Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 7838716" data-attributes="member: 6689464">If you have such a defining choice at first level, you have effectively the same number of classes except for multiclassing. This scheme changes nothing and does more to satisfy an urge for organizing things than actual benefits in play. And the problem, what about the bard? Where do you put the bard?On the other hand, that one detail is huge. Did you see the other thread on the cost of training a wizard? An academic book-learned spellcaster is extremely specific as an archetype. The background for every wizard has to account for the costs and needs of training. That one detail limits wizards to privileged backgrounds (or requires plot contrivances like &quot;I stole a spellbook&quot;). There is very little room for spellcasters of lower classes or for spellcasters that didn't choose to be casters, or for spellcasters that inherited it from another creature.However, the D&amp;D wizard is so overpowering. I remember the playtest, when they put the mage. Despite it being &quot;generic&quot;, it had too much of the wizard on the base class to have room for inborn casters. Sadly most of the people who just see sorcerer as a variant wizard are too blind to what you need in order to actually have one. The only way to have both under the same class is to have wizard as the variant. Or both under a truly generic chassis. Or maybe no at all, such a class would have to be extremely bland.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoonSong, post: 7838716, member: 6689464"] If you have such a defining choice at first level, you have effectively the same number of classes except for multiclassing. This scheme changes nothing and does more to satisfy an urge for organizing things than actual benefits in play. And the problem, what about the bard? Where do you put the bard? On the other hand, that one detail is huge. Did you see the other thread on the cost of training a wizard? An academic book-learned spellcaster is extremely specific as an archetype. The background for every wizard has to account for the costs and needs of training. That one detail limits wizards to privileged backgrounds (or requires plot contrivances like "I stole a spellbook"). There is very little room for spellcasters of lower classes or for spellcasters that didn't choose to be casters, or for spellcasters that inherited it from another creature. However, the D&D wizard is so overpowering. I remember the playtest, when they put the mage. Despite it being "generic", it had too much of the wizard on the base class to have room for inborn casters. Sadly most of the people who just see sorcerer as a variant wizard are too blind to what you need in order to actually have one. The only way to have both under the same class is to have wizard as the variant. Or both under a truly generic chassis. Or maybe no at all, such a class would have to be extremely bland. [/QUOTE]

Verification