As the sole class to rely almost solely on spells for their power, vs sorcerers and warlocks who have increased physical combat ability and a variety of innate magic or divine casters who are highly capable in physical combat, wizards are the primary caster in D&D. Further, where other casters have specific constraints to their magic use, either representing sponsor influence or thematic style to their learning, wizards, at large, specifically reject these constraints in favor of seeking greater understanding. To represent these things;
Wizards can use spells from all spell lists.
And then we have this;
http://www.dnd-spells.com/spell/magic-weapon
http://www.dnd-spells.com/spell/elemental-weapon
Why do paladins, who don't even pretend to be a primary caster class the way clerics and druids do, get a better version of a wizard spell? It is one level higher, but that's still a pretty pathetic trade off and doesn't even begin to justify not letting the wizard have it. Seriously, the paladin's spellcasting is icing where the main thing the wizard has is that spellcasting. Why would you give the better spells as icing and the worse spells as meat?
There are a number of issues with this as written. The first clear issue is one of balance. Mostly because of clerics, and some because of druids. Not the issue that it steps on clerics' schtick, because that entire argument can get bent; the idea that clerics need "protected" as both primary casters with primary caster type spells and secondary fighters is ridiculous. No other class has that variety and depth of power, nor would they dream of fencing it off the way TSR and WOTC have. But the bigger problem is that cleric spells are so often clearly better than the wizards' comparable ones. By doing this I'm spreading all that broken balance into the wizard class. It is simply icing that most of the spells written for other classes are far more clearly "flavored" than those of the wizard class, making their use by arcane casters "feel weird." As a result, I will probably never actually run this rule, as much as I'd like to.
But it should clearly indicate my feelings on rich areas for easy spell research.
Wizards can use spells from all spell lists.
~~*~~
And then we have this;
http://www.dnd-spells.com/spell/magic-weapon
http://www.dnd-spells.com/spell/elemental-weapon
Why do paladins, who don't even pretend to be a primary caster class the way clerics and druids do, get a better version of a wizard spell? It is one level higher, but that's still a pretty pathetic trade off and doesn't even begin to justify not letting the wizard have it. Seriously, the paladin's spellcasting is icing where the main thing the wizard has is that spellcasting. Why would you give the better spells as icing and the worse spells as meat?
These are the things that make me crazy.
There are a number of issues with this as written. The first clear issue is one of balance. Mostly because of clerics, and some because of druids. Not the issue that it steps on clerics' schtick, because that entire argument can get bent; the idea that clerics need "protected" as both primary casters with primary caster type spells and secondary fighters is ridiculous. No other class has that variety and depth of power, nor would they dream of fencing it off the way TSR and WOTC have. But the bigger problem is that cleric spells are so often clearly better than the wizards' comparable ones. By doing this I'm spreading all that broken balance into the wizard class. It is simply icing that most of the spells written for other classes are far more clearly "flavored" than those of the wizard class, making their use by arcane casters "feel weird." As a result, I will probably never actually run this rule, as much as I'd like to.
But it should clearly indicate my feelings on rich areas for easy spell research.
No comments:
Post a Comment