New Design: Wizards...

[Arthnek]

Wizards need magic wands?

I'm sorry but this is just too Harry Potter for me.

I can't even put words together to describe how absolutely horrible this is.

 

[jasin]

Wizards need magic wands?

I'm sorry but this is just too Harry Potter for me.

I can't even put words together to describe how absolutely horrible this is.

... is this a joke?

Wizards need wands in 3E, and they need them bad. And magic wands predate both Harry Potter and D&D by a long time.

That you'd immediately make the leap from "wand as magic tool" to "Harry Potter" shows you are too much influenced by Harry Potter, not WotC.

 

[shilsen]

Wizards need magic wands?

I'm sorry but this is just too Harry Potter for me.

I can't even put words together to describe how absolutely horrible this is.

You do know that wizards and magic wands have a teensy-weensy longer existence in mythology, literature and fantasy than Harry Potter, right?

 

[Driddle]

You do know that wizards and magic wands have a teensy-weensy longer existence in mythology, literature and fantasy than Harry Potter, right?

Re literature: I read about wands in the novelization of those Harry Potter movies. Good books, for what they were. Although I was disappointed that the Rawling author (or whatever his name was) added so many scenes that weren't originally in the movies -- seemed sorta cheesy. ... But, yeah, I can suggest anyone who wants to do research on wands pick up a book like that. Good stuff.

 

[Clavis]

Nope; in all the campaigns I've ever played in - from OD&D onwards - it was natually and normally assumed that clerics got their power directly from the gods and no other sources. I've never known of a campaign to assume otherwise, and seeing such a thing as a 'cleric of no god' in 2E was generally looked at as something somewhat silly. In every single game I've ever played since 3E came out, that paragraph might as well not exist.

In most of my campaign worlds I assumed that the gods as such didn't really exist, and Clerics who actually believed in their religion were deluded people. When they could work apparent miracles, they actually unknowingly practiced a variant form of magic. In my current campaign there are militantly atheistic Philosophers, who have the same powers as clerics but ascribe those powers to having a superior understanding of reality.

Besides, a "cleric of no god" could also describe some Buddhists.

 

[WayneLigon]

Besides, a "cleric of no god" could also describe some Buddhists.

It certainly can, but in most games I've been in that would have been taken care of by wizards with a philosophical bent.. It's also good for a campaign with 'small gods', like kami; spirits of wood or wind or a particular mountain. It's just that I've seldom if ever encountered a campaign like that.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

We've seriously derailed this thread.

Just sitting here thinking, IIRC, the Shaman in Oriental Adventures is Pick Two.

(Wayne's kami comment was obviously the reminder.)

 

[Rechan]

I would argue quite the opposite: a wizard's daily slot is unused potential if it remains... well, unused, and if we're talking abusing the rules for combat bonues, there's few better things a wizard can do with a 4th-level slot than cast polymorph.

If the wizard's slot is not being wasted on a polymorph spell, then it can do something else in combat. I'm not saying the slot is "unused", but rather that it is freed up to be used for something else.

I thought that it was that it's unbalancing to allow clerics free pick of domains regardless of deities, because deities restrict the choice so you can't pick two powerful domains.

Fharlanghn disagrees, since he offers two very powerful domains, possibly the best two.

And I was clearly mistaken about him having them, but it helps illustrate that certain domains are more powerful than others and letting them be combined isn't great.

Me too, but that's because it shows an aggressive tendency towards powergaming at the expense of other aspects which I might find annoying later, not because the choice itself is problematic mechnically.

"At the expense" of other aspects? So if the player is powergaming but is trying to make a story that accommodates it, that's okay?

Even if a player has a seven page backstory and his history is intimately tied to the setting, I'm still going to vehemently say no when he proposes that half-dragon gargoyle for a level 1 party.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Even if a player has a seven page backstory and his history is intimately tied to the setting, I'm still going to vehemently say no when he proposes that half-dragon gargoyle for a level 1 party.

I suppose in the absence of any actual abuse you can point to, it makes sense to up the ante by equating "Pick Two Domains" to "I want to play a half-dragon gargoyle!"

Good lord.

 

[Rechan]

I suppose in the absence of any actual abuse you can point to, it makes sense to up the ante by equating "Pick Two Domains" to "I want to play a half-dragon gargoyle!"

I'm sorry, do you not like hyperbole?

And I used it as an example because I had a player once try to sneak that one past me.