Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Wizards: Evokers *and* Illusionists?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6149630" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>No particular reason. That's implementation rather than anything else <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And that is where we part company. "Does your party hit people with long heavy weapons or small thin weapons?" does not make the fighter a broad class. The fighter is a combat specialist using muscle-powered weaponary. I'm not even sure that "fighter" is a broader class than "assassin". It's merely that combat gets a disproportionate focus of the game. But the fighter being a narrower class than any of the other big ones even before you have the paladin, barbarian, and ranger cut into them is a tangent.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is that. But other than Harry Potter, most people have something tighter than that in mind. And the reason I specifically called out the Evoker and the Trickster is because they are things people want to play different ways.</p><p></p><p><em>Evokers</em> want to blow things up. As a rule they don't want to worry much about logistics, spell selection, or other fiddly details.</p><p></p><p><em>Tricksters</em> (since people object to Illusionists) do not want too much power as a general rule. Sure they'll use it. But the fiddly details aren't such a problem and preparing for the right enemy is a big class of this playstyle.</p><p></p><p>Yes, I'm exaggerating for effect. But <em>Evokers</em> don't really want to play the Vancian wizard. Spell prep is not part of their fun - it's a necessary evil. Some Tricksters really enjoy this.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My thoughts here are that people objected to 4e's Wealth by Level - and Next isn't even including magic item bonusses in their expectations. And that the party fighter is capable of the same thing without giving up core competencies <em>if and only if they get a disproportionate share of treasure</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yup. Of course this means that fighters need, without spellcaster help, to be able to make just about anything. With Magic-Mart being the second choice.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I suggested elsewhere the generalist wizard can take any spell - at a level penalty. So they'd be using non-generalist cantrips <em>as first level spells</em>. Except for the few spells specifically marked as iconic. (Flight, invisibility, turning someone into a frog).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Or even what <em>most</em> wizards can do <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That works <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>I also want a tightly focussed non-Vancian option. If you <em>only</em> cast within a limited list, you know all the spells (no spellbook) and can spell point them at the very least.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6149630, member: 87792"] No particular reason. That's implementation rather than anything else :) And that is where we part company. "Does your party hit people with long heavy weapons or small thin weapons?" does not make the fighter a broad class. The fighter is a combat specialist using muscle-powered weaponary. I'm not even sure that "fighter" is a broader class than "assassin". It's merely that combat gets a disproportionate focus of the game. But the fighter being a narrower class than any of the other big ones even before you have the paladin, barbarian, and ranger cut into them is a tangent. There is that. But other than Harry Potter, most people have something tighter than that in mind. And the reason I specifically called out the Evoker and the Trickster is because they are things people want to play different ways. [I]Evokers[/I] want to blow things up. As a rule they don't want to worry much about logistics, spell selection, or other fiddly details. [I]Tricksters[/I] (since people object to Illusionists) do not want too much power as a general rule. Sure they'll use it. But the fiddly details aren't such a problem and preparing for the right enemy is a big class of this playstyle. Yes, I'm exaggerating for effect. But [I]Evokers[/I] don't really want to play the Vancian wizard. Spell prep is not part of their fun - it's a necessary evil. Some Tricksters really enjoy this. My thoughts here are that people objected to 4e's Wealth by Level - and Next isn't even including magic item bonusses in their expectations. And that the party fighter is capable of the same thing without giving up core competencies [I]if and only if they get a disproportionate share of treasure[/I]. Yup. Of course this means that fighters need, without spellcaster help, to be able to make just about anything. With Magic-Mart being the second choice. I suggested elsewhere the generalist wizard can take any spell - at a level penalty. So they'd be using non-generalist cantrips [I]as first level spells[/I]. Except for the few spells specifically marked as iconic. (Flight, invisibility, turning someone into a frog). Or even what [I]most[/I] wizards can do :) That works :) I also want a tightly focussed non-Vancian option. If you [I]only[/I] cast within a limited list, you know all the spells (no spellbook) and can spell point them at the very least. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Wizards: Evokers *and* Illusionists?
Top