| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Kitira Gildragon |
Posted - 10 Mar 2003 : 17:35:04
What's your favorite mage type and WHY??
1) Non-specialist
2) Specialist (if so, what specialty?)
3) Sorceror
4) Wild Mage |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 May 2003 : 15:44:09
This is a very interesting discussion.
My favorite mage type would have to be the Necromancer.
I have always been a fan of the necromancer since the 'good-old' days of the 2e Complete Book of Necromancers. I remember I added at least fifty-to-sixty extra pages of homebrew material to enchance the necromancer class at the time.
I will have to find that material and convert it. It was actually quite good for 2e.
Good learning...
- The Sage of Perth: For all your Realms Lore needs
|
| Minardil |
Posted - 24 May 2003 : 14:34:42
Well, my sun elf sorcerer/wild mage (who is not-so-rational [psychotic]) is beginning to be my favourite character. In my first campaign my moon elf wizard got over-powerful, but wild mages can't get to stage "clearing Abyss myself" becouse DM can make THINGS happen... And quite funny things, really.
Wild Mages rokrok. |
| Darwin_Tenderfoot |
Posted - 09 Apr 2003 : 04:15:08
I agree with Yasraena, the best type of mage is the basic. If you find any scrolls or books or sumthin like that you can always read them unlike if you spec.
Darwin |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 08 Apr 2003 : 22:44:32
Come now! MUST a mage be labelled as a common specialist. NO. A battle mage is any mage that relishes the heat of combat, and the conflict. Probably similar to a War Wizard, but a battle mage is just any mage that enjoys the smell of ozone and fire in battle. Or charming an entire unit to kill each other. Or any other useful skill his warrior companions would respect him for.
THere is no mage better than a battle mage. |
| zemd |
Posted - 08 Apr 2003 : 19:55:03
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
What exactly are you talking about with the "battle mage" class? There's no battle school . . . unless you mean the school of Evocation?
Also, what's the advantage of school specialization anyway? So you gain a single spell per spell level. Big deal; you loose other spells that are useful!
They surely mean Battle mage prestige class (example: War wizard of Cormyr)
And Bookwyrm, you gain one spell PER level (level's spell i mean) and your DC is increased. |
| Avaly |
Posted - 08 Apr 2003 : 12:42:56
: calms the ole dragon down :
Now, Now...play nice  . We want to be nice to the newcomer and not be a grouchy dragon and eat him.  |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 08 Apr 2003 : 12:12:11
What exactly are you talking about with the "battle mage" class? There's no battle school . . . unless you mean the school of Evocation?
Also, what's the advantage of school specialization anyway? So you gain a single spell per spell level. Big deal; you loose other spells that are useful! |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 30 Mar 2003 : 08:24:00
My two favourite classes have always been Ranger and Mage. When I play mage I taylor it to a battle mage. The best mage is a battle mage. There is nothing like calling a charge while on the back of a big Trochainer, not with a bugle, but with a well placed fireball in enemy lines.
The 3E Character class system is just ripe for Battle mages. I was so ressistant to 3E, now I find it the best out of the 3. |
| Yasraena |
Posted - 29 Mar 2003 : 05:25:37
Don't even get me started on 3rd Ed. mage classes. (must... bite ...tounge)
Favorite mage class hmmm? I'd have to say the good 'ol basic mage. Mainly because he has the most versatility in his spell selection. Specialists can be cool in certain situations,(want a really kick-but villian? Necromancer baby!) but they lack the selection of spells that a general mage can pick from, and can't even cast from certain schools.
Now, wild mages sound like they'd be really fun to play, although, unfortunatley I haven't had the chance to try one.  |
| zemd |
Posted - 28 Mar 2003 : 16:36:11
In ad&d you can also make a wild surge, but it's a spell. Then you can try to cast the spell you want but often it miserably fail.
It's really funny, but i rpg you can't save the game and load it if something went wrong. The other players might find this to dangerous.
In my campaign, they'll go threw the ToT. So i'll warn the players that i won't make gifts in any way, for the NPCs as well as for the PCs. After all magic is impredictible, and i want to make them feel it, like Midnight in the Avatar Trilogy |
| Kitira Gildragon |
Posted - 28 Mar 2003 : 12:55:56
BG 2 made good use of that. You could even force a wild roll. (I hit a key and found out about it by accident. You can actually choose the wild effect if you have a list ) After I found that, my game was a lot more... intersting, to say the least. It really got dangerous when my character got into a battle that was difficult to start with, but the wild surges just kept on happening. *FUN!*
|
| zemd |
Posted - 26 Mar 2003 : 21:25:32
Wild mages are not traditional specialist wizards. They have access to every sphere plus the special wild magic spells list.
Whenever he casts a spell, the wild mage also roll a D20. Depending on the level, the effects are different. For example at level 1:
from 1 to 5 the spell will be cast as if the wizard was 1 level less. from 6 to 15, no changes
from 16 to 20 +1 level for the casting.
But on 20, there's a wild surge:
you roll a d100 and you watch what happen: from butterfly who escapes from the caster's mout or the spell that is 200% more efficient...
|
| Trafaldi |
Posted - 26 Mar 2003 : 15:22:52
I haven't heard about a Wild-Mage.
What is it?
If I seem like a fool so be it. |
| Baron Sengir |
Posted - 26 Mar 2003 : 14:15:42
I really like a kit we created with my DM in a 2nd ed game.He was a battle mage and I really liked playing it.If anyone ưnterested,I could give you some clues about the special proficiencies and so on about him.I think in 3rd ed sorcerer-battle mages could be quite powerful.The spell penetration and spell focus-evocation feats can make a battle mage unstopable...
|
| Drummer Boy |
Posted - 25 Mar 2003 : 14:32:12
I would have to agree with Artalis that I like Sorcerers the best, because of the following reasons:
a. They do not need to memorize or prepare spells.
b. They do not need to learn to spellcast from another person.
c. Like Artalis said, it's a class in which Charisma actually matters. |
| Sadonayerah Odrydin |
Posted - 25 Mar 2003 : 06:32:22
Well...kind of a mixture of a specialist mage and a sorcerer. A sorcerer because that's mainly what my mages are. I mostly favor that type as opposed to the others. If I had to choose a specialist mage I would probably lean towards a Conjurer, Diviner, Invoker, or a Transmuter. Those all just seem really cool to me. And I actually have a character who is mainly a diviner. (she's for something other than DnD so I won't mention her anymore). Another one of my characters is pretty much like an illusionist. She loves to cast spells like that that mislead. (a neutral alignment in case anyone was wondering) though this character is also for an original story so I won't go into detail anymore about her. But yeah...those are my opinions. |
| Brad_stubbert |
Posted - 24 Mar 2003 : 23:37:17
I would have to agree with Aust Grimshadow conjurers are fun to play but i will go one step further and say they are one of the most battle seasoned speicalist mage because when they are at high levels they can conjour powerful monsters taht would hold any fighter at bay. i always use them and think everyone should try playing one.
|
| zemd |
Posted - 18 Mar 2003 : 18:59:38
And do you think of the True Necromancer prestige class? |
| Aust Grimshadow |
Posted - 18 Mar 2003 : 14:17:43
My favorite speicalist mage would have to be either Necromancer or Conjurer. Necromancers are so sweet and i love their magic, but conjurer are so fun to play. Nothing more fun that summon monster IV or Gate!! <3.  |
| Trafaldi |
Posted - 17 Mar 2003 : 19:09:08
I believe I created that topic but it is still hard for me to say what kind of mage. If I had to decide right now it would probably an enchanter, enchant stuff to do what you need it to that would be fun. |
| Salius Kai |
Posted - 16 Mar 2003 : 06:00:53
I beleive there was a string sililar to this one somewhere....
(same as last time) Illusionist. There just so godly awsome. |
| zemd |
Posted - 15 Mar 2003 : 12:44:35
I don't like much diviners. As NPC they offer a lot of fun, but as PC, i think their school is too limited |
| Targon Moonrise |
Posted - 15 Mar 2003 : 10:47:00
I would have to say I like Illusionists and Diviners. They are complete opposites but they both seem like thay would help and party. Illusionist to help suprise attack/hide and Diviner so that enemies can't suprise attack up. |
| zemd |
Posted - 15 Mar 2003 : 08:47:17
The first character i played was a wizard (i described her in an other post). Even they have more choice, a specialist can can cast one more spell per level... on a long campaign it can make a huge difference.
And does someone has heard about the Nimbral's Wizards? |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 15 Mar 2003 : 06:20:11
Zemd, grammatically speaking, there's no problem whatsoever with it. Spelling-wise, it's got two Ps ("disappointing"). That's a very small difference, and one that most people wouldn't notice -- I wouldn't have, if you hadn't called my attention to it. I'm not a very good speller myself. So lighten up -- you're doing fine.
Since I'm here . . . I don't know much about the classes. I only found out about them recently, really. But I think I'd prefer a wizard with the most flexibility. I might change my mind, though. Like I said, I don't know much.
(Yes, Zemd, I'm going to look for a player's handbook soon.  ) |
| zemd |
Posted - 14 Mar 2003 : 13:33:56
What do you think about the prestige class 'true necromancer' in T&B? I think it's a little bit disapointing (Is that word good english?) |
| Creataceous |
Posted - 13 Mar 2003 : 22:09:38
Not a big fan of sorcerers, they lack the versatility of a mage who can totally rearrange the orientation of his spell list for current requirements. Thus for a campaign, which would face many different sorts of scenarios, a sorcerer would rapidly find him/herself out of their area of specialisation.
Speciality mages are my favorite, especially necromancers. I played a necromancer from 1st to 14th level in a recent 2nd edition campaign (I am currently converting him and his kit to 3rd Ed.), and it was great. The DM and other payers really played on the prejudices that my character would have faced. Really enjoyed it.
On my first point, I actually haven't played a sorcerer past third level yet so my views may change. |
| zemd |
Posted - 10 Mar 2003 : 21:15:22
I like every one of them.
But if i really must make an order:
Illusionist: IMO the hardest to play, needs a lot of imagination
Sorceror or non-specialist depending on the mood
Wild magic: fun to play but in short campaigns |
| Echon |
Posted - 10 Mar 2003 : 19:38:34
If I was to play a single-class wizard, my choice would be the Abjurer although I would probably want to play all the different specialists if time would permit.
I have never been fond of the sorceror for some reason.
-Echon |
| Artalis |
Posted - 10 Mar 2003 : 19:24:12
I'm new to 3rd edition but I have to say that Sorcerers have it made... Versatility galore. No pesky preperation. Better weapons selections. They are a little more dynamic and vital than the standard mage. Yes they have fewer spells to choose from but no class is supposed to be superior than others, just different. And I like the fact that Charisma finally becomes something besides the place to put your lowest stat. |
