| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| VikingLegion |
Posted - 31 Jul 2015 : 04:34:11
This thread isn't specific to any one edition, as I've seen the various Schools of Magic undergo some transformations/re-shuffling over the years.
I've recently become semi-obsessed with how magic spells are grouped together and organized, as well as a structure of how some spells would be natural opponents of others. I stumbled across an excellent thread in EN World where two posters put forth various rearrangements of the old spell-school wheel and their reasoning behind it:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?278874-Rearranging-the-Schools-of-Magic
It's a lengthy discussion (and old, from 2010) but worth the read if you find this topic interesting.
I've never agreed with arcane spells that have a healing component being tagged as Conjuration/Summoning. Yes, I get that the mage is perhaps summoning energy from the Positive Material Plane - that reasoning is not horrible, but by that token one could also ascribe Lightning Bolt and Fireball to a Conjuror - as they could be drawing that energy from other Inner Planes, stealing quite a bit of the thunder from the Invoker/Evokers. Going back to healing energy, I think the school of Necromancy has a far stronger claim. Yes, Necromancy usually carries a strongly negative connotation with it, but is it not the arcane manipulation of life force, and therefore should have both White magic and Black magic components? It's not all about vampiric draining and zombie minions. Some of that life energy surely could be dispersed to allies. While I don't ever want to see an arcane caster supplant a divine caster as the party healer, I don't dislike a Necromancy specialist playing a bit of a supplemental/poor man's cleric role.
|
| 13 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Aug 2015 : 21:41:24
When I first saw the Complete Book of Wizards, way back in the days of 2E, I was quite puzzled by the writer's apparent belief that of course everyone would play a specialist wizard. Other than elementalists or wild mages, I've never seen the benefit to being a specialist -- you get a slight advantage with some spells, an extra spell or two, and in return, lose all access to some potentially useful spells in the process. I've never thought that was a fair trade-off. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 04 Aug 2015 : 01:29:41
I agree that wizards shouldn't automatically be given spells to play with - aside from a small variety of basic starter spells at level 1, of course.
My wizards have always had to obtain spells in other ways. They would barter, buy, beg, and steal. Or they would attempt their own research to duplicate spells "missing" from their lists. Or, since they already have to do the research anyhow, they would be encouraged to invent their own variations and substitutes.
It's less fun to play a wizard with access to every spell from every book, the perfect spell for every possible situation, sort of like having a fighter with every possible piece of armour and weaponry in his pocket. It is more fun to play a wizard who tries to do a lot with a little, forced to use spells in the most creative and efficient ways, sometimes forced to even rely on non-magical approaches (or *gasp* work with other party members who possess other skills) to overcome challenges. No need to be utterly miserly with your wizards, but sometimes less is more and being able to accomplish things with less leads to more pride. Besides, the Realms already has one godlike Elminster more than I personally like. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 03 Aug 2015 : 06:46:52
Like I said, YMMV. My gaming style had always leaned to the PCs being only a cog in the machine, not the machine itself.
-- George Krashos |
| VikingLegion |
Posted - 03 Aug 2015 : 05:53:53
No disrespect meant, but I heartily disagree with a player getting a different spell than what they prayed for. On the surface it makes total sense - a near omniscient deity surely knows better than a mere mortal, and takes the appropriate steps to safeguard their favored son or daughter. But from a gaming perspective I would think it is a bit of a "tell" in your story, and also might breed a hint of resentment from the player "Hey, why don't you just play my character for me, then?" Maybe this could work fine in a really special gaming group where the DM and players are 100% on the same page, but would undoubtedly get frustrating if it became even semi-frequent.
Also, and call me a masochist, but one of my favorite aspects of playing a caster is in trying for incredibly clever spell preparation. Yes, very often it drives one to madness because you don't have that specific spell that would be oh-so-perfect for the current situation, but it sure feels satisfying when it works out just right. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 03 Aug 2015 : 00:47:39
I've always taken a hardline 1E view on spellcasters. Wizards did not just automatically learn spells when they rose in level. They had to find them, get tutored and learn some from somewhere else or practice and experiment (costing lots of gp) to self-learn a spell or spells. Clerics on the other hand prayed to their deity, but never necessarily got the spells they prayed for. This could benefit them - why does Tymora give me 'resist fire' when I wanted 'aid'? The encounter with a fire elemental down the track shows Tymora knows best! - or not, with the latter scenario arising if the player wasn't actually roleplaying his/her character in terms of his/her faith and religious observances appropriately. Similarly, this process allowed clerics to be given unique spells of the faith (ala the ones in Faiths and Avatars or Prayers from the Faithful)to mix things up and make their character less of a cookie cutter healer. YMMV of course.
-- George Krashos |
| Veritas |
Posted - 02 Aug 2015 : 23:38:02
I agree that even divine casters should have specialties as Ayrik suggested. Not only does it put more emphasis on the caster himself but can also make the various faiths more interesting. Perhaps there is the one "great healer" who can accomplish feats in healing unmatched by any other member of the faith, for example. This saint of healing may have disciples trying to follow that particular path. As a player specialty cleric grows in power and renown, he might be gain great fame for his own unusual if not rare talents. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 02 Aug 2015 : 21:48:39
The opposition schools also add some flavour to wizards. You don't want every mage to have unrestricted access to all magic while also enjoying all the specialist bonuses - an interesting character has strengths and weaknesses, and is forced to do the best he can with what he has to overcome challenges which another character with a different focus might be able to handle very differently. Extending the logic beyond wizards, why would anyone want to become a fighter or thief if instead have all the abilities of a mage plus "specialized" ability in the use of weaponry and lockpicks?
It's a great idea. But not always the best implementation - the schools themselves and their interrelationships are somewhat arbitrary, many explanations have been offered to justify particulars (like Illusion-opposes-Necromancy, etc) but other possible configurations could be explained just as easily.
The "2.5E" Players' Option: Spells & Magic book offers some good ideas for twisting things around, Schools of Philosophy, Schools of Effect, Elementalism, Artificers, Geomancers, etc. Alternate specializations (such as Incantantrix "Meta-mages" and elven dualists) are offered in other sources, they seem new and exotic while also highlighting the "human-centric" fundamentals which define generic wizards. But even this isn't at all perfect.
On the face of it, any character who meets the requirements might be able to do things normally restricted to separate classes - the game sort of abstracts this through multi-classing and dual-classing rules. Unfortunately, one cannot become a multi-specialist under normal rules. I've played a campaign (in Thay, lol) where all wizards must be specialists, no such thing as a wizard who could cast anything and everything, and the situation was far more rich and complex than being in just another party of generic interchangeable mages.
I think the game would be richer if divine casters could also specialize. As in, every priest doesn't gain full access to anything on his deity's approved list, he must instead choose which magics he can do best and which magics are denied. |
| VikingLegion |
Posted - 02 Aug 2015 : 05:16:28
Well I can understand it from a viewpoint of "If you want to be great at one thing you have to give up another", so Specialists have to have a prohibited school. Of course in later editions you were allowed to pick your own prohibited school(s). Maybe they figured, without an actual diametrically opposed structure, too many players were going to meta-game the system and all drop the same school in the same manner that charisma used to be the dump stat for so many?
5th edition Wizards are interesting in that they can select one school for an "arcane tradition" which gives a few minor perks, however this is all factored in to the overall power of the class and doesn't require lessening your skill with any other school. |
| ZeshinX |
Posted - 01 Aug 2015 : 04:17:14
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Why do we need "opposition" schools? Why can't there just be schools? Nothing in 1E pointed to that concept which appears to be a bolt on from later editions and Dragon magazine articles/concepts relating to specialist wizards. I see no need to group the schools of magic in this fashion.
-- George Krashos
I suspect the "opposition" schools came about to "balance" the fact specialist wizards could cast more spells/day than non-specialists (though that's just a guess).
I can see elemental specialists having opposition elements, but otherwise it makes little sense. I tend to just chalk it up to the "because reasons" approach to some rules. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 01 Aug 2015 : 01:25:17
Why do we need "opposition" schools? Why can't there just be schools? Nothing in 1E pointed to that concept which appears to be a bolt on from later editions and Dragon magazine articles/concepts relating to specialist wizards. I see no need to group the schools of magic in this fashion.
-- George Krashos |
| VikingLegion |
Posted - 31 Jul 2015 : 14:31:43
Yeah I agree that 3e really shoehorned some spells into odd categories. I really dislike the various Power Words all being shoved into Conjuration. I'd divvy them up as Kill being Necromantic, and Blind+Stun in Enchantment/Charm, as they are attacks on another being's nervous system.
Maybe I should find my 2nd and 5th edition PHBs (I don't own 4th) and compare. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 31 Jul 2015 : 05:36:24
quote:
Originally posted by VikingLegion
I've never agreed with arcane spells that have a healing component being tagged as Conjuration/Summoning. Yes, I get that the mage is perhaps summoning energy from the Positive Material Plane - that reasoning is not horrible, but by that token one could also ascribe Lightning Bolt and Fireball to a Conjuror - as they could be drawing that energy from other Inner Planes, stealing quite a bit of the thunder from the Invoker/Evokers. Going back to healing energy, I think the school of Necromancy has a far stronger claim. Yes, Necromancy usually carries a strongly negative connotation with it, but is it not the arcane manipulation of life force, and therefore should have both White magic and Black magic components?
Yup. Which is how it was in AD&D2.
In 3e it was all dumbed down and that's when "ZOMGevil!" or "ZOMGscary!" spells were often dropped into Necromancy even if they had nothing to do with [un]life force.
For one, if it's simply a matter of tapping Positive energy plane (Conjuration or Evocation), there's a question why every single Negative spell can't be inverted. And every other Evocation spell converted (HealingBall!). And then why clerics have an advantage in this at all?
|
| VikingLegion |
Posted - 31 Jul 2015 : 04:46:17
As far as opposition schools go, I like:
Divination vs. Illusion - one attempts to get to the truth of the matter, while the other is all about obscuring what is real.
Abjuration is tricky for me, as I see them having two solid rivals:
1) vs. Invocation/Evocation - one school is about protective/defensive measures, while the other is all about destructive offense - so they are natural counters
2) vs. Conjuration/Summoning - one school draws minions from other planes and locations, while the other school wards them off and/or banishes them back from whence they came.
Enchantment/Charm vs. Necromancy? - one manipulates living brains while the other creates mindless undead? This one seems weak and a bit of a reach for me. Necromancy in my mind is its own opposition school dependent on whether one ascribes to the White (benevolent) or Black (selfish) bents of it.
Alteration/Transmutation vs. ??? - I don't feel strongly about any candidates for their natural rival. Maybe Conjuration, as Transmuters work with existing material, while Conjurors just go right over their heads and draw stuff from another plane? Meh, kind of weak.
|
|
|
