TheRPGSite

So one of the quirks of D&D is that since almost the very start, we've had the generalist MU/mage/wizard who can perform (mostly) any magical effect imaginable, and we've also had various specialist casters with specific themes and more limited spell lists. Clerics are Christian-crusades-themed healers who are also decent warriors, illusionists are tricksters with extra-tricksy spells, and so on as more material is added to the game.

From a player/DM/design/whatever standpoint, which style do you like best, and why -- the generalist caster class, or the many specialist classes?

The Cleric is also a generalist. The Druid is the specialist subset. The Cleric has its own and mostly different spell loadout than the Magic User does.

I prefer 5es overall approach in that specialists come about more by player choice and outlook than class. what path you decide to walk.

I'd prefer the player choose whether to specialize or generalize based on how he plays his character and what spells he chooses to learn or what deity he chooses to proselytize for. I don't really need that in the rules as a bunch of different classes as long as there are the options available that allow such differentiation. But I don't really care for classes as a concept anyway.

I like having both (generalist and specialist) in a game. Some tradeoffs are fine of course for flavour and for mechanics.

In literature with Wizards, very few of them are as generalist as the ones listed in most editions of D&D.  You read about 'Necromancers', or Enchantresses or Oracles/Wisemen or Witches and Warlocks, most of which can be linked to a specific school of D&D magic.

But in literature they can do a bunch of other stuff too.  Gandelf was great with a sword, Vald Taltos was great with a sword, and and assain and a good cook too.

Even Dresden hits baddies with his staff.

I'm always leery of using fairy tales and literature as a yardstick for game concepts, as those characters have whatever abilities and quirks make for a good morality tale or classic novel -- not necessarily the abilities and quirks that make for a good game.

Quote from: Dumarest;958650I'd prefer the player choose whether to specialize or generalize based on how he plays his character and what spells he chooses to learn or what deity he chooses to proselytize for. I don't really need that in the rules as a bunch of different classes as long as there are the options available that allow such differentiation. But I don't really care for classes as a concept anyway.

Ha, I like classes as a concept, but D&D's execution tends to be...inconsistent. :p

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;958627So one of the quirks of D&D is that since almost the very start, we've had the generalist MU/mage/wizard who can perform (mostly) any magical effect imaginable, and we've also had various specialist casters with specific themes and more limited spell lists. Clerics are Christian-crusades-themed healers who are also decent warriors, illusionists are tricksters with extra-tricksy spells, and so on as more material is added to the game.

From a player/DM/design/whatever standpoint, which style do you like best, and why -- the generalist caster class, or the many specialist classes?

I think either approach can work well.

However I find long spell lists a bit overwhelming as a GM, and even as a player if I have to think about situations where people could have many different spells. As both player and (especially) GM, I like to play not just reactively but in terms of a situation with many players who may be working at odds to each other. The larger and more powerful the range of spells available, the more complex that game can get, to the point where I can't handle it. Also, with varied high-powered magic, or even a few spells with nasty potential like invisibility, control person, long-distance teleportation, divination, there can arise a "magical arms race" to the point where if you have a potential magic-using opponent, you may need to strike first in a terrible nasty way before they strike you first in a terrible nasty way, because you both can. Or if there are enough countermeasures to have there be deterrents, then that can get really complicated for each wizard involved. That can be really fun and interesting, if you're into it (and if you're not a non-magic-using character who's getting massively overshadowed and overpowered by all this), but it can also be quite overwhelming if there are many spells available. It seems more interesting when there are limited spells available to people and so some amount of prediction can reasonably be made about what your opponents' powers are or are not like.

I could mostly handle the number and power types of spells in Advanced Wizard, minus the crystal ball divination (and I could do without a few of the other nasty spells, such as demons and wishes and curse/bless). But GURPS Magic or D&D magic for example have so many spells and they can get pretty powerful and complex to think about and keep track of in the ways I prefer to be able to... unless the number of them available are limited and organized.

Which is why I came to prefer to break up spell knowledge in my campaigns. As I've described on some other threads, I like to design campaign worlds where certain schools / traditions / organizations have a limited list of magical spells that they know and teach, and usually limits on which spells are available to be taught to whom, and in exchange for what (often, trust and service to the organization). Especially for the more powerful spells, which reduces the complexity to something I can manage, and also creates an interesting situation that makes sense in the world (e.g. it gives meaningful answers tied to the rest of the world for who/where/what you'd have to go/do to get access to certain magic).

I don't mind if there are generalist characters or even generalist wizard guilds or whatever, but I want to track at a practical level who in general knows what (especially for the more powerful spells that can mess with and attract the attention/interest of powerful people), and not just have a supposition that they know and make available most everything.

With regard to long spell lists in rulebooks, there is no reason all those spells should be readily available (or ever available) to a character if you want to tailor magic to suit your campaign. I generally play very magic-light ganes, where powerful magic is usually evil and the result of corruption, artifacts, demons, and blood sacrifices...but I'm greatly influenced by Robert E. Howard Conan stories like The Hour of the Dragon and The Tower of the Elephant in my fantasy games.

You know, limited and random spell selection and discovery tends to create ersatz specialists. A good player will run with this and develop favoured tactics and procedures and become his own unique thing. Throw in random magic items found over the course of play and ya, every generalist mage should be able develop his own signature.

The only really generic casters I see in play tend to be NPCs. Which is somewhat OK because most exist only for a single encounter.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;958764I'm always leery of using fairy tales and literature as a yardstick for game concepts, as those characters have whatever abilities and quirks make for a good morality tale or classic novel -- not necessarily the abilities and quirks that make for a good game.

There's reason that some people claim to like multi-classing.  And given that Gandalf is an angel first, I don't think using him as an example of a Wizard is kinda incongruous, despite him being the original wizard template for AD&D and onward.

But there are analogs in which you can say 'close enough', like Conan of Cimmeria being a Fighter (Yes, yes, I hear people claiming 'Bu, bu he wassa tief an' a pirate an' a...', what they don't seem to want to realize that every thing he did was still in line with a fighting man first.  So he could climb towers, so can most anyone, he never picked a lock, being a pirate just means he learned how to sail, his fighting style never actually changed.  And that's what makes an interesting character, consistency.  He had adventures and changed, grew you could say, but his core being, a Cimmerian barbarian warrior didn't change to the point of being unrecognizable.  A class is supposed to be an archetype, a loose basis to hang a character on, something that helps define but isn't the be all and end all of the character.  Except when how people play D&D, apparently.)  And that's another issue I'm probably going to have with this thread, again, people whining about X won't fit EXACTLY into Y.  This isn't an exact science, people.

Eh, whatever, it's the internet.

I much prefer specialist casters. Makes it feel more "magical" to me.

I like the combo of weak here / strong there in powers. I especially like Clerics whose powers are dictated by their god.

I don't mind the generalist wizard but was always fond of the specialist options for mages in 2e. The priest class options were even better in this regard.

I think both have their place. However, both in D&D and in other systems, I find that magicians tend to have broader abilities than non-magical characters. Not that they can do abolutely everything, but they can often effectively participate in a number of spheres - combat, skulking, traps, social, etc.  Thus, I like specialist casters as a change of pace.

Quote from: Skarg;958766I think either approach can work well.

However I find long spell lists a bit overwhelming as a GM, and even as a player if I have to think about situations where people could have many different spells. As both player and (especially) GM, I like to play not just reactively but in terms of a situation with many players who may be working at odds to each other. The larger and more powerful the range of spells available, the more complex that game can get, to the point where I can't handle it. Also, with varied high-powered magic, or even a few spells with nasty potential like invisibility, control person, long-distance teleportation, divination, there can arise a "magical arms race" to the point where if you have a potential magic-using opponent, you may need to strike first in a terrible nasty way before they strike you first in a terrible nasty way, because you both can. Or if there are enough countermeasures to have there be deterrents, then that can get really complicated for each wizard involved. That can be really fun and interesting, if you're into it (and if you're not a non-magic-using character who's getting massively overshadowed and overpowered by all this), but it can also be quite overwhelming if there are many spells available. It seems more interesting when there are limited spells available to people and so some amount of prediction can reasonably be made about what your opponents' powers are or are not like.

I could mostly handle the number and power types of spells in Advanced Wizard, minus the crystal ball divination (and I could do without a few of the other nasty spells, such as demons and wishes and curse/bless). But GURPS Magic or D&D magic for example have so many spells and they can get pretty powerful and complex to think about and keep track of in the ways I prefer to be able to... unless the number of them available are limited and organized.

Which is why I came to prefer to break up spell knowledge in my campaigns. As I've described on some other threads, I like to design campaign worlds where certain schools / traditions / organizations have a limited list of magical spells that they know and teach, and usually limits on which spells are available to be taught to whom, and in exchange for what (often, trust and service to the organization). Especially for the more powerful spells, which reduces the complexity to something I can manage, and also creates an interesting situation that makes sense in the world (e.g. it gives meaningful answers tied to the rest of the world for who/where/what you'd have to go/do to get access to certain magic).

I don't mind if there are generalist characters or even generalist wizard guilds or whatever, but I want to track at a practical level who in general knows what (especially for the more powerful spells that can mess with and attract the attention/interest of powerful people), and not just have a supposition that they know and make available most everything.

Hm, this all brings up the question of what a spell list is. I can certainly appreciate a discomfort with vast spell lists, but personally I've always seen spell lists -- even including every supplement ever published -- as mere samplings of possible spells. Especially given how quirky many spells are and those named after their specific creators, it seemed an obvious implication. In fact I was surprised when, after finding the online D&D community many years ago, I discovered that many gamers treat spell lists as comprehensive class potentialities. Anyhow, I certainly don't begrudge anyone for wanting a more manageable set of possibilities!

Quote from: saskganesh;958775You know, limited and random spell selection and discovery tends to create ersatz specialists. A good player will run with this and develop favoured tactics and procedures and become his own unique thing. Throw in random magic items found over the course of play and ya, every generalist mage should be able develop his own signature.

The only really generic casters I see in play tend to be NPCs. Which is somewhat OK because most exist only for a single encounter.

I recall the 2e DMG advising me to mix things up with NPC casters, so that players don't get all "Oh look it's a mage, get ready for more fireballs guys!" I didn't actually play much 2e, so I don't know how much of a problem this actually is for 2e groups. I feel like it's become less of an issue with supplemental books and WotC editions, as writers have gotten a bit better at writing appealing battle-spells.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;959213Hm, this all brings up the question of what a spell list is. I can certainly appreciate a discomfort with vast spell lists, but personally I've always seen spell lists -- even including every supplement ever published -- as mere samplings of possible spells. Especially given how quirky many spells are and those named after their specific creators, it seemed an obvious implication. In fact I was surprised when, after finding the online D&D community many years ago, I discovered that many gamers treat spell lists as comprehensive class potentialities. Anyhow, I certainly don't begrudge anyone for wanting a more manageable set of possibilities!

I agree on that. The spells in the books: who says they are all available to a given character? Some of them may entail a quest to obtain a scroll, an adventure in itself. Others may not exist or merely be rumors or forgotten knowledge. And I really like letting a wizard research and create a spell of his own devising. I never liked, for instance, the implication in D&D (as I read it) that everyone has easy access to the same list of commonly known spells worldwide. I always found it made magic seem mundane.

Quote from: Spinachcat;958813I much prefer specialist casters. Makes it feel more "magical" to me.

I like the combo of weak here / strong there in powers. I especially like Clerics whose powers are dictated by their god.

Quote from: Voros;958815I don't mind the generalist wizard but was always fond of the specialist options for mages in 2e. The priest class options were even better in this regard.

I agree, specialization is particularly appropriate to a character who pays particular homage to one of many possible gods. I remember 2e having those guidelines for spell spheres and specialist priests, and that the druid is supposed to be an example of a nature-god priest, but did it ever get beyond the druid and those guidelines?

3e's cleric domains are a step in the right direction, but being so tied to the quirky Christian-crusader-Van-Hellsing chassie, they ultimately lack full follow-thru IMO. For all the complaints of samey-ness, 4e makes it much easier to have priests who reflect their gods -- sneaky and agile priests of a trickster god, true warrior-priests of non-LG gods, studious and melee-averse priests of scholarly gods, and so on. Don't know how well 5e clerics can specialize, but as it is "The edition you played in your mother's basement!!!" I'm assuming not very well.

Quote from: Dumarest;959218I agree on that. The spells in the books: who says they are all available to a given character? Some of them may entail a quest to obtain a scroll, an adventure in itself. Others may not exist or merely be rumors or forgotten knowledge. And I really like letting a wizard research and create a spell of his own devising. I never liked, for instance, the implication in D&D (as I read it) that everyone has easy access to the same list of commonly known spells worldwide. I always found it made magic seem mundane.

I like the idea of certain overly-broad spells being rumors or mage-myths, so to speak. "If genies can grant wishes, it must be possible to research a wish spell! Bamboozle the Master of Elements wrote such a spell, we all know the legends say he did...if only he had recorded it in a second spell book before making that last poorly-worded wish! All I need are the right ingredients, the right books, the right secrets..."

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;959479I like the idea of certain overly-broad spells being rumors or mage-myths, so to speak. "If genies can grant wishes, it must be possible to research a wish spell! Bamboozle the Master of Elements wrote such a spell, we all know the legends say he did...if only he had recorded it in a second spell book before making that last poorly-worded wish! All I need are the right ingredients, the right books, the right secrets..."

That could be an exciting adventure. Now, if your wizard PC ever did learn or invent a Wish spell, where you go from there is another thing.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;959412remember 2e having those guidelines for spell spheres and specialist priests, and that the druid is supposed to be an example of a nature-god priest, but did it ever get beyond the druid and those guidelines?

From what I recall The Complete Priest had a whole range of different weapons, armor, spheres, skills and flavour similar to what you mention for 4e.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;959412Don't know how well 5e clerics can specialize, but as it is "The edition you played in your mother's basement!!!" I'm assuming not very well.

Assume again? The 5e cleric domain changes what spells are automatically prepared, what the starting proficiencies are, what the incremental special powers are, and gives alternate uses of Turn Undead.

The (default) life cleric at first level always has bless and cure wounds available in addition to whatever they choose to prepare, and their healing spells are extra-potent (particularly useful since this reduces the gulf in efficiency between touch and ranged healing spells); the tempest cleric at first level has a couple of thematic spells available (fog cloud and thunderwave), and has a retributive thunder/lightning strike against melee attackers; the nature cleric at first level has animal friendship and speak with animals, an extra cantrip from the druid list, and an extra skill (animal handling, nature, survival). All three of these domains get heavy armor proficiency, while most clerics can only wear medium armor.

With their (limited-per-day) divine channeling capacity, instead of turning undead, life clerics can heal, tempest clerics can maximize damage with thunder/lightning attacks, or nature clerics can charm plants & animals.

The class has half a dozen domains laid out in the Player's Handbook, an evil domain in the DMG, and there's no reason one couldn't add more or specialize them to particular gods or groups of gods in a campaign.

Plus they released 4-5 other domains via Unearthed Arcana.

Quote from: Voros;959548Plus they released 4-5 other domains via Unearthed Arcana.

Is that like the stuff we used to do on our own via house rules to make the game work for our campaigns? (I haven't read or played any D&Ds beyond very early days of 2nd edition.)

Basically, I believe the Complete Priest actually gives a framework to create different kinds of clerics based on their God. The kits are presented as examples. It is one of the best of the Complete series, written by Aaron Allston who also edited the Rules Cyclopedia and Creature Catalog for BECMI.

I remember those "Complete This" and "Complete That" books coming out as the point where I stopped bothering with Dungeons and Dragons (not that it was ever my favorite). It seemed like they were publishing tons of books for things we could do at home for free and to better effect.

Eh, some liked it some didn't. They definitely went overboard but several of the books were quite good, some were spammy, just like everything ever published. People (not referring to you) often like to shittalk the Completes (and 2e) but they usually never actually read them. The best of them are certainly a lot better than the incoherent mess that is UA in my opinion.

The best of them were tools to homebrew with, no one was forced to buy them.

I will say - from a mechanical perspective specialists would be much easier to balance.  One of the main reasons that casters are (past the first few levels) more potent than martials in every version of D&D & most other fantasy games to some degree is how broad their powers are.

In real history, magicians were almost never 'specialists'.  From a real-world occultism perspective it doesn't even make any sense to do so; with the possible exception of 'diviners' or 'exorcists/healers' but even those tend to be pretty much shittier if they are only focused on that one area.

Quote from: RPGPundit;960294In real history, magicians were almost never 'specialists'.  From a real-world occultism perspective it doesn't even make any sense to do so; with the possible exception of 'diviners' or 'exorcists/healers' but even those tend to be pretty much shittier if they are only focused on that one area.

Are you for real or pulling our legs?

Edit: never mind, I saw your blog and clearly you believe magic is real.

Another edit: interesting blog, by the way, but I like it more when you stir the pot with proclamations about rules and mechanics than when you recount your campaigns, mainly because you squeeze so much content into your synopses that it feels like your games go by at a breakneck pace and there is just too much detail and jumping around for me to keep up with you!

Well, for the most part my campaign summaries are for the benefit of my players, I never assumed the general audience would care too much for them. In spite of that, my DCC summaries have gained quite a huge following.