Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="squibbles" data-source="post: 8421207" data-attributes="member: 6937590">I can see that being cool. But imo, for some of those classes, it's backwards.In the Venn diagram that contains transmuter and artificer, transmuter is the bigger circle--maybe to the point that most artificers are a species of transmuter (but see below, they should probably all be called alchemists). Similarly, in the Venn diagram that contains bard, enchanter, and illusionist, bard is the smallest circle. Lots of enchanters and illusionists can exist that are entirely disinterested in music and inspiration.I am sympathetic to your point of view--more niche protection--but not necessarily the particulars. Specialist wizards correspond to other classes only rather loosely, and it's hard to make all those boxes fit into each other.If the game went that way, necromancer NEEDS to be a class. It's one of the few things that shows up in Tolkien--the necromancer of Dol Guldur--as well as in the sword and sorcery cannon--for example, CAS's <a href="http://www.eldritchdark.com/writings/short-stories/151/necromancy-in-naat" target="_blank">Necromancy in Naat</a>. Perhaps illusionist is also a strong enough archetype, it does make sense as a discrete specialty. But I think of conjurer and abjurer as being fairly weak.Half of the specialty wizards feel pretty tenuous to me. Necromancer, Enchanter, Illusionist, and Diviner make some sense beyond D&D. The others, eh...Incidentally, some etymology:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Abjure—Latin, “abjurare” to swear away, i.e. to renounce or repudiate</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Conjure—Latin, “conjurare” to swear together</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Divination—Latin, “divinare” to predict</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Enchant—Latin, “incantare” to utter an incantation, from “cantare” to sing</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Evoke—Latin, “evocatio” to call forth      also      Invoke—Latin, “invocare” to call upon</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Illusion—Latin, “illudere” to mock, i.e. as with an act of deception</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Necromancy—Greek, “necro” corpse + “manteia” prophecy</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Transmutation—Latin, “trans” across + “mutare” to change</li> </ul>So hey, it would make perfect sense for bards to be a subclass of enchanters.Also, I think it would be better to just call transmuters alchemists (Greek, “Khemeia” the art of transmuting metals + Arabic “al” the). It has a lot more direct caché in broader fiction, and the current subclass already has features called "minor alchemy" and "transmuter's stone" (i.e. philosopher's stone).Ya, as per my earlier reply to [USER=7635]@Remathilis[/USER] that'd make sense to me.</blockquote>

Verification