Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GnomeWorks" data-source="post: 5112217" data-attributes="member: 162">With the help of numerous others, I wrote the <a href="http://fiddlerontheproject.bluwiki.com/go/Living_ENWorld:Learner" target="_blank">learner PrC</a> for 3.5, which is a blue mage.And someone else wrote a <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/236968-blue-mage.html" target="_blank">4e blue mage</a>.Honestly, IMO, both are terrible at it. You can shoehorn it in with 3.5, but it requires a ridiculous amount of game mechanics to make work, and monster abilities aren't exactly written in such a way as to be easily transferred to a spell list; not only that, but most monster abilities are either (1) not terribly useful or (2) basically a spell. The few abilities that don't fit either of those are either really weird and don't fit a PC very well (the barghest's feed ability) or are straight-up broken (the choker's quickness).In 4e, it would - at first glance - be way easier to do, since the mechanics you're dealing with are a lot cleaner. However, monster abilities are balanced in a completely different way (recharge rolls vs. encounter/daily), so translating that is a bit tricky. There is also the issue with 4e that monster abilities are not differentiated into physical/magical categories, so you'd need to adjudicate whether or not a blue mage could learn a given ability (though you could ignore it, since the blue mage is generally also relatively decent at melee combat, and extend their learning abilities to martial stuff as well).Trying to make a blue mage in earlier editions is asking for trouble. I don't know how you'd even start to go about it.Between 3.5 and 4e, I'd have to say that 4e would be the better fit. It would still be trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, though.</blockquote>

Verification