the major elements of that to be found in the PHB, and I'd be very sorry to see it go. Especially when it is, indeed, clearly called out as optional.

I think one can argue either way. On the one hand, a list of deities can be seen as straightjacketing. On the other hand, it can give a player a good starting point with which he can build a character.

Howndawg

 

[Imaro]

Oof. I strongly disagree. It goes back to my discussion about evocative RPG writing. I think D&D is far stronger for having a default setting, and providing examples from said setting. A list of deities is one of the major elements of that to be found in the PHB, and I'd be very sorry to see it go. Especially when it is, indeed, clearly called out as optional.

If these are like the specific force traditions that are in SW(see my above post) I would prefer they be generic. D&D doesn't have the same tropes as Star Wars, basically a pre-defined universe, and restricting what basically amounts to certain feats from characters will again bring about the whole character I want to create vs. these are order specific feats/talents. Now I'm not sure if there's going to be a specific difference between a "general" feat and something your order allows you to take, but if there isn't I see no need for the artificial seperation. If there is then just give a list with good rules for the DM on constructing his own orders in the DMG.

I think putting setting specific material that is connected to game mechanics is a very fine line WotC should be careful when treading. I feel setting specific that is tied to the rules should be the purview of campaign sourcebooks. What I definitely don't want to see is what was done with PrC's...no real rules to make them and an endless number churned out to pad books. I'd just rather they establish that these orders are for individual campaign flavor and stick with it, whether it's in their campaign sourcebooks or my homebrew.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Oof. I strongly disagree. It goes back to my discussion about evocative RPG writing. I think D&D is far stronger for having a default setting, and providing examples from said setting. A list of deities is one of the major elements of that to be found in the PHB, and I'd be very sorry to see it go. Especially when it is, indeed, clearly called out as optional.

I tend to agree with our necro(ro)mantic rodent.
If the D&D core rulebooks were just supposed to be a toolbox, then maybe it was okay to leave the spells out. But honestly, I don't think D&D would be so easy to pick up without the "implied" setting information.

I guess it is more a matter of experience with the system - today, I don't care about the gods in my PHB 3.5 and would prefer a longer classes, feat or spells chapter or more "Behind the Curtain" entries. Because I am playing Eberron, Forgotten Realms or some homebrew game, and I am playing for a long time now, too.
But when I started playing D&D, this content was vital to help me get into the game.

 

[breschau]

Check it.

Re: Noonan on Implements...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TharrDuus View Post
Mr Noonan,

The point being made is that these traditions are fluffy groupings of wizards spells/spell schools/etc, that many people simply hate.
I may have good news for you, then: traditions are not groupings (fluffy or otherwise) of spells/spell schools/etc.

I can see how someone could read the preview article and make the reasonable speculation that the traditions we mention are analogous to spell schools or domains. While that's a decent guess, and it fits the available data, it's not a correct guess.

--Dave.

 

[Greg K]

My preference would be that any setting specific material (e.g., deities, organizations) be in an appendix as a sample campaign setting. Then, in the appropriate sections of the phb (e.g., clerics or domains), make a note for the player to talk to the DM before choosing domains (or whatever specific item) as the DM may be using a setting and, thus, have such things predetermined.

 

[Imaro]

Check it.

Re: Noonan on Implements...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TharrDuus View Post
Mr Noonan,

The point being made is that these traditions are fluffy groupings of wizards spells/spell schools/etc, that many people simply hate.
I may have good news for you, then: traditions are not groupings (fluffy or otherwise) of spells/spell schools/etc.

I can see how someone could read the preview article and make the reasonable speculation that the traditions we mention are analogous to spell schools or domains. While that's a decent guess, and it fits the available data, it's not a correct guess.

--Dave.

Now my money's really on them being like the force traditions in Star Wars...