| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| AleksanderTheGreat |
Posted - 03 Apr 2011 : 09:39:21
... then what school of magic would you prefer?
For me it's definitely Evocation. There's something in creating stuff from nothing that I like. :) |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dennis |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 05:43:54
Fair enough. But I guess most prefer subtlety, especially if one doesn't want to attract too much attention. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 05:00:21
Sometimes cleanliness isn't desired. Assassins are often employed to deliver unambiguous messages. An invoker blasting the entire building into a pile of ashes, blood and mess and all, would be a better tool for some applications. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 03:25:53
Illusionists would be perfect assassins, too. No blood. No mess. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 00:00:47
Everyone sells the illusionists short, it seems. While their spells are more subtle, they are often just as powerful and dangerous as any evoker's fireball, in the right hands. I had a friend in my group who played a gnome illusionist (*sigh* I KNOW...) who basically killed the ancient red dragon I had them fighting ON HIS OWN. With phantom fighters..... He broke the gnome, obviously. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 26 Nov 2011 : 09:54:00
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
The illusionist is generally brilliant in mass combat. Causing the soldiers and junior officers (even if the upper brass of Mulhorand have enough priests see through most illusions) to be confused about the nature of the battlefield or the location of the foe is worth a lot. He's also set a Manshoon clone on fire with a lucky fireball; so there is that.
That would have been nice to see in novels. Unfortunately, illusionists are most often depicted as fodders, save perhaps in the Corymyr saga. Even the last Zulkir of Illusion would have been useless had it not been to her great skills at diplomacy and war strategies. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 25 Nov 2011 : 05:49:12
One of my PCs plays a dimensionalist suffering from dodecaphilia. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 25 Nov 2011 : 05:35:39
I've always liked force mages. I believe that 3e called them Argent Savants, which sounds like someone with a thesaurus trying too hard, but I still like the imagery, concept and special abilities.
Given that I play GURPS, not D&D, a specialist wizard doesn't have to give up access to other schools unless he wants to. It's a point buy system, so any points you spend on neat special abilities for your speciality can't be used on something else, but there's obligation to shoehorn oppositional schools in when they won't fit the concept.
Might as well simply have fewer spells than a non-specialist or, alternatively, cast all other spells than your speciality with less facility. Or any other 'weakness' compared to someone who spent his points being good with all arcane magic.
An NPC among the Northern Wizards of Messemprar in my campaign is a force mage. He has a few apprentices who collectively form perhaps the most adept battlemages of the city.
On the other hand, their experience in battle and tactical acumen might not compare to the raw magical power of a Wizard like Shurlash, who is older, more learned and more powerful than they are. Caster level 18th vs. 13th (and 9th, 7th and lower for the apprentices). But that doesn't stop their shining silver swords, thunderlances and lances of disruption from being really cool.
I've recently seen some battles where characters of comparable levels including a force mage, an evoker, an illusionist and a generalist wizard all take part. It's been pretty instructive.
The generalist wizard is probably the lowest level, being relatively young and belonging to the Enclave, which avoids being caught up in fighting most of the time, and thus not experienced in warfare. He is, however, the one who knows the most exotic and ancient spells, having access to a lot of old Imarskari lore. Not that he used any of them, making do with some fairly common spells to avoid undue attention from outsiders.
The force mage is best at melee and at targeting enemy spellcasters. Of course, the fact that he's also a fair hand at fighting (equivalent to being a Havoc Mage in D&D) has to be considered. He's got the same CL as the evoker and illusionist (slightly higher than the generalist wizard), but he's effectively a higher level character. Tougher and better in a fight.
The evoker excels at raining fire and brimstone (and ice and molten metal and other things) over his foes. He's a research wizard who went to war to test out his spells of mass destruction. Yes, in our world he'd be a weapons designer who personally tested his weapons. He has the highest kill count, hands down. Also, the PCs love him, because he has a mephit familiar and seems to derive an unholy glee from burning hundreds of humans alive.
The illusionist is generally brilliant in mass combat. Causing the soldiers and junior officers (even if the upper brass of Mulhorand have enough priests see through most illusions) to be confused about the nature of the battlefield or the location of the foe is worth a lot. He's also set a Manshoon clone on fire with a lucky fireball; so there is that. |
| Xar Zarath |
Posted - 04 Jun 2011 : 09:11:36
I concur. A bard can only do so much but a single wish spell and he/she would be toast |
| Dennis |
Posted - 02 Jun 2011 : 07:14:37
I can't consider myself a real fan, but her novels, at least those I've read, are okay. If I could tolerate pesky fighters (without a mote magic with them) single-handedly besting a powerful wizard, why not a Bard? But of course, there is a limit to it. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Jun 2011 : 05:08:01
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Why do wizards get so much attention in 4th ed? I'd rather see a few more paragon paths for bards- that is, if I cared to play in 4th. One of the reasons I dislike it is that some classes get all the attention just because their roles are more "important". I hate showboating a class just because it's flashy.....
Because there are far more people who love wizards! In the Fantasy genre in general, how many novels are there which feature bards? Not even a quarter compared to the number of those that feature wizards.
Wizards are simply far cooler, far more interesting, and far more versatile.
Except in a couple of Mercedes Lackey books I read. In those books, a Bard (yes, it would have to be capitalized, at least in her books) of middling ability would easily be able to best a skilled wizard. 
It's part of the reason she's one of the few authors I actively detest (her writing, at least. Don't know diddly about her as a person). |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 02 Jun 2011 : 04:08:24
LOL! Thus speaks the voice of the wizarding world.... As for them being cooler, more interesting, or more versitile, I'd have to say that's a very subjective statement. I'd argue the versatility, as a bard could take the place of a fighter, a wizard, a cleric, or even a rogue in a pinch, and usually more than one role at a time. (Such as healing with a spell while playing to buff the group, or using some roguish tactics while fighting in the battle.) Most wizards don't have near that amount of skill diversity. Sure they have spells that can IMITATE some of those abilities- assuming the wizard in question even knows the spells for it- but they usually have a limited number available at any given time, and usually reserve their magic for straight combat-blasting or protection. A bard can (or at least could in 2nd ed) do the same thing, and still hold his own in melee, or heal his friends, and bolster them with his music! (Which can be sung, leaving his hands free to do other things, like picking a lock or fighting!) Still pretty versitile in 3.5, too, and apparently in 4th as well, though perhaps without as big of a spell selection. (Whereas previously, they could use nearly any spell of a wizard, and most healing spells of clerics, up to 6th level. Pretty darn good variety, if ya ask me!) |
| Dennis |
Posted - 02 Jun 2011 : 03:39:44
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Why do wizards get so much attention in 4th ed? I'd rather see a few more paragon paths for bards- that is, if I cared to play in 4th. One of the reasons I dislike it is that some classes get all the attention just because their roles are more "important". I hate showboating a class just because it's flashy.....
Because there are far more people who love wizards! In the Fantasy genre in general, how many novels are there which feature bards? Not even a quarter compared to the number of those that feature wizards.
Wizards are simply far cooler, far more interesting, and far more versatile. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 02 Jun 2011 : 02:08:14
LOL, don't worry Diffan, I won't bash you over the head (with my lute) THIS TIME. I'll agree that they're less "iconic" than most classes (unless you count guys like Danilo, or Samwise- whom I think might have been a bit of one) but the fact is that wizards sort of get rammed down your throat, while some other classes get the short shrift. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 01 Jun 2011 : 13:28:44
quote:
Originally posted by Xar Zarath
i mean like bareris anskuld, how many people think that he should have died in the first book from all the horrors that were thrown againts him....
I had only read the short story about that character from the Realms of War anthology but it completly changed my idea of Bards on a whole. Prior to that, my opinion of the class was rather......well it wasn't great. But since I read Bareris, I really wanted to play one (using 4E of course) being a Harper and all that Bardic-goody stuff. Just seemed like a lot of fun w/o feeling I'm supposed to be playing music all the time.
But getting back to the Topic: I think wizards get more love due to their namesake. Wizards are such an Iconic figure in D&D (and history) that it's one of the most (if not THE most) identifible class/arch-types in the Genre. All thoughout the game's life and prior Wizards have been known for their superior power in magic and it's only further boosted by novels, movies and Games (RPG/MMO/PnP).
The Bard, on the other hand, has really only come about in the Genre since 2e/AD&D. This is where Alystra comes in and bashes me over the head because of course Bards have been known to exist historically for many many centuries and I don't deny that. I just feel that it's not as iconic to the RPG community as the wizard and that reason alone is probably more than enough to validate the excess amount of attention the wizard has obtained. I'm not saying its right or wrong, just an observation really.
Also, I think it's important to note that the Bard has more options for Paragon Paths than any other class in the entire 4E game. A half-elf bard with the Combat Virtuoso feat can use their Dilettante racial feature, Paragon path powers, or powers obtained thorough multiclassing with their Charisma for the power’s attack rolls rather than the ability score normally used to make the attack. You still determine damage normally. That means, as a Bard you can take ANY class's Paragon Path (because Bards have no multiclass restriction) and use Charisma in place of the power's ability. Normally, however, Bards will take powers that don't heavily rely on other class's features or an ability score that they have a penalty in to make the full-use of this feat.
|
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 01 Jun 2011 : 13:04:17
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
When someone is picking a character class, they might want selling points to 1.) show the classes strengths, 2.) show the differences between one leader (ie. the Bard) from another (ie. the Warlord), and 3.) showcase their flavor. Sure, it seems like a salesman's pitch because the poster is attempting to grab your attention and fuel desire to play a bard as opposed to other Leader (warlord, cleric, shaman, ardent for example).
The list of Pros above are a good indication of what the bard can accomplish as well as doing things differently. I don't think that is a bad thing and I wish there was something akin to that for v3.5 because one could get lost in the hum-drum of class features that version had IMO. Now, don't get me wrong as I think the v3.5 Bard was great at versatilty, but it was that versatility that amounted to him doing a TON of things, but all rather weakly. In 4E, the Bard does a TON of things and VERY well, but for a short duration.
This is, of course, all in my perspective of both classes respectively.
-I didn't say that was a bad thing, or a bad strategy. I said that it sounded like a goofy used car-salesman's pitch, or a campy old commercial. |
| Xar Zarath |
Posted - 01 Jun 2011 : 05:42:27
i guess the reason wiz is more showboated(is there such a word) is because canonically and mechanically they are far more useful in the fact that the storyline that villain or hero, there are a lot of advantages and disadvantages to magic, but for bards maybe in the novels the story has to be a bit toned down for them to survive???
i mean like bareris anskuld, how many people think that he should have died in the first book from all the horrors that were thrown againts him.... |
| Diffan |
Posted - 31 May 2011 : 18:16:44
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Parts like [...snip...]sound stunted and kind of like a stereotypical used car-salesman's pitch, or a kind of campy old commercial: buttery language that just seems off. To my ears, a lot of WotC products- a few of the 4e transitional articles explaining changes to be done to races/classes, and the "New things" sections in the FRPG/FRCG- do the same thing.
When someone is picking a character class, they might want selling points to 1.) show the classes strengths, 2.) show the differences between one leader (ie. the Bard) from another (ie. the Warlord), and 3.) showcase their flavor. Sure, it seems like a salesman's pitch because the poster is attempting to grab your attention and fuel desire to play a bard as opposed to other Leader (warlord, cleric, shaman, ardent for example).
The list of Pros above are a good indication of what the bard can accomplish as well as doing things differently. I don't think that is a bad thing and I wish there was something akin to that for v3.5 because one could get lost in the hum-drum of class features that version had IMO. Now, don't get me wrong as I think the v3.5 Bard was great at versatilty, but it was that versatility that amounted to him doing a TON of things, but all rather weakly. In 4E, the Bard does a TON of things and VERY well, but for a short duration.
This is, of course, all in my perspective of both classes respectively. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 31 May 2011 : 17:56:14
-Parts like "You are extremely versatile. Want to lead from the front with a shiny blade in hand? You got it. From the back? You got it. With a conductor's baton? You got it. With a bow? You got it. Strumming a lute? You got it. And it doesn't stop there" or "You are the master of positioning. You have a knack for making sure your allies are in the right place at the right time. After all, it doesn't matter how good your party's nova potential is if they're not in a position to unleash it, and you can get a party into position more consistently and expediently than any other Leader can. And not only do you get your allies into the right place, but you also tend to force enemies there" sound stunted and kind of like a stereotypical used car-salesman's pitch, or a kind of campy old commercial: buttery language that just seems off. To my ears, a lot of WotC products- a few of the 4e transitional articles explaining changes to be done to races/classes, and the "New things" sections in the FRPG/FRCG- do the same thing. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 31 May 2011 : 17:45:00
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-I'm assuming that that was written by WotC. Not for nothing, and I'm sorry, but why do all of the articles where they're going over the different abilities/pros & cons/changes/whatever of different classes/places in certain 4e books or transitional articles sound so goofy?
Actually it was written buy a player who likes to create handbooks for certain classes. This one was done by a poster known as Litigation (he's done a few for paladins, blackguards, cavaliers, etc..) and I'm pretty certain he's not WotC employed. Might I ask what specifically sounds goofy? I'll admit that because he is a gamer, he uses such terms as "Nova" but I rather though it was clear that it's not an official WotC Product. I doubt lines like this: "..You're still a team player, but you can't help but get some satisfaction yourself as your powers have more of a direct effect than those of other Leaders. There's something about dominating a foe and making him do your bidding that just sounds really cool." will get past the editorial board and into print. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 31 May 2011 : 17:17:30
-I'm assuming that that was written by WotC. Not for nothing, and I'm sorry, but why do all of the articles where they're going over the different abilities/pros & cons/changes/whatever of different classes/places in certain 4e books or transitional articles sound so goofy? |
| Diffan |
Posted - 31 May 2011 : 15:22:35
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Why do wizards get so much attention in 4th ed? I'd rather see a few more paragon paths for bards- that is, if I cared to play in 4th. One of the reasons I dislike it is that some classes get all the attention just because their roles are more "important". I hate showboating a class just because it's flashy.....
I'm inclinded to agree, but they do have 15 paragon paths designed for the class (with some racial/class requirements thrown in). Still, here are some really good reasons to play a bard in 4E (taken from the Bard Handbook by Litigation)
* You are the master of positioning. You have a knack for making sure your allies are in the right place at the right time. After all, it doesn't matter how good your party's nova potential is if they're not in a position to unleash it, and you can get a party into position more consistently and expediently than any other Leader can. And not only do you get your allies into the right place, but you also tend to force enemies there.
* You tend to cripple the enemy as much as you help your allies. With your natural secondary role as Controller, this isn't really a surprise. You like to jinx the enemies' attacks, strip their defenses, inflict status effects, and generally do a lot of nasty things to their survival chances. You're still a team player, but you can't help but get some satisfaction yourself as your powers have more of a direct effect than those of other Leaders. There's something about dominating a foe and making him do your bidding that just sounds really cool.
* You are extremely versatile. Want to lead from the front with a shiny blade in hand? You got it. From the back? You got it. With a conductor's baton? You got it. With a bow? You got it. Strumming a lute? You got it. And it doesn't stop there. You are free to dabble in as many other classes' abilities as you'd like to tailor your arsenal as you see fit. Want more healing? You got it. Want things to die faster? You got it. Need more control? You got it.
* You are a master of skills. In fact, only three of the skills in the entire game aren't on your class skill list. Moreover, you start with the second-most number of trained skills after the Rogue. Because you're charismatic, you excel in conversational skill challenges involving skills like Diplomacy and Bluff. And to top it all off, you have the ability to make the skills you didn't train almost as good as the ones you did train.
Aside from those factors, you really are the most versatile class in the game....even better than the Druid, which is saying something. The fact that Multiclassing with other Charisma-based classes is completly effortless and other paragon path features and feats allow you to use Charisma in stead of the classe's primary ability score is phenominal. You could build a Bard, multiclass paladin (and take the Charisma-baesd powers) and then multiclass Rogue for more damaging powers, Sneak Attack, and use a Rapier for all the classe's attacks (or a longsword or other Heavy blade). Just fun fun fun.
|
| MrHedgehog |
Posted - 31 May 2011 : 09:10:56
Divination. I like to know things. Deep down inside i'm really nosey and i'd like to scry the world as much as I could. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 31 May 2011 : 05:51:08
-Since we're talking about Bards, I just bought the Pathfinder rules, and I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed at how the Bard was redone. I would have liked to have seen a bunch of 'customizable abilities', like the Rogue got. And, really, I see no reason why the Bard didn't get a new deal, like that. Rogues were redone like that because they're very versatile, and there's plenty of different directions that a player could go with a Rogue- skills, assassination, pick pocket, etc. Same thing with Bard- there's no one real way to play Bards. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 31 May 2011 : 05:36:00
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Why do wizards get so much attention in 4th ed? I'd rather see a few more paragon paths for bards- that is, if I cared to play in 4th. One of the reasons I dislike it is that some classes get all the attention just because their roles are more "important". I hate showboating a class just because it's flashy.....
I'm inclined to agree with the need for extra love for the 4e bard. It's one of the few classes in the new edition that I've actually felt would work well with the current rules-lot in my campaigns -- with a few tweaks of course, to reflect my own internal rules-system. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 31 May 2011 : 04:51:05
Why do wizards get so much attention in 4th ed? I'd rather see a few more paragon paths for bards- that is, if I cared to play in 4th. One of the reasons I dislike it is that some classes get all the attention just because their roles are more "important". I hate showboating a class just because it's flashy..... |
| Diffan |
Posted - 27 May 2011 : 12:55:33
quote:
Originally posted by Xar Zarath
If i were to take say wiz then multiclass into various necro prestige classes would it stunt my char, i mean there are classes like necro prodigy, master necro, lord of the dead and such so how...
There isn't a Necromancy-based Paragon Path/Epic Destiny that I'm aware of in 4E. The D&D Compendium shows that there are 22 paragon paths for the Wizard class. When you go Mage (Necromancer), there is a pre-set Paragon Path called the Enigmatic Mage which further devles into your selected School (necromacny for example). And while your not required to take this specific paragon path, it gives you more Necromancy based spells and other features.
Of course, I'm all for seeing Homebrew versions of such Necromantic paragon paths. |
| Xar Zarath |
Posted - 27 May 2011 : 11:48:27
If i were to take say wiz then multiclass into various necro prestige classes would it stunt my char, i mean there are classes like necro prodigy, master necro, lord of the dead and such so how... |
| MasksChosenOne |
Posted - 26 May 2011 : 05:02:13
Transmutation / Alteration whichever you would like to call it , love to change the world around me even if for a short time. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 21 May 2011 : 00:22:27
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Xar Zarath
Will anyone post heroes of shadow? Considering where I am, i dont think ill be getting it quite soon. Still I do love necromancy, next to summoning forth baatezu and tanar'ri its one of my many great loves.
Don't think I can post the whole class, but I can divulge information you might want to know. As with all the other Mage schools, Necromancy give specific class features at certain levels. At 1st level, they gain Necromancy Apprentice: Gain temporary HP when you successfully make a Necromancy attack. At 5th level, gain a +2 bonus to Intimidate and Stealth checks. At 10th level, Necromantic powers ignore all Necrotic resistance (which is by far the BEST feature).
Aside from that, they just gain spells and powers as a normal Wizard but of course, spells with the Necromancy keyword are often suited for this speciality.
They ignore Necrotic resistance at 10th level??? Horse-puckey! |
| ranger_of_the_unicorn_run |
Posted - 20 May 2011 : 17:34:36
Is it a cop-out if I say generalist?
I'm very much a jack-of-all trades in real life; I just don't like limiting myself to one field of knowledge. I suppose if I had to pick, I'd say transmutation because I like to buff and there are a fair number of utility spells in that school. |
|
|
