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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6283375" data-attributes="member: 4937">I'd tend to agree with that.  Unfortunately, blaster type wizards - elementalists, for example - are easiest to support and its certainly easier to convert or idea of what it means to be a particular wizard specialist over to some variation of artillery/battlefield control/direct damage than to meaningfully differientiate different iconic sorts of magic.  As with so many things, I felt 4e didn't even try to do anything that wasn't easy.I do however think that only summoners and shapechangers present real table challenges.  Ironically, summoners are also pretty easy to support, they just have potentially really negative impact on play.   And shapechangers are if anything over supported by spell sets in 3.X that give them far too much flexibility with far too little drawbacks.  Just toning them down a bit should be enough, particularly if you demand of the player he have all the bookkeeping precalculated before he uses the spell to minimize play disruption.Right now I'm pretty happy with my support for everything but illusionists, necromancers, and psychics (psions, to anyone else).  Illusionists lack the flexibility and creativity from 1e I'd like them to have, but how to do that in a balanced easy to adjudicate way is not trivial.   Necromancers have always been problimatic, because among other things by the time you get Animate Dead its already irrelevant at that level of play.   Fundamentally, the notion of 'necromancer' and 'command of the dead' is just really limiting.   It's like being a plant mage or something; works really well when you are in a jungle, but what happens when you spend a lengthy portion of the campaign in a city or in a desert or in the arctic?   Necromancer is really powerful when you are surrounded by dead things, but otherwise is just a blaster mage with slightly different flavor.  Psychic powers, what D&D erroneously calls psionics, made sense in 1e as a separate magical system from spellcasting when psionics was not tied to either class or (largely) level, but I rather detest it as a separate magical system when it is explicitly tied to class and level.   There is no reason for the same system to use both a spell slot system and a mana point system.  I prefer the spell slot for a number of reasons, but if I was using mana points I'd use them for all classes.  The trick is doing this while still capturing the flavor of being a TP, precog, or TK.Well, that's heartening.  I think I may need to cast some thread necromancy since this topic I think has been discussed before and I'd like to review it now.I generally agree.  While it's difficult to be a necromancer and be good, it's not so impossible to concieve that I want to prevent it.  I like the idea of a character that is staring into the abyss and trying hard not to fall into it with every spell he uses being a potential bit of corruption - something like a wizard that specializes in radiation magic trying to be a physician that cures cancer.   I'll review my rules and make sure I've enough room to allow for the concept in an interesting way.</blockquote>

Verification