To elaborate, you don't have to be a specialist, although you lose the enhanced specialization ability at 1st level of WoHS.
Still I do like the Generalist wizard too, and like Dragonhelm says there's a sidebar in The Age of Mortals Companion that allows Generalist Wizards to take the WoHS PrC.
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
I for one hated, hated, th Fifth Age,
Who didn't see that one coming? Come on...don't lie...raise your hands.
Okay...all of you with your hands raised, go sit in the back of the room with dunce caps on.
Alright...so I have a weird sence of humor...so sue me. :D
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
I think you should read the sidebar on generalist wizards in Age of Mortals. ;)
To elaborate, you don't have to be a specialist, although you lose the enhanced specialization ability at 1st level of WoHS.
Does that mean that they just don't get Enhanced Spec? Are there any other changes that go with it?
Seriously, get past all this "power-gamer" thinking, it's not what Dragonlance is all about - it's about role-playing, not roll-playing. Actually, I think the Wizards of High Sorcery works very well. True, they are somewhat weaker than wizards from other settings, but that's the very reason why they strike a better balance with sorcerers than in other settings. There's always more than one way to look at it, you see.
If you have a group of uber PCs, min-maxxing and picking specific classes for the most punch, your DM is going to boost your encounters and make things balance out.
Prestige Classes are for making your character more unique I think, though being a "General Wizard" is nice, an uber-specialist is going to pack that punch in their field, I don't see the drawback really, it just adds character.
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
Since when has a Prestige Class ever made you give up something because you’re gaining a benefit?
Ummm... Since Unearthed Arcana introduced the Thief-Acrobat way back in the 80's?
What I am not hearing is what people think about the item of power, the tower resources, and especially the order secrets (which kick much bootie).
So, beyond specialization, what do you think of the WoHS?
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
The sad part is that if the specialization thing wasn't there, there would be just as many complaints since there wasn't restricted schools.
What I am not hearing is what people think about the item of power, the tower resources, and especially the order secrets (which kick much bootie).
So, beyond specialization, what do you think of the WoHS?
I'm glad to see them back, personnelly. The WoHS were better organized and have access to the resourses of an Order. Were as Sorcery practitioners tended to be too lone wolf at times. Now that they have to share the world with mystic, sorcerors AND clerics, I can say its going to get every interesting
Ofcourse, Dalamar has to rebuild the WoHS fisrt, which may take about a decade, give or take a year. Compatition between the WoHS and certain "Others" over recruiting will be interesting. Dalamar has his work cut out for him.
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
The sad part is that if the specialization thing wasn't there, there would be just as many complaints since there wasn't restricted schools.
What I am not hearing is what people think about the item of power, the tower resources, and especially the order secrets (which kick much bootie).
So, beyond specialization, what do you think of the WoHS?
Apart from the specilisation bit, I really like the WoHS class. Having resources is something that gets passed over sometimes.
Also I like the idea of having a minor magical item given over to a mage who completes the test, it makes sense and since DL is fairly magical item low (Just look how many magic items get picked up in the Chronicles... 2 or 3 tops?) its a free item that has a history attached (If the DM and players do it right).
And before anyone proceeds to belittle my RPG experience (a more increasingly used disparagement), I have been playing and GMing for almost 16 years and have pretty much had a go at most RPG systems that came and went. I have played Wizards and I have played Fighters (and pretty much everything in between -except druids) and see nothing wrong with the Prestige Class as listed in the DLCS.
So if you don't like the PrC for Wizards of High Sorcery in the DLCS, then use the alternate version in AoM!
Let's put the WoHS bashing to rest for a while OK...;)
Arandur
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
The sad part is that if the specialization thing wasn't there, there would be just as many complaints since there wasn't restricted schools.
What I am not hearing is what people think about the item of power, the tower resources, and especially the order secrets (which kick much bootie).
So, beyond specialization, what do you think of the WoHS?
I can't comment, as Amazon still doesn't think the book's out yet, so I'm twiddling my fingers
Banshee
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
I just think aside from the obvious banned schools, like a White Robe cannot specialize in Necromancy (note Necromancy is not evil anymore in 3rd edition)
Necromancy not evil? It sure is interesting, then, how it has these spells that have the [Evil] descriptor, like ...
Animate Dead, Contagion, Create Undead, Create Greater Undead ...
You're creating, animating, summoning, and controlling the dead.
If you're in a party and a White Robe Wizard raises the corpses of the enemy to fight for the group, I don't care what goals you're furthering, the dead, whether evil/good/what-have-you are not to be brought to life to fight for you.
An honorable good character, after defeating an evil person/creature is going to let their torchered soul rest in peace, not animate their corpse and have it fight.
It's late, hope I made sense.
---
As a side note, it's kind of along the same lines as a good group hiring a bunch of blood-thirsty evil mercenaries to help them kill some evil creature. You just don't do it.
Originally posted by Freaklegion
I personally don't consider Necromancy itself as "Evil". But it has limited use outside the Black Robes.
You're creating, animating, summoning, and controlling the dead.
If you're in a party and a White Robe Wizard raises the corpses of the enemy to fight for the group, I don't care what goals you're furthering, the dead, whether evil/good/what-have-you are not to be brought to life to fight for you.
An honorable good character, after defeating an evil person/creature is going to let their torchered soul rest in peace, not animate their corpse and have it fight.
It's late, hope I made sense.
Heheh. It all depends on the justification of necromancy's use, doesn't it?
I can see it know. Some White robe justifies using undead, because he doesn't want his own countrymen killed in a war. Why risk lives when the dead will do the work for you? Got a gnomish booklight? not to worry. the Undead can test the machine completely. And if the booklight should blow up, the no ones really harmed by it. It's simply a bunch of ignorant fanatics with outdated moral codes that are preventing the use of undead as a viable resource.
Granak Red-Silver
Sivak
I don't think any honestly good wizard would raise the dead, even if his enemies to fight on against his foes. It goes against what makes a good character good.
A neutral character on the other hand may indeed do that, his companions would raise some eyebrows, and anyone that saw him do so may consider him evil, but he may do it.
I mainly don't see the good guys doing it.
Those of you arguing otherwise are forgetting the horror of being undead. It's not like it's a dead, animated husk - At least in Dragonlance (I'm not so sure about other places). Does nobody remember the unliving hatred held for the living? The agony of existing and not existing, all at once? The unnatural chill of the grave, never to be warmed? Being undead is a horrible existence, and if a mage - any mage - were to animate the dead for any cause, noble or selfish, it is ultimately unjustifiable. There is pain, there is suffering being caused, even beyond the grave. And for that, I see nothing 'good' and barely anything 'neutral'. One way or another, it futhers your own ends to the detriment of others - and that, my friends, is evil.
That said, I very much like the Wizards of High Sorcery, especially the specialization. Wizards should be unique, down to their spellbooks - even the cover.
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
Check out the Scarred Lands book Hollowfaust. It has a great example on a society of Necromancers that are anything but evil. Raising the dead in itself I imagine really is an evil act, but Necromancy does more than raise and command undead. And in the Book of Veil Darkness I believe there where other schools of magic with the (Evil) condition posted on them. Also, remember than before 3.5 I believe Resurrection was under the Necromancy school. I know it was for sure in 2nd Edition.
That's the Scarred Lands. In Dragonlance, necromancy is a kind of magic which has more than its fair share of evil connotations and therefore is highly unlikely to show up in the spellbooks of good wizards to any degree.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
Also, remember than before 3.5 I believe Resurrection was under the Necromancy school. I know it was for sure in 2nd Edition.
This is true, but "priest" necromancy and "wizard" necromancy were two very different things. Priest-necromancers dealt with life and death, while wizard-necromancers are more restricted to the latter. I'm not saying that wizard-necromancers were all evil, but the vast majority of them were. If you looked at the Complete Book of Necromancers, they had a short description of non-evil necromancers. The rest of the book, however, supported the "evil" view.
Can there be non-evil necromancers in Dragonlance? Yes. Can they be members of the Wizards of High Sorcery? Not currently, but what some players call pigeonholing, other players call flavor.
*shrug*
Here's an idea, though -- with the current interplay between High Sorcery and Wild Sorcery, maybe the WoHS are more lax in their requirements so they can get more wizards on their "side", so to speak.
Arandur
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
it has change to a very bitter taste.
“please forgive our predecessors for years of crappy Fifth Age Saga crap”
Jesus...here we go again.
This is all very subjective...there's no need to get all huffy about it. You're *****-slapping things that are sacred to alot of people who are sick of hearing people whine about it.
Just a fore warning, man. Lighten up before this gets out of control.
You don't like the 5th Age, that's fine...it's cool, everyone is intitled to their opinion, and like I said, it's very subjective. But, just leave it at that, there's no need to drive it into the ground with a 10 lined flame.
Every once in a while, somebody has to come onto the boards bashing the 5th age. While you are entitled to your views and while many agree with you, there are others on these forums who are 5th age fans. I would ask that you respect them.
On the flipside, some of the 5th age fans don't help the situation either. People sometimes go on the defensive, which only helps to escalate things.
Just remember, we all see Dragonlance differently, and we should respect others' views, even when they are not our own. This means being respectful of those who like the 5th age as well as those who don't.
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
Brimstone, out of curiosity, do you like Fifth Age Dragonlance? If so, what about the SAGA System?
Yes, and yes. But you'll never see me bash the 4th Age or AD&D, or anyone for liking it or them. (I'm even really pretty nice about gnomes, too...my only true dislike in Dragonlance ;)).
But...I'm really bad about getting upset easily when people start to bash it the 5th Age...SAGA too (but not as much)...so I try to stay out of those debates these days. Really I do.
I'm not a bad guy, I swear...but I really come across as a @#&* head when debating this stuff...so I'm trying to cut back. But it's like a coke addict trying to stay away from crack...I get a twitch if it goes too long.
A campaign world needs to grow and expand even though everyone's views on the matter and direction will differ. You personally may not like the direction but others might.
Reading your posts, it is starting to seem to myself that you would have been upset with any direction that the Dragonlance setting took away from the WoTL. You seem to be uspet with it's direction and yet you are here arguing if that White Robes (a good aligned PrC) should be OK to mess around with the dead bodies of people's loved ones. That in effect doesn't sound to White Robes to me (WoTL, 5th Age or AoM!). Necromancy spells cast by arcanists (as a gerneral rule) are hard to justify as spells that could be used by the good aligned. Many of the necromantic spells are based around stealing or corrupting the life essences of living creatures or in turn stealing the bodies of the dead.
How many times have you seen someone who has raised the dead actually ask for the permission of the dead ones family and loved ones? Personally I have never seen it and to my mind what could be more evil in nature than taking someone's loved ones and their memories of them and then enslaving those ideals within a twisted shell of what they once where for your own purposes with no regard of the suffering it causes others...
Dragonlance is a huge world with many eras, if you don't like the 5th age and what comes after then play the 4th Age it's no big problem but try not to disparage the direction it has taken. Some of us are interested in where the ride is going...
Arandur
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
Brimstone, out of curiosity, do you like Fifth Age Dragonlance? If so, what about the SAGA System? If this post appears more than once, my bad.
It does. :D
That's cool though, just check out my post above.
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
I for one am glad Fifth Age is gone. I look forward to Krynn’s future.
Just for the record, the 5th Age isn't gone. All the new aspects of the 5th Age is still around...and have become a pretty pivotal part of the future of Dragonlance, I think. Cause really...can all 4 kinds of magic live happily together? Not without some major compromise (and probably warring) I think.
The Dragon Overlords are still around...some of them anyway...but they were only put there to one day be defeated anyway. :D
And of course there's the other (significant) aspects of the 5th Age that are still around...but this isn't a spoiler thread, so I'll keep those quiet.
And not to mention, alot of the 4th Age stuff is back. This is going to be very interesting how all these different ideals clash post-War of Souls.
Very cool.Not altogether the 4th Age, not all together the early 5th Age (although technically its still the Age of Mortals...but for a slightly modified reason ;)).
Yes there are few of the iconic characters left in the world but it is ripe for the tales of new heroes, new sagas and new adventures. If you and your players need or want a link to the 4th age then play your children or grand children and the like. I know my players got a kick out of it (My years of playing Pendragon showing, i guess
)There are so many possibilities, so many directions the setting can go from here. I don't think that Dragonlance has ever stood at a more pivotal moment than after the War of Souls. I can't wait for the spark that sets it off...
Arandur
Dragons of Autumn Twilight -
When the companions enter the Sal Mori (sp?) They have to choose between two paths, one to the left one to the right. Yes, Raistlin does sense "great evil" to the right (where the undead Royal Guard are), but remember what the doors to their crypts say:
Sothi Nuinqua Tsalarioth - Faithful beyond Death
Then on page 399, only a few pages later it states: " - an evil elf of ages past, whose punishment for crimes unspeakable had been execution. Then the powerful elven magic-users chained her spirit, forcing her to guard forever the king's treasure."
Two instance of elves, who on Krynn are the embodiement of Good, using necromantic spells.
Now considering that elven mages, unless dark elves (who would have been killed, not asked to perform state functions), automatically follow the White Robe path, and elven clerics follow the Gods of Good, then this means that those undead were raised by Good people, who did not consider themselves doing a bad thing.
Just something to ponder to those who think necromancy is automatically evil.
Rosisha
Then on page 399, only a few pages later it states: " - an evil elf of ages past, whose punishment for crimes unspeakable had been execution. Then the powerful elven magic-users chained her spirit, forcing her to guard forever the king's treasure."
I think the act of binding the spirit as punshment is a lot different to animating the dead. As for the undead guarding the tombs of great Kings, I always envisioned this as some sort of choice by the actual guards (loyalty unto and after death). I don't think they would have been animated by a wizard to provide the service.
Personally I think the fact that the Undead has clean white bones has little to do with whether it is good or evil. Why can't you have a fastidious evil wizard? I think if I was a wizard I would prefer NOT to have rotting, stinking corpses walking around my abode.
I still think the act of animating the dead is something of an evil act. I mean look at the things you animate, I don't think that they are described as having a Good alignment in the MM. So why would a good character animate an evil creature to do his bidding?
Arandur
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
It hasn’t in my campaign, but officially even after the War of Souls which seems to mean Post-Fifth Age “please forgive our predecessors for years of crappy Fifth Age Saga crap”.
Anything after the Chaos War's conclusion is by definition the Fifth Age.
Don’t get me started also on what they did to the Companions. And for what, to be replace by who?? I don’t even care enough to remember the Fifth Age icon characters except for Palin and the Classic Dragonlance characters like Dalamar.
It was a damn good thing they replaced the Companions. Dragonlance is all about change. People, heroes, lands, whatever. Static worlds are boring. How exciting would it be if 70 years after the War of the Lance everyone's still just writing and focusing on Tanis, Sturm, Caramon, etc.? It wouldn't.
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
Iltharanos, it would have been nice if they left the Companions alone. I didn’t say I wish they wrote more tales about the Companions, I said look at what they did to them. And on that note Jean Rabe could have come up with much more interesting characters for her Fifth Age novels.
What's wrong with what they did to the Companions?
Caramon died falling down some steps. He was always a big clumsy oaf, figures he'd die that way.
Tanis got stabbed in the back. He was always too trusting.
Laurana got crushed by a dragon. Now she knows how Sturm felt.
Raistlin is just dead. I like the guy, but it's nice that that is the last we'll see of him.
Sturm got killed by Kitiara. That's fine, because Kitiara got killed by Dalamar.
Etc. etc.
With the exception of Caramon they all died in the thick of battle, not a bad way to go.
And yes, I agree that Jean Rabe's characters could have been more interesting. None of them really struck a chord with me, except maybe Jasper (and that's only because he was related to Flint).
Falling down stairs, stab in the back, crush by a dragon (that you barely manage to scratch back) are not very heroic memorable deaths. They sound more like "well lets get these characters out of the way for good deaths".
Why should every hero die a heroic death? It's good to have deaths that are more realistic.
And who said Raistling was dead anyway.
Margaret Weis. According to her, he has been 'officially' dead ever since the end of Legends. The gods just allowed him a couple of visits back into the world.
Poor Flint never even got mentioned.
S (Spoilers for The War of Souls
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
S
P
A
C
E
There's nothing wrong with Caramon's death, in fact if Caramon hadn't have died in that fashion, then the Gods would never have found Krynn. Because if he'd died in battle he'd have had a shorter life, therefore his funeral (the entire reason that Tas actually wanted to travel into the future) would probably not have been in time for the start of the war of souls. Tas wouldn't have been around, Takhisis would have won.
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
Margaret Weis also said that Lord Soth never when to Ravenloft. It doesn't if like Lord Soth going to Ravenloft or not, the fact remains that HE GO to Ravenloft. You can choose to ignore that in your campaign but facts won't change. So saying that Raistlin is dead doesn't really add up to me, since once again, he didn't die again. And yes I forgot poor Flint. That's because I liked how Flint died. I still stand by that the Companions where unjustly remove to make room for new characters. The Companions should have just been left alone and carry on with new characters all the same.
I actually liked the first Soth in Ravenloft book, I don't really care for the Ravenloft setting however... anyway, whether or not Soth went to Ravenloft - he died in Krynn. As for removing the Companions, one of the problems with roleplaying Dragonlance in 1st & 2nd edition following the War of the Lance was that the PCs constantly felt as though the NPCs of the world were stealing the stage from them. It may have been my own insufficient DMing skills, but with them now being dead that problem is eliminated this time around.
Under the Focused Specialization heading, it says that all barred schools have to come from schools of magic which are the specialties of the other robes. This means that, with the prohibition against losing divination, all red robes must lose abjuration, enchantment, and necromancy, and that all black robes must lose abjuration, illusion, and alteration. White robes are the lucky ones in that they get to choose to lose 3 of necromancy, enchantment, alteration, and illusion. It seems like they're giving you a choice, but for 2/3 of the Wizards, there is none.
As for the other advantages, I like 'em, though I'd like to see something to balance losing the tower resources in the 5th age. Magic item is pretty neat, though.
Also, I seem to remember back from 1st Ed. that Wizard's robes were marginally magical. Was that the case, and if so, any idea what a 3.5e equivalent would be?
Originally posted by Bidnickle Topknot
As for removing the Companions, one of the problems with roleplaying Dragonlance in 1st & 2nd edition following the War of the Lance was that the PCs constantly felt as though the NPCs of the world were stealing the stage from them. It may have been my own insufficient DMing skills, but with them now being dead that problem is eliminated this time around.
Thats actually the one complaint I have with the novels as a whole. They are nearly all about the same few people - The heroes, Palin and so on.
I would much prefer to have seen/read novels about other people and I don't mean the big wigs of the setting. I would much rather read stories about other heroes adventures. Look at FR (for example) and its novel lines they are for the most part about your regular adventurers. Why can't Dragonlance novels be more like that?
Originally posted by WickerKing
Under the Focused Specialization heading, it says that all barred schools have to come from schools of magic which are the specialties of the other robes. This means that, with the prohibition against losing divination, all red robes must lose abjuration, enchantment, and necromancy, and that all black robes must lose abjuration, illusion, and alteration. White robes are the lucky ones in that they get to choose to lose 3 of necromancy, enchantment, alteration, and illusion. It seems like they're giving you a choice, but for 2/3 of the Wizards, there is none.
Good eyes, there. Yes, on first inspection I had read the restriction on barred schools coming from the other Order's favored schools as being for the 3rd barred school only, but you're right - it appears that the aim is to block all of those opposing schools from access to WoHS specialists.
Still, for at least 3 levels or so you don't have to worry about one of those!
Also, it's worth noting that the Diviner who becomes a White Robe only had one barred school to begin with, and therefore only needs to choose one more. So that's your best bet if you're aiming for the White Robes and want the most spell access.
Cheers,
Cam
Half the people on this board write in to bash one thing or another...a good deal of the subjects are complaints about this or that. So why is 5th Age sacred? I've been in a few flame wars myself because someone or another couldn't handle hearing any criticism about their precious 5th Age.
As for WoHS...They are really restrictive. True, the Red Wizards of Thay suffer similar restrictions, but I thought that the focused specializations were a little too restrictive. It's not how I would have done the WoHS, and I plan to modify it for my own use...
While it captures, in part, the flavor of Dragonlance, I think that it could have been done differently. Anyways, if you don't like it, change it...
)Arandur
This is a cycle that I see repeating over and over again. Fourth age fan bashes 5th age, 5th age fan gets defensive, flame war breaks out.
And so the cycle continues. Nobody will ever win this, and in the end, there's just going to be hurt feelings.
You guys have the power to break the cycle, though. It's not even that hard. It does require swallowing some pride, but I think we're all big enough to do that.
The secret to breaking this cycle is simple. It's about understanding and respect. I respect what you like, and you respect what I like, and we don't bash.
It's that simple.
Dragonlance is a world with many different views, and many different eras of play. That's part of what makes it special. It's multiple campaign settings in one. We each have our favorite parts, and that's okay. Just be sure to respect other peoples' favorite parts of DL as well.
Long Live the Lance!
Rather than 5th Age proponents (or proponents of whatever) rising up to forbid criticism of 5th Age or whatever, can't we just talk about what people do or do not like about it? If a person likes 5th Age, he doesn't need the rest of the world to agree with him, right? It's okay to have people air their grievances...that's what a message board is for--discussion.
Maybe the 5th Age people can convince 4th Age proponents that gaming in the Age of Mortals is worthwhile.
If you guys want to talk about the merits of one age over another or discuss it, great, we can start a thread...perhaps labeled with something less inflammatory than this one. I mean, no one got all bent out of shape hearing Wizards of High Sorcery SUCK!, right? But if a thread titled, "Fifth Age SUCKS!" were to be started, it would be quite inflammatory.
My opinion that I don't like 5th Age and how it was initially handled shouldn't threaten your opinion, whatever it may be. If you don't want to talk about, well, fine, I'll go back where I came from until this becomes a discussion board where I can discuss things.
Arandur
Originally posted by Great Umbrage
I mean, no one got all bent out of shape hearing Wizards of High Sorcery SUCK!, right?
For the record...
I did.
But I'm a changed man...so I kept my mouth shut (for as long as is humanly possible). For...I may be trying to cut back on 5th-age-basher bashing, I am still a smart alek...so one can only hold off for so long before one's head explodes.
Actually, these arguments always frustrate me amazingly because I like both ages, and every part of both ages, and I guess I just fail to understand why so many folks are vocal about one or the other being 'wrong' or 'bad' or 'suck'.
Just means I have to do double the bashing, right?
... Right?
Blast.
for me, any dragonlance is good dragonlance. I'll play in any game, in any era, and be damned happy with it =)
Of course, if you ask me to run, you'll get a wierd amalgamation of fourth, fifth, there is another shore you know, and probably some random other crap like Dragon Warrior or super mario brothers for good measure =)
But I agree...it doesn't matter, 5th Age, 4th Age, 3rd, 2nd, or 1st...it's all Dragonlance to me. They're all different in their own way though. 5th Age has no gods or it's a conglomeration of everything, 4th Age has the return of childhood horror stories, massive wars, and almost the complete destruction of the world. 3rd Age has no dragons and is full of regligious zealots. 2nd Age, dragons, knights, armies, everything still in it's infancy. 1st Age...dragons, dinosaurs, bakali, and more dragons.
They all have their own unique toppings...but they're all essentially ice cream..uh, I mean Dragonlance. And I enjoy them all...more so, probably, because of their differences.
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
The sad part is that if the specialization thing wasn't there, there would be just as many complaints since there wasn't restricted schools.
What I am not hearing is what people think about the item of power, the tower resources, and especially the order secrets (which kick much bootie).
So, beyond specialization, what do you think of the WoHS?
Oh, aside from the prerequisites the Wizards of High Sorcery Rock. I'm a bit confused though on the subject of "pure magic". For example, If I'm a red robe, I have this secret, and I cast a fireball... do I do half damage to fire elementals? Or is the energy simply still fire energy, but cannot by reduced by magical protections?
As for the specialization, that's another tweak. I'm just going to have all wizards give up another school (even general ones), and have the specialization stack. So it will look like this:
Abjurerer White Robe +4 DC abjuration spells, banned necromancy, enchantment, alteration.
Evoker White Robe +2 DC evocation spells, +2 DC abjuration spells, banned necromancy, enchantment, alteration
Wizard White Robe +2 DC abjuration spells, banned necromancy.
I forget whether or not specialist wizards get a +1 to caster level, but if they don't I'll just remove it from the WOHS both for balance and neatness. That's really the whole point of this tweak. The rules aren't necessarily wrong, but this is neater.
Originally posted by ferratus
Oh, aside from the prerequisites the Wizards of High Sorcery Rock. I'm a bit confused though on the subject of "pure magic". For example, If I'm a red robe, I have this secret, and I cast a fireball... do I do half damage to fire elementals? Or is the energy simply still fire energy, but cannot by reduced by magical protections?
Pure Magic (or "Magic of Purity" if you want to continue the naming conventions of the secrets) allows you to change half of the damage into non-typed damage. It's the corrolary to the White Robe's Magic of Radiance and the Black Robe's Magic of Darkness, although it's neither positive nor negative. Unless the fire elemental also had some kind of protection against magic in general (such as spell resistance or lesser globe of invulnerability) a pure fireball will deal half the normal fireball damage to it as opposed to none.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by ferratus
That's a very powerful ability. I'll have keep a close eye on it. I don't think its unbalancing though.
It more or less mimics flame strike.
Cheers,
Cam
Also what is done with mages who are not wizards of high sorcery? Like if a minotaur wants to be a mage? Does he learn from his own people or would he have to try and convince the mages to teach him? It sounds like anyone of the more exotic races get turned back. Yet in 2cd ed it said Minotaurs could become Wizards of High Sorcery.
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
AkumaDaimyo, the Master of the White Robes before Palin (I forgot the guys name, he was an Ergothian sailor I believe) was actually a figther/mage. And again he was the Master of the White Robes. It seems there's a contradiction somewhere in there.
Dunbar MasterMate, the Head of the White Robes before Palin, was a sailor who later in life became a Wizard of High Sorcery. He no longer progressed as a "Mariner (Fighter)" because he dedicated his life to the magic after that point.
Christopher
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
Stormprince, he still keeps the Fighter class, even by second edition rules. He would be a duel class human. Besides, even Dumbar, thanks for the name, commented on enjoying his fighter side.
Right.
You don't lose the skills and abilities of prior classes.
You can still use them, without penalty.
However, you didn't see Dunbar fighting with a two-handed sword in battle, he was slinging spells. As the Head of the White Robes, he had to uphold the ideals of the Orders.
He made his choice.
His skills as a fighter stood him in good stead, but in the end, he was a Wizard first and foremost in his heart.
Christopher
There is nothing wrong with a fighter/wizard per se, however, the Orders were established for those serious about 'magic.' They are the "intellectual elite" of Krynn, on an order with Mensa, only with steroids. To them, the time that one spends mastering the proper way of wielding a sword, working the muscles of the body, learning how to wield a wide variety of weapons (remember, this was before the "Oh, I just took a level of Fighter, so now I know how to wield most weapons instantly.) is time that should have been spent mastering the magic, researching new spells, etc.
The Orders are not for "dabblers," hence the Test, which can be potentially deadly. The Test is meant to weed out dabblers, hence why Gilthanas never underwent the Test. He knew enough magic to get by, but in the end, he knew he was not serious about the magic.
With 3.5, multiclassing can be a tricky thing because if you don't want to take a serious XP penalty, you need to keep your class levels within range of one another. Well..."flavor-wise," that explains why those who were not always wizards tend to progress more slowly through the ranks, however, as you'll find in the Towers of High Sorcery, there are positions in the Orders for those who have "other" skills ;)
Christopher