| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
 Posted - 08 Dec 2010 : 22:23:34
|
The problem arises (mechanically) when we have 'schools' of magic based on what spells can accomplish, and others based on the philosophy behind them, and then a third, arbitrary and ill-defined 'power-source' model is implimented.
I love the power-source model, if not from aesthetic point-of-view, then a at least a mechanical one. Game-design requires very specific 'categories' to assign things (3e's Monsters having a 'Type' and 'sub-types' is a brilliant example of this). This is why I had high-hopes for 4e (and still do) - I think they may have just carried it a bit too far (the Martial power-source is ridiculous - it should have been named 'Ki' or something).
Schools of magic are great, and it was a wonderful step in the right direction (was that introduced in 2e? I forget...). There was an article in dragon magazine years ago with Path magic, which I am a big adherent of (the same model used in the Character law system). I think the power-source (cosmology) model in 4e lends it self much better to the Path (school) model - they are complimentary. As it is, there was very little in the 3e system in the way of pre-requisites for spells, which was one of its most unrealistic features. Mages traditionally MUST learn lower-level, similar magics before they can proceed - D&D does very little to take into account for that (and the Vancian system is partially to blame for that - who wants to waste slots learning spells you won't use later?)
So yeah, its a bit confusing when I ramble on, but Arik got the gist of it - I don't think the power-source should be the only defining factor in what spells can be cast, BUT I think it should have a LOT to do with how far one can proceed with those types of magic that that power-source compliments. A mage using the Shadoweave should just be whole lot better at Necromantic, evil, and Shadow-related spells then an Arcane mage is. The same can be said for Elementalists, or any other type of Mage. Certain sources of power are better at certain types of magic, its that simple.
I will think more on this - sadly I may have to go to a VG-like model to better define this for use in a P&P game. One should have to take 'levels' in attuning themselves to certain power sources, and THAT level should define what a Mage can cast, and how good he is at it. Right now, we have an all-inclusive statstic - Class level - that handles this, and it shouldn't be that way. It should be entirely possible for a lower-level mage to be better then a higher-level mage at certain things (ie., Fire Spells), if they have focuse on that one path and nothing else. It seems silly to me that in 1e/2e/3e rules someone can avoid taking any Fire spells throughout their career, and then suddenly take one high-level spell and be just as good as the guy who's been using that spell for thirty years. It SHOULDN'T work that way.
The wonderful VG Arcanum had just two paths one could take - technology and magic. That's a great start (Tech could be considered just one 'power-source' - perhaps rename them 'disciplines'), but it can be taken even further. In that game, you could do both... for awhile... but eventually you had to choose a path and stick with it. Trying to be good at both just wouldn't work (mostly because the better you became at one, the more it interfered with your use of the other). It would very similar to how 'Specialist Mages' were handled in 3e - specializing in a particular area allowed you to become better at particular things, at the sacrifice of 'knowing more' about other things. The way the rules handled it was very heavy-handed, IMHO - if the system was built with that in-mind from scratch, you would simply have people making the choices based on what they wanted out of their character (the way they did in 3e with PrCs). You wouldn't need players to pick an 'opposing school', because if they took no levels in a particular 'path' then they would be weak in that area. Min-maxing, of course, would be a problem, but when is it not? That's just part of the RPG genre.
So using the weave in a 1e/2e/3e game would be akin to being a 'generalist mage', with no particular path, and you could get good at a lot of things, but never GREAT. The really potent magics should be reserved for folks who have focused all of their efforts on a particular path - the only one that works (mostly) this way in earlier editions of D&D is necromancy - we had a whole book in 2e just dedicated to them. The ultimate goal of a Necromancer (Good or Evil) is to prolong his 'stay' in this world - the sources of power he associates himself with will decide if he achieves near-immortality, or Lichdom. The average mage should never be able to achieve that state - it is the culmination of decades of focused study.
Every Mage school/class should have an ultimate goal - what they are working-toward and what they would like to achieve. For an Alchemist it is the Philosopher's stone, for an Artificer is should be a Greater Artifact, etc... magic is NOT something people can just 'dabble' in - that's where I think the D&D system went wrong. It was based on Jack Vance's magical system, and it falls WAY short: Magician's in Vance's world (and magic was just a form of super-science) studied for years, and researched ancient tomes and dug through ruins and crypts just to uncover a SINGLE SPELL. The greatest Mages had more then a handful of spells to their names - it was a path to power that took dedication and perseverance - not leveling in some arbitrary, unrealistic system where you just get to pick your spells out of a goody-bag.
Magic is special, and I think this is where D&D really misses the mark. The wonder is gone - remember that moment when Frodo said "Yes Sam, that's an elf"? That's what D&D is missing - even though Samwise was a mythical creature himself, and lived in a magical world, he was still filled with a sense of wonder. I'm not saying make magic hard, just make it mean something. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 08 Dec 2010 23:47:22 |
 |
|
|
Gavinfoxx
Learned Scribe
USA
132 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2010 : 22:37:59
|
| I would posit that if you don't want your character to be able to do insane, powerful, crazy off the wall awesomeness like mythic heroes like Herakles, Cu Chullain, Sun Wukong, Achilles, etc., you shouldn't be playing D&D. D&D is not really a game for ANYONE *without* earth shaking power past level 6 or so... Remember, Gandalf is *NOT* a high level D&D character because *he was too low power*... Maybe if he was using his angel-powers unrestrained, he might be okay, but that was never the case in any of the books as far as I know... |
Edited by - Gavinfoxx on 08 Dec 2010 22:44:05 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2010 : 23:00:35
|
I don't see the arbitrary class distinctions being particularly problematic in 3E or later; nobody plays a mono-class archetype any more, everybody has one (or a few) minor classes to draw from; you hardly suffer any "mechanical" penalties at all until you're layering on your third class/career path. So priest/wizard multi and hybrid combos are common and the arbitrary spell restrictions are barely a nuisance.
An alternative is the "no class" approach, as used in games like Shadowrun. Characters assign their skills and choices to be good at something and their "class" is whatever they're good at doing; they can develop skills associated with other "classes" without restriction (although some specialized choices penalize "non-class" abilities) ... so in the end, characters can be generalists or specialists without any concern for archetype standardization. A problem in this approach (in Shadowrun at least) is that you again choose to walk the path of technology or of magic (or suck at both if you don't specialize), but otherwise everybody is very "generic" and fully interchangeable in the long run.
4E does confuse things a little more with bardic healing and such. Devise a lengthy explanation of "why", or deny it altogether, or just accept it for what it is with any plausible/handwaved reason you like.
lol, the unworldy hobbits of Middle Earth are part of a bygone era. Today's fantasy is populated by sophisticates, elves aren't magical anymore (in fact they're rather dull compared to eladrin, tieflings, genasi, dragonborn, shades, etc), Frodo's once-remarkable tale is well known even to children, we have seen other worlds, walked the planes, travelled the stars; places like Faerūn, Kara-Tur, Zakhara, Ravenloft, Eberron, and Azeroth are no longer exotic, fantastic worlds populated by fantastic creatures are constructed and abandoned every time we read a new book or watch a new movie. We wouldn't even apply terms like "Vancian" to differentiate magical systems if it weren't common and standardized. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 09 Dec 2010 : 12:14:53
|
| For bardic healing, I guess it's explained by accessing the song of creation (mentioned in a recent thread). And historically bards and druids used the same arcana. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 09 Dec 2010 : 16:47:35
|
I only had time to scan the thread, so if I raise any redundant points, I apologize in advance.
On the bardic healing point: Flavor-wise, bards have always been dabblers and jacks-of-all-trades. Going back really old school, you had to be a bunch of different classes, including DRUID before you became a bard, which is maybe the most accurate expression of bards from historicals (or at least fantistoricals). Going from that premise, bardic magic is a mish-mash of different sorts of power, both wizard and priest--the mechanics of D&D 3e, however, had to say bard magic was either arcane or divine, and so they went with arcane (which makes more sense anyway). So bards are less about using arcane magic to heal than using a hodge-podge of magic to do various things, none of which are quite as powerful as a dedicated wizard or cleric or druid.
On the subject of good necromancers: I'm of the belief that alignment makes much more of a difference with clerics (who are generally sworn to a specific deity with a specific alignment) than with wizards (who may or may not give a Silver Fire). And for a cleric, his/her power is rooted in faith in a higher power/morality, so that makes sense. For a wizard, not so much--arcane magic is WAY more of "just a tool" than divine magic is. It may have moral components and it may have spells that lend themselves pretty much entirely to evil ends, but it isn't predicated on rules of morality like divine magic is. A good wizard might be easily justified in using evil spells from time to time--or at least that's much more reasonable than a good cleric using evil spells (which isn't even possible under 3e circumstances).
(Personally, when I run games, I either completely ignore the alignment system or am just really loose about it. My games--like my books, not coincidentally--lean toward shades of gray.)
And finally on the OP's point: Based on my last conclusion--that wizardly magic is much less inherently "aligned" than divine magic, it makes sense to me that it's less capable of bolstering life and repairing limb. It's easy to ascribe to the stereotype (true more often than not) that wizards are greedy, power-hungry, and take a much shorter path to might than the more patient, demanding, and devoted cleric path. It just stands to reason that arcane magic, as pretty much inherently a selfish practice, IS selfish in what it can accomplish. At least in D&D terms.
The point needs to be made that the offense/defense split is mostly a D&D construct. Wizards in other fantasy can often heal just as effectively as they can slay--think of Obi-wan Kenobi or the wizard from Terry Goodkind's books or even Gandalf. It's just like asking, "why don't wizards have the swords?" It's mechanical--wizards who could do everything fighters can (and why not?) would be unbalancing, so we end up with explanations (some more reasonable than others) like:
1) "Fighting takes too much time and focus and most wizards don't bother"
2) "Swords are heavy and wizards generally don't have that kind of strength"
3) "Metal armor messes up arcane magic. Not so much divine, just arcane. Oh and it has a lesser effect on bards, 'cuz you know, half and half"
Etc.
D&D's strategy for dealing with magic is, at its heart, mechanical: giving all the guns to one class over another is not fair to all the players.
Cheers
P.S. And see? I managed to get through all that without going to what is probably a perfect example to illustrate the morality of magic and flexibility in attack/healing: Harry Potter. FTW. |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2010 : 03:19:15
|
Think of it this way... In the real world you have interests, and hobbies, you have skill and training. Education. Well the same is going on in FR. When a discovers his magical talent or interest, he will very soon know what kind of things he likes. Does he like to wield phenominal cosmic powers in a distructive way, that is what he trains, does he like the more suptile "helping" spell, he would choose something els. It depends how religious he is, and how he goes about using the weave. (which clerics use aswell, in my campaign)
Its all in the way a wizard trains. Most wizards train destructive spells or learn destructive spells from masters... well if you as a wizard sat down and said: " I want to create a Fireball, but with healing instead." No problem!!!
It would just take a lot more effort than a "standart" way of using the weave, but it would indeed be possible.
Sometimes you just have to create what is not there.
And if negative energy bursts from a wizard can heal undead, so can positive energy from a wizard heal living!!!!
|
|
|
|
Gavinfoxx
Learned Scribe
USA
132 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2010 : 04:18:21
|
3e specific:
I've been thinking about positive energy bursts healing living... the Wizard has a very low amount of access to non-damaging positive energy effects. Mostly, it's just Disrupt Undead and Disrupt Greater Undead... but there IS a creature type that those positive energy spells specifically heal: Deathless. As near as I can figure, a Wizard just needs to get, oh, for a level 2 spell or so, something along the lines of a shorter duration, touch-range "Shroud of Deathless", rather than "Shroud of Undeath", and then they can use a cantrip and a pretty nice level 3 spell (which goes up to 10d8!) to heal. |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
|
|
Gavinfoxx
Learned Scribe
USA
132 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2010 : 05:32:41
|
| Using positive energy would just cause positive energy damage, unless, I think, it is one of the spell types that specifically works to heal a specific enemy type. For example, in the actual Deathless entry, it *specifically says* that Disrupt Undead heals them... |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2010 : 05:58:15
|
| Well, as I've always understood it, since positive energy damages undead, while negative heals them, and negative damages the living, there SHOULD be an opposite reaction from positive energy. At least it seemed that way back in 2nd ed. Healing spells use positive energy to begin with, so it should be possible to substitute it to do "positive damage" (ie- reversing damage already done). And some spells were/are reversible, so there is no reason to think that simply reversing a negative energy damage spell with a substitution couldn't work. It's an odd way to go about it, but.... *shrugs* |
The Goddess is alive, and magic is afoot.
"Where Science ends, Magic begins" -Spiral, Uncanny X-Men #491
"You idiots! You've captured their STUNT doubles!" -Spaceballs
Lothir's character background/stats: http://forum.candlekeep.com/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=5469
My stories:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/Mickeys_Comic_Tavern/index.php?showforum=188
Lothir, courtesy of Sylinde (Deviant Art)/Luaxena (Chosen of Eilistraee)
http://sylinde.deviantart.com/#/d2z6e4u |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31772 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2010 : 06:11:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
On the bardic healing point: Flavor-wise, bards have always been dabblers and jacks-of-all-trades. Going back really old school, you had to be a bunch of different classes, including DRUID before you became a bard, which is maybe the most accurate expression of bards from historicals (or at least fantistoricals). Going from that premise, bardic magic is a mish-mash of different sorts of power, both wizard and priest--the mechanics of D&D 3e, however, had to say bard magic was either arcane or divine, and so they went with arcane (which makes more sense anyway). So bards are less about using arcane magic to heal than using a hodge-podge of magic to do various things, none of which are quite as powerful as a dedicated wizard or cleric or druid.
That's probably one of the best descriptive passages I've read on bardic magic, Erik. Good stuff!  |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2010 : 06:21:12
|
| Aye, indeed, Sage- and that's one of the few things I did not like about 3rd ed Bards. Their spell selection just seemed too limited. Gone were many of the wizardly spells that they once had access to, leaving them with a much less diverse bag of tricks to play with. Why the sudden lack of Magic Missiles and protections? Since none of their spells ever get as powerful as a wizard or priest, why did they loose so much of their selection? |
The Goddess is alive, and magic is afoot.
"Where Science ends, Magic begins" -Spiral, Uncanny X-Men #491
"You idiots! You've captured their STUNT doubles!" -Spaceballs
Lothir's character background/stats: http://forum.candlekeep.com/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=5469
My stories:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/Mickeys_Comic_Tavern/index.php?showforum=188
Lothir, courtesy of Sylinde (Deviant Art)/Luaxena (Chosen of Eilistraee)
http://sylinde.deviantart.com/#/d2z6e4u |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2010 : 12:03:04
|
quote:
Erik Scott de Bie
It's easy to ascribe to the stereotype (true more often than not) that wizards are greedy, power-hungry, and take a much shorter path to might than the more patient, demanding, and devoted cleric path. It just stands to reason that arcane magic, as pretty much inherently a selfish practice, IS selfish in what it can accomplish. At least in D&D terms.
A good argument, and true, and openly stated as such in many D&D books. It just doesn't fit in with the actual facts in those same books: wizard characters start "older" than priestly ones, presumably because of all those extra years spent studying. Then they need to earn, for the most part, substantially more XP to progress through levels. Standard wizards are physically weaker, generally suck at combat, have no real training in weapons, and can't wear armor; whereas priests tend to be fairly competent on the front line and have some access to all the goodies their established church hierarchy can provide. The only real downside for priests usually involves a difficult DM who (unreleastically) insists that religious doctrine severely punishes all who commit even the most trivial errors in their thought and deed, treating every tiny hesistation as an irrevocable transgression of faith.
Most priests get fair access to a goodly variety of blasting spells. In fact, they get access to an entire bunch of spells rather than only those few they've learned. On the face of it, priests are vastly superior to wizards.
I don't quite see how - regardless of where it's stated in canon - being a wizard is at all the "quick and easy" path. Wizards are more "selfish" in that everybody knows wizards can achieve greater fame and glory. Quick, name ten religious patriarchs off the top of your head ... most of us can't ... but twenty wizards are easy to remember. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 10 Dec 2010 12:06:44 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4438 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2010 : 14:47:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Aye, indeed, Sage- and that's one of the few things I did not like about 3rd ed Bards. Their spell selection just seemed too limited. Gone were many of the wizardly spells that they once had access to, leaving them with a much less diverse bag of tricks to play with. Why the sudden lack of Magic Missiles and protections? Since none of their spells ever get as powerful as a wizard or priest, why did they loose so much of their selection?
I think because their true to their world of "Jack of All Trades, master of none." In a sense, they can cast some arcane magic and some divine magic AND also wield a few martial weapons such as heavy and light blades plus bows and they can wear armor (and with a few feats, up to platemail and cast spells). Had you taken away their usage of warrior-ish things, then I think you could adapt their spell list to include some offensive/defensive magics such as magic missile, mage armor, fireball, etc..
And for as much grief I give v3.5 bards, I think the class is still unique and a good fit for some character parties (though I feel the 4E bard does the job much better)  |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2010 : 14:58:21
|
| I will say that I largely approve of the "restricted" spell selections for 3E bards, and I approve of the 4E mix even more. Bard PCs (well, at least some of mine) have a tendency to pick about 100% of their spells with an eye towards combat, blasting, and defense; I've had to actually "force" a bardic preference for spells with performance and entertainment value (I generally look the other way if the PC selects about 50-50 in his spell mix, but I'm not averse to imposing Chance to Learn Spell modifiers ... not so much a problem anyhow, since powergamers tend to avoid the bard class). |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2010 : 15:51:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
That's probably one of the best descriptive passages I've read on bardic magic, Erik. Good stuff!
Why thank you. 
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
quote:
Erik Scott de Bie
It's easy to ascribe to the stereotype (true more often than not) that wizards are greedy, power-hungry, and take a much shorter path to might than the more patient, demanding, and devoted cleric path. It just stands to reason that arcane magic, as pretty much inherently a selfish practice, IS selfish in what it can accomplish. At least in D&D terms.
A good argument, and true, and openly stated as such in many D&D books. It just doesn't fit in with the actual facts in those same books: wizard characters start "older" than priestly ones, presumably because of all those extra years spent studying. Then they need to earn, for the most part, substantially more XP to progress through levels.
...
I don't quite see how - regardless of where it's stated in canon - being a wizard is at all the "quick and easy" path. Wizards are more "selfish" in that everybody knows wizards can achieve greater fame and glory. Quick, name ten religious patriarchs off the top of your head ... most of us can't ... but twenty wizards are easy to remember.
Truncated post for brevity, but an excellent point here. Maybe I don't mean "quick and easy"--maybe I mean "unlimited and independent." A wizard chooses a path independent from physical training (a long and tedious process) or religious devotion (enslaving yourself to a deity's cause) and instead chooses one that is strictly about one's personal forces of mind and will. You get magic, but you aren't bound to any particular task or direction and make all your own moral choices.
Considering human nature (particularly through the lens of a violent medieval society), I think the natural impulse in this situation is for people to amass destructive magic. I think the desire to do good and heal people is somewhat rare among wizards (one doesn't devote one's entire life to a selfish study of magic in order to turn those talents to healing), and a little impractical, come to think of it. For instance, if you spend all your time learning non-combat spells, then that increases the odds some rival wizard is going to come along and kill you, or the wary villagers are going to rise up and burn down your tower (preferably with you inside). No, wizards NEED to be able to handle themselves in spell-battle, something that clerics can manage thanks to rigorous physical training.
For practical reasons, wizardry is a lonely pursuit. Wizards are too prone to rivalry, especially when the path to power for a lower-level wizard is often as simple as slaying an older wizard, taking his spellbooks, and learning their secrets. For their own protection and for privacy, wizards tend to be solitary and reclusive. On the other hand, Clerics can also count on the support of their churches, church-sanctioned knights, and the devout among the populace--wizards are entirely on their own, unless they get together in guilds (and then proceed to the infighting). The very practical reasons that make wizardry a lonely pursuit also introduce its greater vulnerability.
I think for these sorts of reasons, arcane healing magic has gone pretty much undeveloped in the history of the magical arts, and the rare exceptions are generally personal (i.e. synostodweomer) to heal the wizard himself/herself.
(Also there's that whole "spark of life connected to the gods" argument that I find really compelling early on in the thread. But I didn't say it first, so I'm not taking credit. )
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Bladewind
Master of Realmslore
Netherlands
1280 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2010 : 16:10:03
|
I think even white necromancers aren't able to channel positive energy into a healing effect because the target of disrupt undead is not the corporeal body but the animus (or motive program) of an undead.
Perhaps only clerics learn to use positive energy in healing ways because they requires divine aid in the targeting of the soul and corpus of a person. Clerics and druids are able to target corporeal bodies with conjured positive energy because they know where to target and how to control the flow of the energy.
Wizards (more fast & speedy) control of this energy is to uncontrolled (because their methods involves breaching planar barriers) and can only utilize it in wild bursts. Also their targetting is more oriented to extra-planar connections (the animus of an undead is probably located on the ethereal plane), while clerics and druids use divinely directed means to control positive energy on the prime material plane. |
My campaign sketches
Druidic Groves
Creature Feature: Giant Spiders |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2010 : 17:34:59
|
| I suppose being able to master electrical theory and fire off lightning bolts is quite a different application than using controlled electrical pulses to stimulate cardiac activity or cell growth. Just replace "electricity" with "necromancy". |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 10 Dec 2010 17:35:40 |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
Posted - 11 Dec 2010 : 01:11:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Aye, indeed, Sage- and that's one of the few things I did not like about 3rd ed Bards. Their spell selection just seemed too limited. Gone were many of the wizardly spells that they once had access to, leaving them with a much less diverse bag of tricks to play with. Why the sudden lack of Magic Missiles and protections? Since none of their spells ever get as powerful as a wizard or priest, why did they loose so much of their selection?
I think because their true to their world of "Jack of All Trades, master of none." In a sense, they can cast some arcane magic and some divine magic AND also wield a few martial weapons such as heavy and light blades plus bows and they can wear armor (and with a few feats, up to platemail and cast spells). Had you taken away their usage of warrior-ish things, then I think you could adapt their spell list to include some offensive/defensive magics such as magic missile, mage armor, fireball, etc..
And for as much grief I give v3.5 bards, I think the class is still unique and a good fit for some character parties (though I feel the 4E bard does the job much better)
I agree to a point, but that same "jack-of-all-trades" aspect of bards means that they SHOULD be able to learn a (small) number of ALL types of magic, not just a narrowly focused range of spells that are usually only moderately useful, or only useful in a narrow range of situations. Since bards have to travel a lot, they need to be able to protect themselves magically if necessary. Somehow, I doubt that most bards could escape an attack by bandits by singing to them when traveling alone on the road. But a magic missile or two would certainly deter them!
This is why I liked their wider range of spells in 2nd ed. They still only had access to a FEW spells, but the selection was wider and thus fit in more with the concept of learning spells from a variety of sources. And as Arik noted, most power-gamers don't take a bard anyway, so it's not such a problem with using the blasting or protective spells. And given the spell-failure chance with heavier armors, a bard would have to be really confident or paranoid of injury to wear them and hobble his spell-casting ability. Since most of them wear lighter armor (dex being important to bards), having some protective magic to boost their AC without hindering their spell-casting or mobility makes more sense. Plus, their inability to cast anything over 6th level also limits their selection, so being able to learn a more diverse selection becomes even more important. |
The Goddess is alive, and magic is afoot.
"Where Science ends, Magic begins" -Spiral, Uncanny X-Men #491
"You idiots! You've captured their STUNT doubles!" -Spaceballs
Lothir's character background/stats: http://forum.candlekeep.com/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=5469
My stories:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/Mickeys_Comic_Tavern/index.php?showforum=188
Lothir, courtesy of Sylinde (Deviant Art)/Luaxena (Chosen of Eilistraee)
http://sylinde.deviantart.com/#/d2z6e4u |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 11 Dec 2010 : 01:20:14
|
| The 2E Skalds (dwarven bards) were an exception; it made perfect sense for them to "know" as many blasting spells as possible, since their knowledge made them immune to spells instead of being able to cast them. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31772 Posts |
Posted - 11 Dec 2010 : 02:40:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Ah, I see someone besides myself has been delving into the 2nd ed Complete Bard. I recently acquired a copy, and am loving it, along with my shiny copy of Complete Book of Elves and Drow of the Underdark. (Yes, I have a thing for elves and bards, preferably in the same PC...)
You really need to game at my table, Alystra. I think you'd thoroughly enjoy it. Because bards are almost always centre-of-place in my campaigns.  |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
Edited by - The Sage on 11 Dec 2010 02:41:21 |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 11 Dec 2010 : 03:10:59
|
Bards are superb for temporary "drop in" players ... they can participate in a bit of everything (interesting and easy to play for joiners), can overlap or sometimes fill in weaknesses in a PC party, don't lopside the party when they suddenly come or go, can be found *anywhere* in a civilization or a wilderness (with a built-in excuse for wanting to join an adventure, or wanting to leave an adventure), and best of all, everybody wants an entertaining bard at their campfire.
Exotic bards are even better. Though dwarven Skalds aren't quite as soothing as the others, but hey, they're durable and great in a fight. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
see
Learned Scribe
235 Posts |
Posted - 11 Dec 2010 : 03:42:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Going back really old school, you had to be a bunch of different classes, including DRUID before you became a bard
1) In the "really old school", the bard was a unitary character class, "both an amateur thief and magic user as well as a good fighter." See The Strategic Review, #6, February 1976. It wasn't until the AD&D PHB came along two years later that it was changed so you had to start as other classes and change them to become a bard.
2) In AD&D 1st Edition, there was no period of being a member of the druid class before becoming a bard, though yes, bards cast druid spells. |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
|
|
althen artren
Senior Scribe
USA
780 Posts |
Posted - 11 Dec 2010 : 04:25:22
|
But Erik,
I want all the guns!!! |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 11 Dec 2010 : 06:51:22
|
@Althen,
Then you need to play a mystic theurge, clearly.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
|
|
Gavinfoxx
Learned Scribe
USA
132 Posts |
Posted - 11 Dec 2010 : 19:09:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by althen artren
But Erik,
I want all the guns!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
@Althen,
Then you need to play a mystic theurge, clearly.
Cheers
Well, if you want access to basically EVERY SPELL EVER, than you have quite a few options! Really, this is 3.5e, you can have your cake and eat it too! Remember, there's no reason to be a Mystic Theurge -- it's a completely gimped class -- when you can have access to basically every spell ever, and be able to get the higher level ones like, five levels before you could get them via Mystic Theurge.
1.) Be a Wizard, who uses one of the aforementioned tricks to get access to the most useful divine spells they need (see my earlier posts, mostly talking about getting access to useful domains, or Rainbow Servent, Southern Magician, the Domain variant Wizard, Alternate Spell Source, etc.)
2.) Be a Cleric of Mystra, getting access to Spell / Rune / Magic domains, and getting access to snazzy spells that let you get access to pretty much any arcane spell you need, as well as spell completion items for wizards and sorcerers, which will get you pretty much whatever spell you need.
3.) Be an Artificer and just be able to get access to every spell ever as a class feature, though in scroll and infusion form
4.) Be a Spell to Power Erudite, and gank all the arcane spells you can from a wizard, presumably one that used those tricks to get most/all of the spells from divine too, and be able to MANIFEST every spell ever, as a psionic power, as well as every psionic power ever
5.) Be an Archivist, and simply find whatever spell you want as a divine spell from all the obscure divine prestige classes with their own spellcasting list, as well as all the divine bards, paladins, rangers, druids, all the obscure cleric domains, every specific sub category of the aforementioned classes with an alternate spell list, and also divine scrolls of arcane spells scribed by one of those wizards who could cast arcane spells as divine (see earlier mention), etc. etc. etc., as long as you can find/beg/steal the scrolls |
Edited by - Gavinfoxx on 11 Dec 2010 19:13:48 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
What is the lore reason Arcane Magic can't heal?
