Pretty much my thread title explains it all. I was glad to see WotC brought them back with Player's Handbook 2, but then 3.5e got cancelled so soon after that. That was a relic from 2e that I missed and it made for some much more interesting, mechanical, and flavorful spells in D&D. I know they avoided it to make things simpler, but I didn't see the complication of bringing it back and they did, to an extent.
I guess what I am hoping for is to see Paizo bring some dual-school spells to light. Think of the possibilities! No longer will you be tied to the confusion and limitations of picking one school a spell most likely belongs to. And, personally, I found dual-school spells more fun to sling around.
Pretty much my thread title explains it all. I was glad to see WotC brought them back with Player's Handbook 2, but then 3.5e got cancelled so soon after that. That was a relic from 2e that I missed and it made for some much more interesting, mechanical, and flavorful spells in D&D. I know they avoided it to make things simpler, but I didn't see the complication of bringing it back and they did, to an extent.
I guess what I am hoping for is to see Paizo bring some dual-school spells to light. Think of the possibilities! No longer will you be tied to the confusion and limitations of picking one school a spell most likely belongs to. And, personally, I found dual-school spells more fun to sling around.
I'm not Paizo, but I'll keep this in mind while I'm working on some of my 3PP material. Dual school spells are indeed pretty cool. ^-^
Take a good look.. You might not be remembering the dual school spells, if one of those schools was forbidden to you, you couldn't take the spell at all. ... I personally don't approve of them given as they seem to be a dodge against the very weakened restrictions of opposition schools for specialists.
Since you couldn`t use a dual-school spell if it counted as an opposed school in 3.5, in PRPG it would almost certainly use up 2 slots if any of the schools are opposed for you. That`s not dodging any restriction.
I don't see Paizo adding dual school spells because it's a complication that doesn't add anything to the game... and it's IP, not open content.
Game rules are not legally protected. Neither is pure math.
Object A belonging to both Sets A and B is not a novel concept.Paizo can`t rip off the COPYRIGHTED text/imagery of WotC,
but any 6th grader could trivially implement this concept from scratch.
...So no problem if Paizo wishes to do this.
Honestly, it scares me the extent to which large numbers of people believe stuff like this is in effect, and is OK and something they support. It indicates an acceptance of the hegemony of `IP monopolies`, and corporate rule in general. Are you familiar with the dubious application of patent law to software? (a practice not recognized in most of the world besides the US, and comprising the unique situation where one work is protected by BOTH copyright (the code/bits themselves) and patent law (the `concept`). Normal patents, as applied to techniques and so forth, are compatable with broad competition, as seen in car after-parts markets amongst many others, you can invent your own widget that isn`t an exact copy, but accomplishes the same things and is `compatable`. Software patents don´t allow the same thing. All this appeared out of the blue with no real democratic mandate from congress, just some lawyers started to get tricky around the 80s, and started patenting all sorts of stuff that nobody ever patented until then. [/rant]
I'm hoping that with these two Ultimate Books, that we see a break from crunch content, with the core books, the APG, and these two that's more than enough crunch for GMs to keep track of.
I comletely agree with you on this... and fortunately, that`s pretty much what James Jacob said we can expect... After Ultimate Combat there won`t be `player option` crunch books on the immediate horizon, and they will explore other rules options, like advice how to run high-level games, perhaps more indepth exloration of the basic rules (like skills), planar stuff, that sort of thing.
I guess these guys ever doing a Psionic and an Epic book is a good 5 years off minimum, eh?
Sad...us crunch-lovers need our fix for our games since WotC 3.5 has been long done already
PLEASE DON'T DO IT PAIZO!!!
PLEASE DON'T DO IT PAIZO!!!
Why not?
Well we have duel bloodlines, duel curses and clerics always got two domains anyhow so why not?
PLEASE DON'T DO IT PAIZO!!!Why not?
It does very little to enhance the game while doing a great deal to enhance the amount of possible rules confusion. What's more, many existing spells could be argued to be dual-schooled spells, and one would have to retroactively implement the changes to the majority of existing spells in order to have system-wide consistency.
Also, it takes away from the special feel of being a specialist (who are quickly becoming so much less limited its ridiculous).
This makes me think the current orb spell thread. Those would have had more sense if dual Evocation/Conjuration.
The first spell I would create of the same mixed school would be the old Diablo I guardian. You conjure from the ground or whatelse a creature able to spit stuff on targets in range.
Evocation and Necromancy (cold + dead) mix well too I guess.
My only fear is that a thing like this should be planned in advance or could lead to a lot of inconsitencies and weirdness.
("why is this dual school and that is single" "what about specialization" "if is X/ conjuration an instantaneous..." ARRRRRGHBARGLE).