Against "Mage Traditions" in D&D [Archive] - Wizards Community

Against "Mage Traditions" in D&D [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
septembervirgin
10-20-07, 03:12 PM Wizards should retain their normative classifications as has been given ever since 2e. A new system is not necessary at this time. To present artificial terms in the initial player's handbook that are different from any existing campaign system is silly -- and should such terms arise, they should arise of the Greyhawk Campaign or Blackmoor.

We understand the desire of Wizards of the Coast to emulate White Wolf's successful game Mage and its sequel, however most D&D players who are fond of a campaign setting (including their own) would prefer a bland term to be used in the game books so that the more colorful terms can appear in their campaign setting.

This being put, we hope that Wizards of the Coast ceases their surprisingly megalomaniac approach to game design, disarms their destructo rays, and goes about game design more peacably and pleasingly for their established fan base and for new players alike.

Of course, there will be newcomers or dissidents who find the entire issue humorous, but hopefully Wizards of the Coast will understand the difference between long time paying customers and those who aren't likely to buy a single game nor sustain purchases in the long term.
Grax
10-20-07, 03:19 PM How can Wizards of the Coast be wrong about what wizards are like? They are wizards after all. :P
Lokathor
10-20-07, 03:37 PM Wizards should retain their normative classifications as has been given ever since 2e. A new system is not necessary at this time. To present artificial terms in the initial player's handbook that are different from any existing campaign system is silly -- and should such terms arise, they should arise of the Greyhawk Campaign or Blackmoor.
Well, I like the concept. Tome Of Battle in everything! Seriously though, Spell schools are probably going to stay around, just not be as important most of the time (the way it is for clerics, druids, sorcs, etc).

We understand the desire of Wizards of the Coast to emulate White Wolf's successful game Mage and its sequel, however most D&D players who are fond of a campaign setting (including their own) would prefer a bland term to be used in the game books so that the more colorful terms can appear in their campaign setting.
Just change the colorful term to your own colorful term. What's wrong with that?
InkBlot
10-20-07, 04:35 PM You're refering to the Wizards And Wizards Implements (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070917a) article, right? Did you notice how all of the other Design&Development articles avoided referencing any game mechanics? They're not doing away with the distinctions between abjurations and evocations; they're just not talking about mechanics such as "wands give you a +2 to evocations." They're throwing a new concept out onto stage, not because the old concepts aren't there, but because they want to hook people with the new stuff and because they want to leave plenty of surprises in the 4e PHB.
Keith_DFW_Gamer
10-20-07, 05:29 PM If the OP's right, it's another reason for me not to buy anything related to 4E when it does come out.
CipherTheory
10-20-07, 05:39 PM I'm on the fence about this. As much as I like the 'arcane sciences' flavor of wizards, I'm a little weary about making them the new 'stuff dependent' class. The flavor is good for a generic setting, but if WotC doesn't include at least a sidebar about how to adapt the flavor to settings which don't work with the concept of wizards having to carry a lot of obvious stuff around (Dark Sun comes to mind), so help me I'll jump right on the "4E = evil" bandwagon.

I think its still too early to panic. They're re-flavored the class, but that's not to say the mechanics demand this new flavor. Nobody has yet said "To cast a divination the Wizard must poses a crystal ball worth at least 1000 Gp." is going to be a hard rule for 4E. If the game designers have brains at all (which we assume that they do), these magical implements will not be an integral part of the class' abilities.

My advice to everyone regarding anything 4E is this: Wait and see. We can always riot later after we see the final version. Pandemonium knows no time limit, so just be patient.
InkBlot
10-20-07, 05:46 PM No reason to panic.
A wizard without an implement is like a slightly near-sighted man with glasses: The man can still see, but without his glasses, he can’t read the road sign across the way. Likewise, while wizard traditions are associated with a particular implement, a wizard need not possess or hold a given implement to use a power belonging to that tradition. For instance, a wizard belonging to the Hidden Flame order can cast the fire spell cinder storm even if he doesn’t own, has lost, or is not holding a magic staff. But if he does have a magic staff, it aids the accuracy of his attack, and his mastery of the Hidden Flame technique allows him to deal more damage with the spell.
Emphasis added.
tygreen101
10-20-07, 06:47 PM Wizards should retain their normative classifications as has been given ever since 2e. A new system is not necessary at this time. To present artificial terms in the initial player's handbook that are different from any existing campaign system is silly -- and should such terms arise, they should arise of the Greyhawk Campaign or Blackmoor.

let me guess, you don't play greyhawk so mess with that one?

We understand the desire of Wizards of the Coast to emulate White Wolf's successful game Mage and its sequel, however most D&D players who are fond of a campaign setting (including their own) would prefer a bland term to be used in the game books so that the more colorful terms can appear in their campaign setting.

to emulate White Wolf's mage? I haven't heard anything that says there will be an illusion skill, an evocation skill, and abjuration skill and so on like mage has a separate skill for each of the separate types of magic. I would cite them, but I haven't played mage in about 2 years and my books are at home while I'm at work (yes, I work on saturday)

This being put, we hope that Wizards of the Coast ceases their surprisingly megalomaniac approach to game design, disarms their destructo rays, and goes about game design more peacably and pleasingly for their established fan base and for new players alike.

I personally wish that they do change some things in the magic system. I REALLY like the aura concept for clerics(that has been talked about here in the forums). I'm personally working on changing 3.5 clerics to use auras in my game. I figure I need another 6 months before I can start my next campaign.

Of course, there will be newcomers or dissidents who find the entire issue humorous, but hopefully Wizards of the Coast will understand the difference between long time paying customers and those who aren't likely to buy a single game nor sustain purchases in the long term.

I played first edition D&D, 2E, 2E player's option, 3.0 and 3.5. I have no less than 15 books for each of them except first and player's option since that was only 2 books for 2E player's option that gave so much customization to each of the classes to be a whole new game. and I'd like to have a change. so, because I disagree with you, I get slammed into the dissident? I intend to buy at least 5 books of the new system: DMG, PHB, PHB2 MM1 and 1 more. so I can read it and make my opinion based upon what is printed instead of the speculation that is so prevalent in the forums. I have seen more disagreements/arguments based upon 2 sentences that have been released about this part of 4E or that part of 4E. man. it's a game. I know that most of the people have house rules about this or that because they disagree with 1 or 2 things in the main 3.X rules. please can we stop cutting people down for disagreeing with us? we are all human. we all have a right to your own opinion. please let's share our OPINIONS as adults.

thank you
StruckingFuggle
10-21-07, 03:55 AM InkBlot, there may be reason, it depends on how much of a difference those items make in effectiveness.
Lokathor
10-21-07, 06:08 AM I'm on the fence about this. As much as I like the 'arcane sciences' flavor of wizards, I'm a little weary about making them the new 'stuff dependent' class. The flavor is good for a generic setting, but if WotC doesn't include at least a sidebar about how to adapt the flavor to settings which don't work with the concept of wizards having to carry a lot of obvious stuff around (Dark Sun comes to mind), so help me I'll jump right on the "4E = evil" bandwagon.
Because if there isn't a sidebar and you make rules on your own, people are sure to come to your house and knife you in your sleep. Since WotC has never said "If you don't like a rule, change it for your group."

I think its still too early to panic. They're re-flavored the class, but that's not to say the mechanics demand this new flavor. Nobody has yet said "To cast a divination the Wizard must poses a crystal ball worth at least 1000 Gp." is going to be a hard rule for 4E. If the game designers have brains at all (which we assume that they do), these magical implements will not be an integral part of the class' abilities.
Actually, since every kind of non-caster requires equipment of some kind, it only makes sense for balance reasons that casters would also need equipment of some kind. I hope they're as important to a wizard's spells as a weapon is to the fighter or a holy symbol is to the cleric.
septembervirgin
10-22-07, 03:04 PM No reason to panic.

Not panicking. I think, as I have stated, that wizard colleges not wizard traditions should be in the game. I provided my reasons for this, none of which are the required items.

let me guess, you don't play greyhawk so mess with that one?

WRONG! I do like Greyhawk. My statement was a little fuddled, so let's clear it up: I think that a placement of odd terms in the Core Books should be from Greyhawk or Blackmoor campaign systems. Not from elsewhere.

to emulate White Wolf's mage? I haven't heard anything that says there will be an illusion skill, an evocation skill, and abjuration skill and so on like mage has a separate skill for each of the separate types of magic.

Noteworthy to mention, mages from the White Wolf Inc. "World of Darkness" game have seperate traditions which have seperate belief systems each of which have different requirements.

I am not sure what you are talking about as far as skills are concerned. Anyone of any tradition in White Wolf's Mage may learn any magic sphere and even combine these to achieve a unique effect.

I've not played Mage in many moons. I remember that there are Traditions in Mage and that was what I was referring to, not skills. Why intentionally disarray my objection to wizard tradition names in D&D as being something other than what is most sensible?

It's like naming a kid Bottom because one of the other kids in the neighborhood is named Top. This isn't bad in itself but Bottom and Top might have entirely different experiences in grammar school.

please let's share our OPINIONS as adults.

My honest opinion as an adult is that D&D has a certain traditional approach. Part of this approach involves careful class name for basic classes that are easily associated with their abilities and function -- which didn't seem to work when the Barbarian character class appeared as a central and common adventuring character class. Most barbarians in fantasy fiction do not have a "rage" ability but are swift, cunning, tough, and mean. A better name could have been "berserker" but there aren't many of those in pulp fantasy fiction. Most wizards in fantasy fiction cannot be considered condensed into a generic class title of "Serpent Eyes of the Gelatinous Moon" or somesuch. This might appear in a campaign setting but should not be in D&D core.

Greyhawk might appear as an intrinsic setting in a respectful approach to D&D design; or Forgotten Realms, if the design team is seeking a large space filler for pages upon pages of classes, races, etc. What we should not see is World of Dark TSR as a core setting. Ravenloft on the other hand... or maybe Metamorphosis Alpha!
Alpha_Moose
10-22-07, 06:18 PM I don't think you have to worry. If it's going to be like the ToB it will basically have some pretty names and flavor to coat basic themes. Diamond Mind is basically western fencing or samurai fighting, White Raven is teamwork, Setting Sun is wrestling and throws, and the rest are similar. You can ignore the whole story about Rashar in the ToB, so you could do the same with the core setting (though I doubt that they will do that). In the article, Serpent Eye might just be Enchantment while Hidden Flame is just Evocation (though seemingly fire based). It might not go in the same pattern as schools, but it should be obvious enough that you can easily ignore the names and still play a normal necromancer having tea parties with the undead. As for the items it probably will be like either ToB, where each Discipline has favored weapons but it doesn't really enter into it except for a couple feats, or like a Cleric's holy symbol or material components as they are now.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
septembervirgin 10-20-07, 03:12 PM	Wizards should retain their normative classifications as has been given ever since 2e. A new system is not necessary at this time. To present artificial terms in the initial player's handbook that are different from any existing campaign system is silly -- and should such terms arise, they should arise of the Greyhawk Campaign or Blackmoor. We understand the desire of Wizards of the Coast to emulate White Wolf's successful game Mage and its sequel, however most D&D players who are fond of a campaign setting (including their own) would prefer a bland term to be used in the game books so that the more colorful terms can appear in their campaign setting. This being put, we hope that Wizards of the Coast ceases their surprisingly megalomaniac approach to game design, disarms their destructo rays, and goes about game design more peacably and pleasingly for their established fan base and for new players alike. Of course, there will be newcomers or dissidents who find the entire issue humorous, but hopefully Wizards of the Coast will understand the difference between long time paying customers and those who aren't likely to buy a single game nor sustain purchases in the long term.
Grax 10-20-07, 03:19 PM	How can Wizards of the Coast be wrong about what wizards are like? They are wizards after all. :P
Lokathor 10-20-07, 03:37 PM	Wizards should retain their normative classifications as has been given ever since 2e. A new system is not necessary at this time. To present artificial terms in the initial player's handbook that are different from any existing campaign system is silly -- and should such terms arise, they should arise of the Greyhawk Campaign or Blackmoor. Well, I like the concept. Tome Of Battle in everything! Seriously though, Spell schools are probably going to stay around, just not be as important most of the time (the way it is for clerics, druids, sorcs, etc). We understand the desire of Wizards of the Coast to emulate White Wolf's successful game Mage and its sequel, however most D&D players who are fond of a campaign setting (including their own) would prefer a bland term to be used in the game books so that the more colorful terms can appear in their campaign setting. Just change the colorful term to your own colorful term. What's wrong with that?
InkBlot 10-20-07, 04:35 PM	You're refering to the Wizards And Wizards Implements (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070917a) article, right? Did you notice how all of the other Design&Development articles avoided referencing any game mechanics? They're not doing away with the distinctions between abjurations and evocations; they're just not talking about mechanics such as "wands give you a +2 to evocations." They're throwing a new concept out onto stage, not because the old concepts aren't there, but because they want to hook people with the new stuff and because they want to leave plenty of surprises in the 4e PHB.
Keith_DFW_Gamer 10-20-07, 05:29 PM	If the OP's right, it's another reason for me not to buy anything related to 4E when it does come out.
CipherTheory 10-20-07, 05:39 PM	I'm on the fence about this. As much as I like the 'arcane sciences' flavor of wizards, I'm a little weary about making them the new 'stuff dependent' class. The flavor is good for a generic setting, but if WotC doesn't include at least a sidebar about how to adapt the flavor to settings which don't work with the concept of wizards having to carry a lot of obvious stuff around (Dark Sun comes to mind), so help me I'll jump right on the "4E = evil" bandwagon. I think its still too early to panic. They're re-flavored the class, but that's not to say the mechanics demand this new flavor. Nobody has yet said "To cast a divination the Wizard must poses a crystal ball worth at least 1000 Gp." is going to be a hard rule for 4E. If the game designers have brains at all (which we assume that they do), these magical implements will not be an integral part of the class' abilities. My advice to everyone regarding anything 4E is this: Wait and see. We can always riot later after we see the final version. Pandemonium knows no time limit, so just be patient.
InkBlot 10-20-07, 05:46 PM	No reason to panic. A wizard without an implement is like a slightly near-sighted man with glasses: The man can still see, but without his glasses, he can’t read the road sign across the way. Likewise, while wizard traditions are associated with a particular implement, a wizard need not possess or hold a given implement to use a power belonging to that tradition. For instance, a wizard belonging to the Hidden Flame order can cast the fire spell cinder storm even if he doesn’t own, has lost, or is not holding a magic staff. But if he does have a magic staff, it aids the accuracy of his attack, and his mastery of the Hidden Flame technique allows him to deal more damage with the spell. Emphasis added.
tygreen101 10-20-07, 06:47 PM	Wizards should retain their normative classifications as has been given ever since 2e. A new system is not necessary at this time. To present artificial terms in the initial player's handbook that are different from any existing campaign system is silly -- and should such terms arise, they should arise of the Greyhawk Campaign or Blackmoor. let me guess, you don't play greyhawk so mess with that one? We understand the desire of Wizards of the Coast to emulate White Wolf's successful game Mage and its sequel, however most D&D players who are fond of a campaign setting (including their own) would prefer a bland term to be used in the game books so that the more colorful terms can appear in their campaign setting. to emulate White Wolf's mage? I haven't heard anything that says there will be an illusion skill, an evocation skill, and abjuration skill and so on like mage has a separate skill for each of the separate types of magic. I would cite them, but I haven't played mage in about 2 years and my books are at home while I'm at work (yes, I work on saturday) This being put, we hope that Wizards of the Coast ceases their surprisingly megalomaniac approach to game design, disarms their destructo rays, and goes about game design more peacably and pleasingly for their established fan base and for new players alike. I personally wish that they do change some things in the magic system. I REALLY like the aura concept for clerics(that has been talked about here in the forums). I'm personally working on changing 3.5 clerics to use auras in my game. I figure I need another 6 months before I can start my next campaign. Of course, there will be newcomers or dissidents who find the entire issue humorous, but hopefully Wizards of the Coast will understand the difference between long time paying customers and those who aren't likely to buy a single game nor sustain purchases in the long term. I played first edition D&D, 2E, 2E player's option, 3.0 and 3.5. I have no less than 15 books for each of them except first and player's option since that was only 2 books for 2E player's option that gave so much customization to each of the classes to be a whole new game. and I'd like to have a change. so, because I disagree with you, I get slammed into the dissident? I intend to buy at least 5 books of the new system: DMG, PHB, PHB2 MM1 and 1 more. so I can read it and make my opinion based upon what is printed instead of the speculation that is so prevalent in the forums. I have seen more disagreements/arguments based upon 2 sentences that have been released about this part of 4E or that part of 4E. man. it's a game. I know that most of the people have house rules about this or that because they disagree with 1 or 2 things in the main 3.X rules. please can we stop cutting people down for disagreeing with us? we are all human. we all have a right to your own opinion. please let's share our OPINIONS as adults. thank you
StruckingFuggle 10-21-07, 03:55 AM	InkBlot, there may be reason, it depends on how much of a difference those items make in effectiveness.
Lokathor 10-21-07, 06:08 AM	I'm on the fence about this. As much as I like the 'arcane sciences' flavor of wizards, I'm a little weary about making them the new 'stuff dependent' class. The flavor is good for a generic setting, but if WotC doesn't include at least a sidebar about how to adapt the flavor to settings which don't work with the concept of wizards having to carry a lot of obvious stuff around (Dark Sun comes to mind), so help me I'll jump right on the "4E = evil" bandwagon. Because if there isn't a sidebar and you make rules on your own, people are sure to come to your house and knife you in your sleep. Since WotC has never said "If you don't like a rule, change it for your group." I think its still too early to panic. They're re-flavored the class, but that's not to say the mechanics demand this new flavor. Nobody has yet said "To cast a divination the Wizard must poses a crystal ball worth at least 1000 Gp." is going to be a hard rule for 4E. If the game designers have brains at all (which we assume that they do), these magical implements will not be an integral part of the class' abilities. Actually, since every kind of non-caster requires equipment of some kind, it only makes sense for balance reasons that casters would also need equipment of some kind. I hope they're as important to a wizard's spells as a weapon is to the fighter or a holy symbol is to the cleric.
septembervirgin 10-22-07, 03:04 PM	No reason to panic. Not panicking. I think, as I have stated, that wizard colleges not wizard traditions should be in the game. I provided my reasons for this, none of which are the required items. let me guess, you don't play greyhawk so mess with that one? WRONG! I do like Greyhawk. My statement was a little fuddled, so let's clear it up: I think that a placement of odd terms in the Core Books should be from Greyhawk or Blackmoor campaign systems. Not from elsewhere. to emulate White Wolf's mage? I haven't heard anything that says there will be an illusion skill, an evocation skill, and abjuration skill and so on like mage has a separate skill for each of the separate types of magic. Noteworthy to mention, mages from the White Wolf Inc. "World of Darkness" game have seperate traditions which have seperate belief systems each of which have different requirements. I am not sure what you are talking about as far as skills are concerned. Anyone of any tradition in White Wolf's Mage may learn any magic sphere and even combine these to achieve a unique effect. I've not played Mage in many moons. I remember that there are Traditions in Mage and that was what I was referring to, not skills. Why intentionally disarray my objection to wizard tradition names in D&D as being something other than what is most sensible? It's like naming a kid Bottom because one of the other kids in the neighborhood is named Top. This isn't bad in itself but Bottom and Top might have entirely different experiences in grammar school. please let's share our OPINIONS as adults. My honest opinion as an adult is that D&D has a certain traditional approach. Part of this approach involves careful class name for basic classes that are easily associated with their abilities and function -- which didn't seem to work when the Barbarian character class appeared as a central and common adventuring character class. Most barbarians in fantasy fiction do not have a "rage" ability but are swift, cunning, tough, and mean. A better name could have been "berserker" but there aren't many of those in pulp fantasy fiction. Most wizards in fantasy fiction cannot be considered condensed into a generic class title of "Serpent Eyes of the Gelatinous Moon" or somesuch. This might appear in a campaign setting but should not be in D&D core. Greyhawk might appear as an intrinsic setting in a respectful approach to D&D design; or Forgotten Realms, if the design team is seeking a large space filler for pages upon pages of classes, races, etc. What we should not see is World of Dark TSR as a core setting. Ravenloft on the other hand... or maybe Metamorphosis Alpha!
Alpha_Moose 10-22-07, 06:18 PM	I don't think you have to worry. If it's going to be like the ToB it will basically have some pretty names and flavor to coat basic themes. Diamond Mind is basically western fencing or samurai fighting, White Raven is teamwork, Setting Sun is wrestling and throws, and the rest are similar. You can ignore the whole story about Rashar in the ToB, so you could do the same with the core setting (though I doubt that they will do that). In the article, Serpent Eye might just be Enchantment while Hidden Flame is just Evocation (though seemingly fire based). It might not go in the same pattern as schools, but it should be obvious enough that you can easily ignore the names and still play a normal necromancer having tea parties with the undead. As for the items it probably will be like either ToB, where each Discipline has favored weapons but it doesn't really enter into it except for a couple feats, or like a Cleric's holy symbol or material components as they are now.