Magician Class

[irdeggman]

I've started a different thread for this topic in order to keep the discussion easier to locate and not get lost within other broader htreads. It is becoming obvious that this will not be an easy one to handle. The polls are indicating no clear opinion (group-wise) on how to handle this one.

This may be the 'last' class to get hammered out because of this difference of opinions and I don't want to drag down the rest of the class section with the apparent on going discussion of this one.

[RaspK_FOG]

Not much of a discussion has started, has there?

A propose the following choices:

• Typical BRCS version, with one spell slot per level being specifically devoted to either Divination or Illusion. This may seem obsolete, since from one point on magicians get mostly divination and illusion spells, but I feel that better resembles their specialty in such spells. Making them have to choose 2 slots per spell level be one from each school would be devastating, so I do not go for that.
• Second choice, they may specialise in either Divination or Illusion. This, either way, grants the following benefits:
  • 1st level: Wizard specialist benefits (spells per day as specialist wizard); any one spell plus one spell from the chosen school known at each level (this overrides typical spell selection).
  • 5th level: +1 effective caster level with spells of chosen school.
  • 10th level: +1 on save DCs to resist spells of the chosen school cast by the character.
  • 15th level: +1 on saving throws to resist spells of the chosen school.
  • 20th level: +1 on save DCs to resist spells of the chosen school cast by the character.

I generally believe that 2e never gave a good reason for assigning the tag of 2nd level as Lesser Magic, so, based on the fact that some pretty important and not that all-powerful Sor/Wiz spells are of the 3rd level plus the fact that 9 / 3 = 3, I suggest that the whole concept is lowered accordingly. This should allow for the poor bard to feel better too (6 / 2 = 3)! :P

[soudhadies]

This probably won't come as too much of a surprise, but I'm in favor of the idea that I proposed earlier, with the magician being able to navigate down too paths of specialization, either following one exclusively or dividing his attentions between both.

[graham anderson]

Looks ok to me rasp but I really like the limitations on magicians when it comes to spells in 2nd ed. There might be ways that you can access better spells like spending your feats on spellsong related feats to gain enchantments like a bard.

I have been working on a magicians guide for my own game and will post it when I am finished. This is not an official product but I would like to know what poeple think of it when I am done. I will try and put up the first draft at the weekend as I would like help from the forum to iron out the flaws.

In the mean time how about something closer to 2nd ed.

Gain feats and resistances as a wizard. Base attacks to.

gain specialisation in divination and illusion.

weapon proficiencys of a roque.

gain 4 skill points a level not 2

d6 hit points instead of d4

cant access non illusion/divination spells of 3rd level or above.

[graham anderson]

bearcat I liked your idea have you thought about adapting them to feats so that people could advance down either one , both or neither. use feat prequisits like whirlwind attack uses them for example. I am in favor of one simple base class that can be altered by prestige classes and feats.

[Osprey]

bearcat I liked your idea have you thought about adapting them to feats so that people could advance down either one , both or neither. use feat prequisits like whirlwind attack uses them for example. I am in favor of one simple base class that can be altered by prestige classes and feats.

The way I see it. most class abilities like Bearcat's path advances and Rogue special abilities, are nothing more than exclusive feats anyways. Graham, I gather that you would prefer something more modular than this; my retort would be that this fails to reward a character for being devoted to a single core class, bit instead makes them rather boring. 3.5 really emphaisized the advantage of core classes, a theme that I think must be maintained in a 3.5 conversion.
-Osprey

[graham anderson]

The way I see it. most class abilities like Bearcat's path advances and Rogue special abilities, are nothing more than exclusive feats anyways. Graham, I gather that you would prefer something more modular than this; my retort would be that this fails to reward a character for being devoted to a single core class, bit instead makes them rather boring. 3.5 really emphaisized the advantage of core classes, a theme that I think must be maintained in a 3.5 conversion.
-Osprey

Some of bearcats abilitys are feats already but others are not and could be made into feats with prequisits.

I dont realy know what you are on about osprey I am in favor of one base class that is very similar to the wizard I don't know how this is boring unless you mean that illusion and divination are boring which in my opinion they are not.


You can then add more flavour with prestige classes and feats just like a wizard.

please tell me how this is boring.

[Osprey]

I dont realy know what you are on about osprey I am in favor of one base class that is very similar to the wizard I don't know how this is boring unless you mean that illusion and divination are boring which in my opinion they are not.


You can then add more flavour with prestige classes and feats just like a wizard.

please tell me how this is boring.

Heh, sorry, feelin' a bit punchy, no offense intended.

I mean a class bult around only spells and a few bonus feats isn't as distinct and interesting as a class with special abilities unique to the class. For instance, I think the rogue, bard, druid, and ranger are some of the more interesting and distinct core classes in 3rd edtion, mainly because they are distinct.

For a dynamic contrast to illustrate, compare to d20 Modern's core classes - the strong hero, tough hero, smart hero, etc. - these are the ultimate in modular core classes. They're generic nature makes them easy to build on and mix and match with other classes, but IMO they're so generic that they're flat.

And yes, I'd say the wizard, sorcerer, and fighter are the least distinct and interesting class concepts, though at least the fighter gets so many feats that they are heavily customizable (especially because there are so many feats they can choose from).

[graham anderson]

Heh, sorry, feelin' a bit punchy, no offense intended.

I mean a class bult around only spells and a few bonus feats isn't as distinct and interesting as a class with special abilities unique to the class. For instance, I think the rogue, bard, druid, and ranger are some of the more interesting and distinct core classes in 3rd edtion, mainly because they are distinct.

For a dynamic contrast to illustrate, compare to d20 Modern's core classes - the strong hero, tough hero, smart hero, etc. - these are the ultimate in modular core classes. They're generic nature makes them easy to build on and mix and match with other classes, but IMO they're so generic that they're flat.

And yes, I'd say the wizard, sorcerer, and fighter are the least distinct and interesting class concepts, though at least the fighter gets so many feats that they are heavily customizable (especially because there are so many feats they can choose from).

I am fealing a bit punchy myself its far to early in the morning.

I don't like the ranger or the rogue I think they are both poorly done most especialy the ranger and use a varient of the wilderness warrior(wheel of time) in my games. I do like the bard and druid especialy in a birthright setting. I think the wizard and the sorcerer are fine you can use their magic and things like specialisation to make them destinct. I don't realy like the fighter at least not on its own as all they are good for is killing things.

I tend to create character with a number fo different classes. the characters I am playing at the moment are a roque, noble , wizard and a fighter , wizard , roque. I like multiple classes. I would like the magician to use feats precicely so that they are more addaptable and can be better defined.

[soudhadies]

Making the abilities feats means that we either make them class specific feats, or that we make them open to all classes. Class-specific feats tend to be frowned upon by the D20 establishment (with good cause). And opening them up to other classes means that the distinctiveness of the abilities and magicians would be lost. Also most of them are actually more like class features, for example the ability that was an amalgamation of uncanny dodge and the monk's wisdom bonus to AC.