Which implementation of wizards' implements do you prefer?

[F4NBOY]

It's not just the traditions. The revised description removes the idea of each implement being needed for spells of a certain category. For example, Force spells are listed for both an orb tradition and a wand tradition.

Actually, defensive force spells are in the orb description, offensive force spells seem to fall under the wand implement.

 

[drothgery]

I voted for 'original', mostly because the 'tome' idea looked like a way to make spellbooks useful and relevant without becoming the bookkeeping hassle they are for today's wizards and archivists.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Original here, too.

Mainly due to liking tomes being with the others and the lack of direct flavour being thrown in. I like it being a more general thing.

 

[Nikosandros]

Probably the original one... I like the idea of tomes and they way they were represented in the first draft.

 

[Kunimatyu]

I don't like the martial-arts-school names -- give me the original.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I voted revised, but it was a close thing.

I liked the removal of Tomes. I did not like the idea that "magical tomes" were limited to particular types of magic, or the idea of "+3 book." It just didn't sit right with me. What happens if one page is torn out of a 100 page book?

I did not like the traditions. Specifically, I do not like AT ALL their names. Maybe the mechanics are fine (I have no idea at this time), but not the 'fluff'. Yes, the PHB has an implied setting, but (1) it should be weak tea so as not to interfere with a published setting or a homebrew one, and (2) I just don't like the fluff here. At all. To me using terms like "Iron Sigil" or "Golden Wyvern" in the core mechanics will be like incorporating Planescape or Dark Sun - some people will love it, but at the cost of alienating many others.

And what's wrong with the Schools at written? A lot of people have a lot invested in those, and some of them even make sense. I'd much rather they tweaked those than tried to reinvent the wheel here.

 

[Rechan]

I should specify.

I prefered the original mechanic. Four options, you pick two is more appealing than three, pick one. And I liked the presence of the tomes.

I do, however, prefer the fluff of the second, and I voted for it.

 

[Thaumaturge]

I would vote "both", "we don't know enough about either", OR "other", but none of these are options.


Thaumaturge.

 

[Olthynn]

The thing I really dislike about the revised is that the fluff is dictating the mechanics and it's coming across as almost completely arbitrary. Why do wands channel cold and acid? What can a staff channel 'radiance' but not lightning? Because of some "traditions"?

 

[Rechan]

I would vote "both", "we don't know enough about either", OR "other", but none of these are options.


Thaumaturge.

What he said.