Call them mages and clerics, or black wizards and white wizards, or whatever you want, do you think it's good to have a sharp distinction between wizards who mostly do damage/curse/control and wizards who mostly heal/buff?
>HYTNPDND?
Not the only system that makes this distinction.
Personally, while I appreciate that specialization is helpful, I don't see the need for a hard difference between the two, but I've seen this come up enough that I wanted to ask what all you losers thoughts.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
I think it's good to have a division between classes that are capable of different things. Fighters are not Magic Users are not Clerics are not Thieves. Everything else is redundant and can be resolved through on-the-spot houserules in play.
I seriously hope that picture is not spoiler OP or we gonna have problems.
It's not, it's just the two of them cuddling. It's got nothing to do with the current plot.
terrible idea, fluff-wise
The problem with having a class that only buffs and heals is that the group might not have someone who wants to play it, because not every group will have a homosexual.
If you go on an adventure without a homosexual then you haven't planned properly and you're not taking this seriously.
Yeah, gotta have the twink to relieve stress with. No homo
In my homebrew not even all spells have this destinction. Like Woundword either open or close the wound of the target. Or Animate can reanimate a fallen comrade, animate undead, or animate an inanimate object, making elemental or something like a flying sword. It depends on how you choose to role-play and use your spells.
Oh boy another pointless anime spam thread discussing pointless anime tropes. Crazy how the only post to get a reply was about the anime and not the five other people discussing mechanics, its almost like the entire thread is a complete waste of time
Man, do people not realize Ganker exists? Why do FotM anime fans always want to bring it up on the wrong boards?
>Oh boy another pointless anime spam thread discussing pointless anime tropes.
Oh yes, famous anime Dungeons and Dragons.
>hytpnpdnd
of all fricking things this is a non-d&d issue. ALL casters can damage, control, and buff. ALL of them.
Yeah, /slop/ belongs to Ganker.
I used to enjoy the idea of healers, healing spells, etc, but the more I think about what they represent and what needs to be set in place to compensate for their existence, the less enjoyable I find them.
As is painfully obvious, healing is a reactive measure. It's an ultimatum: do you keep healing the dude taking a quarter of his health in damage and burning your resources, or do you let the chips lie where they fall and hope he doesn't keep getting hit?
Healing also sets a standard that the design of hostiles have to compensate for; if their attacks don't account for healing, that means having a healer will generally dominate the campaign, but if their damage is cranked up too high, it makes taking a healer a requirement.
I'm more content to relegate healing to out-of-combat upkeep, and having more preventative measures like buffs, ally protection, provocation available. Even the ability to shove the enemy around and a reaction system that enables player characters to potentially interrupt attackers is more effective than constantly healing while on the back foot.
Meanwhile, I will never not have fun with "blasting" magic, especially since I take the time to balance out the elements not only with different effects, but with different resistances and weaknesses.
So I guess the short answer is I distinguish destruction from healing is by not having healing as a magical effect at all.
Maybe get your character a vacation and see how the other dude behaves. Then if you bring the healer back you for sure know is worth it.
I don't know what that has to do with my post; I still don't want to revolve my games around needing a healer in every group.
The blame is to the player not the character.
>describes problem as it pertains to game design
>gives examples of how it's connected to game design
>"duh bwame is on duh pwayer nuh duh cawactuh"
Please learn how to read before trying to have another conversation.
I think its restrictive and boring. Having different schools of magic can be cool, but it should they should be differentiated by power source/origin/requirements rather than effect.
Good post, i agree.
>I'm more content to relegate healing to out-of-combat upkeep, and having more preventative measures like buffs, ally protection, provocation available. Even the ability to shove the enemy around and a reaction system that enables player characters to potentially interrupt attackers is more effective than constantly healing while on the back foot.
That doesn't necessarily obviate the difference between "wizards" and "clerics", you've just removed one of the things that "clerics" do. Maybe you have it and maybe you don't, but your paradigm still allows (in theory) for a division between primarily offensive and primarily defensive/support mages.
>That doesn't necessarily obviate the difference between "wizards" and "clerics", you've just removed one of the things that "clerics" do.
Since when was this about separating wizards and clerics?
->
>So I guess the short answer is I distinguish destruction from healing is by not having healing as a magical effect at all.
Never, that's when.
>your paradigm still allows (in theory) for a division between primarily offensive and primarily defensive/support mages
I'd rather stick to the way I've been doing it (which I did not mention before); initial investment in any ability, magical or not, gives that ability's basic techniques and a main offense, with further investment in the ability granting further utility, and unlocking synergy between known abilities.
So instead of having one "the defense mage" pigeonhole, a fire-user would be able to use, defend against, and have support revolving around fire. I just think it makes more sense this way, and is more fun.
If you want to talk about this idea in a system agnostic sense, without getting into mechanics... just fricking say so. Don't pretend to be some RPG grognard addressing a universal problem that doesn't exist in most games.
I think it should be more of an in setting division then a mechanical one.
Skill issue.
what do you mean, good? if that's what you want in your game, then that's how you should do it.
>What do you think about the division of destruction and healing magic?
I think only Religious Magic-Users should be able to do healing magic: Priests, Clerics, Paladins, Druids, even Warlocks to some extent.
Wizards should not be allowed to use *healing magic. It's extremely thematically important that Wizard/Secular/Arcane magic can be used to: heal wounds, artificially extend ones' lifespan, nor resurrect the dead. This is why Wizards become Alchemists and Necromancers.
*They can repair machines/constructs though.
>Wizards should not be allowed to use *healing magic.
>It's extremely thematically important that Wizard/Secular/Arcane magic can be used to: heal wounds
Pick one.
>Pick one.
*can't.
*cannot be used.
In 2e D&D cure spells were necromancy. Return to your origins.
All spells are academic in nature, so the division should be based purely on the caster's studies. If they went to be a battle mage, it's likely they have both destruction and healing, although which they favor will depend on what they decided to focus on/what education tracks battle mages have in your setting.
> do you think it's good to have a sharp distinction between Force Users who mostly do attack/use Lightning/provoke and Force Users who mostly protect/ use telekinesis/mind trick?
Does that make for a fun adventure? That's the whole point when it comes to rpg. If it means that you can only have Sith or Jedi but not both in a group, it has advantages and inconveniences, you have to choose which is best for the game you're aiming for. I would play a story where Jedi and Sith are forced to cooperate to fix an issue, that would be interesting as long as there's a really good reason for them not to end killing each others.
Not really fond of the forced division personally. Honestly I'd prefer classless systems where you get to pick to what degree and how you specialize. Things like spell-theives and hexblades are neat in concept but god do they usually suck to play in execution. Though to be fair most of my beef with them is hating vancian magic in general. How did such a shit system become the standard for DnD and system that followed its model?
As a Dark Eye player, I find it strange that there are systems that don't divide up magic much, much further than just healing and destruction. In Dark Eye there is healing magic, elemental magic, demonic magic, transfiguration, telekinesis, influential magic, meta-magic, object based magic, seeing magic, temporal magic, etc.
That sounds logical. Time to play Dark Eye I guess.
So we have a new resident autist spamming pointless threads with Dungeon Meshi gifs.
I prefer dungeon meshi to the Warhameme spam.
You do make a decent argument.
I'm a fan of specialization on genral, regardless if it's under one class or many, or using a point buy system or whatver.
Yes, white and black magic should be separate. Mostly because everyone I've seen try to argue that it shouldn't be is because they're a whiny b***h who can't stand that their character has restrictions and can't do everything