| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 04 Oct 2012 : 21:31:56
Recent talk of opposition schools brought me back to the fact that I like pathfinder's system of opposition schools compared to the 3rd edition version (because losing entire schools of magic does really suck). In that system, in order to memorize an opposition school spell it would require you to use 2 slots in order to do so.
That got me to thinking, that shouldn't necessarily be the only way to parse this out. For instance, what if it simply made it such that you had to add spell levels to a spell (say 3 levels to a spell just as a for instance if its an opposition school, such that a 2nd lvl spell like invisibility would have to be cast as a 5th lvl spell). That would still ultimately cut out the highest level of spells. However, you could maybe put in some kind of system if someone wanted to work towards it that they could lower this penalty (from +3 levels to say +2 levels and then to 1 levels). This would allow for building some extra crunch that people could play with in design. Along a similar vein, it could be that you could gain some ability to make your specialized school spells actually reduced in caster level (i.e. 3rd lvl fireball becomes 2nd lvl fireball for invoker)... though that becomes more dangerous.
I really think the whole idea of your opposition schools being "you can't cast it at all" needs to end up going away, because authors tend to forget things like that. Now, if you have some specialized class like red wizard, maybe they end up taking one of their opp schools and MAKING it such that they can't cast from it, but that would be the extreme case.
Anyone see any other possible ideas? I'm just thinking to throw out some ideas openly, because I know designers come through here. Pretty much, I'm betting anything we throw out could even be improved upon. |
| 9 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 05 Oct 2012 : 20:15:13
Another thing that comes to mind for generalist mages (in looking at what little they've released for D&D Next), it states for the base wizard class "Rituals: You can cast any spell in your spellbook as a ritual, provided that the spell has a ritual version". Maybe specialists lose this ability and can only cast spells that they memorize. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 05 Oct 2012 : 19:22:23
Another thing to come to mind too is simply a reduction in the number of opposition schools. For instance, maybe diviners can specialize and give up nothing, whereas everyone else only gives up one school. Again, I'm only throwing out general ideas, probably because some things were somewhat of a sacred cow in moving from 2nd edition to 3rd edition (the fact that they let you pick your opposition schools was nice in the move to 3rd edition, but they also did a very good thing and did a rigorous review of the schools and defined them better in 3/3.5 edition... which made those 2 schools really hurt a lot more than they had in 2nd edition).
Of course, then some folks will say "That's nice for the specialist, but what does the generic mage get?". If all the specialist gets is an extra spell per spell level each day, then maybe the non-specialist can get some other kinds of bonuses that make that particular kind of mage more interesting. Maybe instead of focusing on getting extra spells per day.... maybe they are the ones that get some basic item creation feats for free (like scribe scroll, brew potion, or even craft wand). Maybe that's what specialist wizards lose is this free item creation flexibility. Or maybe specialists lose their familiars but regular wizards get them (and make having a familiar a much more interesting thing). |
| Markustay |
Posted - 05 Oct 2012 : 18:07:19
I understand both of those analogies perfectly (and I hate driving a stick, although I can).
What I would allow is for a Specialist to cast those magics through devices, and in that way, he/she could still do those spells, but not without help from an outside source. To me, this keeps to the letter of the rule while still enabling casters a wee bit more elbow room. Also, if a mage needed a particular spell for something, they would have to have an apprentice (who is yet to specialize) or an associate cast it. This gives characters a bit of an Achilles heal, which works for stories and D&D adventures. I don't really think anyone should be so 100% self-reliant.
In folklore and mythology, even deities need help sometimes - the Norse gods don't make their own weapons, and amongst the Greek Gods Hephaestus does this for them. Even gods must specialize. The Sojournor - probably the biggest 'planet juggling' munchkin in D&D history - needed help from the Slaadi. The only being that should be 100% self-reliant is THE God, and in D&D, we don't have an omnipotent, all-powerful god (that we know of, and is within RAW).
Hell, even in FR and amongst the evil deities we have groups of them that lean on each other for support (the Dark Three), and Shar needed Cyric to kill Mystra. Not being able to do everything for yourself is part of the genre. Mystra has learned the hard way - several times over - that you can't be an island unto yourself (and she still keeps getting killed).
In fact, come to think of it, deities should be the ultimate expression in specialization; thats what their portfolios are all about. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Oct 2012 : 17:40:20
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I, personally, wouldn't take away opposition schools. If you want to be a specialist, you have to lose something. If you are unwilling to lose anything, DON'T become a specialist.
Do people somehow feel Mages are underpowered? 
Maybe it's just me, but I think it makes more sense to simply make the opposition schools tougher to access, as opposed to blocking them entirely.
Making something more difficult is a more logical approach than saying "nope, no matter what you do, you can never learn this, and you can never use it!"
Just because I can drive a stick shift doesn't mean I can't drive an automatic. If you're used to driving an automatic, however, driving a stick shift doesn't come as readily to you.
And when I first went from a stick to an automatic, I kept trying to use both feet and my hand kept reaching for the shifter. It took a while to break myself of that, but now it takes me a while to re-acclimate myself to a stick, if I have to drive one.
Similarly, my familiarity with Windows operating systems doesn't mean I can never learn Linux or Mac. I did once take a class in Linux, and I was figuring out how to do things in that OS quicker than my teacher, who was not overly familiar with it, himself. I'm far stronger on Windows, though, than any other OS, and I personally find Macs difficult, because nothing is where I expect it.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 05 Oct 2012 : 17:28:35
I, personally, wouldn't take away opposition schools. If you want to be a specialist, you have to lose something. If you are unwilling to lose anything, DON'T become a specialist.
Do people somehow feel Mages are underpowered? |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 05 Oct 2012 : 16:46:00
Here is how the Pathfinder process works for learning a new spell from a spellbook or scroll:
1) Make a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the spell's level) or cast read magic to decipher the spell in the spellbook or scroll.
2) Study the spell for 1 hour
3) Make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell's level) to write the spell in your spellbook. You gain a +2 bonus on this check if the spell is from your specialist school.
4) Pay the writing cost.
I see a number of ways to make this more difficult for opposition school spells:
1) Incur a penalty (most likely -2) on the initial Spellcraft check to decipher, and maybe even still require the check (my initial feeling is with a DC of 15 + the spell's level) if you have cast read magic.
2) Increase the study time to 1.5 hours.
3) Incur a penalty (most likely -2) on the Spellcraft check to write the spell in your spellbook.
4) Increase the writing cost by 1.5 times the amount listed.
Any or all of the above changes would make it more difficult to do so. In addition, I agree with the higher spell level slot method mentioned above to prepare spells from an opposition school. My feeling since it normally requires 2 spell slots, it should be two levels higher. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Oct 2012 : 03:35:10
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
In fact, just even making the spells harder to find or gain access to would increase the overall difficulty as well.
I'm not as sold on that one... Because that would have to be applied across the board. If Frehd the specialist mage has a hard time finding Bigby's Crushing Tactical Nuke because it's in an opposition school, then someone specializing in that school should logically find it just as difficult to locate the spell.
Or did you have something else in mind? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 05 Oct 2012 : 02:23:07
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I, personally, would lean towards a combination of making the spells occupy a higher slot, and making them more difficult to cast. This still blocks out the higher spell levels (especially if you build in a rule that explicitly keeps that from being circumvented), and makes the ones known harder to use. It makes sense that if you devote much study to one area, that others are going to take a hit.
I like this idea.
In fact, just even making the spells harder to find or gain access to would increase the overall difficulty as well.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Oct 2012 : 22:42:41
I, personally, would lean towards a combination of making the spells occupy a higher slot, and making them more difficult to cast. This still blocks out the higher spell levels (especially if you build in a rule that explicitly keeps that from being circumvented), and makes the ones known harder to use. It makes sense that if you devote much study to one area, that others are going to take a hit.
I don't like the idea that a specialist can't use wands or scrolls to cast prohibited spells. Yeah, it might be too easy of a workaround, but using a wand or scroll isn't the same as directly casting the spell -- particularly with a wand; someone else has already cast the spell. You can still limit it, though. |
|
|
