I also wonder what this holds in store for Detect Magic. Or the 4th Edition equivalent.
DM: "You cast Detect Magic, and study the two items sitting on the Wizards lab table. The helmet on the right (A Helm of Brilliance) radiates a strong aura of Orb about it. The boots on the left (Boots of Teleporting) have an intense Ritual aura about them.
What do you do?"
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.
I'm not especially scared by this, because I placed little to no hope that Paizo would become the white knight of the old school community. I'll admit that, for a brief moment, I thought there was a chance of this happening, but Erik has always been quick to point out that Paizo's preference is to go with 4E rather than stick either to v.3.5 or develop their own game based on it. To assume otherwise is to engage in wishful thinking and I know I've occasionally been guilty of it.
First and foremost, Paizo is committed to being as successful as they can (as they should) and that almost certainly means converting to 4E. Under 4E, Pathfinder will almost certainly provide gamers with "neo-old school" adventures of very high quality. But they'll still be (necessarily) neo, because 4E looks to be constructed in such a way as to prevent true old school gaming under its rules. As for Necromancer, I always felt their commitment to "1E feel" was more marketing gimmick than reality anyway, so no change there.
And, yes, I'm feeling deeply cynical today. Thanks for asking.
I also wonder what this holds in store for Detect Magic. Or the 4th Edition equivalent.
DM: "You cast Detect Magic, and study the two items sitting on the Wizards lab table. The helmet on the right (A Helm of Brilliance) radiates a strong aura of Orb about it. The boots on the left (Boots of Teleporting) have an intense Ritual aura about them.
What do you do?"
Heh. "It's simple: we removed helms of brilliance and boots of teleporting from the game! No sacred cows here! Those items are for fossilized grognards anyhow."
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.
Ah, but keep in mind that these purchases may have gone down at that time because people were psyched (or uncertain) about the new edition.
Once they know more about the new edition (in June), there still might be an audience that wants 3.5 products (if 4E sucks).
Those who go to Origins and Gen Con 2008 will be in the best places to take the "pulse" of the gaming community with regard to 4E.
In fact, if Paizo can wait until the 4th Pathfinder to potentially go 4E, they will have the benefit of feedback from those two cons to make their 4E debut (with Pathfinder 4) even better (or, of course, to not go 4E at all).
In other words, they won't cast cloud kill or acid breath, they will have a unique ability to belch a cloud of noxious fumes or to spit a line of acid that doesn't have to work anything like the powers that a PC of a similar profession would have, I suspect in part so that they can have orc shaman and the like before those classes are fully fleshed out.
I thought that was what happened when you cast those spells. accept cloud kill came out the other end. (Nyuuuck, Nyuuck)
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Recent update from WotC confirms that the wizard implements are not the method being used to organize the spells on a global level (which, as I said above, makes sense given that all casters will (presumably) have different casting methods):
Well, I know better than to poke the bear(s), but I've been working on magic items all day and I'm punchy:[Regarding: ] "Staffs are for rays and cones, wands for long distance control, while orb stands for blasts, terrain control, and retributive and perception based effects."
This was true at the time it was written, and as with a few other small details, it's changed since then. Spells are not based on the implements you use to cast them. Wizards still choose a primary implement (and that choice is a meaningful one), but you can cast any spell through any implement with equal effectiveness.
So if you cast a Fireball with a staff its a ray of fire and if you cast it with an orb then you burn up enemies in a radious around you?
Weird. So the implements determine pretty much what shape the spell will take. Not what school its from. Im staring to feel spells will just be spells...Not really broken into schools of any form at all.
VERY different from what I'm used to.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So if you cast a Fireball with a staff its a ray of fire and if you cast it with an orb then you burn up enemies in a radious around you?
Weird. So the implements determine pretty much what shape the spell will take. Not what school its from. Im staring to feel spells will just be spells...Not really broken into schools of any form at all.
VERY different from what I'm used to.
Huh. That's not how I read that, but it's an interesting possibility. I thought that the implements would have feats or class abilities pertaining to their specialties. So maybe the staff has feats that improve your targeting ability or something like that. Plus, the context for the quote seems to be magic items, but maybe I'm reading too much into that fact.
Someone mentioned earlier in the the thread (Burrito maybe) the idea that the spell types might be used as the new schools. That would make sense to me. So, rather than evocation, you might have fire spells as a "school" of magic. I would be surprised if there were not some global organization system akin to schools/spheres/arts/whatever, it's just that the new system will not resemble the classic D&D schools.
So if you cast a Fireball with a staff its a ray of fire and if you cast it with an orb then you burn up enemies in a radious around you?
Weird. So the implements determine pretty much what shape the spell will take. . .
Wow, where'd this come from? They didn't say anything of the sort.
Ok so Im not reading it right. Sorry :(
I think they are trying to simplify the Wizard class down to something they can program for their online game. Therefore the spells from the core game will have to have very easily defined effects. And be very repetitive so that the first level wizard doesn't have to watch his first level warrior buddy have all the fun. An implement in an inventory space altering the spell seems easy to program and might give it a small coolness factor as well as differentiate the new magic system from previous ones(thereby selling more books). Schools of magic or no schools of magic doesn't seem to matter.
Ok so Im not reading it right. Sorry :(
Sorry for being so short in my response; it's been a long week already, and I didn't mean to be. I was just wondering if I had missed some information somewhere.
I think they are trying to simplify the Wizard class down to something they can program for their online game.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.
|
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
Tome of Horrors 4.x Clark is chomping at the bit to get this out.
White Wolf still has their creature collections.
We know some SRD iconics (blue dragons? frost giants?) aren't going to be in the MM I 4.0
Some races may be missing from the inital release, some classes are. (Monks, a viable gish, psions, bards)
6 months to go and still no inkling of the SRD. 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.
They(WotC) can also use predone work by 3rd parties to help them undercut the 3rd parties. This is the conversation I imagine:
Designer1- Well, it's time to make the gnome. Any ideas guys?Designer2- Necromancer Games has a popular one they put out a couple months back, we can use that adjust some abilities, move some stats (you know, so it doesn't look like a blatant rip-off) and add a new kewl power or two and done!
Designer3-Great, get on it! Next up, we need to do up a Gish.
Designer4-Ooo! Green Ronin had a kewl one we could alter!
Wizard's rewrite would make the originals by 3rd parties less desirable and undercut their sales, eventually people slow down with buying 3rd party stuff because "WotC will get to it eventually and I'd rather have official content".
Ugly.
Wizard's rewrite would make the originals by 3rd parties less desirable and undercut their sales, eventually people slow down with buying 3rd party stuff because "WotC will get to it eventually and I'd rather have official content".
Ugly.
I dont plan on switching..I will stay with 3.5
However this is exactly what I would do. If a third party makes a book with their own version of Gnome PC rules in it I would avoid that product because I know that in a future book there will be the stats for "real" gnome PCs.
Same with Frost Giants and such.
I'm so depressed, I can't bear to look at this thread. Wizards are now just another gun. And I've been so pro 4E.
What this whole 4E thing is a big playtest for their new computer MMORPG, isn't it. They beat it out on paper, we test it. They release it a few years down the road with much better mechanics than WoW.
I feel so dirty.
I don't care ratshit about Schools. They were creative and detailed, but a little strained at times.
In 4E, a Wizard gets a free Detect Magic everytime he pokes someone in the ribs with his staff.
Now I feel better.
:|
Creating a Shapeshifting Wizard: Yeah, the rules on polymorph are a bit convoluted in 3.5, but instead of fixing them, lets just say you can't do it. Again, guess there aren't any fantasy archetypes of wizards that could shapeshift or use that ability to shapeshift to fight more effectively.
Sorry, haven't read the whole thread but this but caught my eye...
In the movie Krull (sci-fi/fantasy crossover?) there is a guy with a spell book, or rather pages of one, who transforms into a tiger to battle the invading soldiers.
There is also the old woman from Willow who shape-shifts although perhaps not intentionally (more like a baleful poly spell)...
Cheers
Mark
Oh....and schools are so fundamental to D&D?
D&D was never without schools of magic?
The Rules Cyclopedia
1. The Rules Cyclopedia was published in 1991, after the 2nd Ed. AD&D PHB (ppub date 1989). The 2nd ed PHB most certainly had Schools and Specialist.
2. The Rules Cyclopedia was for the "basic" D&D game. Basic D&D != AD&D
I'll be more than happy to flip through my (battered and beaten) copy of the 1st ed PHB to see if schools are present and report back. I'm almost positive that schools were present, but perhaps in a rudimentary form, similar to how descriptors are now used.
|
|
The problem I have with 4.0 based on this discussion is that it has abandoned some core concepts of the old system. 3.0/3.5 still felt like the old D&D. Spells had levels. There were spell books.
Most of this seems like a radical departure from the old system. However, Hasbro is in dire pursuit of the WoW market, and this taps that ouvre. SAD. SAD. SAD.
|
|
Oh....and schools are so fundamental to D&D?
D&D was never without schools of magic?
The Rules Cyclopedia
1. The Rules Cyclopedia was published in 1991, after the 2nd Ed. AD&D PHB (ppub date 1989). The 2nd ed PHB most certainly had Schools and Specialist.
2. The Rules Cyclopedia was for the "basic" D&D game. Basic D&D != AD&D
I'll be more than happy to flip through my (battered and beaten) copy of the 1st ed PHB to see if schools are present and report back. I'm almost positive that schools were present, but perhaps in a rudimentary form, similar to how descriptors are now used.
Schools of magic were present in 1.0. In the first edition PHB there were lsited up near the spell name. Specialization of schools first reared its head in Unearthed Arcana (I think), and became a mainstay in 2.0.
Harbro is not concerned about heritage. They are concerned about salvaging their IP and reselling product.
|
|
I think they are trying to simplify the Wizard class down to something they can program for their online game.Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.
Yep, I've said it before. 4.0 is just a stepping stone to 5.0 which will primarily be a MMORPG, with a pen and paper version released later with very minor support.
Yep, I've said it before. 4.0 is just a stepping stone to 5.0 which will primarily be a MMORPG, with a pen and paper version released later with very minor support.
I tend to agree with you.
I also wonder what this holds in store for Detect Magic. Or the 4th Edition equivalent.
DM: "You cast Detect Magic, and study the two items sitting on the Wizards lab table. The helmet on the right (A Helm of Brilliance) radiates a strong aura of Orb about it. The boots on the left (Boots of Teleporting) have an intense Ritual aura about them.
What do you do?"
Actually, I used to have a DM who always b$++&ed whenever we used Detect Magic, because then he'd have to go look up the item in the book to find what schools and strengths they radiated.
I've found that the best way to handle Detect Magic and Identify is to more or less handwave the actual spell text away. Takes an hour to cast and you have to drink a gem? Screw that, it's a standard action, no silly component, and then I just tell you what it is. Concentrate for several rounds to determine schools and strengths? Heck with that, here's some useful information about the magic that hints at what it is without revealing too much and doesn't require me to look anything up.
|
|
Oh....and schools are so fundamental to D&D?
D&D was never without schools of magic?
The Rules Cyclopedia
1. The Rules Cyclopedia was published in 1991, after the 2nd Ed. AD&D PHB (ppub date 1989). The 2nd ed PHB most certainly had Schools and Specialist.
2. The Rules Cyclopedia was for the "basic" D&D game. Basic D&D != AD&D
I'll be more than happy to flip through my (battered and beaten) copy of the 1st ed PHB to see if schools are present and report back. I'm almost positive that schools were present, but perhaps in a rudimentary form, similar to how descriptors are now used.
I'm full aware if when the RC,2nd Edition PHB, etc where published. And yes, the schools where in the 1st edition as well. That was not the point.
The point is that schools of magic are not required to be D&D. Classic D&D pulls off D&D quite well without school of magic. Schools may be a lot of things, but they are not a sacred cow.
Schools may be a lot of things, but they are not a sacred cow.
That depends obviously on the point of view. To me, they are a rules mechanism to have various specialist wizards. The idea was to make a specialist like the 1e Illusionist from every school in 2e, but due to various differences, it did not work out that well IMO, as the schools of magic were quite different in power and "adventure appliance" i.e. usefulness in an adventure. I guess I can live without them, if the new ideas for wizards are better (which remains to be seen).
Stefan
Oh. And just to be cheeky...d20 D&D != AD&D
That's not cheeky at all; it's truth. That d20 D&D draws more inspiration from AD&D than other versions of Dungeons & Dragons doesn't change this.
4E almost certainly continues the break with previous iterations of D&D, but the rupture predates 4E. I like 3E as much as the next guy and think it's more consonant with past versions of the game than 4E will be, but you'd have to be kidding yourself to think 3E wasn't also a break from the past (and a pretty big one at that).
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?
Separating the spells and powers by effect and purpose = Good
Schools that have no internal consistency = Bad.
As explained in the PHB, conjuration (creation) spells create real (non-magical) substances that persist when the duration ends while evocation spells create magical energies/substances that vanish when the duration ends. This is why conjuration (creation) spells do not check vs. spell resistance and evocation spells do. Some spells are mis-assigned (all force effects, IMO, should be evocation, for example), but throwing out the entire system is just killing another "sacred cow" and moving 4e farther away from the D&D of the last 30 years.
|
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.
I am inclined to agree with you. I think the most disturbing things I read is the things I don't read. That is to say, can I make an enchanter-like wizard per the 4E RAW? Will it require minor tweaks? Or will it require an overhaul? Will I be better served waiting for psion and giving it a "wizard" flavor?
I think that's what bothers me most. Where 3E was TOO MANY options, 4E is looking to be not enough (at least initially, with options published yearly).
Wands, Orbs, Rituals? Cool, I can dig that. Wizards as "nukers", standard fare and not really fresh IMHO. I've always liked to play wizards not because of fireball, but because of creative uses of Transmute Rock to Mud for example.
I think a lot of "Spell Versatility", especially on the non-combat front, is being lost along with Vancian Magic. I am sure there will be a "ritual" that does the same thing, but my money says the PHB will be light on useful rituals and heavy on BANG BOOM FLASH
Slike I allers sead: a camel is a horse desinged by committee or something.
I belive it's: Elephant: a mouse designed to government specifications.