I wouldn't go quite that far, but I wouldn't object to doing to Wizards something like what was done to 3.X Psions. All Psions specialize in a Discipline- I'd like to see an end to the generalist wizard, and make them all Specialists.
The Problem of Magic
- Thread starter GSHamster
- Start date
I wouldn't go quite that far, but I wouldn't object to doing to Wizards something like what was done to 3.X Psions. All Psions specialize in a Discipline- I'd like to see an end to the generalist wizard, and make them all Specialists.
Rather that force specialization on spellcasters, the limitations should be natural and organic.
The wizard spell list could have all the spells and levels, but individual wizards would have trouble getting most of them into their minds. The rolls to learn new spells could be high so that learning low level spells is easy but learning high level spells might require using your ability to "automagically" learn one spell from a scroll.
1E. Learning a spell from a scroll or spellbook is an INT check with a DC 20+ Spell level. Success means you learn the spell. Failure means you must wait X amount of time to try again.
When a wizard levels up, they can bypass this process once (or twice) to "instantly" learn one spell from a scroll or spellbook.
This means a wizard could only naturally learn spells from levels less then or equal to their INT mod. Anything higher is limited to 1 or 2 spells a level. Either way they must find or invent the spell first.
The wizard spell list could have all the spells and levels, but individual wizards would have trouble getting most of them into their minds. The rolls to learn new spells could be high so that learning low level spells is easy but learning high level spells might require using your ability to "automagically" learn one spell from a scroll.
1E. Learning a spell from a scroll or spellbook is an INT check with a DC 20+ Spell level. Success means you learn the spell. Failure means you must wait X amount of time to try again.
When a wizard levels up, they can bypass this process once (or twice) to "instantly" learn one spell from a scroll or spellbook.
This means a wizard could only naturally learn spells from levels less then or equal to their INT mod. Anything higher is limited to 1 or 2 spells a level. Either way they must find or invent the spell first.
Li Shenron
Legend
I have always been quite undecided on this matter...
Some of the best moments in D&D are when a player uses a spell creatively. Sometimes you can do that just by applying the by-the-rule spell effect on a target for which the spell was not directly meant, but still allowed by the RAW. Most times however it can only happen when the player tries to really apply the spell to a situation not covered at all by the spell's rules.
Anyway, my favourite spells are those which you have to figure out how to make them useful, and guess what... they are almost always the lowest-level spells (Prestidigitation anyone?)! Higher-level spells are more tightly defined so that their bigger effects are more confined and cannot easily be abused (with some obvious exceptions such as Wish and Miracle).
In fact, these days I have my mind set on designing some setting where Wizard have no damage-dealing spells or straightforward offensive spells and always have to use their other spells unorthodoxly.
Some of the best moments in D&D are when a player uses a spell creatively. Sometimes you can do that just by applying the by-the-rule spell effect on a target for which the spell was not directly meant, but still allowed by the RAW. Most times however it can only happen when the player tries to really apply the spell to a situation not covered at all by the spell's rules.
Anyway, my favourite spells are those which you have to figure out how to make them useful, and guess what... they are almost always the lowest-level spells (Prestidigitation anyone?)! Higher-level spells are more tightly defined so that their bigger effects are more confined and cannot easily be abused (with some obvious exceptions such as Wish and Miracle).
In fact, these days I have my mind set on designing some setting where Wizard have no damage-dealing spells or straightforward offensive spells and always have to use their other spells unorthodoxly.
Dice4Hire
First Post
But really this would change nothing. The wizards would still end up with the cherries, just less of the second tier spells.
What's unnatural about specialisation for spellcasters? It's pretty normal for fiction and myth, and hardly unusual in RPGs.
I played a wizard in a D20 Dragonstar campaign, which is D&D with laser guns, power armor and space ships. Since the fighter types were packing loads of fireball-equivalent hand grenades, laser cannons and so on, i thought it meaningless to go for damage-dealing spells.
Instead, I went for an android in the style of Alien's Bishop, and only purchased non-combat utility spells -and it was a blast to play!
The key is moving the problem magic out of the cherry bowl and to the expensive high class restaurant.
I just don't think specialization should be forced into every game.
n00bdragon
First Post
You sound surprised that the non-damaging spells are almost universally the best. Pro tip: Fireball is just about the worst third level spell a wizard can memorize in 3.x.
