Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

So, it is something that has been on my mind for quite some time, thinking of how the schools themselves can feel special without just the learning spells quicker. I am posting this after a bit of in game talking though, to see what others might think. After all, two reasons many go with mage is because the only things they give up are an extra spell slot (Which if you manage to have 100+ already, why bother with more) and the faster learning of spells. They get access to every spell though in the game without having to give up any one in particular, and this does lead mages to being pretty cookie-cutter like in terms of spells with a few personal differences.

These are just my observations though, and I could be wrong. But still, having each school with their own sort of uniqueness would add to the roleplay experience as a whole, and draw many more to wishing to play a specialty over a generalist. I have dug around my 3.5 books, and came up with a few ideas. Again, just a topic for discussion mostly, so everyone, feel free to tear apart what I have and discuss other options if something else seems better.

Conjuration

This school is all about summoning, and one thing it lacks is a variety of summoning spells aimed at bring creatures about to aid. Yes, this can be a cause of abuse, as undead are also watched to prevent such. But, what I am suggesting more is along the lines of a companion that is unique to each conjuror in some way, similar to the Paladin mount and having the possibility to be more combat oriented should the Conjuror prefer. A being that a pact is formed with that the Conjuror is able to summon to their side when they wish, and if killed there would have to be a lengthy RP process to replace and/or a cost of some kind. This would be different from the summon monster spell in that the creature stays until dismissed, and is always the same type. A possible list could include Celestial creatures for good Conjurors, Infernal or Abyssal for evil, and creatures of a more neutral nature for those of neither.

Abjuration

A school based around protections as well as dispelling that lacks access to many of the buffing spells. While they may be better at protections then many wizards, a Mage who trains hard enough can become nearly as good, and still keep access to Transmutation spells. In light of this, there are a few ideas I had pulled from books. The first being an innate protection against energies from their specialization, one that stacks with the protections granted by spells and items. Something like +5 to each element, or even a static +2 shield bonus that stacks with the spell, making their protections go even further.
If instead it was looked at more like having access to certain spells, perhaps a mass shield spell only for Abjurers, or if going away from protection and focusing on dispelling, a mass dispel magic spell that targets all enemies. Though, that one might be a bit more overpowered, and thus might need some adjustments.

Illusion

The art of misdirection, and can be one of the stronger schools if worked at properly. But, adding a bit more flavor to the class to give it that something special could work to. After all, using illusions much of the time means not being seen. Going out of one of the books, this could mean giving them the hide and sneak skills. Yes, they already have invisibility, but being able to sneak while invisible means that there is no echo of footsteps left behind unless a listen check succeeds, meaning more oft a better experience for rp when playing with Major Image and the like.

Enchantment

Charmers and deceivers, the enchanter could benefit from the skills such as Haggle and Influence, using a light magical touch to get where they wish without need for overtly using spells. This could also mean the ability to charm and keep a particular cohort. Of course, as with the charm spells, this could easily be abused, so there would need to be guidelines put into place as to what is acceptable and perhaps even level restrictions similar to buying minions from a shop. No charming dragons or the like, but if your human character has a particularly close fight with an ogre and thinks he would make a fine bodyguard, then there you go. Of course, take him into Waterdeep and he will most likely die, so of course there are restrictions there.

Necromancy

The art of Necromancy is one that is heavily scrutinized by those of good heart, and even many neutral and some evil. And while one could use animate dead to create their minions, having that one particular favorite is something everyone wants. Yes, many of these suggestions are for companions, and necromancer should not be overlooked. Instead of just the standard zombies, perhaps allow necromancers to have something a bit different. Not saying allow vampires or liches, but allowing a skeletal minion who can wear armour and weapons, a more permanent bodyguard. Or it could be a ghost or ghast with their own abilities still intact. Of course, like I said in Conjuror, replacing a falling companion could come at a cost of a lengthy rp and/or material cost, making it so the necromancer does not just see their minion as fodder to be thrown away, but something to protect as it aides them.
For those who prefer to play as Necromancers that seek to destroy undead over control them, perhaps granting them instead a Turn/Rebuke Undead skill, though for rp it would be more arcane then divine in nature.

Transmutation

Polymorphs, ability boosting spells and altering the physical structure of something. Transmuters are masters, and as such could have access to things no other can. Polymorphing, the prime example of Trasmutation, could be extended so that Transmuters have access to certain forms not available to any other. Of course, no dragons or the like, and I myself do not know what all of the forms one could take could be. But, making it so that transmuters are able to differentiate themselves from other wizards by what sort of forms they can take would make the class a bit more unique.

Evocation

Controllers of the various elements, Invokers are able to deal pure magical damage to a much higher degree then others. Their focus though in their school could mean an ability to overcome resistances against their spell's damage. This could be an affect that they bypass resistance vs. elements(though not immunity). Another trait instead could be the ability to change damage of their spells into another type (Ice to fire or vice-versa) Not sure if or how this could be done, but just an idea.

Well, these are my ideas, most of which are pulled from Unearthed Arcana 3.5. I do not know coding, so while some of these can e done easily enough as they are using skills and abilities already in game, others like Invokers might be much harder to do so. This is mostly something to get ideas flowing in how to improve things, though not something to be done immediately but can be worked on over time. RP is the key, and enhancing what could make a better experience is the main goal.

I'd prefer a learning cap be placed on all wizards so you can't learn every spell in the game. And the specialist wizard guilds be given equally interesting items as some other guilds currently get. Evidently I can't say here, but I believe there are one or two specialist guilds that get items that I would consider OP for just an entry token or early access through guild shops but eh.

With the learning cap though, the biggest problem facing specialists would have to be fixed. First the opposed school disparity between Evoker and Transmuter for example. And second more spells would have to be added to the game to even out how many spells are in each sphere. Currently, there is a big difference in number of spells available to abjurer vs conjurer for example.

This idea sounds fun, but some of the suggestions are add on features that are cool sounding but don't fix an already existing problem. If effort is going to be put into all specialities, I'd rather they go to fixing pre-existing problems with the class as a whole.

Also, if genuine class features are going to be added to anything. I'd rather they come from path finder as a general rule. Since this game advertises to use some path finder mechanics. Path finder is generally more balanced than 3.5 was.

If you look on this page, there are links below the class table where each specialty when clicked will get you to a page that describes a bunch of fun abilities.

Abjurers get:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-cl ... bjuration/

These can either be achieved with an item sold and only wearable to abjurers, or through coding them as abilities that you can invoke. But this is the route I'd prefer to go down.

Ailyn wrote: Transmutation

Polymorphs, ability boosting spells and altering the physical structure of something. Transmuters are masters, and as such could have access to things no other can. Polymorphing, the prime example of Trasmutation, could be extended so that Transmuters have access to certain forms not available to any other. Of course, no dragons or the like, and I myself do not know what all of the forms one could take could be. But, making it so that transmuters are able to differentiate themselves from other wizards by what sort of forms they can take would make the class a bit more unique.

The spell polymorph is set up so that there are certain creatures only available when you hit a certain skill level with the spell. Probably a better way to say this is, you unlock creatures as you get better with the spell. So, at apprentice you can turn into creature1. At journeyman you can turn into creature1 and creature2, etc. Since Transmuters can reach grandmaster level with the polymorph spell while others can't, they have exclusive access to some creatures. However, there are a very, very select number of creatures, that I have found, that can be unlocked when grandmaster level at polymorph is reached. That being said, I am all for adding new, interesting, and balanced creatures to the list.

I am strongly opposed to a learning cap for wizards, as I think it will create big problems with no benefits, but rather several disadvantages.

Namely:

a) New wizards will be disadvantaged in comparison to old ones who have learned all the spells before the cap.

b) It will remove a development possibility for wizard characters. The practice of magic, especially as a wizard, is a long term goal. Removing a good deal of spells will only shorten the mechanical life of a character.

c) It makes no IC sense. The only classes with learning cap are charisma casters in tabletop, and since we have no sorcerers currently, and bards are awesome here exactly because they don't have that cap, I don't see the need for such a mechanic. Neither for wizards, nor for any other class.

d) It will amplify power creep incredibly, with some spells becoming overly used and others becoming completely forgotten and thus their implementation useless. Who will learn ironguts instead of identify? Exactly.

e) Forgotten spells means forgotten areas and mobs that teach those spells. Another sad waste.

In essence I think there is nothing to like in a learning cap and very much to despise. Sorry Yemin.


Now on to Ailyn's ideas. I honestly like the general spirit of the proposal and I think that specialist wizards right now do not offer enough advantages to make up for the loss of one or, in some cases, two spell schools. And I think that the right way to fix this is to give something unique to these classes, in a similar way in which a druid is different from a priest, or at least, in a similar way in which priests of different deities are different classes, with extra skills and spells. If it can be done for 20 coded deities, it certainly can be done also for 8 wizard specializations.

In detail:

Conjuration: Summoning spells on FK could really use an improvement. They should be organized like in tabletop, from 1 to 9, and summon cool creatures, possibily with a radial system, in that a lawful good caster summons a denizen from Celestia, a lawful evil from Baator, a chaotic evil from the Abyss, etc. This however could apply to most wizards rather than only to conjurers. Conjurers however could summon with a lower level spell the creatures from the next spell level, with a special exclusive one for the summon 9 spell. I like also the idea of a bound pet, which could be a powerful outsider, which can be obtained maybe through quests, like a quest to bind a devil to them with a Faustian Pact for example, so that they would be relatively easy to make even for area builders.

Abjuration: I like in general the idea of extra spells for specialists which are not available to generalist wizards. In this case, some superior defensive buffs may be the way to go. It could be nice that their defensive buffs had increased power. For example their shield spell could make one immune to magic missile. They could also have a special skill to keep enemies out of a room or to ward a room against teleport or detection.

Illusion: if you want to play somebody who hide, sneaks and casts illusion spells you can already play a bard. I find therefore the idea to give illusionists hide pretty bad, as it is a core skill for rogues and rangers. It is also frankly unnecessary since they already have invisibility. On the other hand I find sneak to be an appropriate skill for an illusionist, since it simply lets them use their invisibility effectively and it is already offered to priests with the trickery or halfling domain. There is little point in being invisible if everybody hears when you move. But even if this part is nice there are two critics to make: a) shouldn't the skulk spell do exactly that? So just make it more available, perhaps b) I really doubt being able to sneak while invisible would make illusionists more appealing. Here we need something else, and something more than a simple quality of life improvement when you cast invis. We need some extra illusion spells, like for example a spell that creates an illusionary duplicate of the caster. Also illusion pets, which I think are already available through a guild, or spells that summon illusion pets may be neat.

Enchantment: seriously, can we propose something nice to improve a class which is not giving them rogue skills? If you want those skills just play a rogue. Period. In this case, anyway, haggle would be appropriate, as it is already given to priests with the trade domain and it would certainly make sense that minor charm spells can improve a business deal. I am more skeptical for influence, since I fear it may eliminate the need to prepare dominate spells, when one can dominate npc with a skill. What is the point of preparing dominate and charm spells when you can dominate npcs with the influence skill? I would rather prefer a much extended duration for charms and domination from an enchanter. And well, maybe, let them enchant items? I think enchanting should be available to all casters, much like brew and scribe, but enchanters should certainly be the best at it.

Necromancy: I think that first and foremost animate dead should be made like in srd. I.e. choose when you animate whether you want to create a skeleton or a zombie and give them the appropriate damage reductions (and darkvision). I would also like to see them use create undead, or, if summon spells are going to receive the buff they need, make them summon undead creatures with them. Also make their undead stronger in comparison to those of normal wizards or priests. As for turn/rebuke undead, I have my doubts, since I don't very much see necromancers chasing undead with divine powers, but Pathfinder has it, so it is not so outlandish. They may however use some low level cause spells from the cleric class, so that they can heal their undead. If it makes no sense for a necromancer to turn undead like a priest, at the same time, it does not make sense that a priest can use and heal their undead better than a necromancer. Necromancers should at least have that option too, after all dealing with undead is their trade.

Transmutation: give them access to the dinosaur forms. All joking aside, well it is actually not joking to be fair, I think the loss of stone skin should really be made up with access to a wider and superior array of shapes through polymorph. Dinosaur forms may be a nice addition, as well as something exotic. Other nice developments could be golem pets, or golem crafting, as well as extra perks with teleport spells.

Evocation: make their damage spells deal much more heavy damage. Really. If one plays a blaster they should be able to blast for good. I admit I would rather see warlocks in game as blasters, but invokers could certainly use an increase in their firepower. Also new invoker-exclusive spells that deal a lot of damage. They could also receive spell penetration x2 as bonus feats through quests.

Divination: I would like to see specialist diviners in game, since we do have in fact several divination spells. Also they could be give access to the various detect spells, such as detect evil, detect law, etc. Their identify spell could also be made more powerful, revealing more properties about the item they identify and new divination spells that allow extra functionalities could be created, such as a spiritual form that can travel away from their body and do many more things than an arcane eye.

Also, in general, give specialists the spell foci for their specialized schools for free.

P.S.
Also, checking now the Pathfinder specialists' features mentioned by Yemin, and I think these may be another very nice *path* to follow. They seem rather balanced and unique enough to give the classes some of the care they need.

*Just seen how long this is, so prep for a block of text. It will be the last i say on this matter, but wanted to explain my reasoning as while I don't feel this is necessary. I feel it would improve the long term experience of wizarding.

To defend my learning cap idea. Technically no Wizards and the other alike classes in dnd Don't have a mechanical knowledge cap. However, we're also cleanly sidestepping the fact that wizards will only learn 2 new spells per level. Thats 4 spells of each level 1 through 9 as they progress.

A 20th level wizard on table will by their class feature. know something like 38 spells, + the six they start with, + the on average 4 from their intelligence bonus for a total of 48 ish spells.

If you have a kind DM, they will give you some scrolls or spellbooks as part of loot as you level, but never so much as to make up to the incredible number of spells wizards know here.

And by the prices of scrolls back in the day, you will never be able to learn every spell even if you spend your alotted gold on it.

I will of course point out that spells already are being overused and others left behind based purely on their usefulness. When was the last time you saw a wizard take winter mist into a hard fight? Or well, give it any attention other than to fulfil the conpulsive practicing tendancy we all give in to from time to time? Those spells are learnt because their there and people can learn them, not that the character knowing them will use and appreciate them enough to get any great benefit from them.

Also, if you get bored of playing a class after reaching its mechanical end then you probably aren't here to roleplay, I will however point out, that a reduced spells known list will still offer you thousands of hours of play. Unless you can grand master every skill and spell you know within the same time it takes you to reach level 50.

As for being underpowered, there are 2 big reasons this won't come to pas. 1 is that the memorisation list is already limited. Whatever combination of spells you have in your spellbook is already limited by how many you can memorize. Having a learning cap for the spellbook won't matter if you have considered, and have planned out what you need to learn to be effective. Someone who knows more spells won't be able to bring them to bare in the same time period as someone who knows less spells because of this.

Secondly, I also don't see older wizards being a problem. Currently there are wizards who have had the benefit of being around pre 2010 and have some spells that are no longer wizard spells. I don't see them dominating the game in terms of power at the moment. And haven't personally experienced that they are any stronger than my main wizard made 2014

I don't believe the cap should be overly restrictive, and other facets of the class do need to be fixed first, but its something I'd like to see happen long term. something like you can learn 80% of level 1 spells, then 70% of level 2 spells, so on and so forth. The game already explicitly states in one of the wizard / mage help files that it isn't possible to learn every spell in the game, so you shouldn't try to, but since its not really enforced. A good number of wizard characters just learn as manys pells as they can without giving it a second thought.

i.e. Yes, There are some kinds of wizards I play that would know ironguts over identify because they're abjurers. I have, infact played a wizard for about 3 years that doesn't know identify, before I came here. And to paraphrase the magister in Elminster's making of a mage after having a room full of wizards throw fireballs at him, "Fireballs? its always fireballs?" before he cleanly massacred a room full of mage lords with a enspelled... belt.

The point of the cap is to encourage players to think more critically about how they handle their experience as a wizard. Also to encourage wizards to seek mentorship or otherwise group together. I can tell you though, that the reason some wizards currently seem very samey is because some spells aren't working properly, there are not enough spells to round out different functions of differnt kinds of wizards, E.g. controllers having no wall spells. Debuffers having very few spells and no access to greater spellfocus, Blasters just generally being weak offensively until they master / grand master one or two spells and toss in some metamagics, etc etc.

So... yeah, i wanted to give just a little more detail of my thinking process on this facet of my original response. I think less really is more in this case. Perhaps if implemented. It could be possible via ritual to swap spells between wizards, Losing knowledge of one for a lesser proficiency /knowledge in a new one. The point of this isn't to lock people into an unhappy choice afterall. It does however seem kinda dumb that for example. someone can know almost every 9th level spell there is. When each is an arcane marvel akin to DNA splicing, and performing multiple repairs to the orbital telescope. Very different fields, both are not taught in the high school of wonders.

My next post, If I feel necessary will contribute better to more of the main topic at hand. That being specialists. I promise

Yemin wrote:I think less really is more in this case.

I think this motto is better left with 4th edition and forgotten with it. And your post confirmed my doubts on how harmful it would be.

In short, the fact old wizards (or priests, or bards) already know spells not available anymore is already bad and there is no need to create another such gap. Especially since at least those old wizards did not receive the bonus feats, while here we would have a generation of middle wizards who got the best of both worlds. It is simply not fair to change the rules in the middle of the game, and in particular when there is no need nor reason to do so.

As for the decreased mechanical life you confirm that, as well as that wizards with a cap would be a less versatile class than one without. Which is precisely extending the problem of specialist wizards even to generalist ones. You want to remove spells from a class whose main feature is only casting spells? It sounds like breaking what is okay instead of fixing what is broken.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

I did have a clarification question for Dranso, it says in the polymorph help file that the higher skill you get there is a chance you won't be able to turn into some forms that you used to be able to. Is this still the case?

Also, in terms of gaining special pets, which seems to be a common theme. I think this idea should be consolidated for all wizards to have the opportunity to gain a familiar. Depending on specialty, the familiar's available might have special uses or abilities.

An example of this would be some animals currently summonable being better at digging than others. Nothing spectacular, but comes in handy to avoid carrying a shovel.

The already available special turtle in the abjurers guild is a good template for the kind of easily achievable abilities for familiar's I think would be easy to implement. And that I'd find useful on a MuD as opposed to tabletop since it only takes adding a pet store to each guild with animals / pets that would be useful for some purpose or another.

Wizards absolutely, definitely, completely should have some cap to the number of spells they can cast. Essentially see Yemin's post above for why. As for having a spell limit being underpowering, I give you this: My illusionist knows... the illusions, your basic wards (stone skin, dragonskin, etc.), polymorph, and about six offensive spells (three of which she rarely ever uses). That's legitimately it, and no plans to learn more. And she kicks ass like no one's business, except when undead or constructs are involved, and then she's screwed, just as it should be. Meanwhile, Areia, who knows very nearly every spell in the game, utilizes a vast minority of those spells--the rest are just sorta.. there. So much so that I'd be happier to just un-learn them at this point because every time I see "inept" something twitches in my brain and I have to refrain from mindless spell grinding which I hate. (For the record, given a choice between identify and ironguts, I'd choose ironguts every time people way underestimate that spell). And as far as areas being forgotten... I'm not sure what you mean by that one, Vaemar. Unless you mean there are areas people go to for nothing more than learning spells? I'm not sure I know of any areas like that--places that teach spells and skills generally have lots more than just that to do in them.

Ultimately, though, a cap on the number of spells a wizard can learn would be best put in place when there is a wider range of spells, and those we have are fixed to work as they should. If not, the samey-ness problem isn't fixed--everyone will just choose the super powerful spells and ignore... like... teleport and its sad neglected sisters.

It's only moderately related to the specific issue of the spell schools, but I'll make another likely unpopular suggestion: Make PC teaching of magic more difficult somehow, whether by skill level requirements, or application, or something. I don't mean teaching via the "teach" command, though; abuses in scribing and scroll teaching makes magic ridiculously easy to learn which only exaserbates the samey-ness problem, not to mention how much it hurts the PCs who took the effort to gain the stats and learn the scholar and teacher feats for legit RP-based teaching--it's the preciously rare player who'd rather sit through a half hour of RP than just get their buddy to scribe up a scroll in ten seconds.

The ideas given in the original post aren't bad ones at all. Nice and flavorful and all that. But I'd prefer perhaps something more akin to brain surgery than a pretty bandage for this particular issue. Fix all the broken conjuration spells; add wall and sonic spells for invokers, make abjurers useful with arcane locks, alarms, room wards, legitimate antimagic field (oh god that one's a scary thought [maybe lock that one behind app lol]), and prismatic walls and spheres; etc; and then lock certain signature specialist magic to specialists only; bring greater spell focus in finally but lock it, too, in specialist guild halls. So on. It would be a lot of work.

As an aside, enchanters don't enchant things--they enchant beings! There's nothing at all about the enchantment school that has to do with imbuing items with magical properties. If anything, that would be a transmuter thing, but even then. Magical crafting isn't a specialty of any particular school in D&D. It is learned through feats. And I don't see why it might be any different here.

Vaemar wrote: In short, the fact old wizards (or priests, or bards) already know spells not available anymore is already bad and there is no need to create another such gap. Especially since at least those old wizards did not receive the bonus feats, while here we would have a generation of middle wizards who got the best of both worlds. It is simply not fair to change the rules in the middle of the game, and in particular when there is no need nor reason to do so.

It definitely is fair if it is for the betterment of the game as a whole. Now, one can definitely argue what's best and what's worse, but saying that rules and methods shouldn't change is just not sensible. I personally don't have a problem with the older characters. The mechanical downfalls some live with weigh heavier than being able to cast dragonskin.

Vaemar wrote: As for the decreased mechanical life you confirm that, as well as that wizards with a cap would be a less versatile class than one without. Which is precisely extending the problem of specialist wizards even to generalist ones.

Mages are not supposed to be versatile to the point of omniscience, and specialists are meant to be even less able to handle a wide range of problems. I'm also not sure I'm getting the argument about "decreased mechanical life". Fighters have, what, ten-ish skills core to their class, well over half of which my latest fighter (three months old now) has already mastered. I don't see fighters played any less regularly because they have relatively few skills and can potentially master those skills quickly. If a player runs a character up to 50 and masters everything and just gets board and moves on to the next character, that is a player who'd likely be better suited on another game.

Areia wrote: It definitely is fair if it is for the betterment of the game as a whole. Now, one can definitely argue what's best and what's worse, but saying that rules and methods shouldn't change is just not sensible. I personally don't have a problem with the older characters. The mechanical downfalls some live with weigh heavier than being able to cast dragonskin.

In fact it is what I said for old characters as well, but this does not mean it is good. But first current wizards would not have any such mechanical downfalls. Second the mention of rules that should not need to change is a strawman since it is not what I said. Of course they should change, but for the better and for a reason. I don't see any improvement in a learning cap for wizards, other than creating a very huge divide between old wizards and new ones, which will, ultimately, make starting a wizard here very unappealing for a new user. I have seen other places where such changes had been done, and saw new users simply quit once they learned they could never match older characters. Eventually the place remained empty.

So, given the experience, no thanks I am never going to like seeing such a thing here. Ever.

Mages are not supposed to be versatile to the point of omniscience, and specialists are meant to be even less able to handle a wide range of problems.

If they are not supposed to, you should also provide some evidence for this claim. What I see in the lore and rules is a) no limit to spells a mage can get in their spellbook b) wizards who put centuries into acquiring new spells and new magical lore, in a similar way FK wizards have always done so far.

I actually have seen on NWN, where there are sorcerers, that the main difference between the two classes is in fact that mages *are* exactly versatile to the point of omniscience, and that sorcerers (and specialists to an extent) trade their advantages for losing on that versatility. And that's precisely why on NWN servers most dedicated casters choose to play wizards and generalist mages in particular.

I'm also not sure I'm getting the argument about "decreased mechanical life". Fighters have, what, ten-ish skills core to their class, well over half of which my latest fighter (three months old now) has already mastered. I don't see fighters played any less regularly because they have relatively few skills and can potentially master those skills quickly. If a player runs a character up to 50 and masters everything and just gets board and moves on to the next character, that is a player who'd likely be better suited on another game.

Fighters do have some hard to raise skills like grip, actually, and many also like to grandmaster other types of weapons, which takes countless hours to do, especially if they really want to grandmaster all their proficiencies, so this is a moot point. And yes I met fighter PCs who have tried to do that. As for the life of a character there is an rp aspect, which exists as long as you have people to interact with, and a mechanical aspect, which exists as long as you have skills and spells to increase. If you have fewer spells to increase such mechanical life becomes shorter. And once exhausted that, if you have nobody to talk to, which can happen often for certain races or faiths, your character is virtually dead.

As for the areas being forgotten, well, yes, there are areas people discover, often, because they are pointed there to learn a spell and are rarely if ever found out for other reasons. If you remove that, even for less useful spells, you remove one drive to explore, and that is simply another good reason why the learning cap is just a bad idea.

Vaemar wrote: If they are not supposed to, you should also provide some evidence for this claim. What I see in the lore and rules is a) no limit to spells a mage can get in their spellbook b) wizards who put centuries into acquiring new spells and new magical lore, in a similar way FK wizards have always done so far.

Here is D&D's view on it.

Srd wrote: A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from her prohibited school or schools, if any; see School Specialization, below) plus three 1st-level spells of your choice. For each point of Intelligence bonus the wizard has, the spellbook holds one additional 1st-level spell of your choice. At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook. At any time, a wizard can also add spells found in other wizards’ spellbooks to her own.

So a mage will have all 0th level, and maybe five- or six-ish 1st level spells to start out with, and then she will learn two new spells per level. That's it, as far as purely natural ability goes. She can learn more from other scrolls or spellbooks, yes, and that's fine and encouraged to a point. But if a DM of mine ever started endlessly throwing scrolls and scrolls at my wizard for learning, I and probably everyone else at the table would give him odd looks at the very least. It also doesn't make sense from a *cough* realistic standpoint that one person can possibly know every spell in existance--his head would probably explode. Mystra is the only wizard who knows every spell.

There is also an FK helpfile somewhere that states no one wizard should know or even attempt to know every spell in the game, but I'm having trouble finding it. I'll edit this post later if I manage to dig it up.

Vaemar wrote: I actually have seen on NWN, where there are sorcerers, that the main difference between the two classes is in fact that mages *are* exactly versatile to the point of omniscience, and that sorcerers (and specialists to an extent) trade their advantages for losing on that versatility. And that's precisely why on NWN servers most dedicated casters choose to play wizards and generalist mages in particular.

Exactly. And everyone ends up being the same old do-everything mage. That's precisely the issue I'm talking about that lends to the irrelevance of specialist wizards here. I don't doubt that there are plenty of other games too like NWN in which a generalist can become super master of everything ever, but the question is less what other games do and more what sort of atmosphere we want for our own game. I personally think a wider range of potential strengths and weaknesses would encourage more mage diversity in general and thus lift specialists more to a mage's level. I'm not think this hypothetical cap would fix all the problems making specialists so weak and unfavored--far from it--and I don't even think it would be wise to do until there are a wider range of spells available etc. But it's just one idea.

Incidentally, I'm also of the opinion no one fighter should be GM at every weapon type available, either. More generally, no one character should be able to gain grandmaster proficiency in every last skill available to her. Grandmaster is the pinnacle of proficiency--near perfection. It would take too long to become that in everything no matter how old you can get, and more importantly, it just makes for little diversity among characters, which is boring.

Areia wrote:Here is D&D's view on it.

"At any time, a wizard can also add spells found in other wizards’ spellbooks to her own."

So, simply put, there is precisely *zero* basis for such cap in D&d. It's very hard to see how that page can help your argument. If anything it precisely shows how it lacks any ground in D&d ruleset, and how it is, in fact, frankly unbalanced, since the lack of spell cap is exactly what makes up for the fact wizards need to memorize spells.

realistic standpoint

Realistic standpoint and magic?

but the question is less what other games do and more what sort of atmosphere we want for our own game.

I personally like a game that is consistent with tabletop rules and with the rules of *every single* D&d incarnation. And that is exactly the atmosphere I like and I would like to continue to see here, that is, the same atmosphere I enjoyed playing Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights and the other classic D&d games where hoarding spells to add to their spellbook is what every wizard does and one of the most satisfying aspects of the class. What you describe is simply another game, not related to D&d, and a game I would not like to play in the least. Moreover, a cap *may* have been acceptable if done at the start, but now what it would achieve is only to frustrate and unfairly penalyze any new wizard, as well as reducing the potential and fun of the wizard class as a whole. That's definitely not the atmosphere I would like to see, by any means.

"Less is more" in fact is a statement that simply defies the laws logic and it is, therefore, obviously false. Less is less, of course.

In this particular case, when the root of the problem is specialists missing on spells, it again defies logic to think that the fix would be to make all wizards, specialists included, miss on even more spells. It would be simply logical, to me at least, to give specialists additional spells and skills to make up for those they have renounced to.

Incidentally, I'm also of the opinion no one fighter should be GM at every weapon type available, either. More generally, no one character should be able to gain grandmaster proficiency in every last skill available to her. Grandmaster is the pinnacle of proficiency--near perfection. It would take too long to become that in everything no matter how old you can get, and more importantly, it just makes for little diversity among characters, which is boring.

Feats do already provide a limit, and a good one, to whatever a character, and a fighter in this case, can achieve, and they represent what you describe already and way better than skills. If they want to waste hours to perfect a weapon type they will never be the best at, it is their time, their character and their fun, and I think neither you nor me have any right to impose our will or view on them. Some people prefer to start new characters to experience new mechanics, or new builds with the same mechanics, while others want to continue to perfect bit by bit their one beloved character. This is a great virtue and a masterwork of design that has been done in this game, I really don't see any benefit in canceling one of the best features of the game.

I am not sure what the point is to argue about the mechanical life of a character. I have built my characters around the roleplay and the mechanical piece of even my longest character is nowhere near complete. Heck, he has been level 50 for years, but has not even used all his stat points or feat points, because I have not been focused on questing to find those items until lately. I have not even grandmastered skills that I know most mechanically driven fighters finish within a month or two of playing time.

I think the ideas presented in general make the game more interesting as it would present more unique spellcasters. At present, I have seen every spellcaster as mostly the same in-game and just a matter of how much that caster has spent grinding out their spells being the only difference. I will admit, I have only attempted a druidic character, so I am not going to say I know anything of wizardry. I find the concept of grinding down spells tedious as it stands, but I have tried to work on developing a new character concept and that will simply have to be part of it eventually. However, I can see how this would be a very long, step-by-step process that will take a lot of effort. I think the end goal though has a lot of value to the depth of the game's roleplay.

The interactive lifetime of your character should be infinite if they have some depth. The mechanical life of a character is merely a part of the game to journey your character to self-improvement to allow you to participate in greater and more dangerous aspects of the larger plots. My recent drive for mechanical life has only been driven lately by the fact I felt my character completely useless in the last plot by his lack of raw ability to be anything, but a liability in combat against the majority of NPCs that were being put out there.

Why are we looking at gutting a class that already takes a long time to train up compared to other classes? Wizards, outside maybe two spells, have no real melee ability and rely almost strictly on their magic to fight. It takes hundreds of hours to grandmaster spells and most of the best spells in game are crazy restricted and hard to obtain. If you're worried about wizards being too powerful and learning too much, talk to the players who hand out spells like candy and don't make people earn them or pay a good price for scrolls. A scroll of an 8th or 9th level spell should be quite costly.

Wizards, by nature, are bookish creatures. Spell slots reflect their mental ability to store complex spells in their mind for future use, which requires intense study (memorizing) the spells. There is no limitation to the spells hey can know because they are not expected to know everything at the snap of a finger, no caster can do that. That's why they have spell books to refresh their memory of spells they want to use. The only thing limiting the number of spells a wizard can learn accomplishes is that the current wizards who have all their spells will be vastly more powerful than any other wizard can potentially become.

Leave wizards alone and their mechanics, there is no reason to bother a class that requires an insane amount of training as it is for its spells and gut them, making them less desirable than they already are to most because of their training time and low level difficulty. Why not focus on classes that need love like bards and how we can make them better and leave classes that are doing just fine alone?

Hadwyn wrote:At present, I have seen every spellcaster as mostly the same in-game and just a matter of how much that caster has spent grinding out their spells being the only difference.

And I have seen the cap on NWN, applied to sorcerers. And you know what? The cap truly made all sorcerers identical, since every single sorcerer on a server takes the *same* spells, and there are even guides, that you can easily find online if you google a bit, that point to which spells are good and which are garbage. So the evidence available points to the fact that a cap for spells makes spellcasters more similar to each other, as in having the same or very similar spell list, which is precisely the contrary of the benefit you claim.

If your aim is having different spellcasters, the learning cap does definitely not work in that direction. If you want unique spellcasters, as we have already unique priests, you need to give these spellcasters something unique. Obviously.

My recent drive for mechanical life has only been driven lately by the fact I felt my character completely useless in the last plot by his lack of raw ability to be anything, but a liability in combat against the majority of NPCs that were being put out there.

Exactly, because mechanics and roleplay are bound intrinsecally in a game like this. So to roleplay something, such a strong warrior, you need to have the mechanical support for it. This does not mean that roleplay is not important, or that it is less important than mechanics. But here we are not talking of roleplay, we are talking about mechanics. And bringing out roleplay purism and stating how the life of a character depends on roleplay is another strawman, because it is different from what I have said. My main alt, for instance, has a role that requires absolutely no skills other than common, and it has a very enjoyable and funny role to play. Frankly it is more fun than any mechanics, but this is not the point. Regardless of roleplay there is a mechanical aspect of the game and this aspect is important and fun and there is no need to damage one of the best and more enjoyable features of it. Especially when this would bring a divide in the community and create very blatant power unbalances for which the counterargument seen so far has been along the lines of "don't worry, it will be all right. Less is more!" Not exactly a convincing one, is it?

I will be sincere, I am a bit saddened by the fact all the nice ideas in Ailyn's post and in the second part of Yemin's first post have been almost completely disregarded, focusing mostly on the single controversial one that was mentioned, and the only one which implies taking away something from the game, instead of adding new content to it.

I do agree, this post was started with the intention of adding more to classes (Specialist wizards at the moment) instead of figuring out ways to take things away to make such classes stand out amongst each other. The features I suggested are just that, suggestions to get the ball rolling on ideas, and there are plenty of things that could be done to add to it.

Mages know everything? Well, generalist would not be able to if new spells are added in that are specialist specific. Taking away what is already there would cause a gap between new and older characters, larger then the one that some really old wizards have still with certain spells. So, keep what spells are already there for those generalists. Things like Summon Monster II - IX, make it where other wizards can only learn up to VI or VII and save the highest ones for a Conjuror, showing their particular focus in such spells. Necromancy? Add Animate Greater Undead for them specifically.

These are just a few examples again, but neither of them take away from what people already know, and instead only add to it, which is what we should be striving for.

And, as a note about the cap and everything for wizards, I think this could be solved by limiting how much can simply be learned from scrolls. Let 1st - 3rd spells be easily learned from them, but make it so that to learn anything higher you need to find that NPC teacher, or have a Teacher PC teach them. This would take care of the fact that scrolls are not candy, and it would mean that those who spent the feats to learn Teacher/Scholar would be able to roleplay it out far more often. It could also mean adding some rare tomes for spells too back into the game as the only means of some spells to be able to even be found once more new spells are added. An example would be Summon Monster IX, it would be there but until someone actually found it, nobody would know it. And it would mean it is a rare spell too that not every Conjuror would be able to learn as soon as they hit 9th level spells, they would either need to find a tome themselves, go through a particularly dangerous quest, or find another conjurer willing and able to teach them instead of simply being handed a scroll and knowing it.

I don't have a dog in this particular fight. I have not, and probably never will play a spellcaster. Still, I think that there are some lessons learned from the changes made to warriors a few years ago. I hope that they are helpful to the discussion.

First, feats provide benefits and choices, while allowing players to still train skills for long-term development of the character. Our PCs last far longer than your average tabletop PC (the FK version of Harroghty turned 13 last month) and so they need things to do over time in order to remain fun.

Secondly, people will generally gravitate to the same basic PC configurations seen as the most advantageous. Most people who make a fighter want to make a winning fighter and there are a few generally successful versions of this which people most often emulate. This is human nature and it is hard to get around that, but...

Thirdly, the environment and game events are what shape the popular PC configurations. One of the decisions I made about guilds is to force people to join only one instead of joining every guild out there for skill trainers. Each guild has some flavor in the skills it presents and the levels to which it trains those skills. These are further limited by alignment and race. The idea being to drive certain styles for different guilds. This isn't ironclad, but it has made an impact. Likewise Fighter Tournaments make an impact by showcasing the most successful styles. Organizations (guilds), trainer locations, PC-run events, etc. are the means of signalling choices in PC configurations.

Fourth, no one quit over changes which only affected some existing and all future warriors. This might have been a factor for some people in their decision to leave, but the fact that older fighters could not now gain certain bonus feats did not obviously cost us any players.

Areia wrote: abuses in scribing and scroll teaching makes magic ridiculously easy to learn

I'm not sure how you can abuse scribing or scroll teaching, or how it will reduce the grind to mastery. It has a succeed/fail chance, and works as it has worked forever. Besides that, where is the mission statement that says this game's depths--all of them, everywhere--should be inaccessible past the builders' and designers' implemented difficulties?

Areia wrote:Mages are not supposed to be versatile to the point of omniscience, and specialists are meant to be even less able to handle a wide range of problems. I'm also not sure I'm getting the argument about "decreased mechanical life". Fighters have, what, ten-ish skills core to their class, well over half of which my latest fighter (three months old now) has already mastered. I don't see fighters played any less regularly because they have relatively few skills and can potentially master those skills quickly. If a player runs a character up to 50 and masters everything and just gets board and moves on to the next character, that is a player who'd likely be better suited on another game.

I'd also refute this view, and vehemently. This game is two games--a mechanical one, and a roleplay one. People have long favored one or the other, but ultimately the marriage of the two is the most important relationship on this game--how they interact to provide consequences and purpose to a character's life cannot be understated. Neglecting one foundation of the game almost surely endangers the other, so it is my opinion that we should almost always foster choice through expansion rather than retraction--especially when it comes to wizards, whose popularity in large part comes from the fact that they can be worked on for ages.

Edited to clarify: Discouraging players from experimentation with characters however they see fit--for long-term roleplay, short term mechanical building, or vice versa on the lengths--is the view which I so vehemently oppose. Committing to the idea that there's a right or wrong way to play FK (outside of very clear and common-sense rules that have governed us for over a decade) is harmful to the community.

That's interesting harroghty, with that in mind, I think giving each guild a pet with unique characteristics, the greater spellfocus feat trainer, and an item or two that imitate unique wizard abilities would be the most realistic soft code method of giving this thread some validation.

I do agree with Areia in that the class needs more brain surgery than anything else though. All wizards do is cast spells and a few of said already implemented spells are broken. Or simply, there aren't enough to give each type a rounded experience but the above suggestions are a good start.

To clarify, when I mentioned above concerning mechanical lifetime. it was genuinely my intent to say that people who only focus on the mechanical side of things have not, in my experience been an enjoyable partner to play alongside with. That likely jaded my original comment on the matter to be more harsh than I intended. Afterall, I myself have a bunch of threads on here just talking about builds and theorycrafting. However I would point out that someone can have fun just roleplaying here, someone can have fun roleplaying and being mechanical, but the people who are just here for mechanics tend not to stick around for very long even if they toss a thin coating of roleplay over themselves. Its the point of my current signature and I feel is the right way of things for the game. But again, just an opinion born of the 3 or so years I've here thus far.

Lastly, i wanted to comment on Vaemar's comment about applying realism to magic. I'm of the opinion that not only can be done, it should be. Without any firm basis at all, any topic in the fantasy genre loses any meaning to roleplay with. Without Harroghty's and others visible contribution to warriors and knights here for example. We'd likely still be in the days when you could make a paladin at creation, or near it without any real commitment to the role whilst in character for a significant portion of paladins. Talks on shivalry and honor would be worth much less and it is a body of lore for the game that i feel has enriched it massively. I tip my hat to all involved.

This however, leads on to my slight envy that nothing like that exists for wizards or magic users in any game I have ever played. Something, I personally hope to contribute to changing, but it is part of the problem every wizard feels the same so I thought it mentioning here. There is, in my opinion, no credible IC reason why for example wizards won't learn a spell. or won't try to learn every spell in the game. it all smacks of because I can mentality than what is realistically possible.

There is litle line of mentorship in the class and even less of tradition. There are no IC organisations or groupings with a stron presence in the environment that the class really enjoys and I would say the majority of wizards tend to forget that in general they were at least trained by the same guild. But because this class lacks any sense of realism and some who share your view on it Vaemar tend to reject the notion of trying to apply said realism, its entirely possible for two wizards to be trained and be members of the same guild but to never speak, learn from each other nor even agree that ICly this basic facet of magic is how things work. Should either of them try to even en up making the attempt at discussing how the thing they use every play session actually works. Personally, I find this comical at best, IC breaking at worst. It makes playing wizard less of a roleplay rich experience and so people fall back on the other, more individualistic and mechanic based advantages. Which, is a shame. Wizards are by far the class with the most roleplay potention even more so than bards.

this is also a contributing factor to why a lot of characters, both wizards and not have no real basis for what the years of study or magic is really worth. On table you can only create one magical item per day, and cannot scribe scrolls above a certain level. The value directly comes from the restriction and in this case I'm using the restriction to showcase how the original makers of the game that this one is based on represent effort of the character. Not in support of my own capping ideas. But here, there is again, no environment to show this, you can crank out scrolls and potions by the hundreds. People give them away for free because currently, it really is up to them if they want to roleplay their character as having gone through those long years of experience to learn the supporting theory, the long tendays to learn the skil, gone through those long tendays to learn the spell, then long hours to carefully write the inks etc. Or if it took them the five or less it took to fail after typing scribe fireball. making the item produced seem practically worthless.

Now, as I've re-read this a few times. I've chosen to leave it in the form it is beaus I feel it best illustrates my point. I would though, like to mention that this isn't a recrimination of anyone. There are, as yet no rules or limitations as I've mentioned, I am not one to hold something against people when no rules have been broken and frankly, it aint none of my business how you play your character, You do you and have fun doing you.

Ailyn wrote: I do agree, this post was started with the intention of adding more to classes (Specialist wizards at the moment) instead of figuring out ways to take things away to make such classes stand out amongst each other.

My apologies, then; I mistook the purpose of the thread to be to give ideas that make each wizard type unique more generally, not solely ways to add to specialists. In that case, I would reply thus: I strongly believe that always adding more to a mechanic can and eventually will lead to a future need to add yet more to further bandage the original bandage, if you know what I mean. For instance, take the number of elemental weapons warriors have now. I remember when I started, for the longest time I had only ever seen one such weapon, and it was meant specifically for a different class, one who arguably has a fairly large lack in damage output compared to SRD and so could, if meeting the right conditions, get that elemental weapon to help some. Fast forward a few years, and now you have elemental longswords, greatswords, bastard swords, and other already damage-heavy weapons growing dare say common among fighters and other warriors who also already had either feats or magic to strongly bulster their damage, resulting in, again arguably, a larger problem than before--namely insane damage output on multiple characters who could already do well enough under their own power. Now, please don't anyone take this as an effort to derail the conversation toward unrelated topics, just giving an example that I find comparable enough to make the point. Adding is sometimes needed, yes, but as Yemin so much more eloquently explained at the end of his last post, restrictions are also sometimes necessary and for the better.

Ailyn wrote: Mages know everything? Well, generalist would not be able to if new spells are added in that are specialist specific. Taking away what is already there would cause a gap between new and older characters, larger then the one that some really old wizards have still with certain spells.

I'm still fairly unclear as to what spells possessed by older wizards create this supposed gap. I think ultimately that's sort of a "You have it and I don't" issue for some of those who see it as one. Word of recall is really not all that super. But, as far as goes the adding more spells for specialists and limiting them from non-specialists, I take that as simply a rebranding of the sort of restrictions proposed above. And hey, if it looks more attractive and makes people feel less like they're missing out, then I say go for it. Ultimately it produces a similar result.

Hrosskell wrote: I'm not sure how you can abuse scribing or scroll teaching, or how it will reduce the grind to mastery. It has a succeed/fail chance, and works as it has worked forever. Besides that, where is the mission statement that says this game's depths--all of them, everywhere--should be inaccessible past the builders' and designers' implemented difficulties?

Nowhere. And definitely inaccessibility is bad for myriad reasons, not least being that new players will feel unwelcome and kept out of the "cliques" (man, I hate that term but it's for once pertinent!). But inaccessibility isn't anyone's goal, I don't think. You make completely fair points about the balance of roleplay and mechanics, and I appreciate those. I think maybe I would, given a chance, just put far more emphasis on the roleplay, especially for wizards, similar in spirit to the squire/paladin roleplay. And that would mean in part making scroll production and writing more profound (and yes, a little more difficult) a thing than retrieving and digesting this morning's newspaper. It's a difference in personal taste, though, and that much I wouldn't argue against.

Harroghty's strategy with fighters might well be the best we can do for the foreseeable future, anyway. Hard code changes are after all not frequent and focus, rightly, more on the more serious bugs than anything. I still think some of the ideas Ailyn and Vaemar gave are fine ones, they just won't truly fix the samey-ness of wizards beyond possessing a cool item (which guilds already do get). I don't see that domains make priests really any different from each other, nine slots might differ but the 100-ish rest as well as stat point alotments will all be very similar across most priests, and likewise it would be for wizards.

If I may briefly contribute to the derailing of Ailyn's post - I've played a specialist almost exclusively for a while now, and have always gutted myself for choosing a specialist, when there are so few mechanical benefits of any significant value to me. That being said:

It is a roleplayer's responsibility to think critically when playing a wizard, or any character, for that matter.
I relate to the sentiment posed by Areia and Yemin, about having wizards critically think about their characters more, but it has always been my personal belief that a player of a specialist should be disciplined enough to commit to the unique roleplay of it. If a player can't think critically enough about the spells they want to employ for RP, then maybe they need to think harder. Looking around at the few specialists I've come across, every single one of them has demonstrated deep thought as a player of a specialist in RP, so I'm not sure there is an existing problem of wizards looking the same, or not thinking critically about the spells they want to use. What I personally am looking for for my specialist, is something that makes me feel less like I made a glorious personal sacrifice for the RP.

Since Areia's suggestion noted that the spell cap would be best put in place when all the spells are fixed, and we have a wider range of spells, perhaps we can focus precisely on how we can have a wider range of spells, or other benefits for being a specialist. The spell cap discussion should be proposed in a separate thread at this point, and would flourish there better. I will see you all there.

***

Back to Ailyn's suggestions:

I would enjoy some exclusive things for specialists. They don't have to be overpowered, but should be desirable.
Back to Ailyn's post about how we could possibly enhance specialists, the only low-key regret I've had, but never voiced, was that I didn't have domain spells of sorts - a little sweet something to enhance the RP for my school of specialisation. I do not imagine these to be restricted to one slot per level, nor do I expect there to be 9 new domain spells for a specialist. Just two level 3-5s would suffice, and ideally they would function as normal spells, as opposed to domain spells, in terms of how many can be memorised per level. They don't have to be overpowered, and it could even mechanically be a fireball that only hurt undead, and was only marginally stronger (so that it would not be rendered obsolete for having so specific a target). They could also require quests to acquire.

As for special pets or trinkets, those would certainly be fun to have, and some of these already exist in-game, but if I could just have one gift for my nameday it would probably be the spells. I mean, is it not bizarre at this time that a necromancer does not have any exclusive ability when working with undead?

I suggest those who support Ailyn's suggest focus on specific suggestions per school, including myself, and present them in a compelling way.
I really enjoyed and appreciated the thought that Ailyn put into the suggestions per school (thank you), and while some of them sound more difficult to code than others, I fully agree with the spirit of it and would love to hear more ideas on those. I trust that we all want a stronger roleplaying community, and for those who support this idea, perhaps with more specific suggestions for each school, we could collate a list with the abilities/exclusives in bullet points so they would be easier to read and seem less daunting a task to implement, in order to help this suggestion be approved.