Finally! Some news I can be happy about.
I'm off to dance on the grave of schools of magic...
See here's the problem Seb.... some of us LIKED the schools of magic, even if we didn't necessarily love the limitations of vancian casting. This makes it difficult to convert anything with a specialist wizard.
Sucky.
- Ashavan
It sounds like Mearls is using a variation of his villain classes from Iron Heroes. I personally don't mind the use of roles for quick monsters, but I would rather they mimic known classes or have a standard set of NPC abilities for all similar roles (kind of like the adept NPC class).
I've been searching around looking for the orc shaman acid vomit thing. I'm almost certain now that it was in one of the podcasts, but I can't find it, so of anyone else remembers it, please let me know. Its bugging the hell out of me that I can't properly cite this.
As far as the schools of magic go, while there may have been some that were kind of "D&D isms," i.e. things that would have only made sense if you know D&D's rules, I'd argue that necromancy, illusion, conjuration, transmutation, divination and enchantment were pretty much pulled from folklore, fiction, and myth.
I get that the school system might have been more complex, but how about using those vaunted talent trees and giving wizards different options and powers based on them, instead of making every thing revolve around blowing stuff up.
And how does that make the Wizard a controller?
Apparently Mearls mentioned this in one of the 4th edition Q&A sessions way back during Gen Con, but I could have sworn I saw this mentioned elsewhere as well. At least I found where it was originally mentioned.
I believe their term "controller" means that the wizard "controls" where the monsters go and where they don't by blowing up large sections of the battlefield and herding them certain directions.
<sigh>
Another example of 4e really being d20 WoW instead of a new version of the game that people have loved for the last 30 years. Disappointed, but not surprised.
Actually Mike Mearls already said that orc shamans are going to puke up acid. This might be changed somewhere down the line, but he seemed pretty proud of that effect.
Figures. Acid-puking orc shamen, huh? Wow. Nothing brings out the fantasy feel to me more than an acid-puking orc! They don't look like Jeff Goldblum, do they?
Actually, aren't all the changes to D&D that WOTC seem to believe are necessary a great opportunity for 3rd party publishers. It wouldn't be hard to envision a series of pdfs, Louis Porter Jr. style, that would detail a single class designed for 4E, but adhering to the more traditional wizard, fighter, etc.
Maybe instead of the idea of a 3.75, it might be more feasible to revise 4E once it's out. The Pathfinder Chronicles setting book provides the fluff, and a later supplement, or Pathfinder articles, provide the crunch...
Actually, aren't all the changes to D&D that WOTC seem to believe are necessary a great opportunity for 3rd party publishers. It wouldn't be hard to envision a series of pdfs, Louis Porter Jr. style, that would detail a single class designed for 4E, but adhering to the more traditional wizard, fighter, etc.
Maybe instead of the idea of a 3.75, it might be more feasible to revise 4E once it's out. The Pathfinder Chronicles setting book provides the fluff, and a later supplement, or Pathfinder articles, provide the crunch...
Problem with that is: every piece of info that has come out about 4th editions is proving that it will be radically different from 3rd. So different in fact that it is doubtful it will be the same game. Paizo would have to thus radically restructure Golarion meaning lots of brilliant work is wasted. And have NO fear, there wil be a 4th edition revision within 2 years. Count on it.
Creative Director
|
Problem with that is: every piece of info that has come out about 4th editions is proving that it will be radically different from 3rd. So different in fact that it is doubtful it will be the same game. Paizo would have to thus radically restructure Golarion meaning lots of brilliant work is wasted. And have NO fear, there wil be a 4th edition revision within 2 years. Count on it.
Actually... what would happen would be that if 4th Edition were THAT different is that we'd have to radically restructure the 4th Edition rules to fit Golarion. And if the rules are SO outlandish that after that restructuring we'd have essentially a different game... that'd be an argument to stick with 3.5.
But again... all that's still in the hypothetical stage for us since we still haven't seen the rules.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I'm unconvinced that we have to "restructure" much of anything about our world based on this rumored change.
I want more time to digest it, but I kind of like the idea of implements and rituals and stuff.
I'm unsure of where this leaves necromancers and other sort of standard caster types, but what I'm hearing about 4e leads me to believe that you (or we) will have little trouble modeling that sort of thing.
So while some of the changes make me a little nervous, but so far this isn't one of them.
Is it just me or does this kind of sound like the Wizard from Gauntlet (the old Atari videogame)?
Oh, the power and the magistery of killing generators.... that type work paid for my undergraduate education.
Schools of Magic need sports teams. This would be a good source of revenue, and keep the locals from being afraid of what happens in our ivory towers. ... and, keep the rumors to a minimum.
|
So a 4E wizard needs to be a guy with a stick instead of a guy with bat guano. Whee...9 out of every 10 wizards questioned preferred to hold a stick over bats**t.
*sings the song form Discworld about a wizard's staff having a knob at the end*
Acid vomiting orc druids. Has Wizards jumped the shark with this one?
They jumped the shark back when they announced 4e with the way the went about it, and they've been doing bloody backflips over the poor fish ever since with their craptacular PR.
But again... all that's still in the hypothetical stage for us since we still haven't seen the rules.
...This far and they're *still* not showing the rules to anyone? Ferchrissake, they're supposed to be releasing the rulebooks in a couple months.
A couple of months?
June 2008. The current release date is June 2008. That's SIX MONTHS from now.
Assume it takes 30 days to print and get to retailers. That still gives them 5 months.
Another 30 days before that for layout and final pass-throughsd. That gioves them 4months.
30 days after the last word is written for editing (I'm sure it's being edited now as sections are done, but one assumes they'll wan t afinal pass through wityh no intention changes to clean everything up)
That measn they still have at least 3 months to finalize the rules. My guess is no 3rd party publish is going to get to see the rules for 3 months (Sorry Erik, just my guess)
I'm as annoyed and suspicious as anyone (PLEASE stick with 3.5, paizo!), but let's not blame WotC for things that aren't true. In a couple of months, they still won't need to be done. They have penty of time
Blleeuuuaaaaaaaaaarghhhh
That would work, except I AM the evil twin!
Sploooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrtttttcccchhhh!
A couple of months?
June 2008. The current release date is June 2008. That's SIX MONTHS from now.
Assume it takes 30 days to print and get to retailers. That still gives them 5 months.
Another 30 days before that for layout and final pass-throughsd. That gioves them 4months.
30 days after the last word is written for editing (I'm sure it's being edited now as sections are done, but one assumes they'll wan t afinal pass through wityh no intention changes to clean everything up)
That measn they still have at least 3 months to finalize the rules. My guess is no 3rd party publish is going to get to see the rules for 3 months (Sorry Erik, just my guess)
I'm as annoyed and suspicious as anyone (PLEASE stick with 3.5, paizo!), but let's not blame WotC for things that aren't true. In a couple of months, they still won't need to be done. They have penty of time
Remember, though, they have all three core books to get out by that time. All three of which will need editing, cross-checking for late changes, etc. Also, if they print in China, add a couple of extra weeks for shipping.
However, I thought most WotC items went off to print about 3 months prior to release...
I don't know that trying to model everything from all lore ever is really a necessary intent of any version of D&D. Some versions have more of one kind of flavor, others go with something a little different. Whatever.
I guess I'm probably the wrong guy to listen to for a lot of folks though, because one of the things I'm most looking forward to about the new edition is the changes they're planning to make. I like the idea of different feeling wizards. I can see places where the superstructure of where their ideas are coming from wears a bit thin, yeah--I wish there was less WoW and WoD in the new game. On the other hand, I don't begrudge the new game for being different.
I think it'll be fun. A bit more of a blasty mage with rituals and armor seems like a fresh turn on an old idea. I kinda' like it.
Actually... what would happen would be that if 4th Edition were THAT different is that we'd have to radically restructure the 4th Edition rules to fit Golarion. And if the rules are SO outlandish that after that restructuring we'd have essentially a different game... that'd be an argument to stick with 3.5.
I hope you do stick with v3.5 or v.Paizo. I would like to continue buying Pathfinder, GameMastery Modules, Pathfinder Chronicles and those wondrous accessories like Rise of the Runelords Item Cards...but alas, I won't be buying them if Paizo caters to these radically-altered, supposed D&D rules called v4.0 about which WoTC won't even share scraps of information with their former brothers-in-blood at Paizo.
I can console myself with the thought that there will still be Planet Stories!
As a note, they don't say they are getting rid of schools of magic just specialist wizards (and alot of spells).Finally! Some news I can be happy about.
I'm off to dance on the grave of schools of magic...
Reread the first post. That's exactly what Mearls said.
Sorry, the schools of magic were great; specialists were poorly done. There should have been more options for focusing solely on one school, and an expanded list of universal spells. There were too many basic utilitarian spells socked into one school or other. One of our DM's still used 1e, with some adjustments taken from the old Atlantis/Talislanta system; she has hundreds of pages of supplemental rules, new spells and spell changes for logical purposes, rewrites of some monsters, simplified character advancement, etc. Basically she had a lot of details from 3e already, but no skills, feats or prestige classes.
I use 3.5, but with adapted material from 3e and outside products. I especially liked to use material from Fantasy Flight Games; it's too bad they dropped their Legends and Lairs line, because it was really useful.
To get back on topic, despite WotC's protestations to the contrary, 4e is looking more and more like it takes its cues from video games, and they've never been a perfect match.
I'm unsure of where this leaves necromancers and other sort of standard caster types, but what I'm hearing about 4e leads me to believe that you (or we) will have little trouble modeling that sort of thing.
And that's the real problem - necromancers, enchanters and illusionists are so basic to fantasy fiction, which has always been a better match for D&D than video games. The abandonment of that philosophy really scares me when I look at the material coming out of WotC. I know they've promised to create new base classes each year following, but that's going to become as much overkill as it was in 3.5.
I hope you do stick with v3.5 or v.Paizo.
I've gotta' say I'm in total agreement here--though certainly not to the same extent with the whole "betrayal by blood brothers" thing. I just think what's been built with Pathfinder looks like it'll probably work better with 3.5 than by trying to adapt the 4e rules. Certainly there seems to be a lot of people who would be a lot more grateful for sticking with the old rules than there are people who are clammoring to see a change to the new rules.
Honestly I'm pretty excited for the whole wait to be over so we can start seeing Pathfinder get it's own in-setting classes and stuff.
But yeah, all I can say is--I'm for Paizo sticking with 3.5 and I like 4e.
Obviously though other factors are obviously in play here. Understood.
No more schools? Hallelujah, amen!
Sorry, the schools of magic were great; specialists were poorly done.
I disagree. Specialists were poorly done, but so were schools of magic. Oh, it's a great idea, and works at a glance... but when you really look at the way it's implemented, it's clumsy, frustrating, and limiting.
First, the schools themselves are poorly chosen. There's an extraordinarily fine line between conjuration and evocation; it's so fine I've never actually found it. There was a late fix for this with dual-school spells, but that kind of just made things worse.
Second, the schools are poorly balanced. Enchantment and illusion are less than ideal, given that as much as half your enemies might be outright immune to them (depending on how much your DM loves undead). Abjuration has no business being as powerful as it is. (I've heard it described as the "Blue" of D&D.) And then, of course, there's evocation.
Third, the assignment of spells to schools was asinine. Why is Dispel Magic, the textbook debuff, associated with Abjuration, a school otherwise exclusively of protective buffs? What possible justification is there for healing spells being Conjuration? Are you summoning hit points?
No... no, good riddance to schools. Descriptors (and subschools) are actually a much better system; every spell having one school causes a lot of problems, and changing that to 'zero to a billion descriptors" goes a long way towards fixing things.
And that's the real problem - necromancers, enchanters and illusionists are so basic to fantasy fiction, which has always been a better match for D&D than video games. The abandonment of that philosophy really scares me when I look at the material coming out of WotC. I know they've promised to create new base classes each year following, but that's going to become as much overkill as it was in 3.5.
Still not sure I get the problem here. I don't know that D&D, in whatever form, needs to port ideas in from other fantasy settings. It's kinda' weak sauce. If I could wish for something it would be that D&D would have such an original new flavor that fiction writers would start making novels more like the new game.
Heck, it's been like that for years. D&D has influenced fantasy a lot--probably why so many fantasy novel ideas feel so iconically D&D. I am looking forward to new novels told from this new paradigm. Who knows...maybe a few years down the road there's going to be a whole new rash of books written that feel less like 2nd edition and more like 4th. I don't think that'd be so bad. If there's anything, anything fantasy could use it's a shot of fresh blood and new directions.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Second, the schools are poorly balanced. Enchantment and illusion are less than ideal, given that as much as half your enemies might be outright immune to them (depending on how much your DM loves undead). Abjuration has no business being as powerful as it is. (I've heard it described as the "Blue" of D&D.) And then, of course, there's evocation.
Blue? As in adult? I always thought it was the most G rated school?
Third, the assignment of spells to schools was asinine. Why is Dispel Magic, the textbook debuff, associated with Abjuration, a school otherwise exclusively of protective buffs?
Actually it fits there best (short of universal) Abjuration is often about defences or counters. What's more countering than dispel magic?
What possible justification is there for healing spells being Conjuration? Are you summoning hit points?
For divine? Why not? you're summoning the healing energy. I think Transmutation works better, you're changing the body for a short time to heal faster. But then again, that's the egotist in me.
|
|
A couple of months?
June 2008. The current release date is June 2008. That's SIX MONTHS from now.
Sure. Neglecting that the rules have to have hit final draft, editorial review, been fed to the editors to clean them up, fed to the specialists who will do page layout, formatted, shipped off to production, and then had enough printed up to meet the expected initial demand, plus whatever other steps are going to be required in the timespan between then and now that I happen to be forgetting, and the bang-up job being done to assure us all that they're thinking of the customers.
Six months, nothing to worry about for anyone.
Actually Mike Mearls already said that orc shamans are going to puke up acid. This might be changed somewhere down the line, but he seemed pretty proud of that effect.
Some of the 4.0 idea I've heard floating around have that effect on me, too.
(I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I'm not too good at it...)
"Hi! I'm Wulf, and I'm a grognard!"
"Hi Wulf!"
No more schools? Hallelujah, amen!
I am starting to understand why you dislike the current system so much. You don't really understand it.
There's an extraordinarily fine line between conjuration and evocation; it's so fine I've never actually found it.
Actually, the line isn't too fine. Conjuration pulls something from somewhere. Evocation just creates it. The created "thing" from evocation spells (usually) can't sustain itself, and doesn't last too long after being evoked. Thus the usual duration of Instant.
Second, the schools are poorly balanced.
The schools shouldn't inherently be balanced. To balance the schools would be to set up the need to balance all weapons. Maybe you feel the need for it, but I'd rather not have all the tools available to a class to be exactly the same. Do you expect a Dagger Specialist Fighter to be balanced with a Great Sword Specialist Fighter? I don't. They each have their usefulness depending on the game and campaign. (The Dagger Specialist would be much better in an Urban/Stealth type game which isn't your typical game.)
Third, the assignment of spells to schools was asinine. Why is Dispel Magic, the textbook debuff, associated with Abjuration, a school otherwise exclusively of protective buffs? What possible justification is there for healing spells being Conjuration? Are you summoning hit points?
The assignment of spells was pretty good. It wasn't made for convenience sake, but it was fairly logical. (Some exceptions exist of course.) Healing is in the Conjuration school because you are drawing the energy from somewhere, most like the Positive Plane (individual campaigns may differ). Sure Evocation might work, but then you don't want the healing disappearing afterwards. Dispel Magic (which I always felt was better as a Universal myself) could be Evocation... But since it isn't a directly offensive spell, it doesn't fit very well with the signature of that school. Also, since you link Dispel Magic with debuffing, wouldn't intimate knowledge of buffing help you understand how to debuff?
Like most of 3.5, the schools aren't perfect. But 4th Edition's system won't be perfect either. For the most part, they aren't building on/refining an existing system, so they don't even have that stability.
But 4th may be easier for you to understand. That remains to be seen though.
|
It all just seems like WotC is making some of these changes just to make the game so radically different that even the flavor and fluff of prior books is obsolete. "Wow, if we make the game totally different then everything everyone owns will be useless and we can shove any crap we want to at the consumer and they will take it." include in that the lack of concern for 3rd party publishers and it seems like WotC is just trying to keep the 3rd party publishers at bay while they (Wizards) feasts at the gamers' corpse for a while.
I feel more and more like WotC really couldn't give a crap about me, the game, or creating a solid product. I am tired of constantly seeing errata for the game also, this isn't a program that gets patches, it is a friggin' set of rulebooks.
4E is just getting more and more ugly to me.
Stop hurting my D&D. Please.
FH
|
It all just seems like WotC is making some of these changes just to make the game so radically different that even the flavor and fluff of prior books is obsolete. "Wow, if we make the game totally different then everything everyone owns will be useless and we can shove any crap we want to at the consumer and they will take it." include in that the lack of concern for 3rd party publishers and it seems like WotC is just trying to keep the 3rd party publishers at bay while they (Wizards) feasts at the gamers' corpse for a while.
I feel more and more like WotC really couldn't give a crap about me, the game, or creating a solid product. I am tired of constantly seeing errata for the game also, this isn't a program that gets patches, it is a friggin' set of rulebooks.
4E is just getting more and more ugly to me.
Stop hurting my D&D. Please.FH
Fakey, you are as they say "Preaching to the choir". Apparently necromancy and enchantment, etc. don't fit the wizard's role, so they are out. Just like healing and smiting as separate actons for the paladin are out. It doesn't have to make any sense as long as it lets the class fill it's "role". I knew the over-emphasis on roles in 4E would be bad. We are just now finding out how bad it is. It's also conveinient that they can sell you a necromancer or illusionist as base classes in PHB II or III. These should be options available in the first PHB, not several years and 60 dollars after the first PHB is released.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
No more schools? Hallelujah, amen!I am starting to understand why you dislike the current system so much. You don't really understand it.
Uh, no. Burrito is right, in his understanding and his analysis, as you showed by proceeding to finely slice the schools (which was his point) and admit that the spells and effects he pointed to could fit in other schools.
But, anyway, I'm not going to argue the point. It's probably the type of thing I'm just not smart enough to understand (or creative enough to twist in interpretation). Plus, some people understand the schools and like them. I'm not sure how exactly yo go about proving them wrong in their preferences (but insulting their intelligence is a good start, I must admit).
I'd rather have schools divided by game effect (e.g. Evoc gets best damage spells, conj next best, etc) or see in-game divisions that follow less arcane patterns (e.g. Ars magica or mage).
Carry on. I'm back to grave-dancing.
It all just seems like WotC is making some of these changes just to make the game so radically different that even the flavor and fluff of prior books is obsolete. "Wow, if we make the game totally different then everything everyone owns will be useless and we can shove any crap we want to at the consumer and they will take it." include in that the lack of concern for 3rd party publishers and it seems like WotC is just trying to keep the 3rd party publishers at bay while they (Wizards) feasts at the gamers' corpse for a while.
Welcome to 1999. What you just wrote was exactly what I was feeling back before the change to 3e. Now I'm not going to get into a big defense debate on editions either, because since that time, I've come to accept that a certain few elements of 3e are things that AD&D could have used all along, and have since implemented them retroactively into my 2e game. The point being, I also get the impression that they're taking out more of what makes D&D what it is, and turning it into something unrecognizable. We'll see how much of 4e I'll be able to retroactively implement into my 2e game (if I even will want to, which is looking more and more unlikely), but I suspect it won't be much.
I'm back to grave-dancing.
You can't. That is a form of necromancy, and doesn't exist in 4th Edition.
Or was that over your head? Don't worry, I'll come out with a 4th Edition of that joke that will be streamlined and require less prep work from you. But that won't be for a ways off yet.
Play 4th edition now! (on the Playstation 3)
And you thought the day of the Omega Culmination would never descend.
A great schizm is on the horizon. Choose wisely because it will be the last choice you make. One of our home worlds was reduced to a whirling husk of ash in space when we were hit by a similar change in war game editions. If you have a god, pray to it, and...
Beware...
Beware...
So while some of the changes make me a little nervous, but so far this isn't one of them.
I think, as much as I wish it were otherwise, people need to prepare themselves for the fact that, unless 4E's changes are very big indeed, the odds of Paizo's not converting to the new edition are mighty slim. While there's no doubt that many individual Paizonians have sympathy for the feelings of old schoolers about mechanical changes to the game and that Pathfinder is, in some ways, a love letter to the pulp fantasy that inspired Gary Gygax to create this game, they also run a business they hope to be successful over the long term. That means supporting the new edition unless it is, literally, impossible to do so. I honestly can't begin to imagine what sort of changes short of eliminating the OGL entirely would prevent Paizo's conversion. Placing your hopes in a future where the company and its products are not 4E-compatible is misplaced; it's not going to happen.
Like I said, I wish it were otherwise, but I'm increasingly convinced no company of any note will continue to support either v.3.5 or the old school crowd. 2008 marks the end of an era for me and I expect many people -- but not many enough for it to matter.
I think, as much as I wish it were otherwise, people need to prepare themselves for the fact that, [snip] the odds of Paizo's not converting to the new edition are mighty slim.
Unfortunately, I do believe you're right. Morrus over at ENWorld said that sales of their 3.5 products have dropped 80% the day after 4E's announcement and that many other companies are in a similar boat. He also said that to produce 3.5 products now, they'd be losing money.
The only "cure" is to vote with your wallets, NOW and to keep it up for the next 6+ months (and beyond).
The only two possible scenario for Paizo to not go 4E ASAP is if either the new OGL doesn't allow for adventure path type products or world creation type products (I don't see that happening) or people start buying more 3.5 paizo products.
Morrus over at ENWorld said that sales of their 3.5 products have dropped 80% the day after 4E's announcement [...]
I wonder how the Gamemastery line is doing...
Paizo may have no choice but to switch to 4E no matter their actual preferences. I suspect that whether necromancers exist in 4E or don't is very low on their judgement criteria.
Actually, the line isn't too fine. Conjuration pulls something from somewhere. Evocation just creates it. The created "thing" from evocation spells (usually) can't sustain itself, and doesn't last too long after being evoked. Thus the usual duration of Instant.
Really?
what about:
Acid Splash (Conj) and Ray of Frost (Evo)...so an energy subtituted (Cold) acid splash does the exact same thing, but not really?
Dancing Light (Evo)...weird it isn't instantaneous...
Continual Flame (Evo)...same thing...
Flaming Spehre (Evo)...should be Conjuration, no?
Explosive Runes (Abj)...ok so they detonate on reading...not really a protection spell...maybe Conjuration?
Leomund's Tiny Hut...Evocations?...again not really an offensive or instantaneous spell.
And 4th Evocation...Oh my! Fire Shield, Ice storm (blunt damage...seems to me something is really there, no?), Resilient Shpere, Wall of Fire, Wall of Ice---> All Conjurations really.
Contingency, now this one is really weird....Evocation...ORLY?
So creating a phantom hound is conjuration...but a sword is evocation?
And consistency is not the strong point of schools...Destruction and Disentagrate, they do the same thing right? Destruction is Necromancy and Disentagrate is Transmutation.
And don't even make me go in the Spell Conpendium, where some you have instant AoE damage spells as conjurations...
And finally the best...Trap the Soul, which SHOULD be necromancy, is a conjuration.
Separating the spells and powers by effect and purpose = Good
Schools that have no internal consistency = Bad.
I suspect that whether necromancers exist in 4E or don't is very low on their judgement criteria.
Indeed. I'd be willing to venture that there are almost no non-negotiables as far as Paizo and 4E is concerned. Short of the elimination of the OGL (which we know won't be the case) or some sort of restrictions in its use (which is unlikely), I doubt that 4E could come up with something so horrific that Paizo would reject the new edition.
We have to remember that Paizo is not and never has been an "old school" company. Many of its staff and freelancers have sympathy for that style of play and Pathfinder gives lots of nods to the lore of old, but that's a far cry from providing old schoolers with the latest and greatest of 1970's style fantasy gaming. From my perspective, 4E has already committed several unforgivable sins against old school gaming but none of them has raised any hackles with Paizo so far as I'm aware. I'm not keen on the changes to demons and devils, for example, but, truth be told, most -- though not all -- the fluff changes are far less problematic for me than are the mechanical ones. And, as I said, no one at Paizo has turned their nose up at them or expressed concern.
So, short of a miracle, the odds of 4E being sufficiently unpalatable that Paizo will not convert are slim to none.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The only two possible scenario for Paizo to not go 4E ASAP is if either the new OGL doesn't allow for adventure path type products or world creation type products (I don't see that happening) or people start buying more 3.5 paizo products.
I'm still thinking that the new OGL has to be able to restrict the creation of new classes/monsters etc.
Look at what we have
I'm thinking, if I was so inclined, I'd take the red, white, and green dragons, and any good dragons we get and 'reverse engineer' the missing dragons. Same thing for the bard, psionics, monks, etc. Heck, may as well go for the missing spells as well.
I start this in June, maybe get it out in December/January as a cheep PDF. I have a 6 month window to make some profit before the next wave of 'core' books comes out. Then I see what's not in them, wash rince, repeat.
Wizards has to know now that their DI isn't going to be the money maker they seem to have thought it would be. They have to have a plan B. Keeping the 3rd party people from swarming us with their own 3.x to 4.x books has to be a consideration.
Let me take another tact.
Let's take the PHB 3.5 spell (that, admittedly, won't necessarily make it into 4th Edition) Cloudkill.
What type of spell is that? Well, it isn't a Cone or Ray, so it probably won't be a Staff spell. It isn't a Blast, so it probably won't be a Orb spell. But then again, it does effect perception so it might be an Orb spell. With a little stretch of the imagination, it could be considered a long range control spell, so it might be a Wand spell.
No classification system will be perfect. Certainly not for everyone. Killing the schools only replaces one classification system with another.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
This change leaves me with a rather mixed feeling. On the one hand, they are right - the current schools are messed up, and probably could use a more "first principles" based design, with less of the "evocation/conjuration" mixed messages, a clearer divide between Transmutation and Conjuration, and Necromancy as the school of Life Energy rather than the school of everything yucky and slimy.
But nixing the entire system is throwing out the baby with the bathing water, and the preview reads an awful lot as if wizards are going to be quite a bit cut back from their current "penultimate toolbox" status (with clerics/druids being ultimate toolboxes, tbh). And while the implements may be stylish, i've got the nagging feeling the hodgepodge of powers will just continue under a different label here.
|
Carry on. I'm back to grave-dancing.
Hey you kids! GET OFF OF MY GRAVE!!! Sheesh! Can't a zombie not rest in peace around here?
Seriously though, while I was always kind of indifferent to the schools, I do think that getting rid of them is a mistake. I think it would have been better to maybe do a major re-org and maybe combine stuff like conjuration/evocation.
I always thought Iron Heroes did magic really well.
From my perspective, 4E has already committed several unforgivable sins against old school gaming
I'm right there with you.
but none of them has raised any hackles with Paizo so far as I'm aware.
And that's the part that scares me. Couple that with the fact that they're partnered with Necro, a company committed to old school feel in the current edition, and you've got an old school/new school alliance that covers all sections of the D&D gaming community. The OGL is possibly their only obstacle.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Seriously though, while I was always kind of indifferent to the schools, I do think that getting rid of them is a mistake. I think it would have been better to maybe do a major re-org and maybe combine stuff like conjuration/evocation.
That's a good point. The schools did not need to absolutely die; they could have redefined and merged the existing schools, maybe killing just one or two for something new. That might have been a better middle ground, making the current system a little less arbitrary and weird and yet retaining the same general feel. I would have been happy with something like that.
That being said, they may well retain the spell types and organize along those lines instead. There is a lot to recommend such a system, including the fact that you can add in new spell types as you need them and not have to pigeonhole them into particular schools. The spell types also map well onto the elemental mages that a lot of people like. I see the wizard implements as being part of that class; not a universal defining element of the spells like the current school system (for starters, it doesn't make any sense as a universal framework for non-wizard casters, including sorcerers, who almost certainly will not use the same methods of casting spells).