# New Design: Wizards...



## breschau

Here.



			
				Article said:
			
		

> Magic saturates the world and all the extraordinary realms beyond the world. Magic is an intrinsic force present in literally all things. Magic transforms and alters the natural world, sometimes actively and suddenly, other times subtly and over long centuries.
> 
> This arcane energy source is difficult to understand and even tougher to master. Those who do so through years of study, practice, and apprenticeship to accomplished masters are called wizards.
> 
> Wizards wield arcane magic. Wizards recognize reality for what it is: a thin veneer of structure supported and energized by a force that is ultimately changeable, to those who know its secrets. Thus wizards research esoteric rituals that allow them to alter time and space, hurl balls of fire that incinerate massed foes, and wield spells like warriors brandish swords. They call upon arcane strikes, power words, and spells to unleash raging torrents of cold, fire, or lighting, confuse and enthrall the weak-minded, or even turn invisible or walk through walls.
> 
> What sets wizards apart from others who attempt to wield arcane magic are wizards’ unique implements.
> 
> Most people recognize the four classic tools associated with wizardcraft: The Orb, Staff, Tome, or Wand.
> 
> Each implement focuses magic of a particular class slightly better than the wizard would be able to accomplish bare-handed. Thus wizards are rarely without wand and staff, orb and tome, or some other combination thereof.
> 
> A wizard’s orb grants better access to powers of terrain control and manipulation (such as clouds and walls), as well as retributive effects, detection and perception effects, and invisibility.
> 
> The staff is best suited to powers that forcefully project powers from the wizard, such as lines of lightning and cones of fire; however, a staff also has resonances with effects related to flight and telekinesis (pushing, pulling, or sliding creatures or objects).
> 
> A tome is tied to powers that reduce or neutralize an enemy’s capability in combat in some fashion, whether by slowing the foe, dazing, or through some other fashion. Tomes are also often important for spells of teleportation, summoning, shapechanging, and a few physical enhancement effects.
> 
> The wand is a perennial favorite, as it is an ideal conduit for powers that create effects well away from the wizard’s physical position, effects which include explosions of fire, bursts of cold, and other long-range effects that can affect several enemies at once. In addition, personal protections and countermagic effects may lie in wands.
> 
> Thus a wizard without an implement is like a slightly near-sighted man with glasses; the man can still see, but without his glasses, he can’t read the road sign across the way. In like wise, while wizard powers are associated with a particular implement, a wizard need not possess or hold a given implement to use its associated power. For instance, a wizard can cast the wand spell cinder storm even if he doesn’t own, has lost, or is not holding a magic wand. However, holding the associated implement grants a benefit to the wizard’s attack that is just like the benefit the warrior gains when attacking an enemy with a magic sword.


----------



## Branduil

Wow, that's quite a big change. We kind of knew about it already, but it looks pretty comprehensive.


----------



## Baron Opal

A change from 8 schools of magic to 4? And each with a particular focus to improve the class?

Hmm... Every magician a generalist and specialist at the same time. You can utilize any spell, but perhaps only one focus can be special?


----------



## breschau

I'm kind of torn about the splitting of magic into implements. I can see the source material (LotR for the Staves being telekinetic, LotR for the Orbs being scrying and detection, Harry Potter for the Wands). And appreciate it, if they're using them as the material components. That might be cool.

It depends on how they pull it off in the real game.


----------



## breschau

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> A change from 8 schools of magic to 4? And each with a particular focus to improve the class?
> 
> Hmm... Every magician a generalist and specialist at the same time. You can utilize any spell, but perhaps only one focus can be special?




That might be what was meant in a WotC post about silos being similar to majors and minors in school.

Total conjecture below: maybe those are the silos. You gain a # of spells per implement per level per/encounter. You can select (via talents or feats) which is your major (one implement) while the others are your minors (the other three). Again, this bits a guess.


----------



## The Human Target

Hmmm, this is the only 4E announcement so far I actually dislike.


----------



## Rechan

Where does he get all those marvelous toys...


> The staff is best suited to powers that forcefully project powers from the wizard, such as lines of lightning and cones of fire; however, a staff also has resonances with effects related to flight and telekinesis (pushing, pulling, or sliding creatures or objects).



Someone's been reading The Dresden Files.


> A tome is tied to powers that reduce or neutralize an enemy’s capability in combat in some fashion, whether by slowing the foe, dazing, or through some other fashion. Tomes are also often important for spells of teleportation, summoning, shapechanging, and a few physical enhancement effects.



I can't help but read this and imagine a wizard holding up an Algebra textbook at an Ogre. "Do your homework!" "Nooooo!" and the creature is thusly dazed. Or he reads a word problem and the ogre is slowed as he becomes confused.

Personally I think this is just a little gimmicky.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

This puts the idea of a +3 wand in better perspective, I think.


----------



## Fobok

I think I'll need time to process this. I knew wizards were getting some major changes, but I didn't realize *that* major.


----------



## Beckett

Huh.  Neat. Helps make a little more sense out of "+6 wands."

What it really makes me think of is the Dresden Files (books at least- never saw the show). For much of the series, Harry uses his staff as a focus for wind and force, and a blasting rod for more destructive spells (along with the Word and the Will).


----------



## Amy Kou'ai

I suspect that metamagic will move from the characters into the items.  Think a "+1 lesser empowering orb" or something similar.


----------



## Driddle

It runs parallel to a warrior needing special implements -- armor and weapons -- to accomplish his own job. So I'm OK with it that way.

But.

Just seems sorta ... Something. I haven't figured it out yet.


----------



## Lackhand

I don't think that this rules out the eight schools of magic -- there's a lot invested in the specific number eight -- so much as it lowers their importance. There are a lot of spells for which tying them to specific schools is either difficult or irrelevant, where a case can be made for being of any of a variety of schools.

In the push for making things be at-will/per-encounter/per-day, it's probably quite hard to make _Charm Person_ (1/day? 1/encounter?) the same "kind" of ability as _Flaming Hands_ (at least eventually, I'd see no harm with that being "at will"). They're just not conversant with each other in terms of what they do, and leaving things asymmetric like that really, really hoses the Enchanter.

So some reshuffling seems necessary.

I think that the way I'd implement this is to have spells have a variety of descriptors, and to apply those descriptors exactly as appropriate, screw traditional schools: I can remember which school _Bull's Strength_ is in, but I'm not sure it makes sense; _Flaming Sphere_ was transmutation at one point, wasn't it?

I guess my point is that this is a really exciting change, but we don't know how it's implemented; my guess would be that it puts the [Enchantment] descriptor at the same level of importance as the [Fire] descriptor. For many spells, which school it's in doesn't really matter: a lot of things are Conjuration or Transmutation these days, just so they have somewhere to fit.

And that's only a guess   . 

It's still completely possible that the eight schools are sticking around, but that the 4 implements operate at a different level, where each spell has a school (for feats to use) and a implement (for magic items) and a list of descriptors.

Anticipating Goodness.

_ninja edit: I also like the fact that human wizards have to specialize somewhat, while Mariliths can get away with absolute moidah. Plus we can sort of play with Tarot-suit affinities now. Bonus points!_


----------



## Pygon

I hope I don't start thinking too heavily about getting a +2 tome, +3 wand, +1 staff and +4 orb.  Less reliance on magic items!!!

The linky no worky, by the way.  EDIT: Hmm, Wizards' site is down, that's why.

Well, if this is how it will work, I'll be targeting some items on enemy casters (assuming they aren't magical, of course).

As I think about it, I suppose it's not much different than a fighter wanting a magical blade, assuming that a wizard only specializes with one implement.


----------



## Imp

I don't usually care much about exactly how a game outlines the use of magic, because I view it as a starting point for whatever I can dream up.  So what matters to me is, what can I do with the story that's been given to me?

This looks hard to adapt to other concepts or campaign worlds.  I don't think I'm happy about it.


----------



## Rechan

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> A change from 8 schools of magic to 4? And each with a particular focus to improve the class?
> 
> Hmm... Every magician a generalist and specialist at the same time. You can utilize any spell, but perhaps only one focus can be special?



I don't think it's a change of "schools" so much as it is "You use this tool to do this kind of job". For instance, Evocation looks like it's handled both with a staff and a wand (Lightning bolt: staff, fireball: wand), "Protection and Countermagic" is also handled by wands, so minor adjuration. Adjuration, transmutation and likely Necromancy will get handled with Tomes. It sounds like Conjuration, Divination and Illusion are going to get handled by the Orbs (with things like Wall Evocation abilities folded in). 

So I suspect that a specialized wizard would take a Talent Tree: Orbs and be good at Conjuration/Illusion/Divination. So his Orbs are real good. 

My guess? A generalist wizard doesn't need to specialize in any of these, _but_ he'll have to have one of his foci tools out to use them. I highly doubt he's going to be able to cast from his Orb on round One, his Staff from Round Two, and his Tomb on Round Three, because he can't juggle them all in his hands; I bet he'll need both hands to use one implement.


----------



## breschau

Pygon said:
			
		

> I hope I don't start thinking too heavily about getting a +2 tome, +3 wand, +1 staff and +4 orb.  Less reliance on magic items!!!
> 
> The linky no worky, by the way.




I just tried it again and it works. Don't know what to say. Check the D&D main page. It's front and center.


----------



## bording

Arcane strikes, power words, and spells.

Anyone think those are the names for the at will/per encounter/per day abilities?


----------



## Gloombunny

Interesting...

I'm very disappointed that they didn't go with some sort of knife or sword as one of the tools, though.


----------



## Mouseferatu

I think this is, essentially, a complete replacement/reimagining of the "spell components" concept. And it doesn't bother me any more than spell components did. In fact, I think I prefer it; I love the notion of these sorts of things having an impact on spellcasting. Feels much more like magic's usually portrayed in fantasy and myth.


----------



## Lackhand

(@NatalieD): Me, too. Cups and pentacles also missing -- would an "amulet" kill them? And Rings.

I suggest making a surprising number of "wands" shaped like daggers. I know I will, anyway 

Still, their breakdown isn't a bad one, at all.


----------



## breschau

bording said:
			
		

> Arcane strikes, power words, and spells.
> 
> Anyone think those are the names for the at will/per encounter/per day abilities?




I'd just hope that the at/will abilities would be more than just strikes though. But that's a good guess. Come to think of it, I really would like some fluff terminology to distinguish the three game mechanics rather than at/will spells, per/encounter spells, and per/day spells.

Cool. Nice guessing.

^-^


----------



## Mouseferatu

Hmm...

You know, if "tome" is one of the four tools of magic, that suggests very strongly that the wizard's spellbook--as it was known in 3E and prior editions--is gone.

Which makes sense, given what we know of the new magic system, but is still something that hasn't been confirmed.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Imp said:
			
		

> This looks hard to adapt to other concepts or campaign worlds.  I don't think I'm happy about it.




Why? Just off the top of my head, I can see two _very_ easy ways, and one more complicated way, to do it.

1) Change the forms. Instead of wants, use daggers. Instead of orbs, use amulets. Instead of staves, use the wizard's familiar.

2) Eliminate them. Wizards suffer no penalties for not using the items, and gain no benefits for using the items. Done.

3) Change the forms, as with #1, but also change the sorts of spells to which they apply. This one requires more work, but it's still certainly possible.

Even if #3 is too much work, the first two are easily applied to almost any setting with about 30 seconds' work.


----------



## Lackhand

I'm hoping for something even cooler: all at will abilities and per-encounter abilities driven by some sort of talent-selection-like process (like picking domains!) -- with the per-day abilities stored in a spell book, and more potent.

But maybe not?


----------



## Greg K

Rechan said:
			
		

> Personally I think this is just a little gimmicky.




same here 
edit:  I am referring primarily to tomes for protection.  Amulets or other jewerlry ( even tatoos) would make more sense to me.  However, the wand/staff division does seem awkward to me as well


----------



## I'm A Banana

Gives you room to expand the system and can make some very strong flavor choices.

"Ah, the Wizards of Lorland use the skulls of their enemies as we use our Orbs, and the Wizards of the Song College can use flutes and lutes as wands and staves!"

I still wonder what the familiar will be doing in this system...

And this raises questions about the sorcerer, as well. Wizards need these tools -- can sorcerers do magic without these tools? If so, that's a strong flavor division I kind of like...


----------



## Imp

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Why? Just off the top of my head, I can see two _very_ easy ways, and one more complicated way, to do it.
> 
> 1) Change the forms. Instead of wants, use daggers. Instead of orbs, use amulets. Instead of staves, use the wizard's familiar.



Yeah this seems the most obvious route.  I guess I was thrown by the feel of it, but this could be tied to tablets with different runes and sigils, for example; relics, even environments.  It might be cool if one type of magic was stronger at night, and another stronger in day, etc.  Hmm.

Dunno about familiars.  I would have to get used to saying things like, congratulations Gryphondor, you have found a +3 toad!


----------



## breschau

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Gives you room to expand the system and can make some very strong flavor choices.
> 
> "Ah, the Wizards of Lorland use the skulls of their enemies as we use our Orbs, and the Wizards of the Song College can use flutes and lutes as wands and staves!"
> 
> I still wonder what the familiar will be doing in this system...
> 
> And this raises questions about the sorcerer, as well. Wizards need these tools -- can sorcerers do magic without these tools? If so, that's a strong flavor division I kind of like...




Or that they can't use them. Preventing the bonuses from using implements. There's also the ever popular disarm attack and of course Gandalf's favorite of breaking the staff.

From a flavor stand-point this sounds cool. Have to reserve rules judgment until I can read the book.


----------



## Jack99

I really like this change. Gives a lot more flavor imo.


----------



## Reaper Steve

I like it!
Finally, a reason for wizards to have staves, besides just being posers, practicing their grip in hopes of scoring a Staff of the Archmagi. Really, the rules should support the archetype...and it looks like this will be the case.

For some reason, I don't like how the wand makes me thing of Harry Potter, even though it's no more cliche than the staff or the orb. Like the staff, orb, and tome, wands have been a part of wizard lore for as long as there has been wizard lore, so it must just be the 'recent-ness' of Harry Potter that forces the analogy.

But they left out the 5th trapping...funny pointed hat. Ah well, no loss.


----------



## Glyfair

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> This puts the idea of a +3 wand in better perspective, I think.




+6 wand, actually (not that there might not be +3 wands).

Interesting.  I like the concept, but will reserve judgment until I see it in action.


----------



## Lancelot

Flavor? Neutral, verging on slightly positive. Those are some pretty iconic implements we're talking about. Having a spellbook (tome) that's a highly valued tool is a pleasant change from it being that annoying thing that you have to lug around... heavy, highly vulnerable, and oh-so-costly to transcribe into.

Rules implementation? Unknown, and this is what will make it or break it for me. I wait with growing anticipation for the first releases...


----------



## MerricB

This is the first change that has really, really blindsided me. I didn't realise it was coming, even from reading the playtest reports (which look obvious in retrospect).

And... wow! I love this change.

Cheers!


----------



## Sadrik

This is very cool. I like the flavor of the items. I don't know what I am going to do with my iconic sword wielding wizard character...

The wizards 4 "tools"- Orb, Staff, Tome, or Wand are probably their 4 schools with the other ones peeling off to form their own class(es). Really this makes a lot of sense, from a design standpoint the best way to have a specialized wizard is to actually have multiple classes stand in for the different specialties.

I think the psion is going to kill the enchanter and take his stuff. If he doesn't, he should have.

I think the warlock is going to kill the necromancer and take his stuff. If the warlock opens up a bit to allow a non-infernal background but more, "He taps into dark magic- whatever the source." Then the warlock could be pretty cool picking up all of the necromancer undead touch attacks and other cool undead stuff.



> A wizard’s orb grants better access to powers of terrain control and manipulation (such as clouds and walls), as well as retributive effects, detection and perception effects, and invisibility.



Illusion, divination, battle field manipulation, and retribution??? (you hit me I hit you back? staff of the magi?) 



> The staff is best suited to powers that forcefully project powers from the wizard, such as lines of lightning and cones of fire; however, a staff also has resonances with effects related to flight and telekinesis (pushing, pulling, or sliding creatures or objects).



Evocation and force like effects (mm, bigby's hands etc)



> A tome is tied to powers that reduce or neutralize an enemy’s capability in combat in some fashion, whether by slowing the foe, dazing, or through some other fashion. Tomes are also often important for spells of teleportation, summoning, shapechanging, and a few physical enhancement effects.



Conjuration, some targeted enchantment effects along with alter self polymorph shapechange.



> The wand is a perennial favorite, as it is an ideal conduit for powers that create effects well away from the wizard’s physical position, effects which include explosions of fire, bursts of cold, and other long-range effects that can affect several enemies at once. In addition, personal protections and countermagic effects may lie in wands.



Evocation but stuff not projected from the wizard???, abjuration, personal protections, sounds interesting


----------



## Exen Trik

Me likes. Seems a lot more flavorful, but (potentially) malleable to whatever kind of magic styling you like. You don't need items to make the magic work, even less so do you need items in the exact form presented here. You could replace orbs with charms and tomes with songs, or convert everything to an inherent ability system of some kind.


Some fun ideas:

Cards: Have a set of one time use cards that empower your spells in various ways. They are one time use only, but they can be bought, found, or fashioned from the energies of defeated foes.

Spirits: Over time you can ally yourself with various spiritual forces of great power. The each grant you various powers when invoked, but only one can be called upon in a period of time (per encounter). The amount and power of spirits you can posses is determined by your magical potential.

Weapons: Magic swords and the like are not only for striking ones opponents with, they can also be used as conduits to enhance magical spells. The greater its power the greater the benefit, and a weapon with a special aspect translates to a similar magical benefit. 

Alchemy: Taking the notion of spell components to a new extreme, alchemy allows for aspects of all things, whether they be animal, vegetable or mineral, to be processed into magical might. From collecting common items found along the road, to the preserved heart of a great wyrm, all things are the alchemists tools. Their greatest limit is not their potential uses, but choosing just what to create and have at the ready to use.


----------



## Atlatl Jones

I wasn't expecting anything like this either, but the flavor is nice.  I'm really curious how it'll affect game mechanics.

I'm curious what sort of tools are used for mind control and charm spells.  Illusions probably are Orb effects, because of the "perception effects", but there's no mention of mind control.


----------



## AllisterH

Interesting. 

Only thing I take issue with is the division between Staff and Wand.

Really, can't those be folded into one?


----------



## Gloombunny

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Interesting.
> 
> Only thing I take issue with is the division between Staff and Wand.
> 
> Really, can't those be folded into one?



I don't mind that so much, 'cuz it makes wands ripe for conversion into daggers. ^_^


----------



## FireLance

On first reading, I found it slightly difficult to wrap my mind around the idea of a wizard lugging a great big book or a palantir-sized crystal ball around a dungeon, but after a little thought, I figured an adventuring wizard could make his "orb" into an amulet (as Mouseferatu suggested), and his "tome" into scrolls (or maybe cards, to modify Exen Trik's idea a little).


----------



## TheArcane

Meh. When I read the first line about the implements I was pretty excited, it sounded new and interesting. By the time I finished reading I was a lot less.

First of all, it sounds like it means the death of the spellbook, which I think at the very least fits beautifully with the wizard flavor of rigorous studying, which seems to still be intact.
Then again, maybe the Tome is the new spellbook, but it isn't likely since it seems tied also to combat enchantment spells, at least some of which must be per encounter/at will.

Second, it sounds rather complex in contrast to WOTC intent to cut down on magic items. A simple staff as a focus would do just fine, it's mechanically simpler and iconic enough. Not in our game! Every self respecting wizard simply must have a staff, a wand, an orb and a tome!

Third, I'll be very disappointed if indeed this, IMHO, minor detail is what sets wizards apart from other arcane casters, that out of all the wizard flavor what makes them unique is that they can get a +2 DC or something from a piece of wood and others can't.


----------



## hong

> Magic saturates the world and all the extraordinary realms beyond the world. Magic is an intrinsic force present in literally all things. Magic transforms and alters the natural world, sometimes actively and suddenly, other times subtly and over long centuries.




"It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together."



> This arcane energy source is difficult to understand and even tougher to master. Those who do so through years of study, practice, and apprenticeship to accomplished masters are called wizards duct tape Jedi.




Hmmm.


----------



## Atlatl Jones

> However, holding the associated implement grants a benefit to the wizard’s attack that is just like the benefit the warrior gains when attacking an enemy with a magic sword.



This bit makes "+6 wands" make sense, and also jives with the flipping of saving throws over to static defenses: When casting a fireball, the wizard makes a caster check and compares it to his targets' reflex defenses.  When casting dominate person, he makes a caster check against his target's will defense.



			
				Sadrik said:
			
		

> I think the psion is going to kill the enchanter and take his stuff. If he doesn't, he should have.[/quote
> I seriouly hope not.  Enchantments and "bewitching" are a classic magical effect, probably the single most common form of magic in folktales, aside from summoning and possibly shapeshifting.
> 
> I hope that psions are differentiated not by what they can do, but by how they do it.  Having both enchanters and telepaths works well in 3e.


----------



## Sir Brennen

TheArcane said:
			
		

> Second, it sounds rather complex in contrast to WOTC intent to cut down on magic items. A simple staff as a focus would do just fine, it's mechanically simpler and iconic enough. Not in our game! Every self respecting wizard simply must have a staff, a wand, an orb and a tome!



It sounds like items are intended to be used in pairs, just like a fighter's sword and shield. It doesn't sound like a sane wizard will try to juggle all four.


----------



## FireLance

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> It sounds like items are intended to be used in pairs, just like a fighter's sword and shield. It doesn't sound like a sane wizard will try to juggle all four.



Unless she's a marilith.


----------



## hong

"There was something formless and perfect
before the universe was born.
It is serene. Empty.
Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe.
For lack of a better name,
I call it the Tao.

It flows through all things,
inside and outside, and returns
to the origin of all things."


----------



## breschau

Anybody else's ears perk up at the interesting phrasing used:



			
				Wizards Article said:
			
		

> Thus wizards are rarely without wand and staff, orb and tome, or some other combination thereof.




"Or combination thereof. Wand and staff, as a pair. Orb and tome, as a pair... or some _other_ combination thereof.

That sounds like you might only get to pick two of the four. That would go a long way towards the major minor schools bit in the silos blog.

You have one implement for your major, and another implement for your minor. You have a combination of the four implements.

"Or some other combination thereof..."


----------



## Stalker0

The only one I don't like is the tome. It seems weird to me to have a wizard hold a book out and get power out of it, or read it in combat.

I would have preferred an athame or something of that nature.

But other than that, its definately a neat idea, and certainly a big change from what we have now.


----------



## Glyfair

breschau said:
			
		

> That sounds like you might only get to pick two of the four. That would go a long way towards the major minor schools bit in the silos blog.




Or each one is a class ability, talent, feat, etc.  You start with two and perhaps can gain the others later.


----------



## helium3

This could just be the way they're adding in new magical items, not a description of how the wizard class has changed.


----------



## Frostmarrow

I love it! They are using Gleemax to pick my brain. I like how they imply the setting first and make rules on top of it.



			
				Stalker0 said:
			
		

> It seems weird to me to have a wizard hold a book out and get power out of it, or read it in combat.




I think it makes perfect sense. Even today people use books in the face of the enemy. -At least in picket lines and riots.


----------



## FireLance

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> The only one I don't like is the tome. It seems weird to me to have a wizard hold a book out and get power out of it, or read it in combat.



What do you think of the idea of scrolls or cards as alternate manifestations of the "tome" implement, then?


----------



## breschau

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Or each one is a class ability, talent, feat, etc.  You start with two and perhaps can gain the others later.




I'm thinking something like parts of a talent tree for either schools or possibly implements. Something like specializing in staves, but only being focused in orbs. The other schools/implements you can use normally, you just get a bonus from the talent/feat you spend specializing.


----------



## Beckett

Now that I've had a little time to think about it, I could see this working to lessen magic items, even if a wizard wants a +X staff, tome, orb, and wand. Right now, wands, scrolls, and for higher level characters, staves, give a wizard access to more spells so he isn't limited to just his memorized spells. I know when I play a wizard, I tend to load up on scrolls when I can, grab any wands I can find, and I'm in heaven if I can grab a staff so that my abilities are used. After a while, they start to add up and take up a lot of paperwork as I keep track of charges and spells cast.

So with 4E, I'd go from all these magical widgets for casting additional spells to just four foci. And I'll still have access to at least as many spells, thanks to per/encounter and at/will abilities.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

stalker0 said:
			
		

> The only one I don't like is the tome. It seems weird to me to have a wizard hold a book out and get power out of it, or read it in combat.



It's rather iconic actually.  Tomes of magic tended to be more than what was written in them.  The books themselves were often a focus for the magic.


----------



## Celebrim

Beckett said:
			
		

> Now that I've had a little time to think about it, I could see this working to lessen magic items, even if a wizard wants a +X staff, tome, orb, and wand. Right now, wands, scrolls, and for higher level characters, staves, give a wizard access to more spells so he isn't limited to just his memorized spells. I know when I play a wizard, I tend to load up on scrolls when I can, grab any wands I can find, and I'm in heaven if I can grab a staff so that my abilities are used. After a while, they start to add up and take up a lot of paperwork as I keep track of charges and spells cast.
> 
> So with 4E, I'd go from all these magical widgets for casting additional spells to just four foci. And I'll still have access to at least as many spells, thanks to per/encounter and at/will abilities.




So, are you suggesting that you think scrolls will go away completely?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Beckett said:
			
		

> Now that I've had a little time to think about it, I could see this working to lessen magic items



*off topic*
I think people are misinterpreting the comment on "less magic items".  At least one designer has said that the magic level is going UP across all classes.

They've just said that you don't NEED magic items to do well.  It means that, if you are level 20 and attack an enemy with a non magic sword, the enemy's AC is low it enough to still hit it, and you can do enough damage with just your class abilities to be useful.  However, I'm fairly certain you'll still see a lot of magic items all over the place.  It'll just be that you had a 50 percent chance of hitting the enemy without your +5 sword and a 75% with it.  It's useful, but not required.


----------



## Flobby

I think its great. Before the wizard was basically a "tome" wizard right? They needed their spell book to do anything. Now the wizard is much more variable-- allowing for the creation of characters from novels and movies. Just think about some iconic characters; some famous "wizards" needed a staff (Lord of the Rings), others an orb (can't think of anything...), and others a wand (Harry Poter...okay bad example but I'm sure there are others.)


----------



## Droogie

I suspect that clerics will get a similar rules treatment with their holy symbols? Hmmm. Pretty neat.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman

Droogie said:
			
		

> I suspect that clerics will get a similar rules treatment with their holy symbols? Hmmm. Pretty neat.




From the earlier Design and Devlopment article about PC Roles:



> ...a cleric who wants to mix it up in melee or fight from the back rank with *holy words and holy symbol attacks* won’t constantly be forced to put aside their damage-dealing intentions.




So it looks like you might be right.


----------



## Soel

Exen Trik said:
			
		

> Some fun ideas:
> Spirits: Over time you can ally yourself with various spiritual forces of great power. The each grant you various powers when invoked, but only one can be called upon in a period of time (per encounter). The amount and power of spirits you can posses is determined by your magical potential.




A great way to bring the Binder into 4e! I also like your Alchemy idea!


----------



## The Grackle

I wonder what this means for somatic components?  Will you still need a free hand?  Do components still exist?


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Flobby said:
			
		

> I think its great. Before the wizard was basically a "tome" wizard right? They needed their spell book to do anything. Now the wizard is much more variable-- allowing for the creation of characters from novels and movies. Just think about some iconic characters; some famous "wizards" needed a staff (Lord of the Rings), others an orb (can't think of anything...), and others a wand (Harry Poter...okay bad example but I'm sure there are others.)




David Bowie in _Labyrinth_ was all about that orb..

(That's all I got)


----------



## FireLance

The Grackle said:
			
		

> I wonder what this means for somatic components?  Will you still need a free hand?  Do components still exist?



I'm guessing that if somatic components still exist, holding an implement will not interfere with your ability to perform them.


----------



## Beckett

Celebrim said:
			
		

> So, are you suggesting that you think scrolls will go away completely?




Yeah, I guess I am. I don't think they will be as necessary as they are in 3E. And what would they be used for? Per/day powers, and possibly per/encounter. Being able to have scribe a scroll with a per/day encounter seems unbalancing, unless everyone else is able to do something to gain additional uses.  Per/encounter powers, maybe, as these are supposed to be less powerful than per/day abilities, but again, if the other classes can't gain additional uses of their per/encounter abilities through magic items, why should the wizard?

Hrm.  I think I'm starting to like the taste of sacred cow burger.


----------



## FireLance

This bit seems to have been glossed over:



> Thus a wizard without an implement is like a slightly near-sighted man with glasses; the man can still see, but without his glasses, he can’t read the road sign across the way. In like wise, while wizard powers are associated with a particular implement, a wizard need not possess or hold a given implement to use its associated power. For instance, a wizard can cast the wand spell cinder storm even if he doesn’t own, has lost, or is not holding a magic wand. However, holding the associated implement grants a benefit to the wizard’s attack that is just like the benefit the warrior gains when attacking an enemy with a magic sword.



I wonder if this means that 4e will do away with the wizard's reliance on his spell book, and possibly material components/foci as well. If so, a couple more historical methods of crippling the wizard will be removed.


----------



## Khaalis

Where is my aluminum foil hat?!?!

We have been using a very similar mechanic in one of our homebrew worlds for a while now. I love this change. It adds a much more concise flavor to the wizard and makes them match more closely to the common archetypes for wizards in from non-D&D fiction. I truly hope this is _replacing_ the old material components system completely.  I also like that fact that the concept is so easily mutable as Mouseferatu noted, making it very simple to alter the flavor of the wizard simply by changing their focus items. I will be interested to see how this plays out with the rest of the wizard's abilities.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler

This sounds pretty cool to me. 

I like the idea and flavor behind material components (and I hope they remain in some form, as they are a part of Dungeons & Dragons) but I've been in very few games where they were kept track of in any meaningful detail.

By the time a player or DM has learned all the material components by heart, there's always a new edition around the corner anyway.


----------



## Elphilm

Really neat change!

I like it not only because it's flavorful, but also because focus items are so easy to change to suit your own preferences. I already had a strong inclination to start working on magicians based on the Tarot. Hell, the Minor Arcana are already associated with the classical elements as well:

Staves (Fire)
Pentacles (Earth)
Chalices (Water)
Swords (Air)

And there are a million other possibilities as well.


----------



## Lurks-no-More

Here's a change I really didn't expect, but which seems very cool indeed.

Staffs and wands are pretty iconic items linked with magic; having them be the tools you weave magic with sounds very nice. Orbs, likewise; a crystal ball the size of a large egg, perhaps, or a small magical mirror, or something similar.

As for tomes replacing spellbooks... yeah, why not? The spellbook in D&D has always been a bit odd thing; it's not something you cast spells from, but more of a portable magical library. A tome to focus your spells ("I recite the Rhyme of Aubar-Am to confound the ogres!"), separate from the libraries and laboratories you study in, sounds pretty cool, flavor-wise.

...

You know, I was suddenly reminded of Diablo II, where you have staffs and orbs (for Sorceress) and wands (for Necromancer). You don't need them for magic, but they will usually boost your ability to do that. OMG, 4e is going to be a videogame!  And I like it!


----------



## Elphilm

Videogames for the win!


----------



## Elphilm

Oh, and did anyone catch this:



> Tomes are also often important for spells of teleportation, summoning, shapechanging, and a few physical enhancement effects.




The text specifies _physical_ enhancements; does that mean no mental enhancement spells like Fox's Cunning? If so, it kind of reminds me of AD&D where you only had the Strength spell...

Or am I reading too much into it?


----------



## Plane Sailing

First up, I think this is great.

Back in 1e I had a campaign were I'd ditched material components, but all wizards as part of their apprenticeship created a focus - either a staff, a wand, an amulet or a ring - which was virtually indestructible and had to be available to cast any spell with a material component. If it was lost or stolen you could only cast spells without Material components until you found it and retrieved it (you could never create a new one).

No prizes for spotting the inspiration there!

I really like this change, it seems to me that it is removing a pointless vulnerability which wizards have always had (the spellbook - which (a) doesn't fit in with almost all fantasy wizards outside of D&Dland and (b) is such a horrific vulnerability that DMs can't take advantage of it without utterly screwing the wizard over, so it doesn't ever actually get stolen or burnt up.)

The only one that stands out as a little strange to me is the Tome, because I find it more difficult to see that being used in the midst of battle.


----------



## Plane Sailing

One bit of the flavour text that could be problematic is this



> This arcane energy source is difficult to understand and even tougher to master. Those who do so through years of study, practice, and apprenticeship to accomplished masters are called wizards.




So what happens when someone wants to multiclass into a wizard then? Do you throw away the flavour text in those circumstances, or require someone multiclassing into a wizard to go off and spend some time with an accomplished master or what?


----------



## Maggan

Elphilm said:
			
		

> Videogames for the win!




Care to elaborate, cause I'm not seeing the "videogame" in this.

/M


----------



## Simia Saturnalia

bording said:
			
		

> Arcane strikes, power words, and spells.
> 
> Anyone think those are the names for the at will/per encounter/per day abilities?



My theory is that the sentence is specifically constructed that way. "They call upon *arcane strikes*, _power words_, and spells to *unleash raging torrents of cold, fire, or lighting*, _confuse and enthrall the weak-minded_, or even turn invisible or walk through walls."  Arcane strikes for blasting, power words for more specifically 'control' effects, and spells for utility, perhaps?

But I definitely like this. The shape of focus objects is easy to change, or even their effects, as the Mouse suggests, and it's full of flavor.

You're a smart man, Ari.


----------



## Plane Sailing

*Moderator/
Don't let this thread get distracted by 'videogame' discussions, thanks.*


----------



## AllisterH

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> One bit of the flavour text that could be problematic is this
> 
> 
> 
> So what happens when someone wants to multiclass into a wizard then? Do you throw away the flavour text in those circumstances, or require someone multiclassing into a wizard to go off and spend some time with an accomplished master or what?




I would assume the same thing that has been done since 3.x multiclassing and AD&D's dualclassing. Handwave it away or say that "During the non-adventuring time, the fighter Piel has been studying the textbooks/scrolls of his wizard friend Regal" or "During the non-adventuring time, Regal has completed his training that he had started a few years earlier".


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Well it does change the wizard, I always saw the more traditional wizards carrying wands and staffs.  But I already think it's just too narrow to have only those four as implements.  

And I can see that the first thing out of the gate, after PHB1 would be alternate implements for wizards.  Because I'd like the ideas for athames and chalices for wizard implements over some staffs and orbs.  

For other wizards based on non-western cultures, I could see a juju bag or bones being used as implements, though many other things are generally the equivalent of a wand, staff, orb or tome anyways.


----------



## Li Shenron

Weird idea...

I don't dislike it, but I'd prefer much more if these orb-staff-wand-tome wizardry tools were totally optional. And I don't mean optional in the sense "can choose which one to have" but instead "can choose also to have none, and be equally effective".


----------



## Tharen the Damned

Hmm, the dependence of Spellcasters on Implements is not a new idea. The Magister (Wizard equivalent) from Arcana Evolved/unearthed by Monte Cook needs his Staff to cast Spells properly. Otherwise it takes more time and is harder to cast.
I guess WoC took some inspiration from Montes idea.
I gererally like it

BUT

If there are four implements that can give casting bonuses (eg. the wand +6), they might become the new "great 4" for every wizard PC.
Generic magic items you simply have to have. And a Tome +3 or a Staff +1 is generic as can be.
That worries me a little bit.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> *off topic*
> I think people are misinterpreting the comment on "less magic items".  At least one designer has said that the magic level is going UP across all classes.
> 
> They've just said that you don't NEED magic items to do well.  It means that, if you are level 20 and attack an enemy with a non magic sword, the enemy's AC is low it enough to still hit it, and you can do enough damage with just your class abilities to be useful.  However, I'm fairly certain you'll still see a lot of magic items all over the place.  It'll just be that you had a 50 percent chance of hitting the enemy without your +5 sword and a 75% with it.  It's useful, but not required.



My interpretation of less reliance on magic items, is that you don't have to have Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, Headbands of Intellect, Bracers of Armor, Rings of Protection and Cloaks of Resistance to be competitive anymore.  Instead your class/race abilities will provide those bonuses, and those items might be removed from game or made redundant.


----------



## Frostmarrow

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Weird idea...
> 
> I don't dislike it, but I'd prefer much more if these orb-staff-wand-tome wizardry tools were totally optional. And I don't mean optional in the sense "can choose which one to have" but instead "can choose also to have none, and be equally effective".




I guess you could. But you'd have to live with the major/minor division (if there is one). And to bear staffs, orbs, wands, and tomes being abstract ideas rather than physical tools.


----------



## Li Shenron

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> So what happens when someone wants to multiclass into a wizard then? Do you throw away the flavour text in those circumstances, or require someone multiclassing into a wizard to go off and spend some time with an accomplished master or what?




No, it will be the usual, get 1st level in Wizard and optionally make up your own explanation.

Something might be different than before, because they want 1st level characters stronger, but at the same time they probably don't want each 1st level from different classes to give more than any further level (otherwise multiclassing would be better than single-classing). So probably the boost is at 1st _character_ level only (e.g. triple HP). Maybe proficiencies will change as well, so if you become a Fighter later you don't get all of them at once.


----------



## Elphilm

Maggan said:
			
		

> Care to elaborate, cause I'm not seeing the "videogame" in this.




Ha! I was just commenting Lurks-no-More's post. It was definitely not a slight against anything.


----------



## fuindordm

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> If there are four implements that can give casting bonuses (eg. the wand +6), they might become the new "great 4" for every wizard PC.
> Generic magic items you simply have to have. And a Tome +3 or a Staff +1 is generic as can be. That worries me a little bit.




This is the main thing that worries me as well. Down with generic magic items! Let's get rid of the +x weapons and armor too, while we're at it.

Party: "We cast detect magic!"

DM: "You find a sword, a ring, and a book."

Wizard: "Ooh, a spellbook? I open it. What's it about?"

DM: "It's a tome of magic."

Wizard: "Yeah, about what?"

DM: "It's a +3 Tome."

Wizard: "???"

Other than this annoyance, it's a pretty good idea and easy to tweak for campaign flavor.  I would hope at least that any magical implement is associated with specific spells as well as a general school. For example, the tome could be a Book of Names, and focus on summoning spells--perhaps allowing the wizard to summon a specific creature every time--but it would also provide a minor bonus to other spells purely for its symbolic value as a magical implement.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

Elphilm said:
			
		

> Oh, and did anyone catch this:
> 
> 
> 
> The text specifies _physical_ enhancements; does that mean no mental enhancement spells like Fox's Cunning? If so, it kind of reminds me of AD&D where you only had the Strength spell...
> 
> Or am I reading too much into it?




think about it. If you have implements to boost your mental stats think of the attack dc. It would be way to high unless defense in turn was also kindof high. This might also mean their is no mental boosting magic iteams and attack dc must be increased with implements.


----------



## Baby Samurai

I'm loving this new direction for wizards, it is about time they got rid of the Gygaxian magic/spell system, that was basically a cut & paste from previous editions.


----------



## Anthelios

Complete Mage, in the fundamental section of the book, has a section of wizard archetypes. Now, these archetypes actually sync up great to the tools. This is probably part of their inspiration for putting them into the four categories.



> A wizard’s orb grants better access to powers of terrain control and manipulation (such as clouds and walls), as well as retributive effects, detection and perception effects, and invisibility.




Spy and Stategist



> The staff is best suited to powers that forcefully project powers from the wizard, such as lines of lightning and cones of fire; however, a staff also has resonances with effects related to flight and telekinesis (pushing, pulling, or sliding creatures or objects).




Blaster, Generalist



> A tome is tied to powers that reduce or neutralize an enemy’s capability in combat in some fashion, whether by slowing the foe, dazing, or through some other fashion. Tomes are also often important for spells of teleportation, summoning, shapechanging, and a few physical enhancement effects.




Booster, Summoner, Necromaster, Controller



> The wand is a perennial favorite, as it is an ideal conduit for powers that create effects well away from the wizard’s physical position, effects which include explosions of fire, bursts of cold, and other long-range effects that can affect several enemies at once. In addition, personal protections and countermagic effects may lie in wands.




Sniper, Warrior


----------



## AllisterH

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> My interpretation of less reliance on magic items, is that you don't have to have Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, Headbands of Intellect, Bracers of Armor, Rings of Protection and Cloaks of Resistance to be competitive anymore.  Instead your class/race abilities will provide those bonuses, and those items might be removed from game or made redundant.




This is the one feature of 4E I don't understand honestly. How can one make it so that a character is less dependent on magic items and yet at the same time, have it so that actually getting a magic item is an actual REWARD?

Anyone want to help me out here?


----------



## Tharen the Damned

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> think about it. If you have implements to boost your mental stats think of the attack dc. It would be way to high unless defense in turn was also kindof high. This might also mean their is no mental boosting magic iteams and attack dc must be increased with implements.




Yeah, that would be the Cloak of Resistance dependence all over again.


----------



## BlueBlackRed

Wow, I'm thoroughly neutral on this one.

First time it happened for 4E.
I usually either love the idea or loathe it.


----------



## Baby Samurai

AllisterH said:
			
		

> How can one make it so that a character is less dependent on magic items and yet at the same time, have it so that actually getting a magic item is an actual REWARD?




Because there will still be nifty magic items your character might want to get his hands on, as opposed to_ needing_ the boring buff magic items to remain competitive.

I do find it lame that your average 10th + level D&D party all have the same items (ring of deflection, amulet of natural ac, cloak of resistance, stat boosting items etc).


----------



## Moon-Lancer

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> Yeah, that would be the Cloak of Resistance dependence all over again.




I know what you mean. I like the idea that implements will be one of the only ways to boost dc attacks, if thats indeed how it will go.

implements would only increase the dc to one school out of 4, while in 3.5, int boost items boost all the schools at once.

With implements, the wizard is already specialized and balanced so his dc for his chosen or preferred school is high, while his other magics are low. 

I kind of like it that way. I am really curious about druids and other spell casters now. 4e could be very cool indeed.


----------



## Wormwood

It is very encouraging to me that the developers are willing to examine such fundamental and iconic aspects of D&D.

I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but I *love *this change as well.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> My theory is that the sentence is specifically constructed that way. "They call upon *arcane strikes*, _power words_, and spells to *unleash raging torrents of cold, fire, or lighting*, _confuse and enthrall the weak-minded_, or even turn invisible or walk through walls."  Arcane strikes for blasting, power words for more specifically 'control' effects, and spells for utility, perhaps?



I don't think so.
The first part is A, B, AND C; the second part is E, F, OR G.
Notice the difference? It's AND vs. OR. It should have been the same word both times if that was what was intended.
Also, using this as Scholar & Brutalman has said it's probably the following:

At will - Wizard: Arcane Strikes, Cleric: Holy Symbol Attacks
Per Encounter - Wizard: Power Words, Cleric: Holy Words
Per Day - Wizard: Arcane Spells, Cleric: Divine Spells

Notice the similarity: Strikes and Attacks, Words and Words, Spells and Spells.
It all fits nicely together, don't you think so?


----------



## Nikosandros

This looks very interesting. I like the flavor of it.

I wonder how it does tie with the major/minor comment is the "silos" post form David Noonan's blog... does it mean that a wizard is quite good at a category of spells, decent with another one and has very limited capability (ore none at all) with the other two?


----------



## The_Universe

I like it. A lot. Very flavorful, but still classic.


----------



## Thaumaturge

I think I like it, but I'm concerned every round the wizard will want to change implements.  First round: Draw my wand and make something go boom, second round: put my wand away and draw my orb to shake the earth, etc.

Will wizards need quickdraw?

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

AllisterH said:
			
		

> This is the one feature of 4E I don't understand honestly. How can one make it so that a character is less dependent on magic items and yet at the same time, have it so that actually getting a magic item is an actual REWARD?
> 
> Anyone want to help me out here?



If you limit the number of things that can stack together, then make the bonuses small enough that they don't overwhelm your normal powers but big enough to be useful, there is a small window where magic items can fit in.

For instance, if there is no stacking of any bonuses at all in the game, and BABs stay the same, then...say, something that gave you about a fifth of your normal bonus wouldn't be overwhelming.  Thus gives you about 20% increase in your to hit bonus.  If they figured out that the "optimal" for the most fun chance to hit is 60%, then increasing your to hit chance 5-20 percent might not be a "needed" increase.  If you flatten the curve slightly, by making BABs go from...say, 10 to 20 over 20 levels(giving fighter the BAB of a wizard but starting it at 10 instead of 0), then a +1 sword doesn't change your chance to hit too significantly.  It also has the benefit (as the designers have said) of making monsters usable across more levels, since their ACs don't become a guaranteed hit until you gain a lot of levels and their to hit bonus doesn't become obsolete if ACs don't go up that fast.

I'd have to test it to see where the optimal numbers are, but this seems right to me.

Then, if you minimize the number of items that give a pure "bonus" like +1 swords and +1 rings of protection, then you can have MOST of the items not needed.  So, if an item allows you to teleport 10 feet once per encounter, it's not NEEDED for almost anyone, but it's cool to have.  It would be the least "math affecting" to have 100% of the items not give bonuses to numbers.  But I think enough people would complain that they'll just limit the number of them.

I gather this idea is what they'll do.


----------



## Baby Samurai

Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> Will wizards need quickdraw?




The fastest geek in the West?


----------



## Baumi

I think it really fit to the Wizard and generally like the Idea but...

-) ... I hope there will be some alternative for the Multiclass-Characters or Wizards that want to be more subtle (Enchanters, Rogue/Magic-Users,...). But I think there will be a fail-safe for such characters like Feats or another Arcane Class (Sorcerer?).

-) ... I dislike the Idea of +6 Wands. I want magic Items to give me cool Effects not numerical bonuses. Nor that the Item become so important that you have to switch your Wand/Staff/etc. in Combat if you want to cast another "type" of spell.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Baumi said:
			
		

> I think it really fit to the Wizard and generally like the Idea but...
> 
> -) ... I hope there will be some alternative for the Multiclass-Characters or Wizards that want to be more subtle (Enchanters, Rogue/Magic-Users,...). But I think there will be a fail-safe for such characters like Feats or another Arcane Class (Sorcerer?).



Here's a thought..maybe this is part of their multiclass solution.  Since most multiclassed wizards are going to want to use weapons of some sort that aren't staves, then you have to give up some of your casting power to do it, so even if they give you full caster levels for all your classes, then your spells will all be weaker due to not using a focus.


----------



## Li Shenron

AllisterH said:
			
		

> This is the one feature of 4E I don't understand honestly. How can one make it so that a character is less dependent on magic items and yet at the same time, have it so that actually getting a magic item is an actual REWARD?
> 
> Anyone want to help me out here?




The kind of question that designers and scientists cannot answer, but marketing can


----------



## Nightchilde-2

Also, along the lines of "alternate impliments," perhaps the swordmage uses a sword instead of a staff as an impliment....

Man.  I can see all kindsa flavor coming out of this...

"The wizards of the clockwork college all use staves made of purest silver, and can substitute a gear for the orb..."


----------



## Klaus

This is the first 4e change to me that doesn't *feel* like D&D at all. It's like playing some other system's mage in a D&D game.

I need more info.

Oh, and that's what, the 6th dwarf we've seen so far (and the fourth female dwarf)? Two dwarf warriors, a dwarf warlock, a dwarf rogue, a dwarf in the "against the trolls" group and now a dwarf wizard?


----------



## Li Shenron

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> If you limit the number of things that can stack together, then make the bonuses small enough that they don't overwhelm your normal powers but big enough to be useful, there is a small window where magic items can fit in.




Mmm... then why did 3.5 reduced the duration of buffs? Most people liked that change... but didn't it make it much more obvious to get yourself stat-boosting items rather than casting a spell? :/

Reducing the effect could be one way, but so would be to create valid alternatives to either accomplish the same thing or otherwise to be incompatible. It's not simple of course... For example, a Headband of Intellect used to cost only x^2 times 1000gp, with x = bonus to Int. What is a better purchase that is incompatible (i.e. fits on the head)? If nothing worth using the same slot is available, even by limiting the headband to +1 wouldn't stop wizards to buy it as a must-have.


----------



## Rechan

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I would have preferred an athame or something of that nature.



What it makes me think of is the priest from The Exorcist reading passages from the Bible while commanding the demonic possession to depart.

So imagine instead of calmly reading a book in the middle of a battle, the wizard is standing back, on a hill, as the enemy monsters charge towards him. His book is open, held with one hand, as his hand is raised in a 'Stop' motion, and as he reads the words of the book his voice is a crescendo. The wind blows, snagging his hair and his clothes, growing in intensity with his chant. And at the height of his words they halt in place, rendered dumbstruck by his awesome might.

And of course, merely Holding Up the tome is power in and of itself. As if the latent magic is a protective shield, or a force in and of itself. Just touching/holding the book itself allows the wizard to tap into the magic that saturates ever page. So it's like the arcane equivalent of holding up your holy symbol.


----------



## Badkarmaboy

I can see how this could be a good thing.

I'd like to see it applied, though.


----------



## Rechan

A thought that strikes me about multi-classing: Maybe the Multi-classed wizard can only access _one_ of the various abilities? So a Fighter/Wizard would be a Fighter/Wizard (Wand).


----------



## Zebediah Magus

So I'll need my Necronomicon in hand on every fight?

As far as multiclassing goes, there may be a mechanic to consider your non-casting classes into the caster level plus a possibility to choose talents from any tree you have access to, like the force on Star Wars Saga.


----------



## Nahat Anoj

What an interesting article.  I bet clerics will have "gear" for their divine magic as well - for example, holy symbols will probably be like "weapons" now.


----------



## JoelF

As much as I don't like the flavor/mechanics implimentation, the two things that stick out at me most are:

1) why does the wand influence long range effects AND personal ones?  That's the strangest set of opposites I can think of!

2) will the game effects of the +x wand/staff/orb/tome simply replace the current spell focus feats?  If so, this seems like junking around with the fluff/flavor text for no good reason.


----------



## DItheringFool

*Sounds Like Diablo II*

This blows...  I already own the Diablerie.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

It reminds me, in a good way and a bad way of Mage: the Ascension.

I like wizards having focuses that aren't completely necessary, but REALLY help when they are there.  I hated some of the default foci in M:tA too.  I hate wands.  Always have.

Speculation
At will: Wizard Strikes/Cleric Holy Symbol Attacks
Per Encounter: Power Words/Holy Words
Per Day: Arcane/Divine Spells


----------



## Derren

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> A change from 8 schools of magic to 4?




Yep, the new schools of magic are: Buff, Debuff, Crowd Controll and Direct Damage.

I can't await till I see the new spells:



		Code:
	

[B]Mesmerize[/B]
Wiz 2
[B]Range[/B]: 20 squares
[B]Casting time[/B]: 1 action
[B]Cooldown[/B]: 5 rounds

Mezzes the target for 3 rounds. Any damage to the target breaks the effect.
Does not work on CR +3 targets.
[COLOR=Red]
You need to have an orb equipped to cast this spell[/COLOR]


Lets hope the sorcerer can fend of the item requirements.


----------



## WayneLigon

Very cool idea, yes; I'm already used to it through Arcana Unearthed, where Majisters had to have their staff to cast spells at their full effect, a Witch had to have his athame, and a Mageblade had to have his special weapon.

I might replace the implements with Sword, Cup, Pentacle, and Wand. As it should be


----------



## Clavis

I have been generally negative towards the 4th ed in general, but I LOVE the idea of Wizard's actually using implements. It makes Wizards run more like their legendary/mythological equivalents. I would have had the implements simply replace material components however, and still have there be spells that cannot be cast without an implement.

For anyone that questions the use of the Tome in combat, that's exactly what's depicted in the medieval legends of Charlemagne. Malagigi, the wizard-knight, uses his book to summon and command demons, and when his book is stolen, he can't use his magic. In actual medieval occultism, the book would have contained not only the conjurations the magician needed, but also the actual pacts and sigils of the demons that forced their obedience. Actual grimoires from the 16th and 17th centuries (I know a collector) were made small, so they could be held in one hand while the magician worked (and could be hidden up a wide sleeve if needed) So, the image of a wizard reading from his book in the middle of the dungeon is entirely historical.


----------



## Rechan

JoelF said:
			
		

> As much as I don't like the flavor/mechanics implimentation, the two things that stick out at me most are:
> 
> 1) why does the wand influence long range effects AND personal ones?  That's the strangest set of opposites I can think of!




Because in iconic mythos, wizards tap something with a wand to give it a temporary effect.

The difference between a Staff and a Wand, IMHO, is the difference between a baseball bat and a scalpel. The former is a brute force weapon, and the latter is a matter of precision. Maybe the Staff only works at short range because it's like the arcane equivalent of a Shotgun or a firehouse - a lot of power is funneled into a short distance, but the energy is expended by the time it reaches any real distance. 

So for the Wand, you have to focus and fire and it blows something up very far away, like a laser that hits and spreads out.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

Well, this is an element I'm not excited for.  I dislike the idea of a wizard digging around his bags and robes for his wizardly crockpot in order to empower his spells of cookery.

Of course, as already mentioned multiple times, there is a lot of precedent for this kind of behavior.  Individually, taken as separate pieces these all work quite well.  I like the idea of wands for one type of wizard, or staves for another.  But encouraging bonuses will almost guarantee that every wizard player will want the best of each of these items.  And that sounds to me like a new translation of the Christmas Tree Effect.


----------



## Driddle

Experience tells me that I'm not going to be satisfied with the way the game designers justify which spells are linked to which implements. Zapping with a wand makes sense, but then where are they going to draw the line at how powerful you can zap with a staff?


----------



## Someone

AllisterH said:
			
		

> This is the one feature of 4E I don't understand honestly. How can one make it so that a character is less dependent on magic items and yet at the same time, have it so that actually getting a magic item is an actual REWARD?
> 
> Anyone want to help me out here?




As I see it (as I hope it is in 4e), suppose three Fighters, exactly equal except in equipment. 

Number one has only non-magic weapons and armor.

Number two has a Belt of giant strenght +6, amulet of health +6, a +5 flaming shocking sword, +5 armor and shield, ring of protection, and cloak of resistance +5.

Number 3 has a cloak of the mountebank, a folding boat, dust of illusion, and winged boots.

Number 3 is "more powerful" than number 1: he has more options and capabilities. However, the two of them have more or less the same combat power, since none of #3's items give him direct advantage in a straight combat (he can use his items inteligently to gain some advantage, like luring enemies to go after hin and teleporting back with the cloak, but he doesn't have a direct, numerical advantage); thus, #3 is more interesting and has cool items, but he isn't more powerful in combat. None of his magic is "required" to be more powerful.

#2, however, has a great advantage over #1 and #3: he hits harder and his AC is 15 points higer. If the other two fighters want to compete with him they too need stat bosting items and magic weapons and armor. #2 is more powerful. #3 is more _interesting_


----------



## Ashrem Bayle

I suspect there will be a magical enchantment similar to flaming or ghosttouch (or whatever the new equivalent is) that makes the weapon function as one of the four components. For example a _wandstrike longsword +1_ or a set of _runic full plate +2_ that functions like a tome.

I really dig this new change, if for no other reason than I never liked the way wands and staffs worked before.


----------



## Tharen the Damned

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> But encouraging bonuses will almost guarantee that every wizard player will want the best of each of these items.  And that sounds to me like a new translation of the Christmas Tree Effect.




I want to see the mechanics WoC implements to solve this problem. Even if Wizards don't need Spell-Buffs they will want them if they are available.
If Wizards have Spell-Buffs there need to be Save Buffs and we are back were we started in 3x.
I have no idea how they will make this work mechanically without dumb limiting (only one implement can be magical) like in the 3x "body slots".
But I am always open for surprises.

Anyway, I am waiting for the first Rule question if a wizard can create an orb topped scrollwrapped wandstaff


----------



## Cadfan

I like this a lot.

1) Wizards have always had a mechanical approach to magic.  It makes sense to have them use tools.

2) It makes wizards mechanically different on the battlefield if they're holding a book in one hand and a gem in the other.  They won't be threatening surrounding spaces, for one.  I don't know exactly how that will be an issue, but I bet it will.  Staff wizards will maybe still threaten.

3) This is much cooler than material components everyone ignores.

4) If wizards are expected to have one primary focus, and one secondary focus, as I expect they will, this will finally make wizards of different types genuinely different from one another.  In the olden days of 3.5, specializations were something you took for the extra spell per day, then basically forgot about.  Now it may actually matter.

5) The staff granting "big boom" effects as well as teleportation and telekinesis type powers is the unholy matrimony of stereotypical D&D wizardry with Gandalf's duel with the White Wizard.  I... think I like it?

6) Prediction- items like The Evil Book of Evilness: +3 Tome, +5 for Necromancy spells.

7) Finally, enemy wizards don't automatically grant the party's wizard a bunch of free spells from the looted spellbook.  Figuring out ways to stop that from happening was annoying.  I could do it, sure, but I didn't like having to all the time.

8) You will be able to look at an enemy wizard, and know a little about what to expect.  I like that.

9) I've got no idea whatsoever about what will be happening to the Sorceror and the Psion.  These guys entire reason for existing seemed to be that they were alternate mechanical versions if the wizard.  The Psion at least had a short nod towards having his own flavor.  So he can be reincarnated, perhaps with a new mechanical system?  The Sorceror though existed purely as a way of avoiding having to memorize spells in advance.  What will his niche be now?  If they give him the "customizable, innate magic" type abilities and flavor that the Warlock used to have, what will the Psion get?  I'm taking it as a given that the psion won't be getting spell points.


----------



## Geron Raveneye

Funny, this article made me think of Harry Dresden for some reason...  

But yeah, as somebody else mentioned already...this really pulls 4E away from the typical D&D flavour for me. Ah well...as long as it keeps the brand alive.  :\


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> Anyway, I am waiting for the first Rule question if a wizard can create an orb topped scrollwrapped wandstaff




Right!  That was my first thought:  well, orbs go on top of staves!

After reading the thread a little more thoroughly, I think the idea has potential, but I agree it rests in the mechanical implementation of this concept.  From the sounds of it, the basic enhancement effect these items offer will be bonuses to spell "attack rolls."  Which in itself is fine, but if there's nothing limiting one or two of these items per wizard then there's no reason not to carry all four of these items, on top of any other arcane gadgetry the intrepid wizard might pick up along the way.


----------



## Cadfan

I don't think this is going to create a christmas tree effect.  Its two items.  They go in the hands of a character who can't use a shield and who doesn't need weapons.  While I bet that a lot of magic items are going away, I suspect we haven't seen the end of magical weapons and armor.  This just means that wizards won't be left out.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

I think this is an interesting idea.  As a frequent player of wizards, I'm willing to give this a chance.  

Now, what does it say about the type of player I am when I read this, 







> The staff is best suited to powers that forcefully project powers from the wizard, such as lines of lightning and cones of fire; however, a staff also has resonances with effects related to flight and telekinesis (pushing, pulling, or sliding creatures or objects).



 and, rather than Lord of the Rings, immediately thought of that great wizard called Tim shooting fire from the end of his staff.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

breschau said:
			
		

> The wand is a perennial favorite, as it is an ideal conduit for powers that create effects well away from the wizard’s physical position, effects which include explosions of fire, bursts of cold, and other long-range effects that can affect several enemies at once. In addition, personal protections and countermagic effects may lie in wands.



That's so anime video gamey Harry Potter.


----------



## Wormwood

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Now, what does it say about the type of player I am when I read this,  and, rather than Lord of the Rings, immediately thought of that great wizard called Tim shooting fire from the end of his staff.




It means that just like me, you are a D&D player of great wit and erudition.

Because that was my first thought as well!


----------



## RandomCitizenX

This change will possibly get me to play a wizard for the first time since 3rd ed came out. They have been the one class that I could never find the desire to play no matter how many pick up games I have participated in.

Now I wonder if a rog 1 or 2 then the rest wizard would work.


----------



## JVisgaitis

Wow, was this unexpected. Sounds pretty cool though. Wizards needing cool gadgets so they can cast spells? I'm all for it. I hope this drops off the existing spell book and spell components. I was always of the mind that a spell component could be used to enhance a spell, but shouldn't be required. It will be interesting to see what this turns into.


----------



## Sun Knight

Just to put my two cents worth here, but what the OP has sounds very very lame.  Sure it might work for a very high magic campaign setting but what about low magic campaign settings.  They exist as well and in fact that is typically how I run my game.  3.5e makes allowances for low magic settings.  It looks like 4e does not.


----------



## Baby Samurai

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> immediately thought of that great wizard called Tim shooting fire from the end of his staff.





I always thought it was odd that being an enchanter, Tim was hurling fireballs around…

…He's a busy man.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> *off topic*
> I think people are misinterpreting the comment on "less magic items".  At least one designer has said that the magic level is going UP across all classes.



Higher magic level =/= more magic items

It could just mean that classes have more access to magical abilities, such as Hide in Plain Sight, Smite, or healing powers.


----------



## Baby Samurai

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> 3.5e makes allowances for low magic settings.  It looks like 4e does not.




Actually, the opposite, as 4th edition will not have characters magic item dependant as they are now.


No more bling dripping pimps as PCs.


----------



## Wormwood

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Just to put my two cents worth here, but what the OP has sounds very very lame.  Sure it might work for a very high magic campaign setting but what about low magic campaign settings.  They exist as well and in fact that is typically how I run my game.  3.5e makes allowances for low magic settings.  It looks like 4e does not.




If you want a low-magic setting, why don;t you just top spellcasters off at a very low level.


----------



## Sun Knight

Wormwood said:
			
		

> If you want a low-magic setting, why don;t you just top spellcasters off at a very low level.



If a spellcaster can cast magic at will its not a low magic setting.


----------



## Sun Knight

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Actually, the opposite, as 4th edition will not have characters magic item dependant as they are now.
> 
> 
> No more bling dripping pimps as PCs.




I never found 3.5e characters as magic item dependent.  In fact most of the campaigns I have participated in and ran rarely has any real potent magic items at all.  At most a +3 weapon or armor, a wand or three in the party.  No minor artifacts or intelligent weapons that is fo sure.

I guess the DMs I played under and my own games we showed a lot of restraint compared to your experiences.


----------



## Samnell

This is the first bit of 4e news in about two weeks that I don't utterly hate, and it transpires that I'm not just neutral but actually approve.

About time.


----------



## Gloombunny

What on earth does high vs low magic or at-will vs limited magic have to do with wizards needing orbs and staves?  I think you're in the wrong thread here, Sun Knight.


----------



## Cadfan

I don't understand how a spellcaster casting a small spell at will makes a worse low magic setting than a spellcaster shattering cities once per day.

If you want low magic, ban primary spellcasters.  That is, has been, and always will be the best way to accomplish that.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

fuindordm said:
			
		

> This is the main thing that worries me as well. Down with generic magic items! Let's get rid of the +x weapons and armor too, while we're at it.
> 
> Party: "We cast detect magic!"
> 
> DM: "You find a sword, a ring, and a book."
> 
> Wizard: "Ooh, a spellbook? I open it. What's it about?"
> 
> DM: "It's a tome of magic."
> 
> Wizard: "Yeah, about what?"
> 
> DM: "It's a +3 Tome."
> 
> Wizard: "???"
> 
> Other than this annoyance, it's a pretty good idea and easy to tweak for campaign flavor.  I would hope at least that any magical implement is associated with specific spells as well as a general school. For example, the tome could be a Book of Names, and focus on summoning spells--perhaps allowing the wizard to summon a specific creature every time--but it would also provide a minor bonus to other spells purely for its symbolic value as a magical implement.



I can actually see a lot of potential for these implements to have powers connected to their histories, which famous wizards used them, etc.  For example, if you locate the Tome of Thanik, who was a noted demonologist, you gain special powers over demons, as well as the benefit of the rest of the lore in the book (i.e. +2 tome, +4 against demons).  Perhaps it even allows you to 1/day summon Thanik's personal demon servant.


----------



## Samnell

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> I never found 3.5e characters as magic item dependent.  In fact most of the campaigns I have participated in and ran rarely has any real potent magic items at all.  At most a +3 weapon or armor, a wand or three in the party.  No minor artifacts or intelligent weapons that is fo sure.




I'm very generous with magic items in my games. Enemies have them all the time, and the players get to use most of 'em. They can sell the rest and buy or craft whatever they like, provided they can afford it and they're not passing off some nasty exploit under the table.

I still don't see PCs decked out with the Big Six as unfailingly as others here say they do. Magic weapons and armor are rarely priorities for anyone but melee guys. They tend to prefer special abilities to +x on their weapons and not really care on their armor. Few have cloaks of resistance. Stat boosters are common, but that makes excellent world and rules sense to me. It's a feature.


----------



## F4NBOY

Did anyone else think the Arcane Strike, Power Words and Spells will be the Wizard's "at will" "per encounter" and "per day" powers respectively?


----------



## Sun Knight

I shouldn't have to ban a class just to have the desirable effect.  That is one of the things I like 3.5e.  You want a low magic setting, don't give out magic items, have the spell casters make the majority of the items used.  As for the forced to use a spell focus as with the OP states it seems that they are trying to make it overly complicated as well as over powered.


----------



## WayneLigon

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> 3.5e makes allowances for low magic settings.  It looks like 4e does not.




Well, if you want a low magic game, you've already had to make some pretty large changes to 3.5. I don't think it's a far reach to expect you're going to have to do that same to 4E.


----------



## Baby Samurai

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> I guess the DMs I played under and my own games we showed a lot of restraint compared to your experiences.




Don't assume my experiences due to your defensiveness.  I too am very frugal (some might say stingy) about handing out magic items, but the default 3.5 D&D game assumes PCs will literally be crawling with magic items at a certain level; even CRs are designed around the assumption of the party having the magic items they _need_.

I could, if I wanted to be a jack-ass, assume that your experiences come from not playing D&D 3.5 as intended, but I'm not like some people…


----------



## Wormwood

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> I guess the DMs I played under and my own games we showed a lot of restraint compared to your experiences.




Restraint in this case being defined as ignoring the PC Wealth by Level guidelines?


----------



## Stormtalon

Driddle said:
			
		

> Experience tells me that I'm not going to be satisfied with the way the game designers justify which spells are linked to which implements. Zapping with a wand makes sense, but then where are they going to draw the line at how powerful you can zap with a staff?




The limitations don't, from what I can tell, apply to power levels of effects, but their implementations.  Look specifically at the staff and wand descriptions:  the staff refers to powers that come "from the wizard, like cones of flame or bolts of lightning," while the wand's offensive capabilities are described as being long-range effects.  So, if you need to toast those guys that are about to get in your face, the staff is the tool to use, while dropping a little flaming surprise on that pack of goblins 100 yards away is the province of the wand.


----------



## Wormwood

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> That is one of the things I like 3.5e.  You want a low magic setting, don't give out magic items, have the spell casters make the majority of the items used.




The first time a PC spell-caster crafts a wand, you are no longer in a low-magic setting by your own definition (50 charges being effectively 'cast spells at will')


----------



## apoptosis

I find it very gimmicky. I also kind of find it rather bland as well.

I dont mind casters having to use foci, but it would have been better just to let the players decide what are the appropriate foci for their casters.

It also removes the idea of the casters that throw lightning from their fingers etc.

I would say overall, I really dont like it.


----------



## WayneLigon

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> Did anyone else think the Arcane Strike, Power Words and Spells will be the Wizard's "at will" "per encounter" and "per day" powers respectively?




I'm thinking that's probably exactly what it is. I probably would prefer the utility spells be the At Will effects, though. We shall see.


----------



## F4NBOY

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> I shouldn't have to ban a class just to have the desirable effect.  That is one of the things I like 3.5e.  You want a low magic setting, don't give out magic items, have the spell casters make the majority of the items used.  As for the forced to use a spell focus as with the OP states it seems that they are trying to make it overly complicated as well as over powered.




Taking away magic items doesn't make a setting to be "low magic" setting. It becomes a crappy "high magic" setting where characters have much trouble in fighting the monsters that were supposed to fight easily if they had magic items.
Wizards, clerics and druids are still there casting lots of world changing spells, so it's not a "low magic" D&D setting, it's just a Very Hard D&D setting, that IMO sucks a lot(because I had a "smart" DM that had the same "genious" idea).Of course, a real smart player made a Wizard with the craft items feats and opened up a Magic Shop


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

AllisterH said:
			
		

> This is the one feature of 4E I don't understand honestly. How can one make it so that a character is less dependent on magic items and yet at the same time, have it so that actually getting a magic item is an actual REWARD?
> 
> Anyone want to help me out here?



"Nice, but not necessary."


----------



## Sun Knight

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Restraint in this case being defined as ignoring the PC Wealth by Level guidelines?



They are only guidelines.


----------



## Rechan

I will say that this is refreshing. I don't see it as "Not D&D", I see it as "More D&D than it has been before".


----------



## Mallus

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> I guess the DMs I played under and my own games we showed a lot of restraint compared to your experiences.



Different play styles are all well and good, but what you're calling 'restraint' has the unintended effect of screwing up the balance between character classes. Balance in 3.5 assumes everyone has access to magical tools (largely because the magic item system is a point-buy super powers system in disguise). 'Restraint' w/magic items also makes the already unreliable CR system even more, well, useless.

edit: Prior editions of D&D (all of them, really) only supported low-magic play at lower levels. Past mid-level, magic items became common. Past upper mid-levels, items decorated PC's like ornaments on a Christmas tree. Kinda like the current edition, when you think about it.

And now, back on topic: I didn't see a change like this coming, but I like the sound of it. Looks like a neat way of marring game mechanics to a heretofore largely absent attempt at giving D&D a traditional wizardly flavor.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Hmm... Leaning negative on this one, although I am not _exactly_ sure why, yet. It's a bit gimmicky, and has a whiff of overdesign-- much harder to remove the rules from the fluff.



(Regarding staves vs. wands, it's a range issue. Fans, cones, and lines begin at the wizard and project from there. That's a staff effect; it means the wizard has to be "stuck in." Other area effects with an epicenter created at range seem to require the wand.)


----------



## Wormwood

(edit: doing my part to keep this thread on topic)


----------



## gothmaugCC

Hmm... THis is the first 4th edition change I've seen that I think I might be able to get wholeheartedly behind. Its always irked me that a wizards staff has been regulated to a mere stick with charges. I've always been a fan of the classic wizard in literature who is tied to his staff. It amplifies his powers, but if it breaks, his power does as well. I've tried many different dynamics over the years to reflect this in my home games, perhaps 4th edition will get it right. 

Then again, if the staff/wand/orb/tome just becomes a numerical enhancement ( Ie +3 to DC's or something) I'm gonan gouge my eyes out with a pointy stick, and scrap it in my home games for something a bit more dynamic.


----------



## sidonunspa

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Why? Just off the top of my head, I can see two _very_ easy ways, and one more complicated way, to do it.
> 
> 1) Change the forms. Instead of wants, use daggers. Instead of orbs, use amulets. Instead of staves, use the wizard's familiar.
> 
> 2) Eliminate them. Wizards suffer no penalties for not using the items, and gain no benefits for using the items. Done.
> 
> 3) Change the forms, as with #1, but also change the sorts of spells to which they apply. This one requires more work, but it's still certainly possible.
> 
> Even if #3 is too much work, the first two are easily applied to almost any setting with about 30 seconds' work.




I dont know but this tosses a small glitch into the mix for Arcanis casters...

In Arcanis all arcane casters are hunted by the Harvesters of Yomandragor, caring around these items would be like painting a bulls eye on your back. I guess once 4e is out I would need to work up some Talent tree for them to work around needing these items, but they would end up becoming weaker overall, thus creating a catch 22.

Changing the "slots" needed again weaken the caster, why? lets say I use amulets for wands... well now that can't use a magical amulet. 

Maybe a feat or two that lets you swap out sword for wand or something like that? I don't know... I think I may have just found one thing I may need to completely re-write for the Arcanis setting.


----------



## Cadfan

gothmaugCC said:
			
		

> Then again, if the staff/wand/orb/tome just becomes a numerical enhancement ( Ie +3 to DC's or something) I'm gonan gouge my eyes out with a pointy stick, and scrap it in my home games for something a bit more dynamic.




I don't know, I expect that magical staffs will be at least as dynamic as magical swords.

Which... historically hasn't been all that dynamic, but that's been acknowledged and improvements in that area have been promised.  At the very least, I imagine there will be other enhancements that a staff/wand/orb/tome will be capable of holding besides just the +X.


----------



## sidonunspa

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> I suspect there will be a magical enchantment similar to flaming or ghosttouch (or whatever the new equivalent is) that makes the weapon function as one of the four components. For example a _wandstrike longsword +1_ or a set of _runic full plate +2_ that functions like a tome.
> 
> I really dig this new change, if for no other reason than I never liked the way wands and staffs worked before.





:::types some notes:::

   Well if wizards dosint use this idea, I think we may have to


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Restraint in this case being defined as ignoring the PC Wealth by Level guidelines?



I once had the "privilege" of playing in a game where the DM didn't give the party any magic items.  We were 16th or 17th level by the time we got a couple of magic weapons.  We were consistently wrecked by challenges of a more-or-less appropriate level (and by inappropriate challenges, but that's a separate complaint).  I explained to the DM, each time he expressed his surprise at our asses getting handed to us, that without appropriate wealth for our level, we were actually five to seven effective levels lower than we should be.  He never seemed to follow that logic, and we kept losing fight after fight until the game broke up.


----------



## sidonunspa

AllisterH said:
			
		

> This is the one feature of 4E I don't understand honestly. How can one make it so that a character is less dependent on magic items and yet at the same time, have it so that actually getting a magic item is an actual REWARD?
> 
> Anyone want to help me out here?





I got to agree on this point...  in one hand they say "less dependent" and yet they tie a classes features to items which will have a magical bonus.


----------



## Malhost Zormaeril

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I might replace the implements with Sword, Cup, Pentacle, and Wand. As it should be




Poser items.  Real Men(TM) use Sword, Cup, Coin and Baton 

Also, I think this change is positive -- magic weapons give characters different flavour (just ask the producers of the _Dungeons and Dragons_ cartoon), which magic foci would do, as well.  Swapping the foci around can change the flavour of the wizards -- wooden swords, paper tags, mirrors and geomancy boards for Chinese mages, for instance.

It also makes sense that, since fighters with different gear work differently, wizards should have also different options according to the implements they use...  Overall, I think it's a positive change.


----------



## LightPhoenix

I'm ambivalent.

I like the idea, and it adds a lot of flavor.  Even the tome does in my mind - I love the idea of a wizard chanting from a book in the middle of chaos.  It's gotten my imagination churning, and that can only be a good thing.

On the other hand, I don't like the way it was presented.  It seems rather arbitrary, and I'd rather just let the wizard pick two foci, especially if it's tied to the major/minor thing people have been talking about.

I'll have to see more to be sold on it.


----------



## CleverNickName

I am intrigued.  I've tinkered with the idea of replacing all material components with a single arcane focus (staff or wand), but I think I will wait and see what these new-fangled "orb, staff, tome, wand" rules bring to the table before I go much further with it.


----------



## Hussar

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Just to put my two cents worth here, but what the OP has sounds very very lame.  Sure it might work for a very high magic campaign setting but what about low magic campaign settings.  They exist as well and in fact that is typically how I run my game.  3.5e makes allowances for low magic settings.  It looks like 4e does not.




If you allow core casters in your game, you do not have a low magic setting.  Full stop.  You can limit magic items all you like, but, if core casters exist, then nearly every encounter you run will feature magic.  

3e supports low magic play about as well as any other edition.  That is to say, not terribly well at all.

Back on topic - I like the flavour of this.  I hope that it replaces the spell component rules that nearly no one uses anyway.


----------



## Zaukrie

I like this. I've liked most of the 3rd party products that tried to make staffs more important, and grow with wizards, so I think I'm predisposed to this.


----------



## F4NBOY

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> I got to agree on this point...  in one hand they say "less dependent" and yet they tie a classes features to items which will have a magical bonus.




I think there is no dependency.
It's not the real magic items dependency, where characters need an average amount of wealth in magic items to be good enough to face the challenges.
Wizards wont' be more dependent on those Implements more than fighters will be on magic weapons in 4E. If wizards and fighters don't have their magic items, they are still good enough to face challanges appropriate to their level, but if they got them, they have an edge in the encounter.

"For instance, a wizard can cast the wand spell cinder storm even if he doesn’t own, has lost, or is not holding a magic wand. However, holding the associated implement grants a benefit to the wizard’s attack that is just like the benefit the warrior gains when attacking an enemy with a magic sword."


----------



## F4NBOY

Hussar said:
			
		

> Back on topic - I like the flavour of this. I hope that it replaces the spell component rules that nearly no one uses anyway.



I think we can deduce that spell components are gone, since staffs are two handed weapons and the wizard won't have any free hand to handle any spell components. 

I DO hope they keep spell components, but turn them into spell caralysts, just like those in Arcana Evolved. They are spell components that have a GP cost, and if you use them while casting a spell, they modify the spell, adding more damage, +1 caster level, etc etc.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> I think we can deduce that spell components are gone, since staffs are two handed weapons and the wizard won't have any free hand to handle any spell components.




I'm perfectly fine with spell components being tossed over the side of the bridge with cement overshoes.

Brad


----------



## sidonunspa

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> I think there is no dependency.
> It's not the real magic items dependency, where characters need an average amount of wealth in magic items to be good enough to face the challenges.
> Wizards wont' be more dependent on those Implements more than fighters will be on magic weapons in 4E. If wizards and fighters don't have their magic items, they are still good enough to face challanges appropriate to their level, but if they got them, they have an edge in the encounter.
> 
> "For instance, a wizard can cast the wand spell cinder storm even if he doesn’t own, has lost, or is not holding a magic wand. However, holding the associated implement grants a benefit to the wizard’s attack that is just like the benefit the warrior gains when attacking an enemy with a magic sword."




But if we look at 3e... if you don't have the +X on your sword at level Y then you start to get your butt kicked by encounters of your equal level.

It’s like playing a fighter with no magic items at 14th level, you will get your  butt handed to you more often than not.


----------



## GreatLemur

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Why? Just off the top of my head, I can see two _very_ easy ways, and one more complicated way, to do it.
> 
> 1) Change the forms. Instead of wants, use daggers. Instead of orbs, use amulets. Instead of staves, use the wizard's familiar.
> 
> 2) Eliminate them. Wizards suffer no penalties for not using the items, and gain no benefits for using the items. Done.
> 
> 3) Change the forms, as with #1, but also change the sorts of spells to which they apply. This one requires more work, but it's still certainly possible.
> 
> Even if #3 is too much work, the first two are easily applied to almost any setting with about 30 seconds' work.



Oh, hell yes.  I like the idea of arcane focus items in general (especially since this looks like the end of the bat guano pouch), and even if the specific flavor of orb, staff, tome, and wand is a little bit too traditional for me, I do not expect this stuff will be at all difficult to houserule to my satisfaction.  Personally, I like the idea of letting a Wizard's player define his or her tools (just a little bit _Mage: The Ascension_-style).

So yeah, on the whole, I'd call this a positive change.


----------



## Driddle

Driddle said:
			
		

> Experience tells me that I'm not going to be satisfied with the way the game designers justify which spells are linked to which implements. Zapping with a wand makes sense, but then where are they going to draw the line at how powerful you can zap with a staff?






			
				Stormtalon (response) said:
			
		

> The limitations don't, from what I can tell, apply to power levels of effects, but their implementations.  Look specifically at the staff and wand descriptions:  the staff refers to powers that come "from the wizard, like cones of flame or bolts of lightning," while the wand's offensive capabilities are described as being long-range effects.  So, if you need to toast those guys that are about to get in your face, the staff is the tool to use, while dropping a little flaming surprise on that pack of goblins 100 yards away is the province of the wand.




Seems like it's an iffy descriptive difference. No insult intended to your interpretive ability, S, because I probably couldn't come up with an alternative description that would be any better. And that's my point -- _why_ link THIS spell with a wand and THAT spell with a staff? The WotC justification is going to be wonky.


----------



## Patlin

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> The only one I don't like is the tome. It seems weird to me to have a wizard hold a book out and get power out of it, or read it in combat.




I've got a miniature (probably from Reaper) in which a character is doing just that.  While the mini in question is more of a cleric than a mage imo, I think its nice to have spellbooks have a more active role.


----------



## breschau

Damn. 176 posts in just under 12 hours. We meed lives people. (Yes, that's a joke.)

Quickdraw. When I read the bit about having to hold the implement to gain the benefit, the first thing I thought of was a climbing harness style set of straps and cords to dangle the implements from. Even if you got disarmed, they'd just swing around you a bit instead of falling to the ground. You could just reach back and touch the implement and kaza, you get the bonus.

Or there's the orb topped staff, or the tome with the wand bookmark.


----------



## F4NBOY

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> But if we look at 3e... if you don't have the +X on your sword at level Y then you start to get your butt kicked by encounters of your equal level.
> 
> It’s like playing a fighter with no magic items at 14th level, you will get your  butt handed to you more often than not.




Exactly
But we are talking about 4E. That won't happen in 4E.
In 3E that was true, and was called magic items depedency, or christmas tree effects.

They said 4E will be less focused on magic items, so I believe that won't happen anymore, a level 10 character will be able to face a level 10 encounter even if he has no magic items.
Magic items won't be an element of the equation to see if an encounter is balanced or not.

Just because wizards can now use Implements to make their spells more powerfull doesn't mean they are dependent on Implements. They won't need them to face challenges appropriate to their levels, just like fighter won't need magic weapons to handle themselves in any combat.


----------



## F4NBOY

Driddle said:
			
		

> The WotC justification is going to be wonky.



If the justification happens to be just Game Balance, I'll be fully satisfied.


----------



## sidonunspa

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> Exactly
> But we are talking about 4E. That won't happen in 4E.
> In 3E that was true, and was called magic items depedency, or christmas tree effects.
> 
> They said 4E will be less focused on magic items, so I believe that won't happen anymore, a level 10 character will be able to face a level 10 encounter even if he has no magic items.
> Magic items won't be an element of the equation to see if an encounter is balanced or not.
> 
> Just because wizards can now use Implements to make their spells more powerfull doesn't mean they are dependent on Implements. They won't need them to face challenges appropriate to their levels, just like fighter won't need magic weapons to handle themselves in any combat.




So if players have magic items they will cake walk an equal level encounter? 

Now if characters have too much magic they are gods, in 4e if characters are equal to their level w/o any magic items, they become much more with even a small amount of magic.


----------



## Baby Samurai

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> They said 4E will be less focused on magic items, so I believe that won't happen anymore, a level 10 character will be able to face a level 10 encounter even if he has no magic items.




Yep, just like I'm sure AC (or Ref defence etc) will scale with level, because as it is now, a 20th level naked fighter with a 16 Dex has an AC of 13, and so does a _1st_ level naked fighter with a 16 Dex…lame and unrealistic.


----------



## Baby Samurai

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> So if players have magic items they will cake walk an equal level encounter?




Why does everything have to get so extreme with you people?


----------



## wgreen

Driddle said:
			
		

> Seems like it's an iffy descriptive difference. No insult intended to your interpretive ability, S, because I probably couldn't come up with an alternative description that would be any better. And that's my point -- _why_ link THIS spell with a wand and THAT spell with a staff? The WotC justification is going to be wonky.



Huh?  It sounds like it's all about where the point of origin of the spell's effect is.  A cone of fire's point of origin is the tip of your staff.  A lightning bolt's point of origin is the tip of your staff.  A flamestrike's point of origin is...somewhere up in the heavens, over there.  See the difference?

-Will


----------



## F4NBOY

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Yep, just like I'm sure AC (or Ref defence etc) will scale with level, because as it is now, a 20th level naked fighter with a 16 Dex has an AC of 13, and so does a _1st_ level naked fighter with a 16 Dex…lame and unrealistic.




There is a BIG difference between a fighter needing a Full Plate Mail +5 to be able to face an encounter, and a fighter needing a Full Plate Mail to handle himself in combat.

Your idea already exists in SWSE. Level 10 charatcers don't need armour anymore. But that's Star Wars. Using lots of armor IS very D&Dish, and they know better then us how to keep that in the game.
I don't think they will be so stupid to create a mechanic that simply turn one of the aspects of the game, Armour, completelly useless.


----------



## Stormtalon

Driddle said:
			
		

> Seems like it's an iffy descriptive difference. No insult intended to your interpretive ability, S, because I probably couldn't come up with an alternative description that would be any better. And that's my point -- _why_ link THIS spell with a wand and THAT spell with a staff? The WotC justification is going to be wonky.




Well, let's try it this way then -- look at Cone of Cold, the classic big blast of frost coming right from the wizard.  Try some flavor with the staff:  wizard grasps the staff firmly, lowers the business end and points it in the general direction of his foes, braces himself a bit and speaks the words that complete the spell.  A huge rush of frigid air blasts from the tip of the staff and overwhelms everything in front of him.

Now, try that with a wand; the imagery of unleashing something nasty, expansive and point blank simply doesn't go well with it at all.  On the flipside, you don't see the little pea-sized fleck of flame that's the signature of a Fireball en-route to its target being spit out of the tip of a staff, but it fits a quick, precise movement of a wand perfectly.


----------



## Pygon

I'm fairly certain that a party of characters will function optimally with the expected amount of magic items for a given level, and that is how Wizards will be balancing the encounter levels.  A party lacking magic will have a tougher time, but I'm guessing will have a better chance to survive than a 3e party without magic.

So I don't think a 10th level party without any magic items will have an easy time, nor will a 10th level party with balanced magic items just glide through it.


----------



## AllisterH

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Why does everything have to get so extreme with you people?




Not that extreme I hope   

If a foci "improves" a spell by 10-20%, then I would consider it a non-essential especially if there is a drawback to having a foci. For example, if you have a wand in hand, and the rules state that you can't cast a non-wand spell at all, this would provide a dilemna. "do I want a 10-20% increase of power in my *cinder storm  * or do I want to keep my options open and be able to cast my favourite staff-spell".

Hell, if the rules state that only those who take the ORB and WAND talent tree can use orbs and WANDS effectively, that might be enough of a  balance given that a player gives up selecting a potentially "better" talent tree.

The more I think about it, the more I'm curious to see. Even though I asked the original question, I am open to WOTC's "ideas".

Although I must admit, I'm kind of surprised to see such strong approval for this idea even among those currently ambivalent or against 4E. I guess a lot of us really wanted wizards to feel more like wizards than they currentl are.


----------



## F4NBOY

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> So if players have magic items they will cake walk an equal level encounter?
> 
> Now if characters have too much magic they are gods, in 4e if characters are equal to their level w/o any magic items, they become much more with even a small amount of magic.




No. Character will probably have an edge in ecounters. They got the items as rewards from adventuring, a hard earned reward. So they now deserve to have a little edge in combats, depending on the monsters they are fighting, the place, the classes in party, there are so many elements... What you said would be true if magic items in 4E gave characters +1 class level, but I don't think that's the case 

Having an edge in combat because you have a magic item is fun.
Needing to have a magic item in combat to be able to face that challenge is not that fun.

Magic Items in 3E is like cocaine.
In 4E they will be like an Ace in the sleeve.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> Now, try that with a wand; the imagery of unleashing something nasty, expansive and point blank simply doesn't go well with it at all.  On the flipside, you don't see the little pea-sized fleck of flame that's the signature of a Fireball en-route to its target being spit out of the tip of a staff, but it fits a quick, precise movement of a wand perfectly.



Yep. I can just see the wand wizard, gleefully pointing to the locations of his fireballs, webs and stink clouds like an orchestra conductor during a performance of the 1812 Overture.


----------



## Aloïsius

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Hmm...
> 
> You know, if "tome" is one of the four tools of magic, that suggests very strongly that the wizard's spellbook--as it was known in 3E and prior editions--is gone.



*makes a happy dance*

I like all those ideas. 
Hum. no. 

I LIKE all those ideas.


----------



## Baby Samurai

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> I don't think they will be so stupid to create a mechanic that simply turn one of the aspects of the game, Armour, completelly useless.




I'm not saying I want armour to be useless, I'm saying that there should be a bonus to AC due to level/experience, regardless of armour; just that armour would help even more.

BAB scales, why not AC?


----------



## Rechan

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Yep. I can just see the wand wizard, gleefully pointing to the locations of his fireballs, webs and stink clouds like an orchestra conductor during a performance of the 1812 Overture.



I have the feeling that web and stink cloud and such might be handled via the Orb's battlefield control.


----------



## sidonunspa

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Why does everything have to get so extreme with you people?




Because after running a living campaign with thousands of players, running over 100 RPGA tables over the last few years and running 5 home games... I can tell you just a 10% increase of magic items allows players to cake walk equal APL encounters.  Toss magical item creation into the mix (where the players have the ability to make a +1 frost, shock, acidic long sword because the cleric can always cast greater magic weapon on it later) and you start seeing what I mean. 

Now let’s say that an equal level encounter gives the players a 60% chance to hit an equal level bad guy; (I remember reading that a 60% chance of successes being the “fun target number” or something) now seeing we are working on a d20 system, each +1 = roughly an improvement of +5% to hit.  You can see how very quickly the players can work the numbers to their advantage. 

I have not seen the system yet, so I may be off base...


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> I'm not saying I want armour to be useless, I'm saying that there should be a bonus to AC due to level/experience, regardless of armour; just that armour would help even more.
> 
> BAB scales, why not AC?




Well I don't think it needs to be inherently increasing. If they put the double stat increase in from SWSE then your 20th level fighter may have increased his Dex. Not to mention the abstraction of hitpoints can account for his surviving longer in a combat. Maybe he also has AC increasing feats or maneuvers in 4e? It's hard to say yet.


----------



## Baby Samurai

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> Because after running a living campaign with thousands of players, running over 100 RPGA tables over the last few years and running 5 home games... I can tell you




You can tell me, but I don't believe you, and this is where I stop reading your post.


----------



## Baby Samurai

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Well I don't think it needs to be inherently increasing.




I do, don't you think a seasoned adventurer would have a slightly better chance at avoiding injury than the 1st level baker who just took up adventuring?


----------



## GreatLemur

Driddle said:
			
		

> Seems like it's an iffy descriptive difference. No insult intended to your interpretive ability, S, because I probably couldn't come up with an alternative description that would be any better. And that's my point -- _why_ link THIS spell with a wand and THAT spell with a staff? The WotC justification is going to be wonky.



Trying to clarify what other folks are saying, it looks to me like the staff is the howitzer, while the wand is the remote trigger.  That is, the staff's offensive effects actually _emanate from the staff itself_: projectiles that require a ranged touch attack, big lines and cones that demand Reflex saves, etc.  The wand, on the other hand, causes effects to occur _at a distance_: oh-crap-where-did-that-come-from sudden Will/Fortitude save stuff, and probably also radius-effect Reflex save things like _fireballs_, too.  (Except, of course, that saving throws are supposed to be changing pretty seriously in 4e, so don't take any of those examples too literally.)


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

With this new information I was re-reading some of the playtesting reports.  So, we have this about the staff: 







> The staff is best suited to powers that forcefully project powers from the wizard, such as lines of lightning and cones of fire; however, a staff also has resonances with effects related to flight and telekinesis *(pushing, pulling, or sliding creatures or objects)*.



 and then there is this from the Tomb Under the Tor playtest report: 







> So they created a mostly human party of 1st level PCs who are all affiliated with a local count.
> 
> snip...
> 
> Sasha used a wizard strike with her staff, not only injuring a wolf, but also pushing it away from the prone Heron.
> 
> snip...
> 
> Sasha maneuvered to blast both wolves with another strike from her staff, pushing the one attacking Heron away again.



 From this it sounds like a wizard using a staff will be able to strike a foe with an arcane attack that can affect more than one foe and have a bull rush effect - and this is for first level PCs.  If this is the "at will" ability, possible since it was used twice in one encounter, I can see why they would be saying you won't see the wizard pulling out a crossbow anymore.  

It does make me wonder how this will scale at higher levels.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> I do, don't you think a seasoned adventurer would have a slightly better chance at avoiding injury than the 1st level baker who just took up adventuring?




If both were unarmed and had the same dexterity, not really, no. That's just my view though, I can understand yours too. I'm happy with hitpoint abstraction to explain why a cat wouldn't kill the seasoned adventurer


----------



## fuindordm

wgreen said:
			
		

> Huh?  It sounds like it's all about where the point of origin of the spell's effect is.  A cone of fire's point of origin is the tip of your staff.  A lightning bolt's point of origin is the tip of your staff.  A flamestrike's point of origin is...somewhere up in the heavens, over there.  See the difference?
> 
> -Will




From a design standpoint, this simply ensures that both wand and staff wizards will have access to some blasting spells. 

If they all came from wands, then 95% of characters would have wands, so you might as well not have wands at all. This way you get an interesting choice--do you want your blasting spells to be linked to RAW POWER (TK, flight) or to defense and counterspelling?

It's vaguely analogous to the choice faced by fighters between a 2H weapon and a finesse weapon.


----------



## sidonunspa

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> You can tell me, but I don't believe you, and this is where I stop reading your post.




Ahhh I would love to live in a world where experience equals nothing... care to let me in?   

Now if you can give me a solid counter points, you may be able to sway me to your side.


----------



## Baby Samurai

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> Ahhh I would love to live in a world where experience equals nothing




I have experience too (18 years worth), but I don't preface my posts with a self congratulatory statement to try to give my opinions more weight.


----------



## F4NBOY

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> Because after running a living campaign with thousands of players, running over 100 RPGA tables over the last few years and running 5 home games...



Santa Claus just told me 4E will be great. I'd rather trust him.


----------



## Rugger

Just a thought, but perhaps the +6 wands and such are NOT items, and more of a class feature.

It could be that a wizard attunes himself to the appropriate item, and then prioritizes their potency: Lvl 1 lets them pick one at +1, and then going forward, the others start to fall into place, so that by 10 lvl or so, the Wizard will have a +4 focus, +3 focus, +2 focus and a +1 focus? This could also be how Specialist Wizards work...

THEN they can find/craft magic versions that do other stuff (functioning like Runestaffs in MiC or Metamagic rods...)

Just an idea.

-Matt


----------



## Baby Samurai

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> If both were unarmed and had the same dexterity, not really, no.




So you really don't think that experience/training in combat would give you an edge, just what you were born with (ability scores)?


----------



## Kaffis

FireLance said:
			
		

> On first reading, I found it slightly difficult to wrap my mind around the idea of a wizard lugging a great big book or a palantir-sized crystal ball around a dungeon, but after a little thought, I figured an adventuring wizard could make his "orb" into an amulet (as Mouseferatu suggested), and his "tome" into scrolls (or maybe cards, to modify Exen Trik's idea a little).




I also see this as potential to reinforce the notion that wizards like to hole up in their towers. Sure, you can tote around a +3 amulet as your orb, but to do the real heavy lifting scrying, you want to head home and use your +12 palantir.


----------



## wgreen

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> So you really don't think that experience/training in combat would give you an edge, just what you were born with (ability scores)?



It does.  Hit points, man, hit points.  It's not just meat.

-Will


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

fuindordm said:
			
		

> From a design standpoint, this simply ensures that both wand and staff wizards will have access to some blasting spells.
> 
> If they all came from wands, then 95% of characters would have wands, so you might as well not have wands at all. This way you get an interesting choice--do you want your blasting spells to be linked to RAW POWER (TK, flight) or to defense and counterspelling?
> 
> It's vaguely analogous to the choice faced by fighters between a 2H weapon and a finesse weapon.



 Are people assuming that wizards will choose a single implement?  I'm not sure if that is the case based upon the WotC report (emphasis added): 







> Each implement focuses magic of a particular class slightly better than the wizard would be able to accomplish bare-handed. Thus wizards are rarely without wand and staff, orb *and* tome, *or some other combination* thereof.


----------



## sidonunspa

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> With this new information I was re-reading some of the playtesting reports.  So, we have this about the staff:  and then there is this from the Tomb Under the Tor playtest report:  From this it sounds like a wizard using a staff will be able to strike a foe with an arcane attack that can affect more than one foe and have a bull rush effect - and this is for first level PCs.  If this is the "at will" ability, possible since it was used twice in one encounter, I can see why they would be saying you won't see the wizard pulling out a crossbow anymore.
> 
> It does make me wonder how this will scale at higher levels.




Well maybe it has something like that +1/2 level to damage from Star Wars? that with a +X staff..  maybe even a +X staff of greater wizard strike or something like that?


----------



## sidonunspa

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> I have experience too (18 years worth), but I don't preface my posts with a self congratulatory statement to try to give my opinions more weight.




Good Point, I'm sorry I came across like an ass then



			
				Rugger said:
			
		

> Just a thought, but perhaps the +6 wands and such are NOT items, and more of a class feature.




Wow, didint think of that... that changes a lot


----------



## Imaro

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Yep, just like I'm sure AC (or Ref defence etc) will scale with level, because as it is now, a 20th level naked fighter with a 16 Dex has an AC of 13, and so does a _1st_ level naked fighter with a 16 Dex…lame and unrealistic.




Isn't that what ability increases and feats are for?  Basically if you spent your adventuring time honing your reflexes and getting better at dodging things...then you should raise your Dexterity, take Combat Reflexes, Dodge, etc.  Just because a characters a fighter doesn't mean he should automatically get better at dodging blows than a person with higher natural talent.


----------



## Baby Samurai

wgreen said:
			
		

> It does.  Hit points, man, hit points.  It's not just meat.




Yeah, yeah, I know that hp are abstract and do not represent X amount of flesh etc, but I still think characters should get an AC bonus besides their Dex and items (experience/training should count for something besides hp).


----------



## Baby Samurai

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> Good Point, I'm sorry I came across like an ass then





Actually, while I stand by my intention with that statement, I worded it like a wanker – my apologies.


----------



## sidonunspa

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Actually, while I stand by my intention with that statement, I worded it like an  – my apologies.




Accepted and I hope you accept mine, so lets get back on topic 

Rugger's the idea of the items "focus power" being a class feature does fix the focus on magic items. 

If they did that, it would all work out, I have a feeling that Rugger hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Baby Samurai

Imaro said:
			
		

> Just because a characters a fighter doesn't mean he should automatically get better at dodging blows than a person with higher natural talent.




With 10 years of fighting the evils of the multiverse he should.


----------



## Mercule

Could be good.  Could be bad.

It sounds a lot like the foci for Mage:the Ascension/Awakening.  Unfortunately, those tools often come off a bit contrived.  Hopefully, that won't be the case for 4E.

Maybe magic staves and wands will give bonuses to certain, specific spells or (narrow) types of spells.  So, a +3 Staff of Fire adds +3 to fireball, scorching ray, etc. and little/nothing to cone of cold.  I'd be okay with that.  It's a bit of both worlds.


----------



## F4NBOY

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Yeah, yeah, I know that hp are abstract and do not represent X amount of flesh etc, but I still think characters should get an AC bonus besides their Dex and items (experience/training should count for something besides hp).




Unless that defense bonus per level stacks with armor bonus, it would make armor useless in the game, like in SWSE.
But as you said, characters already gain a defensive bonus each level, called Hit Points.


----------



## F4NBOY

Mercule said:
			
		

> Maybe magic staves and wands will give bonuses to certain, specific spells or (narrow) types of spells.  So, a +3 Staff of Fire adds +3 to fireball, scorching ray, etc. and little/nothing to cone of cold.  I'd be okay with that.  It's a bit of both worlds.




I've seen that before. Where could that be?
Hmmm Diablo2!!! 
I like it!


----------



## Baby Samurai

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> *1.)* Unless that defense bonus per level stacks with armor bonus,
> 
> *2.)* But as you said, characters already gain a defensive bonus each level, called Hit Points.





*1.)* Of course it should stack.

*2.)* Don't give me that crap, I said hp are abstract and do not represent X amount of flesh.

Please don't put words in my mouth to try and strengthen your case.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> So you really don't think that experience/training in combat would give you an edge, just what you were born with (ability scores)?




That's where your feats, class abilities and hitpoints will come in. I just don't see soldiers as amazing wushu dodging guys, that's all.


----------



## Sun Knight

I find wand +3, or a tome +4 quite arbitrary and contrived.  In fact I find it rather stupid and lame in terms of design.


----------



## Rechan

Imaro said:
			
		

> Isn't that what ability increases and feats are for?  Basically if you spent your adventuring time honing your reflexes and getting better at dodging things...then you should raise your Dexterity, take Combat Reflexes, Dodge, etc.  Just because a characters a fighter doesn't mean he should automatically get better at dodging blows than a person with higher natural talent.



Then explain this to me: Why does a fighter's saves improve?

How is it the 20th level fighter can dodge a Fireball better than a 1st level fighter, but he still can't move out of the way of that orc's sword any better? If he can do a backflip over that fireball, then he should be able to get out of the way of the sword.


----------



## Wormwood

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> I find wand +3, or a tome +4 quite arbitrary and contrived.  In fact I find it rather stupid and lame in terms of design.




How do you feel about +1 swords and +2 shields?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Imaro said:
			
		

> Isn't that what ability increases and feats are for?  Basically if you spent your adventuring time honing your reflexes and getting better at dodging things...then you should raise your Dexterity, take Combat Reflexes, Dodge, etc.  Just because a characters a fighter doesn't mean he should automatically get better at dodging blows than a person with higher natural talent.



Well, if you put a sword in his hand, he should theoretically be able to parry some of those blows.  And I expect that he'll parry them better not because he's become more dexterous, but because he has experience that allows him to predict his opponent's actions and respond to them more quickly than he did when he was just learning his forms.  I don't suppose that anyone I know who fences has become a better juggler as a result, but they certainly have improved their ability to not be hit by a sabre when they are themselves armed.


----------



## Baby Samurai

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> That's where your feats, class abilities and hitpoints will come in. I just don't see soldiers as amazing wushu dodging guys, that's all.





Who said anything about soldiers, or wushu for that matter?  I'm talking about any seasoned/experienced adventurer.  There is a difference with being skilled at avoiding damage and _leap of the clouds_ etc…


----------



## Baby Samurai

Rechan said:
			
		

> Then explain this to me: Why does a fighter's saves improve?
> 
> How is it the 20th level fighter can dodge a Fireball better than a 1st level fighter, but he still can't move out of the way of that orc's sword any better? If he can do a backflip over that fireball, then he should be able to get out of the way of the sword.




Finally, someone gets me.


----------



## Yergi

I like Rugger's idea as well. This also plays into the idea of "majors and minors" others have been mentioning. 

At 1st lvl, maybe I choose Tomes as my Major tool and Orbs as my Minor tool. So I get +2 to Tome spells and +1 to Orb spells (Obviously I'm pulling numbers out of the air), and those numbers go up as I level, while the Staff and Wand spells go up slower, starting at +0 at 1st lvl. 

This also fits in with how the article implies you choose pairs of implements. I don't have the article in front of me now, but there was a sentence in there that implied pairing of implements.

And again this dovetails nicely with how fighters will be unique based on their weapon choice; I wouldn't be surprised if fighters have a similar system of choosing a primary and secondary weapon.


----------



## F4NBOY

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Please don't put words in my mouth to try and strengthen your case.




I don't put word's in people mouths. A responsable lawyer would never do that.  
I just made an interpretation of the following posts, I didn't put anything in your mouth, it's all there:



			
				Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> So you really don't think that experience/training in combat would give you an edge, just what you were born with (ability scores)?





			
				wgreen said:
			
		

> It does. Hit points, man, hit points.





			
				Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Yeah, yeah




I just agreed with you both: Characters do get an defensive edge in combat with experience/training that's called Hit Points.


----------



## F4NBOY

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> I find wand +3, or a tome +4 quite arbitrary and contrived.  In fact I find it rather stupid and lame in terms of design.




Can you give us a reason for that heavy criticism? Or are you just trolling/flaming/thread crapping here?


----------



## Fredrik Svanberg

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> I find wand +3, or a tome +4 quite arbitrary and contrived.  In fact I find it rather stupid and lame in terms of design.




Can't you use your amazing powers of precognition to tell us more about how these things work instead? I'm more interested in the actual facts than your opinions.


----------



## Baby Samurai

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> I don't put word's in people mouths. A responsable lawyer would never do that.
> 
> I just made an interpretation of the following posts, I didn't put anything in your mouth, it's all there:




You know what you're doing and it's really lame, but then again, aren't lawyers born anally?


----------



## Sun Knight

Wormwood said:
			
		

> How do you feel about +1 swords and +2 shields?




Pretty much the same to be honest.  If I use such weapons and armor I give them a special singular quality and history behind them that makes them more special.  A long sword +1 is just as lame.


----------



## Wormwood

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Pretty much the same to be honest.  If I use such weapons and armor I give them a special singular quality and history behind them that makes them more special.  A long sword +1 is just as lame.




In this you and I are in complete agreement. Nothing is as boring as seeing "+2 sword" on a character sheet. As a DM, I always try to add a little flavor to each magic item (even if it's just a name, a history, or a special effect). 

That said, you and I should have no problem adding the same flavor to our +1 tomes as we do to our +1 swords. Right?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 

Love this new idea.

*Regarding 'Less Magic Item Intensive'...*

Perhaps the number of items characters can simultaneously *use* has been lessened? So that maybe you can only utilise eight items at any given time.

So instead of Helm, Goggles, Necklace, Armour, Cloak, Two Rings, Belt, Boots and 2 held items its something less.

1. Clothes or Armour
2. Head or Neck
3. Torso or Back (Cloak or Belt etc.)
4. Legs or Feet
5-6. Arms (2)

7-8. Held Items (2)

Secondly, as others have mentioned, could be the number of stacking bonuses has been lessened or even done away with. So that you can only have one magical bonus to AC rather than Sacred, Insight, Enhancement etc.

*Also if Orb, Staff, Tome and Wand are the Wizard items, what could be the Clerical equivalents?*

Holy Symbol we already know about. Perhaps Favoured Weapon is another? Could Chalice be one (or would that simply be a type of Holy Symbol?)? Or what of Rods?

*What if the Clerical 'Four' were:*

Swords Favoured Weapon...boosts attacking magic
Pentacle Holy Symbol...boosts defensive magic
Rods...boosts miscellaneous magic
Chalice...boosts healing magic


----------



## WizarDru

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> *2.)* Don't give me that crap, I said hp are abstract and do not represent X amount of flesh.




I'm not sure what you're saying, exactly.

A 20th level character DOES have differences, even naked....*IF* the character chose to take advantage of those benefits, under 3.5e.  He should have increased his stats four times...that COULD have gone to Dex.  If his Dex is the same as the 1st level character, that was a choice he made on the way to 20th.  The 20th level fighter has feats out the wazoo.  He most likely has Dodge and Combat Expertise, meaning his AC is 19 for one foe and 18 for anyone else, instead of 13.  He also probably has improved initiative...because the best defense is a good offense.

And while you're conceding that hp are a benefit, I think you're really underestimating how much of a benefit they reflect from experience.  That 1st level fighter can be dropped by a kobold in one-shot if he rolls a crit.  The 20th level fighter can absorb eight or more orcs scoring crits for maximum damage.  At high levels, the fighter is encountering creatures that can inflict enough damage to instal-kill in a single hit....those hit points are necessary to even consider surivivint.


----------



## F4NBOY

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> You know what you're doing and it's really lame, but then again, aren't lawyers born anally?



I'm not "doing" anything, chill down. I just understood what you said that way. If I was wrong I'm sorry, don't need to feel outraged.


----------



## Sun Knight

Wormwood said:
			
		

> In this you and I are in complete agreement. Nothing is as boring as seeing "+2 sword" on a character sheet. As a DM, I always try to add a little flavor to each magic item (even if it's just a name, a history, or a special effect).
> 
> That said, you and I should have no problem adding the same flavor to our +1 tomes as we do to our +1 swords. Right?




Its just that the whole concept for +1 tomes is just silly.  Tomes are where spells are stored, instructions for creating golems are written down to be read, and other sundry things.  They shouldn't be used as a +1 _ANYTHING_.  Same with wands and orbs.  Its _too_ different.  Its not DnD.  Its something completely different.


----------



## Mort

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> I find wand +3, or a tome +4 quite arbitrary and contrived.  In fact I find it rather stupid and lame in terms of design.




Mechanics are almost by definition arbitrary and contrived how could they not be (how is a +1 wand more contrived than a +1 sword)? It's the implementation that's important. 

This implementation has the potential to be pretty good. My understanding is that there won't be saving throws as such but defenses - seems the +x wand, for example, will help the wizard penetrate certain defenses better. seems simple and elegant to me.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Same with wands and orbs.  Its _too_ different.  Its not DnD.  Its something completely different.




The horse is no more.
It has ceased to be.
This is an ex-horse.


----------



## F4NBOY

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Its just that the whole concept for +1 tomes is just silly.  Tomes are where spells are stored, instructions for creating golems are written down to be read, and other sundry things.  They shouldn't be used as a +1 _ANYTHING_.  Same with wands and orbs.  Its _too_ different.  Its not DnD.  Its something completely different.




What about two recipes for Chocolate Cake?
One is the normal recipe we find in the internet, no big deal.
The second is pretty much the same, but it's better organized and gives you tips to make an even better and more delicious chocolate cake.
So in game terms, whenever you are making that cake, the second recipe can be considered a +1 Recipe.


----------



## Aust Diamondew

I like the sound of these different items for casting, have to wait and see if I like it.

But I don't want to see the big six magic items expanded into the big 11, as others have said.

+X items are boring and become must have items, don't get rid all of the old +X items and just replace them with new crap!


----------



## Mort

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Its just that the whole concept for +1 tomes is just silly.  Tomes are where spells are stored, instructions for creating golems are written down to be read, and other sundry things.  They shouldn't be used as a +1 _ANYTHING_.  Same with wands and orbs.  Its _too_ different.  Its not DnD.  Its something completely different.




If it makes you feel better, why not just think of the +1 tome as shorthand? The actual description can be something like: this tome gives the user greater insight into summoning, controling and creating golems. mechanical effect +1 to spells of that nature (+1 what? depends on how the magic system plays out).  It has some potential - and really can't be worse than the current system.


----------



## Gundark

bording said:
			
		

> Arcane strikes, power words, and spells.
> 
> Anyone think those are the names for the at will/per encounter/per day abilities?




No comment about what was said. I just wanted to point out that this person joined in 2003 and has a post count of 1!!! I think this gets lurker of the year award!!! One comment every 4 years?? Way to pace yourself


----------



## Umbran

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> You know what you're doing and it's really lame...





No, what _you_ are doing is really lame.  Please come back in 3 days after you've reviewed The Rules of behavior around here.  

Please be civil, folks.


----------



## Rel

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> You know what you're doing and it's really lame, but then again, aren't lawyers born anally?




This kind of insult is not going to be tolerated.  We'll see you in three days, Baby.


----------



## Sun Knight

It is where spells are penned down by the wizard.  It shouldn't give any more insight in casting magic than what the wizard already knows!  I am really trying to wrap my head around this but as much as I try to put it in terms what Dungeons and Dragons is I just cannot do it.  Spellbooks are where wizards pen down their spells to reference them when they need to rememorize their spells, to replenish their power.  They don't have any modfiers to them.  They just are.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree.  I am going to drop this as another thing I don't like about 4e and leave it at that.  This threader is done beating this dead horse.


----------



## Rel

Umbran said:
			
		

> No, what you are doing is really lame.  Please come back in 3 days after you've reviewed The Rules of behavior around here.




Simulmod!


----------



## Stone Dog

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Also if Orb, Staff, Tome and Wand are the Wizard items, what could be the Clerical equivalents?*




I'm backing you on the Holy Symbol for direct projection of divine power.  Turning undead, healing, circles of protection and that sort of thing.  Brandishing holy might style of magic.

I also think that a favored weapon might have a place for offensive castings.  

Liturgy would be appropriate for augmenting allies and castigating enemies, but a physical book would be a little too similar to a wizard visually.

I think that Vestments would be appropriate for protective castings and anything that can be potentially based on the authority of the church.

I hope divine magic isn't too far down the list of articles!


----------



## Wormwood

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Its just that the whole concept for +1 tomes is just silly.  Tomes are where spells are stored, instructions for creating golems are written down to be read, and other sundry things.




And in 4e, _certain _books may contain ancient formulae and eldritch diagrams which the clever wizard can reference, aiding him in summoning and conrollling extraplanar creatures (for example).

Some books are more potent than others, of course. _Monsters and Their Kynde_ may only be an essay into the field (+1 summoning), while the hideous _De Vermis Mysteriis_ of the archmage Prinn is a masterwork of forbidden secrets (+6 to summoning spells plus a half dozen additional effects)

You don;t like it, fine. That's your right. But your blanket dismissal of the concept as 'silly' is a conversational dead-end.


----------



## GlassJaw

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> It is where spells are penned down by the wizard.  It shouldn't give any more insight in casting magic than what the wizard already knows!




Says who?  You?  Well it looks like 4E is *gasp* different.  

All your negative comments since this board starter are extremely annoying.  You obviously don't like what you've heard about 4e.  Why post here if you don't have anything useful to contribute?


----------



## Aust Diamondew

It is silly to create new +X items, when one of your design goals is to make magic items less important in 4e.


----------



## Imp

"You finish your incantation, and three walking skeletons rise from their graves, ready to do your bidding."

"Dude.  Hey.  Remember the +2 virgin I sacrificed a couple days ago?  That still counts, right?"

"Oh.  Right.  Good job then.  Five walking skeletons rise from their graves, ready to do your bidding."

Maybe I can have fun with this.


----------



## Sun Knight

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Says who?  You?  Well it looks like 4E is *gasp* different.
> 
> All your negative comments since this board starter are extremely annoying.  You obviously don't like what you've heard about 4e.  Why post here if you don't have anything useful to contribute?



Because I am desperately trying to find something... ANYTHING... about 4e that I can like.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Howdy Aust Diamondew! 



			
				Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> It is silly to create new +X items, when one of your design goals is to make magic items less important in 4e.




See my previous post for why it isn't silly.

Shorthand: Maybe you can utilise less items simultaneously than 3/3.5. Thus getting rid of, or at the very least, reducing the Christmas Tree effect at high levels.


----------



## fuindordm

I can see both sides of the argument for tomes.

On the one hand, books have enormous symbolic weight and are certainly iconic tools.

On the other hand, the primary function of a book is never to be a symbol, but to hold knowledge. 

So at a minimum, I would hope that tomes always give bonuses only to specific spells. But the question is always this:

"If what's written in a book gives me +2 to spell X, then why do I have to keep carrying the book around to get that +2 after I've read it?"

Ben


----------



## Imaro

Rechan said:
			
		

> Then explain this to me: Why does a fighter's saves improve?
> 
> How is it the 20th level fighter can dodge a Fireball better than a 1st level fighter, but he still can't move out of the way of that orc's sword any better? If he can do a backflip over that fireball, then he should be able to get out of the way of the sword.




That's where Hit Points come in.  They don't translate directly to life bar.


----------



## Stone Dog

Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> It is silly to create new +X items, when one of your design goals is to make magic items less important in 4e.



It is very likely that there is an aspect to classes that makes +X items less of a big deal.  It is also likely that there is a core assumtion that items are going to be harder to come by, making +x items MORE of a big deal, but characters won't be dripping with them.  A +X item might actually MATTER instead of being an assumed piece of equipment and worth adventuring for!


----------



## Mort

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> It is where spells are penned down by the wizard.  It shouldn't give any more insight in casting magic than what the wizard already knows!




But that's just it - Bel the fledgling necromancer finds the Tome of Ozymandias, the greatest necromancer of his generation, with all of its dark spells and insights into the world beyond. You think Bel isn't going to learn a thing or two he didn't already know, or get more out of this book than his own tome?



			
				Sun Knight said:
			
		

> I am really trying to wrap my head around this but as much as I try to put it in terms what Dungeons and Dragons is I just cannot do it.  Spellbooks are where wizards pen down their spells to reference them when they need to rememorize their spells, to replenish their power.  They don't have any modfiers to them.  They just are.




There are many, many mythological and fictional references to books brimming with power and the people trying to find and use them - seems like a good change to me.


----------



## F4NBOY

Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> It is silly to create new +X items, when one of your design goals is to make magic items less important in 4e.




I think the game will be less focused on magic items because character won't need them anymore to be able to face balanced encounters. Just getting rid of magic items wouldn't achieve that, as putting some more won't prevent that.

I like magic items and I believe most D&D players do. We don't need less magic items, we need them to be uneeded. 
If character have them great, even more fun; but if they don't, they can still make their stuff and handle themselves pretty well.
The contrary(3e) sucks IMO: If characters have magic items, thank god(DM) because they are suppposed to have them otherwise they are dead meat; but if they don't have them they are dead meat.


----------



## Simplicity

I love it, but I'd prefer some tweaks.  Haven't read the whole thread yet, but the biggest problem I see with this is the surreptitious caster.  Suppose you want someone of the "enchanter" archetype.  

Victim: "You'll never get me to agree!"

Villain: "I'm going to charm you now... hang on while I whip this out."

Victim: "AAaaaaaa!"

Villain: "No, not that.  This.  It's a book.  A TOME."

Victim: "Oh, alright.  Wait... you're going to charm me?"

Villain: "Yes, see?  It's right here in Chapter 3.  You do what I say."

Victim: "Wait, I'm not going to let you pull out a giant TOME so you can charm me.  Urrrggg...  yes... I do what you say."

It'd be nice to have a focus that is a little more concealable (for DMs really).  A ring, perhaps?  An amulet.  Something that doesn't announce: "Kill me, I'm the wizard".


----------



## Patlin

_Opening the tome, the wizard began his incantations.  The power encased in the mystic volume responded to his words, each rune glowing as he evoked its power.  With the magical volume in hand, the wizard could channel his power through it like a lense, making his spell more powerfull, more precise..._

D&D Scrolls have always had magical energ stored within them.  If a scroll can be enchanted for a single use, surely a book can be enchanted with a continuing benefit.


----------



## Greg K

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> So what happens when someone wants to multiclass into a wizard then? Do you throw away the flavour text in those circumstances, or require someone multiclassing into a wizard to go off and spend some time with an accomplished master or what?




I already do this or require a feat that grants cantrips before multiclassing into wizard.  However, a wizard PC can serve as the means to learn the feat granting the cantrip.


----------



## Patlin

Simplicity said:
			
		

> It'd be nice to have a focus that is a little more concealable (for DMs really).  A ring, perhaps?  An amulet.  Something that doesn't announce: "Kill me, I'm the wizard".




Unless your NPC is so powerfull he disdains the normal crutches of lesser wizards... BWAHAHA!  I like the idea that these items are helpfull but not required.


----------



## Lurks-no-More

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> It is where spells are penned down by the wizard.  It shouldn't give any more insight in casting magic than what the wizard already knows!  I am really trying to wrap my head around this but as much as I try to put it in terms what Dungeons and Dragons is I just cannot do it.  Spellbooks are where wizards pen down their spells to reference them when they need to rememorize their spells, to replenish their power.  They don't have any modfiers to them.  They just are.




But you see, tome doesn't have to be the spellbook. It's not where you store your spells; it's a tool to cast those spells. Try to think it like this... you learn your spells from somewhere - your tutor, perhaps, or by finding obscure books in moldy old libraries, or by deducing them from first principles in your arcane laboratory. So, you know those spells, and can cast them.

But some of those spells include long and elaborate chants, or exacting geometrical patterns, which channel the magic into the intended form. So... you can go adventuring with your trusty staff and wand, relying on your knowledge and memory to get it done right. And since you're a capable wizard (you know the spell), you can do it.

If you took your tome with you, where you have the painstakingly drawn and perfectly illustrated diagrams of the spell, you don't have to rely on your memory or worry about your hand shaking when you draw the signs in the air; you can trace them from the tome as you chant. Thus, your spell works better.

Edit: Ooh, a real-life example! I can do calculus with just pen and paper, but if I have a reference book at hand, I'm going to check the formulas from there, and get better results.


----------



## Rechan

fuindordm said:
			
		

> "If what's written in a book gives me +2 to spell X, then why do I have to keep carrying the book around to get that +2 after I've read it?"



Why is it in 3.x that I am more alert when my familiar is within five feet of me? Because my connection to the familiar is stronger when it is within arm's reach.

The mere writing of spells onto the pages of a book infuses that book with power. Every page has a little saturation. The same way that a summoning circle has sigils/words written in the floor, thus making it a conduit of magic, so too are the Words a channel for that magic.

Let me put it another way.

Knowledge is power the same way that a rock sitting at the top of a hill is power. I take that knowledge and I do something with it, I take that rock and I push it down the hill. Knowledge is powerful *because of how it is applied*. However, that potential knowledge still is very powerful in and of itself, because it is latent, stored, ready to use.


----------



## breschau

Plain +x magic items that enhance a character's already existing abilities rock. It means it's your character doing all the work, just with a little magic help. It's all you, not your magic items.

Convoluted magic items that grant entirely new abilities are lame. That's the Christmas tree effect 4e is supposed to be trying to get away from. With these, it's not about your character at all, just which abilities you gain from your magic items.

Thank you WotC for 4th Edition.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Wow. Someone fed this thread extra growth hormones.

Just to throw out a few things...

1) People worried about being surreptitious should remember that wizards can do all their magic without the appropriate focus. It's not _quite_ as potent, but it's still effective.

2) I don't think we'll be seeing wizards juggling all for implements. While I have no solid facts to back this up, the implication of the phrasing suggests, as others have said, that wizards are only going to use one or two of the four objects at a given time. I expect that, just like fighters will choose at least some maneuvers based on one specific weapon, that wizards will choose strikes/power words/spells based on one or two foci. Not that they'll be _unable_ to cast others, but I strongly suspect the rules will encourage some degree of specialization.

3) Speaking only for myself, now... To me, this _does_ feel like D&D; the fact that it's new is irrelevant. Anything that inspires the same sense of wonder D&D does (or did) inspire, and that is thematically appropriate to the D&D style of fantasy setting, is D&D AFAIAC.


----------



## Sun Knight

Sorry, but I am of the old school that magic items, even the most minor ones, should be special, have a history, and do something that makes them a useful tool more than just a bonus to a die roll.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Because I am desperately trying to find something... ANYTHING... about 4e that I can like.




It's provided you with an excuse to grace us with your presence?

We'll all look back fondly on August 2007.


----------



## Grog

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I love it, but I'd prefer some tweaks.  Haven't read the whole thread yet, but the biggest problem I see with this is the surreptitious caster.



You're forgetting two things:

1. Wizards can still cast spells without using the items, they'll just be slightly less effective.

2. Sorcerors will probably work very differently from wizards, and my guess is that they won't use items for their spellcasting.

I like this change from a flavor point of view, but I'm going to reserve judgment until I see the mechanics. I think the idea of +X wands could get very problematic, and at high levels, those items could end up being just as essential as the wizard's spellbook is now.


----------



## AffableVagrant

*!*



			
				Amy Kou'ai said:
			
		

> I suspect that metamagic will move from the characters into the items.  Think a "+1 lesser empowering orb" or something similar.



I suspect you are right on the money with this.    Can't say if I approve or disaprove as of yet.  I do hope this will mean the death of spell components!


----------



## Grog

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I am of the old school that magic items, even the most minor ones, should be special, have a history, and do something that makes them a useful tool more than just a bonus to a die roll.



You must really hate 3E, then. It has more +X items than any edition so far.


----------



## Zebediah Magus

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> It is where spells are penned down by the wizard.  It shouldn't give any more insight in casting magic than what the wizard already knows!  I am really trying to wrap my head around this but as much as I try to put it in terms what Dungeons and Dragons is I just cannot do it.  Spellbooks are where wizards pen down their spells to reference them when they need to rememorize their spells, to replenish their power.  They don't have any modfiers to them.  They just are.




As others have pointed out, these tomes we're talking about may not be our usual 3.5 spellbooks, and I hope they are not.

Also, a scroll your wizard wrote himself didn't contain any knowledge beyond those of the spell he already knew. Even so, reading it triggered the spell. The 4e tomes may work in that exact way.

On the modifiers, they may come from class abilities, again as others have pointed out before.


----------



## F4NBOY

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I am of the old school that magic items, even the most minor ones, should be special, have a history, and do something that makes them a useful tool more than just a bonus to a die roll.



So you not only dislike everything in 4E so far but you also seems to dislike 3E too.
Are you sure you are in the right site?


----------



## Wormwood

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I am of the old school that magic items, even the most minor ones, should be special, have a history, and do something that makes them a useful tool more than just a bonus to a die roll.




Your old school never existed in any iteration of D&D, I'm afraid. 

From the original OD&D pamphlets to the 1e DMG to the Keep on the Borderland, a _significant _majority of minor magical items are without _any _history or game effect beyond +5% increments to hit (or -5% chances to be hit, in the case of armor). 

I maintain that you simply continue applying the same House Rules to 4e than you seem to have been applying to OD&D, 1e, 2e and 3e.


----------



## Lurks-no-More

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I am of the old school that magic items, even the most minor ones, should be special, have a history, and do something that makes them a useful tool more than just a bonus to a die roll.



Great. Then, just as if you would do with a +1 sword in the treasure, you'll take the +1 tome (or whatever), give it a name and a history, and link it to something in the campaign setting. Sure, that tome you're carrying around is just a minor grimoire... but it was the book the dread archmage Malygris used as an apprentice, and there are all sorts of _interesting_ scribbles in the margins. So... do you want to try and decipher some of those rune words? Or maybe sell it to that stranger who's looking for all kinds of things that are connected to Malygris...

Making magic items special and meaningful is a job for the GM and the players, not for the rulebooks.


----------



## Sun Knight

Grog said:
			
		

> You must really hate 3E, then. It has more +X items than any edition so far.




It does give you the option to have magic items beyond just +x in case you didn't notice.


----------



## Wormwood

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> *Making magic items special and meaningful is a job for the GM and the players, not for the rulebooks.*




You said it better in one sentence than I have in three bloated posts.

Repeated in bold.


----------



## Simplicity

For the surreptitious caster, it really depends on how effective "still effective" is, doesn't it?
I suppose it can't be that much worse than the old metamagic "give up a spell level if you don't want to have a component" way of doing things.

I do really like the flavor of this.  As a wizard in 3.5e, I want to have a quarterstaff, but I'd sure be an idiot to ever use it.  When the magic is gone, it's crossbow time.  And that just seems weird.  Having a staff-wielding wizard who can USE his staff.  That's yummy.

Tomes are so applicable to all schools though, I'd personally prefer if they were a form of meta-wizard item.  And something else were used for that last item.  What kind of wizard doesn't want to carry around a book?


----------



## stonegod

Seems very Hermetic, which considering the wizard is the apex of Western Tradition Magic users, makes sense (thus the similar tools in LoTR, HP, etc, etc). I agree with them being helpers (the tome example previous was spot on)---think of them as potential foci that may nor may not be required. 

It would be good to see either (1) A way for wizards to move beyond such limitations or (2) another arcane class (sorcerer/warlock?) that does not have dependence on such tools and does magic inherently.


----------



## Rechan

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> It does give you the option to have magic items beyond just +x in case you didn't notice.



Because you know for a fact that 4e won't.


----------



## Wormwood

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> It does give you the option to have magic items beyond just +x in case you didn't notice.




And if 4e _doesn't _provide a similar option to customize wands, orbs and tomes I would be STUNNED. 

But I am wholly confident that they will.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I am of the old school that magic items, even the most minor ones, should be special, have a history, and do something that makes them a useful tool more than just a bonus to a die roll.




Wow, that REALLY doesn't sound like D&D!  Home of the +1 Sword, +1 Shield, and +1 Platemail that fits both Elf and Dwarf.


----------



## Sun Knight

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> Making magic items special and meaningful is a job for the GM and the players, not for the rulebooks.




However it needs to be both for the aethetics and game mechanics of the magic item in question.  You can have the most elaborate backstory of a magic item, but a +x item is still a boring +x item.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

fuindordm said:
			
		

> I can see both sides of the argument for tomes.
> 
> On the one hand, books have enormous symbolic weight and are certainly iconic tools.
> 
> On the other hand, the primary function of a book is never to be a symbol, but to hold knowledge.
> 
> So at a minimum, I would hope that tomes always give bonuses only to specific spells. But the question is always this:
> 
> "If what's written in a book gives me +2 to spell X, then why do I have to keep carrying the book around to get that +2 after I've read it?"
> 
> Ben



I could see it if the tome is used for longer casting time spells, such as full round spells or longer ritual type spells.  The idea could be these kinds of magic tomes contain blank pages.  When the wizard casts one of the spells using the tome, his incantations magically inscribe in the tome, providing a focus for the spell.  Where spoken words fade into nothingness, the tome provides a place for the magic to gather and strengthen before it is released.  Casting the same spell a second time does not inscribe new pages, but reactivates the magic in the pages previously inscribed.  When a new caster finds or acquires a tome, they must attune it to themselves.  This wipes the inscriptions of the previous caster from the tome.


----------



## Aage

My staff-wielding elven mage-fighter is loving this. Now, not only is it a totally awesome weapon, but it helps her casting as well? Go WotC!!


----------



## Piratecat

It's ironic to see people fretting about these changes and saying "It's too different, it's not D&D!" To them I would ask: do you consider 3e to be D&D? Because that _exact same complaint_ was made hundreds of times on this site in 1999 and 2000, as we waited for 3e to launch.

3e's changes were far more extreme than I expect 4e's to be, and I'm pretty happy with how 3e turned out. For me, it's definitely D&D. I expect 4e will be the exact same way.


----------



## WizarDru

Simplicity said:
			
		

> It'd be nice to have a focus that is a little more concealable (for DMs really).  A ring, perhaps?  An amulet.  Something that doesn't announce: "Kill me, I'm the wizard".




A little more concealable?  How big do you think the Tomes are, exactly?  They don't have to be as big as an unabridged dictionary...any more than a standard spellbook does.

I mean, is this any more conspicuous than a miniature metal sword, a jade worth 250 gp, 1500 gp of crushed pearls, a small mirror, a glowing incense stick or phosphorescent rod?  Virtually all spells have consipcuous components to them, be they obvious hand gestures, components or spoken phrases.  Hell, the Silence spell has a verbal component (presumably _SHHHHH!_).


----------



## F4NBOY

Aage said:
			
		

> My staff-wielding elven mage-fighter is loving this. Now, not only is it a totally awesome weapon, but it helps her casting as well? Go WotC!!




I hope they allow Swordstaffs, daggerwands, orbmaces and shieldtomes!!!   
Can't get better than that!


----------



## Sun Knight

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> I hope they allow Swordstaffs, daggerwands, orbmaces and shieldtomes!!!
> Can't get better than that!





 

Errr...  *NO!*


----------



## AffableVagrant

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> And I can see that the first thing out of the gate, after PHB1 would be alternate implements for wizards.  Because I'd like the ideas for athames and chalices for wizard implements over some staffs and orbs.




No doubt.


----------



## D.Shaffer

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> However it needs to be both for the aethetics and game mechanics of the magic item in question.  You can have the most elaborate backstory of a magic item, but a +x item is still a boring +x item.



So why are we assuming that the only possible 'enhances' that can be given to a wizards implements are flat bonuses?


----------



## Aage

The article seems to have been changed   the Tome is gone...

We now have:

Orb: enchantment, beguiling, and ensnaring, defenses when invoking spells of thunder or force.

Wand: accurate, damaging attacks, powers of cold and deadly acidic magic, lightning and force

Staff: fierce powers of fire and radiance, shape and sculpt the spells they cast.

"Wizards are rarely without at least one of these tools"


----------



## Zurai

fuindordm said:
			
		

> "If what's written in a book gives me +2 to spell X, then why do I have to keep carrying the book around to get that +2 after I've read it?"
> 
> Ben




How many different demon/celestial/slaadi/etc names can you remember by heart - remember, EXACT pronunciation is generally required for spells in fantasy - when they're all spelled along the lines of "Zzyzijkiliahkamenstuiovibelliatrixiop"?


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

stonegod said:
			
		

> It would be good to see either (1) A way for wizards to move beyond such limitations or (2) another arcane class (sorcerer/warlock?) that does not have dependence on such tools and does magic inherently.



  The way I read between the lines of the Design and Development article, I think option 2 is correct.  I think this is the way the _wizard_ class gets differentiated, but is not the rule for all arcane casters.  Sorcerers and/or warlocks will have inherent power that will grant them certain advantages and disadvantages from wizards.


----------



## FickleGM

Wow, this is a growing thread, isn't it?

A couple observations:

1. Sun Knight and 4e don't appear to be compatible at this point.  He is correct, though, that prior editions did allow for more variety than just +x in magical weapons and armor.  I believe that he is jumping the gun in thinking that 4e will not allow for the same sort of variety with these magical implements.

2. I like this idea, but like some others, the Tome is the real sticking point.  I'll probably house-rule a different item in its place.  It just doesn't feel right. *EDIT: If the Tome is no longer in the article, then this point is no longer an issue...although, I am not happy with the current spellbook...*

3. While not related directly to the thread, I did see mention of hitpoints, class-based defense and armor.  I would like to see a class-based defense (whether it is a SWSE-style Reflex Defense or not, I don't care).  I would like to see armor be used as Defense OR Damage Reduction, at the attackers perogative.  Either the attacker attempts to attack around the armor, in which case, it adds to the defense but allows for more damage...OR...the attacker powers through the armor, in which case, the defender is easier to hit but gains DR.

4. I also hope that the cleric has something at least related, so that he may use religious implements in spellcasting.

4e_Optimism = 4e_Optimism + 1


----------



## Mercule

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Errr...  *NO!*




On this one point, I agree.  I'm fine with the new foci, but let a staff look like a staff.

I'd also like to see tomes made into a global adder -- and a pain in the rear to lug around.  Replace that specialty with something else.

Also, my money is on there being a feat or some other mechanism to allow a substitute focus for one of the groupings.


----------



## Zebediah Magus

Last week I received my copy of Saga and I really liked the dynamic between the force, talent trees and feats. Sounds like they may be aiming for something very close to that with 4e magic.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Also if Orb, Staff, Tome and Wand are the Wizard items, what could be the Clerical equivalents?*
> 
> Holy Symbol we already know about. Perhaps Favoured Weapon is another? Could Chalice be one (or would that simply be a type of Holy Symbol?)? Or what of Rods?
> 
> *What if the Clerical 'Four' were:*
> 
> Swords Favoured Weapon...boosts attacking magic
> Pentacle Holy Symbol...boosts defensive magic
> Rods...boosts miscellaneous magic
> Chalice...boosts healing magic



So here's a question: will *all* classes have "implements" somewhat equivalent to the fighter's sword and shield? What would you imagine a Druid's implements to be?


----------



## Mercule

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> So here's a question: will *all* classes have "implements" somewhat equivalent to the fighter's sword and shield? What would you imagine a Druid's implements to be?




+5 human sacrifice.


----------



## Wormwood

Aage said:
			
		

> The article seems to have been changed   the Tome is gone...




You're right. 

I REALLY hope this doesn't mean they're going to retain the the old 'spellbook'. 

I was *really* digging the Tome idea---that's the one that had the most potential flavor of all four foci!


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> So here's a question: will *all* classes have "implements" somewhat equivalent to the fighter's sword and shield? What would you imagine a Druid's implements to be?



Holly, an oaken staff and things like that.  Of course I don't know when the druid is coming out.


----------



## F4NBOY

Edit: keeping the thread on topic...


----------



## Grog

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> So here's a question: will *all* classes have "implements" somewhat equivalent to the fighter's sword and shield? What would you imagine a Druid's implements to be?



Maybe they'll go back to 1E, where Druids needed mistletoe to cast all their spells.


----------



## Aage

FickleGM said:
			
		

> 4. I also hope that the cleric has something at least related, so that he may use religious implements in spellcasting.




Holy symbol as cleric opposite of orb?
Favoured Weapon as staff?
Something wandlike? Not sure here ^^


----------



## Irda Ranger

Piratecat said:
			
		

> 3e's changes were far more extreme than I expect 4e's to be, and I'm pretty happy with how 3e turned out. For me, it's definitely D&D. I expect 4e will be the exact same way.



Hmm. To me there's a difference between 'changing the rules' and 'changing the flavor.'  The latter seems more likely to result in "not D&D." 3e introduced changes to both, no argument, but this change does really feel different to me. It's subjective. Maybe I'll get used to it; we'll see.

But I know right now I don't like Tome as being particular to some spells.  Ancient knowledge and magical lore should apply to all forms of magic, not just subsets (and what happens in you lose half the pages?).  Considering the subsets of spells currently associated with Tomes (shapechange, summon, conjure, physical effects), I think I will change Tome to "Familiar."  Magical tomes (lower-case 't') will be necessary for between-adventure leveling-up training and "new spells" magical research.


----------



## Korgoth

Aage said:
			
		

> The article seems to have been changed   the Tome is gone...
> 
> We now have:
> 
> Orb: enchantment, beguiling, and ensnaring, defenses when invoking spells of thunder or force.
> 
> Wand: accurate, damaging attacks, powers of cold and deadly acidic magic, lightning and force
> 
> Staff: fierce powers of fire and radiance, shape and sculpt the spells they cast.
> 
> "Wizards are rarely without at least one of these tools"




That's a shame.  This was the first 4e announcement in a while that I was actually interested in, and mainly because of the Tome.

Oh well.  I guess I can go back to not liking it now.


----------



## alaric

How bizarre, they didn't just make a small edit, they completely rewrote the article.  Now we get:



> The orb is favored by the Iron Sigil and Serpent Eye traditions. Serpent Eye cabalists use orbs to focus powers of enchantment, beguiling, and ensnaring. The mages of the Iron Sigil, on the other hand, employ orbs to guard themselves with potent defenses when invoking spells of thunder or force.
> 
> The staff is best suited to the disciplines of the Hidden Flame and the Golden Wyvern. Servants of the Hidden Flame wield fierce powers of fire and radiance through their staves. Golden Wyvern initiates are battle-mages who use their staves to shape and sculpt the spells they cast.
> 
> The wand is a perennial favorite for wizards who favor accurate, damaging attacks. Emerald Frost adepts use wands to help channel powers of cold and deadly acidic magic, while Stormwalker theurges channel spells of lightning and force through their wands.


----------



## kerbarian

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I could see it if the tome is used for longer casting time spells, such as full round spells or longer ritual type spells.



I agree, tomes would work well for anything where the wizard is taking his time casting the spell.  What I really can't see is a wizard running, dodging, and weaving in combat while holding a tome open in one hand and reading from it as part of casting a spell.  Wands and staves are just fine for that kind of thing, and orbs could be, too, if they're small enough or mounted on handles (like Diablo 2 orbs).  I just can't picture a tome as an in-combat casting aid, though.  Or rather, I can picture it, but the picture is implausible and a bit silly.

You could always say that the tomes are magically easy to grip and hold themselves open to the correct page automatically, but that's just pasting over the problem with "It's magic!", and I can't think of any books that work like that in fiction.


----------



## WayneLigon

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Because I am desperately trying to find something... ANYTHING... about 4e that I can like.




Hmm. If you haven't seen _anything at all _ you like yet, 4E is probably not for you. There are probably _more_ radical things coming when they start to make the really substantive previews in a few months. You might want to look at http://www.dragonsfoot.org


----------



## Cadfan

You're right, the article changed.

Tome went away.  The division between Orb, Wand, and Staff have been altered.  Flavor names have replaced the mechanical divisions used before.

The combination language went away.


----------



## Mercule

alaric said:
			
		

> How bizarre, they didn't just make a small edit, they completely rewrote the article.  Now we get:




With nothing to replace the Tome.  Well, I imagine that indicates they're listening to the "Tome, WTF?" comments, which I'm happy about.

Now, I just need to figure out what I think of their flavor text for the colleges.  Not so hip on those particular names, but that's an extremely easy change.


----------



## Wormwood

alaric said:
			
		

> How bizarre, they didn't just make a small edit, they completely rewrote the article.  Now we get:




Should names like Hidden Flame and Iron Sigil be in the core rules? I would normally expect that sort of 'fluff' to be campaign-specific.

I'm not complaining---in fact I think they're kinda cool---I'm just curious.


----------



## Grog

alaric said:
			
		

> How bizarre, they didn't just make a small edit, they completely rewrote the article.  Now we get:



Boy, I *really* don't like those discipline names. They sound way too kung-fu/Exalted-ish for my tastes.


----------



## Irda Ranger

Aage said:
			
		

> The article seems to have been changed   the Tome is gone...
> 
> We now have:
> 
> Orb: enchantment, beguiling, and ensnaring, defenses when invoking spells of thunder or force.
> 
> Wand: accurate, damaging attacks, powers of cold and deadly acidic magic, lightning and force
> 
> Staff: fierce powers of fire and radiance, shape and sculpt the spells they cast.
> 
> "Wizards are rarely without at least one of these tools"



And no note of the change either. That's really weird.  I hope they explain that, rather than pretend it never happened.  Even a "whoops - Bruce had last week's rules doc" would suffice, but I am very curious.

I think it's better now, though.  I like tomes, and will always have my wizards doing research in musty libraries and such, but I was not digging "the Tome" as a '+X' implement.  What happens if you lose half the pages?  It goes from +4 to +2?  It's just weird.  Am orb, staff or wand are either broken or whole, not half-way.

There are plenty of good implements it could be replaced with: Familiar, Amulet and Pouch-o-stuff jump to mind.


----------



## Celebrim

Piratecat said:
			
		

> It's ironic to see people fretting about these changes and saying "It's too different, it's not D&D!" To them I would ask: do you consider 3e to be D&D? Because that _exact same complaint_ was made hundreds of times on this site in 1999 and 2000, as we waited for 3e to launch.




So, you are saying that if anyone has ever made an argument badly, or if anyone has ever claimed something in a different situation wrongly, that those claims are now forever tainted so that in a totally different situation its sufficient to point out that people have been wrong before?



> 3e's changes were far more extreme than I expect 4e's to be




I'm struggling to grasp how people can believe that they can kill alot of supposedly obselete 'sacred cows' that have been with D&D since the beginning, and yet also simultaneously believe that the changes are actually rather small.  It seems to me that on the one hand, alot of people here want the new system to be revolutionary and completely different, and at the same time they want to believe that its going to be the same.

I didn't feel like 3e's changes were extreme (1e + mechanics familiar from the Fallout RPG).  I do feel like 4e's changes are 'extreme'.

I can even make that point in a way which is 'friendly' to the optimistic 4e viewpoint.  The problems that 4e claims it's addressing are not unique to 3e, but rather are often the result of 3e being so similar to 1e.   Whether its actually addressing them or making new problems is the question, but I can't see how you can pretend that the changes envisioned for 4e aren't the most radical in the games history.  Isn't that openly the stance of the designers?


----------



## Mercule

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Should names like Hidden Flame and Iron Sigil be in the core rules? I would normally expect that sort of 'fluff' to be campaign-specific.
> 
> I'm not complaining---in fact I think they're kinda cool---I'm just curious.




I'm quite happy with it, so long as they don't make a big attempt to define it all.  The one-off mentions of Vecna, Kas, Dahlver Nal, etc. were some of the best bits in the 1E DMG, and what I think really gives it its enduring appeal.  If they feel obligated to give us a two paragraph write up of each college, though, they've blown it, IMO.

That said, I really agree with Grog:



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> Boy, I *really* don't like those discipline names. They sound way too kung-fu/Exalted-ish for my tastes.


----------



## Raven Crowking

In my homebrew, I made the athame and staff the general tools of the magician.  The athame was used to direct spells (provide "to hit" bonus when needed, or as a conduit for touch spells), while the staff held magical energy (i.e., a reserve of spell levels allowing the caster to avoid using his memorized spells).

So, I have mixed feelings.

When I read the OP, the first thing that popped into my head was the wizard in Dungeon.....You know, "Green elf needs food, badly."  However, the later flavour text ameleorates this somewhat.

Are this fluff going to be in the SRD, though?  If not, how will that affect third-party developers?


RC


----------



## FickleGM

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> There are plenty of good implements it could be replaced with: Familiar, Amulet and Pouch-o-stuff jump to mind.




I hope that it wouldn't be a Familiar, since they already have specific benefits.

Amulet isn't bad.

I'd rather use a Wizard's Hat, than a Pouch-o-Stuff...but, both would work for conjurations and summonings...think Presto from the D&D cartoon.


----------



## DaveMage

Weird!

What I don't like is that, as with much of the info we're getting, we don't know the whole picture.  Therefore, it's hard to comment on whether or not I like the change.  The announcement just leads to more unanswered questions.  (I know, I know, they want us to buy the preview books.)

Of course, since the write up seems to be morphing as we speak, it's hard to know what to believe!


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Holy Carp!!!!!!

*The orb is favored by the Iron Sigil and Serpent Eye traditions. Serpent Eye cabalists use orbs to focus powers of enchantment, beguiling, and ensnaring. The mages of the Iron Sigil, on the other hand, employ orbs to guard themselves with potent defenses when invoking spells of thunder or force.

The staff is best suited to the disciplines of the Hidden Flame and the Golden Wyvern. Servants of the Hidden Flame wield fierce powers of fire and radiance through their staves. Golden Wyvern initiates are battle-mages who use their staves to shape and sculpt the spells they cast.

The wand is a perennial favorite for wizards who favor accurate, damaging attacks. Emerald Frost adepts use wands to help channel powers of cold and deadly acidic magic, while Stormwalker theurges channel spells of lightning and force through their wands.*


----------



## Charwoman Gene

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

NOT WOD SPLATS AAAAAAARRRGH!

4e is now dead to me.


----------



## Wormwood

Mercule said:
			
		

> I'm quite happy with it, so long as they don't make a big attempt to define it all.  The one-off mentions of Vecna, Kas, Dahlver Nal, etc. were some of the best bits in the 1E DMG, and what I think really gives it its enduring appeal.  If they feel obligated to give us a two paragraph write up of each college, though, they've blown it, IMO.




Whoa---I really, REALLY agree with you on this point.

I remember reading my 1e DMG and marveling at such mysterious figures as "Lum the Mad" and "Vecna".

You're definitely right: allow *me* to define the Iron Sigil and I think this is a great step in the right direction.


----------



## Mercule

FickleGM said:
			
		

> I hope that it wouldn't be a Familiar, since they already have specific benefits.
> 
> Amulet isn't bad.
> 
> I'd rather use a Wizard's Hat, than a Pouch-o-Stuff...but, both would work for conjurations and summonings...think Presto from the D&D cartoon.




Something like this:



			
				Faux 4E DMG said:
			
		

> *Wizard's Hat +1*
> *Description:* This jaunty hat aides in swaying people's opinion.  Add a +1 to all Charm and Compulsion spells and power words.


----------



## Celebrim

*chuckle*

I love the irony of the article changing completely.

I'm sure that I look ridiculous over here with my, "The sacred cows are falling!  The sacrew cows are falling!", but I hope we can maintain a good sense of humor about this, because from where I'm standing the, "I don't know anything about 4e, but I'm sure it is going to be awesome!!!!", crowd looks pretty funny juggling its expectations too.

"Any class, any level, just works... as soon as we work out the details."
"4e, we are going for 1e edition feel to the crunch with 3e edition feel to the fluff....or did I get that backwards?"
"4e, more streamlined, and lots more options too"
"4e, kills all your sacred cows but will still stay the same."
"4e, less dependence on magic items, plus lots of phat bling for the MMORPG crowd"
"4e, we are going to completely overhaul the game, and leave it perfectly balanced"
"4e, rigorously playtested and available 2nd quarter next year"
"4e, listening to all fan input with the same degree of attention that clouds flying overhead pay to you"
"4e, faster leveling for the 20% of the market that has demanded it."

Got to love it.


----------



## Glyfair

DaveMage said:
			
		

> What I don't like is that, as with much of the info we're getting, we don't know the whole picture.  Therefore, it's hard to comment on whether or not I like the change.  The announcement just leads to more unanswered questions.  (I know, I know, they want us to buy the preview books.)




They do, but I don't think that's it.  They don't want to give us everything now so that, next May, the reaction when the PHB is released is "seen it all, I'll wait a bit."  They want to keep a pretty steady anticipation over the next 8 months.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

I also think that this thing with implements will really set apart a wizard from a sorcerer or warlock.  It'll be a lot easier to tell how they are thematically different.

And really I never had anything against foci in Mage: the Ascension, as I liked it when players tried to come up with creative ideas for foci, using not only wands and staffs, but other ideas like their government agency badge, pistol, DJ equipment or whatever...

Anyways we've only seen a small part of the picture.  I'm guessing that one of the implements might make at will abilities like fiery burst, acidic splatter or hurricane breath (I'm using Complete Mage reserve feats as sample names) better to use...

Anyways I've noticed the article changed since the last time I read it.  Now with traditions mentioned and only wand, staff and orb described as implements. 

Well more evidence that they're basing ideas off of ToB, with magic traditions = martial disciplines.  Could they be changing around the schools?  Maybe, but there's still many iconic spells around, and some might be regulated more to per day and per encounter abilities.


----------



## Wormwood

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
> 
> NOT WOD SPLATS AAAAAAARRRGH!
> 
> 4e is now dead to me.




It looks like they may be consolidating schools of magic from eight to six. 

Not necessarily "splats" (unless you considered Illusionists and Transmuters to be "splats").


----------



## Stone Dog

Grog said:
			
		

> Boy, I *really* don't like those discipline names. They sound way too kung-fu/Exalted-ish for my tastes.



Funny.  Most of them sound like actual mystical/philosophical orders.  The East doesn't have a lock on overly dramatic names for esoteric groups.


----------



## fuindordm

I dunno... I did like the idea of there being four implements. That sounds like just enough to give a good variety of wizards, if you have one major and one minor as we've been guessing. I have no regrets that the tome is gone, but a replacement might have been nice.

It also seems wierd to link each implement to an element/energy. If you're going that route, you should at least make a nod to classical symbolism:

staff or wand=fire
dagger=air
chalice=water
orb=earth

But I slightly prefer the idea of relating them to modes of using magic, as they had before. 

And all this is just nitpicking. I look forward to seeing what interesting ideas they have come up with.


----------



## Mercule

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> And really I never had anything against foci in Mage: the Ascension, as I liked it when players tried to come up with creative ideas for foci, using not only wands and staffs, but other ideas like their government agency badge, pistol, DJ equipment or whatever...




I don't really have anything particularly against them.  They just had an occasional unintended consequence.  The Hermetics and Adepts used words or computer for pretty much everything, which generally worked as a cheap way to add flavor.  It's been a while since I've played WoD, but I seem to remember a couple of bizarre twists with Sons of Ether trying to make things fit their paradigm.


----------



## Mouseferatu

*blink*

Okay, that's _weird_.

I don't think this was done because of people yelling about the tome. The changes to the article are too pervasive for that.

This reads to me more like someone accidentally posted an earlier (and no longer accurate) version of the article.

As far as the discipline names... Eh. I'm not crazy about them, but they're no more disruptive, and I doubt they're any more prohibitive, than spell names. I see no difference between changing "Mordenkainen's Disjunction" to just "Disjunction" (or "Somebody Else's Disjunction" and changing "The Serpent Eye" tradition to the "Smoke of Dreams" tradition or even just the "Mesmerism" tradition.

What this new version of the article does seem to imply, at least to me, is that just as fighters will tend to specialize in one weapon, wizards will tend to specialize in one implement.


----------



## Raven Crowking

I wonder how strict the definitions will be.  Can I cut down a sapling and call it a staff?  Can I pick up a twig and call it a wand?


----------



## Mercule

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> Funny.  Most of them sound like actual mystical/philosophical orders.  The East doesn't have a lock on overly dramatic names for esoteric groups.




After thinking about it a bit, realized that we're (at least I'm) used to hearing Hermetic titles based on Latin or Greek words.  Anime/Wuxia/whatever seems to have more words that get translated directly to English.  

"Ars Essentia" sounds wizardly and cool.  "The Art of Force" sounds weirdly Wuxia.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I don't think this was done because of people yelling about the tome. The changes to the article are too pervasive for that.




I hope that you are wrong.  It would be nice to know that the developers are reading, _and responding to_, reactions to their previews.


----------



## FickleGM

Mercule said:
			
		

> Something like this:



 I was envisioning my wizard pulling a Celestial Lion out of his hat.


----------



## FickleGM

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *chuckle*
> 
> I love the irony of the article changing completely.
> 
> I'm sure that I look ridiculous over here with my, "The sacred cows are falling!  The sacrew cows are falling!", but I hope we can maintain a good sense of humor about this, because from where I'm standing the, "I don't know anything about 4e, but I'm sure it is going to be awesome!!!!", crowd looks pretty funny juggling its expectations too.
> 
> "Any class, any level, just works... as soon as we work out the details."
> "4e, we are going for 1e edition feel to the crunch with 3e edition feel to the fluff....or did I get that backwards?"
> "4e, more streamlined, and lots more options too"
> "4e, kills all your sacred cows but will still stay the same."
> "4e, less dependence on magic items, plus lots of phat bling for the MMORPG crowd"
> "4e, we are going to completely overhaul the game, and leave it perfectly balanced"
> "4e, rigorously playtested and available 2nd quarter next year"
> "4e, listening to all fan input with the same degree of attention that clouds flying overhead pay to you"
> "4e, faster leveling for the 20% of the market that has demanded it."
> 
> Got to love it.



 I know I do.


----------



## Raven Crowking

FickleGM said:
			
		

> I was envisioning my wizard pulling a Celestial Lion out of his hat.




_*Again!?!*_  This trick never works!


----------



## Lurks-no-More

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I wonder how strict the definitions will be.  Can I cut down a sapling and call it a staff?  Can I pick up a twig and call it a wand?



I'd expect that no, you can't, at least not without suitable feats / talents / whathaveyou.


----------



## Mercule

FickleGM said:
			
		

> I was envisioning my wizard pulling a Celestial Lion out of his hat.




Hmm... Change "rod of wonder" to "hat of wonder" and you've got Presto.

Dunno why I never thought of that before.  Or why your post took me there.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I hope that you are wrong.  It would be nice to know that the developers are reading, _and responding to_, reactions to their previews.




Not necessarily. After all, while a few people were yelling loudly about tomes, the majority of the people responding to the thread didn't have a problem with them.

Further, any response to these previews is made in a vacuum. We don't know what else has been changed, so there's no way of judging how well what we're seeing fits into the larger picture.

Sure, Wizards should be paying attention, but making a major change like that--in so short a time span, based on the feedback of a few people in a couple of threads--is about the worst way I can think of to drive any last-minute changes.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

alaric said:
			
		

> How bizarre, they didn't just make a small edit, they completely rewrote the article.  Now we get:




I HATE the flavor/fluff. Golden Wyvern, Iron Sigil-- DROP ALL THAT CRAP.

Just give me solid, balanced rules. Do I have to have all this fluffetty-puffetty crap in my rulebooks?

I just got a shiver down my spine the likes of which I have not felt since Bo9S-- good rules completely overshadowed and undermined by, frankly, really "purple" fluff.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> *blink*
> 
> Okay, that's _weird_.
> 
> I don't think this was done because of people yelling about the tome. The changes to the article are too pervasive for that.
> 
> This reads to me more like someone accidentally posted an earlier (and no longer accurate) version of the article.




Almost certainly.

It doesn't seem likely that they'd complete a massive overhaul of a class role in an afternoon based on messageboard threads.

Brad


----------



## F4NBOY

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13814980&postcount=8

Hmm, well we do say it in the Design & Development column intro: "Keep in mind that the game is still in a state of flux, as refinements are made by our design and development staff."

Case in point -- take another look at the most recent Wizards and Wizard Implements article. A revised version has just been posted, with several changes to the original article posted Friday.

The version you see now is the version that should have originally gone live.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I HATE the flavor/fluff. Golden Wyvern, Iron Sigil-- DROP ALL THAT CRAP.
> 
> Just give me solid, balanced rules. Do I have to have all this fluffetty-puffetty crap in my rulebooks?
> 
> I just got a shiver down my spine the likes of which I have not felt since Bo9S-- good rules completely overshadowed and undermined by, frankly, really "purple" fluff.




Huh. I'm going to have to disagree with ya, Wulf. So long as it doesn't bleed over into the mechanics, and is thus relatively easy to change, I prefer _any_ flavor (even if it's flavor of which I'm not fond) to a completely tasteless rulebook of nothing but mechanics.

Even bad flavor can be inspirational, and interesting to read. Pure mechanics are much less evocative. And I'm a big proponent of the notion that

1) Game books should be at least as inspirational as they are informative, and

2) Any rules that are too boring to read are not going to see use in play.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *chuckle*
> 
> I love the irony of the article changing completely.
> 
> I'm sure that I look ridiculous over here with my, "The sacred cows are falling!  The sacrew cows are falling!", but I hope we can maintain a good sense of humor about this, because from where I'm standing the, "I don't know anything about 4e, but I'm sure it is going to be awesome!!!!", crowd looks pretty funny juggling its expectations too.
> 
> "Any class, any level, just works... as soon as we work out the details."
> "4e, we are going for 1e edition feel to the crunch with 3e edition feel to the fluff....or did I get that backwards?"
> "4e, more streamlined, and lots more options too"
> "4e, kills all your sacred cows but will still stay the same."
> "4e, less dependence on magic items, plus lots of phat bling for the MMORPG crowd"
> "4e, we are going to completely overhaul the game, and leave it perfectly balanced"
> "4e, rigorously playtested and available 2nd quarter next year"
> "4e, listening to all fan input with the same degree of attention that clouds flying overhead pay to you"
> "4e, faster leveling for the 20% of the market that has demanded it."
> 
> Got to love it.




Heh... Well, while I am eagerly anticipating 4e, you pretty much nailed every one of my nagging concerns.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Wormwood said:
			
		

> It looks like they may be consolidating schools of magic from eight to six.



To me, it feels more like they are killing the concept of specialists as as adhering strictly to the categorical label of a spell (evocation, illusion, etc.), and rather inventing a new model of specialization based strictly on the effect of the spell. In older D&D we may have had a conjuration spell deal energy damage as well as an evocation spell dealing the same energy damage.

If this is the case and I am right, I for one welcome the death old-school D&D specialization and welcome the arrival of this new form of specialization based on an effects' outcome.


----------



## Nahat Anoj

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Sure, Wizards should be paying attention, but making a major change like that--in so short a time span, based on the feedback of a few people in a couple of threads--is about the worst way I can think of to drive any last-minute changes.



Yeah, I don't think WotC would be back down so quickly (and most people indeed seemed fine with tomes).

In any case, I hope tomes will be there - maybe they still are there, but they were supposed to be "secret" for now.


----------



## Wormwood

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> If this is the case and I am right, I for one welcome the death old-school D&D specialization and welcome the arrival of this new form of specialization based on effects.




Yeah, that's my line of thinking as well.

Loooooong overdue.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Huh. I'm going to have to disagree with ya, Wulf. So long as it doesn't bleed over into the mechanics, and is thus relatively easy to change, I prefer _any_ flavor (even if it's flavor of which I'm not fond) to a completely tasteless rulebook of nothing but mechanics.




I am not advocating that.

You can describe the rules in interesting, flavorful, and evocative ways without resorting to _specific_ fluff.

I can write a description for _fireball_ for example, that is every bit as entertaining as an entry that resorts to references to _The Order of the Dread Phoenix._

EDIT: And as long as you mention it, it's possible to write "pure mechanics" in an engaging way, at a level completely above any reference to the game world whatsoever. Gygax was great at this.


----------



## Yergi

Who wants to bet that the six traditions listed will be talent trees for the Wizard?


----------



## Wormwood

Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> Yeah, I don't think WotC would be back down so quickly (and most people indeed seemed fine with tomes).
> 
> In any case, I hope tomes will be there - maybe they still are there, but they were supposed to be "secret" for now.




Perhaps Tomes are the one Implement common to _all _Wizards, regardless of School?


----------



## WizarDru

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> Funny.  Most of them sound like actual mystical/philosophical orders.  The East doesn't have a lock on overly dramatic names for esoteric groups.




The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn
The Hermetic Brotherhood of Light
The Brethren of the Rose Cross
The Sons of Mars
The White Company
The Free Lances
The Armurer Black Heap
The Knights Hospitaller
The Varangian Guard
The Sovereign Militia of Malta
The Hermetic Sanctuary of Ma'at
The Builders of the Adytum 
The Wild Geese


----------



## Celebrim

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I HATE the flavor/fluff. Golden Wyvern, Iron Sigil-- DROP ALL THAT CRAP.




Worse than being simply childish sounding (where Gygax when you need him), its all settting information not essential to the functioning of the class.  I don't need this sort of flavor or fluff to understand, 'Hey, I'm a wizard' or the rudiments of how the magic system works.  



> Just give me solid, balanced rules. Do I have to have all this fluffetty-puffetty crap in my rulebooks?




Have you seen how fluffety-puffetty the rulebook covers look?  Have you heard how they want to go to a glossier, magizine, look to the rulebook, and get away from the 'textbook' like appearance of the rules?  Oh, nevermind.  My guess is, 'Yes, you have to put up with all this fluffety-puffetty pokemony crap'.  



> I just got a shiver down my spine the likes of which I have not felt since Bo9S-- good rules completely overshadowed and undermined by, frankly, really "purple" fluff.




Even if I avoid challenging your contention that the Bo9S rules were good, how in the world did you imagine that it wasn't the future of D&D fluff?  Have you seen, for example, 'Expedition to Castle Ravenloft'?  That's the future of D&D fluff/layout/formatting/etc.  Shake your fist at the clouds however you like, it's coming.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I can write a description for _fireball_ for example, that is every bit as entertaining as an entry that resorts to references to _The Order of the Dread Phoenix._




I'm sure you could.  But we're not talking about just spell write-ups. We're talking about references to entire schools/traditions/talent-trees/whatever-you-want-to-call-them of magic. I suppose one could write about those without coming up with _some_ kind of name for them, but I think it'd be awkward at best.



> EDIT: And as long as you mention it, it's possible to write "pure mechanics" in an engaging way, at a level completely above any reference to the game world whatsoever. Gygax was great at this.




That's debatable. And yes, I'm being deliberately oblique as to what _part_ of that statement I take issue with, because I neither want to imply any insult to Gygax, nor to get into an argument over what the man's strengths and weaknesses were as a writer. Suffice it to say, I disagree with the conclusion, and leave it at that.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Yergi said:
			
		

> Who wants to bet that the six traditions listed will be talent trees for the Wizard?



My thoughts exactly. Another thing that crossed my mind, too: more use of descriptors for spells to help categorize them (like Fire, Sonic, Force... etc.) Monte Cook said he thought they had been underutilized in  3E, and made them more prevalent in his Arcana Unearthed/Evolved setting. Perhaps talent trees will allow a wizard to make his implement more tuned to certain descriptors. A wider use of this mechanic would also make it easier to come up with new magical traditions (such as ones based on the classical elements, for instance, or a necromantic order.)


----------



## Lurks-no-More

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Perhaps Tomes are the one Implement common to _all _Wizards, regardless of School?



Could be. I already had my hopes up for the elimination of the spellbook (I don't mind libraries of magic, quite the opposite, but carrying your magical power around in a single, indispensable book/battery is pretty silly), so I'm kind of keen on tomes.


----------



## Mouseferatu

BTW, I do want to reiterate that I'm not a fan of most of the tradition names offered so far. And while I see the need for such names, I'd have preferred something slightly more generic.

So my argument isn't that these are "teh awesome." Only that I see the need for them, and they don't bother me at all, since names are amongst the most easily changed features, and even these names have inspired ideas for colleges/organizations in my mind.


----------



## Loincloth of Armour

From article:

_Likewise, while wizard traditions are associated with a particular implement, a wizard need not possess or hold a given implement to use a power belonging to that tradition._

Could be similar (to use 3.5 terms) to when a fighter attempts to fight with or without a weapon.

*With:*

Fighter: "I attack the ogre!  My BAB is +3, my strength +3, and weapon focus gives me a total of +7 on the roll."

Wizard: "I cast _Prod in an Uncomfortable Location_ on the ogre.  My [insert 4ed game mechanics here] gives me +5 on the roll."

*Versus Without:*

Fighter: "I attack the ogre!  My BAB is +3, my strength +3.  Since I'm using my fist instead of my sword, I don't get my weapon focus... oh, and another -4 for not being proficient with unarmed strikes.  +2 on the die."

Wizard: "I cast _Prod in an Uncomfortable Location_ on the ogre.  My [insert 4ed game mechanics here] gives me +5 on the roll, but since I don't have my wand it works out to only +1."



It highly suggests there are other effects possible when you use your items, but you can cast the spells without them.  Just harder.

So while you might be able to _charm_ a low-level gate warden without naught but a word and the waggling of your fingers, (just like a skilled fighter could beat the warden up with his fists), if you want to affect the strong and the powerful, you have to make sure you have the right tools for the right job.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'm sure you could.  But we're not talking about just spell write-ups. We're talking about references to entire schools/traditions/talent-trees/whatever-you-want-to-call-them of magic. I suppose one could write about those without coming up with _some_ kind of name for them, but I think it'd be awkward at best.




I'm not sure if I like the fluff.  I don't want to spend serious time filing the serial numbers off fluff that doesn't need to be there.  Its not that the fluff is bad, by itself, but I've got my own schools of magic in my homebrew, with their own names and such.  We'll see how that goes - its clear that 4E is going to have some setting specific info - after all, they created a Story team, and there's got to be a reason for that.


----------



## bgardner

*Change explanation*

Bart Carrol's blog
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=911366 

It was a draft that was suppose to be changed before it was released and the original was incorrect.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Maybe there's something wrong with me (is that even a maybe?), but to be strictly honest, I really like the sound of the schools of Magic, and I honestly think it will improve the D&D wizard, and it's nice to have a bit more flavour to the Wizard by default.

For specific settings I suspect you could rename or entirely replace the schools.

Only thing that confuses me a bit is that apparently both the Iron Sigil and the Stormwalker Theurges are both into Thunder/lightning and Force magic. Probably want to sort that one out before release.


----------



## Korgoth

Actually liked the first article, hate the "new article".


----------



## Zaukrie

That was weird. I like the idea of paths and schools, but I'm not sure how much the schools should be inbedded in the rules. This is one I'll have to look at.

three implements is better than four, I think.


----------



## Rechan

Grog said:
			
		

> Boy, I *really* don't like those discipline names. They sound way too kung-fu/Exalted-ish for my tastes.



Is _everything_ too Oriental for you people? 

How about Gandalf the Gray? Is that too kung fu? Because it's 'Name the Word'. Because I thought in most fantasy settings, wizards don't just walk around calling themselves wizards, they say "I am the Eldrich Soothsayer of the Blackened Rim" or some other grand phrasing.

Let's just call the schools "Blowing stuff up" "Hiding stuff" "Making Stuff Appear out of No Where" "Death stuff" and "Changing Stuff into Other Stuff". There, flavorless, and not too kung fu for you.


----------



## Malhost Zormaeril

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'm sure you could.  But we're not talking about just spell write-ups. We're talking about references to entire schools/traditions/talent-trees/whatever-you-want-to-call-them of magic. I suppose one could write about those without coming up with _some_ kind of name for them, but I think it'd be awkward at best.




Yes, except there's a bit of a difference between a talent-tree (which could be interpreted as being disciplines within the wizardly arts) and what we have on that article, which specifically mentions _Wizards of the <whatever>_.  Now, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but this implies a number of colleges, societies, cabals or guilds which organise and regulate magic (like the Traditions of M:tA).  I argue that, in a Points of Light setting, wizards should be usually loners, teaching their craft in a one-on-one master/apprentice relationship.  And removing that organisation is harder than just changing their names around... :\


----------



## Pazu

Grog said:
			
		

> Boy, I *really* don't like those discipline names. They sound way too kung-fu/Exalted-ish for my tastes.




"I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor."  Quick, identify the source!


----------



## sidonunspa

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> three implements is better than four, I think.




I agree

But I dont know if I like the "traditions" I rather go back to schools of magic. 

Now I know for sure one thing I need to re-write for the Arcanis setting.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Malhost Zormaeril said:
			
		

> Yes, except there's a bit of a difference between a talent-tree (which could be interpreted as being disciplines within the wizardly arts) and what we have on that article, which specifically mentions _Wizards of the <whatever>_.  Now, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but this implies a number of colleges, societies, cabals or guilds which organise and regulate magic (like the Traditions of M:tA).  I argue that, in a Points of Light setting, wizards should be usually loners, teaching their craft in a one-on-one master/apprentice relationship.  And removing that organisation is harder than just changing their names around... :\




Honestly? My guess is, it _won't_ be hard to remove such organizations, assuming they exist at all. This is still an _implied_ setting. While these hypothetical organizations may be detailed in some supplement somewhere, I strongly doubt they'd be given more attention than _maybe_ a few lines each in the PHB1. That means that, at least where the rules are concerned, the names are just that--names. Any organizations would be optional and easily ignored, much as the organizational info was easily stripped out of most PrCs in 3E.

Again, just guessing, but I'd put money on it.


----------



## breschau

bgardner said:
			
		

> Bart Carrol's blog
> http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=911366
> 
> It was a draft that was suppose to be changed before it was released and the original was incorrect.




Let's hope they change it back before the book comes out. Good thing I copied the entire original article in the OP. All that Iron Hand crap and Frosty Mug wizard stuff is lame.

More likely the original wasn't meant to go out because it's closer to the final text in the PH and the "updated" is the "piss the fans off" version.

I'd say that just form this thread, what almost 400 posts (in 15 hours), the vast majority of them positive about the original article, that WotC should keep the original as posted.

Great. 4th Edition hasn't even release and they're already on 4.5. (Yes, that's a joke people, well, sort of.)


----------



## Yergi

Malhost Zormaeril said:
			
		

> Yes, except there's a bit of a difference between a talent-tree (which could be interpreted as being disciplines within the wizardly arts) and what we have on that article, which specifically mentions _Wizards of the <whatever>_.  Now, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but this implies a number of colleges, societies, cabals or guilds which organise and regulate magic (like the Traditions of M:tA).  I argue that, in a Points of Light setting, wizards should be usually loners, teaching their craft in a one-on-one master/apprentice relationship.  And removing that organisation is harder than just changing their names around... :\




You could still have these traditions in a Point of Light-type setting, methinks. Instead of thinking of them as "huge mage college with lots of students running around" a la the White Tower (RIP Robert Jordan, we'll miss you!) or whatnot, just have it be a master-apprentice type thing. The traditions are carried down by individuals in this way, and maybe a master has 2 or 3 apprentices at a time. That also opens up lots of cool flavor things you could add like magic being discovered by six different beings that view it in different ways (ok maybe that's a bit too Harry Potterish but you get the idea).


----------



## Mouseferatu

Pazu said:
			
		

> "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor."  Quick, identify the source!




Apparently, Tolkien is too anime.


----------



## gothmaugCC

Well they had me on the staff/wand/orb thing until they decided to give each discipline its own cheesy name. Half the fun of making your character is creating the cheesy orgainazion/school/discipline he belongs to!!

Well those names are going out he window in my home games. Players can call them waterever they want. 

Oh and Pete, Nice to see you.    Nice avatar, same one from the living city boards i see.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Worse than being simply childish sounding (where Gygax when you need him), its all settting information not essential to the functioning of the class.  I don't need this sort of flavor or fluff to understand, 'Hey, I'm a wizard' or the rudiments of how the magic system works.




Agreed.



> Have you seen how fluffety-puffetty the rulebook covers look?  Have you heard how they want to go to a glossier, magizine, look to the rulebook, and get away from the 'textbook' like appearance of the rules?  Oh, nevermind.  My guess is, 'Yes, you have to put up with all this fluffety-puffetty pokemony crap'.




Disagree. That seems like pointless sniping. I have no beef with the visual presentation and layout. (Although you could twist my arm a little bit with regards to ram-horned tieflings and the like, whose visual representations are needlessly intrusive on DMs.)



> Even if I avoid challenging your contention that the Bo9S rules were good, how in the world did you imagine that it wasn't the future of D&D fluff?  Have you seen, for example, 'Expedition to Castle Ravenloft'?  That's the future of D&D fluff/layout/formatting/etc.  Shake your fist at the clouds however you like, it's coming.




I don't read the fluff of any particular supplement and assume that the core rulebooks will take the same shape. It's useful as a gauge of a particular Designer's style, but no more than that.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Yergi said:
			
		

> You could still have these traditions in a Point of Light-type setting, methinks. Instead of thinking of them as "huge mage college with lots of students running around" a la the White Tower (RIP Robert Jordan, we'll miss you!) or whatnot, just have it be a master-apprentice type thing. The traditions are carried down by individuals in this way, and maybe a master has 2 or 3 apprentices at a time. That also opens up lots of cool flavor things you could add like magic being discovered by six different beings that view it in different ways (ok maybe that's a bit too Harry Potterish but you get the idea).




That's actually a really cool idea, and I'm a little ashamed I didn't think of it.   

It makes perfect sense, though. If we consider the tradition names to equate, not to some big college, but to the name of (say) a martial art, then it becomes an issue of passing down the teachings as the master learned them. It no longer matters if any given tradition has 5 practitioners, or 50, or 50,000.


----------



## Cadfan

I'm sure that schools of magic will be forced into your homebrew campaigns exactly the same way that the generic pantheon is and will be forced into your homebrew.


----------



## Snapdragyn

I liked the old version, & like the edited version *better*.

I don't get all of the hang-up about the names. Don't like it? Change it. It gives us a label for the (school? tree?) that's less awkward than 'Spell Set 1', 'Spell Set 2', or whatever. We don't know if there will be any more detail than what is shown - e.g. history, notable figures of the school, locations of colleges. Personally I wouldn't object to some bare minimum here (like a one-sentence mention of a wizard for each school, something like '<famous wizard> of <tradition> was best known for <notable event>' or '<tradition>'s <famous wizard> once remarked <witticism>').

Seriously, if this is all it takes to convince someone to abandon 4e, I'd have to question if they were ever going to play it in the first place.

I also really like the idea of these as teachings passed from one wizard to his apprentice, and she to hers, and on down the line. One of them at some point could found a 'school' of magic if it fit a setting to have that, or they could remain hidden traditions.


----------



## Pazu

WOTC Design & Development said:
			
		

> The wand is a perennial favorite for wizards who favor accurate, damaging attacks. Emerald Frost adepts use wands to help channel powers of cold and deadly acidic magic, while Stormwalker *theurges* channel spells of lightning and force through their wands.




Someone _really_ needs to tell the Wizards folks that "theurgy" should (in the D&D system) apply to divine magic, not arcane.


----------



## WayneLigon

I could take or leave the names, but it still better than 'school of conjuration' and no worse than some of the tongue-twisting flavor names we've had in the past. Those might also be simple examples, or references to whatever prestige classes become in 4E. Could be that they put in a lot of flavor-like things like they did for some of the classes and prestige classes in later books.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Pazu said:
			
		

> Someone _really_ needs to tell the Wizards folks that "theurgy" should (in the D&D system) apply to divine magic, not arcane.




I've often felt theurge to do just that.


----------



## breschau

Read through the nine pages of positive comments about the four implements.

Tome is not only a bedrock of D&D, but it's a much loved part of the archetype and original source material, no, not just Tolkien. Bring back the Tome!


----------



## Yergi

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> That's actually a really cool idea, and I'm a little ashamed I didn't think of it.
> 
> It makes perfect sense, though. If we consider the tradition names to equate, not to some big college, but to the name of (say) a martial art, then it becomes an issue of passing down the teachings as the master learned them. It no longer matters if any given tradition has 5 practitioners, or 50, or 50,000.




 Gee thanks. I really like the imagery too. You could end up having several different traditions, and maybe some of them are similar (limited number of talent trees and all that), but the practitioners wouldn't know that their schools are near identical because they never left their small region or town.

There's a lot of ways you can make it similar to martial arts practices in ancient China, where different traditions were practiced in different regions. Not saying you'd have to give it an Oriental flare (b/c apparently some people are vehemently against such things), but just have the organization of learning similar to the way martial arts were taught in the place and time.


----------



## Masquerade

gothmaugCC said:
			
		

> Well those names are going out he window in my home games. Players can call them waterever they want.



I imagine that the designers would encourage you to do just that. If WotC wanted everyone to play with the same example names/organizations/fluff, they wouldn't publish multiple campaign settings. 

As with the Bo9S disciplines they seem to resemble, I imagine the new wizard traditions will serve as a good starting point and little more.


----------



## Rechan

Yergi said:
			
		

> There's a lot of ways you can make it similar to martial arts practices in ancient China, where different traditions were practiced in different regions. Not saying you'd have to give it an Oriental flare (b/c apparently some people are vehemently against such things), but just have the organization of learning similar to the way martial arts were taught in the place and time.



You mean like how people in That Cold Place Up There are likely more interested in Cold-based evocation, People Over There are more interested in Necromancy, and People In That Place That's Full Of Intrigue are more interested in illusion/enchantment and People In That Wartorn Chaotic Nation are inclined towards Defensive magics?


----------



## Pazu

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Apparently, Tolkien is too anime.




Yeah, you can't even blame Peter Jackson for that one.    



> I've often felt theurge to do just that.




Maybe it's not too late to fix this mys-tic!

(Okay, it's a little forced...)


----------



## Celebrim

breschau said:
			
		

> I'd say that just form this thread, what almost 400 posts (in 15 hours), the vast majority of them positive about the original article, that WotC should keep the original as posted.




Right now, WotC could post anything and the vast majority of posters would make positive comments about it.

That's because no one, including me, is really discussing 4e, but rather the 4e we want to have.

If one is generally upbeat about the idea of 4e, any vague thing WotC posts will be made to fit into ones hopes and desires for 4e and will be taken as evidence that 4e is going to be awesome.

If one is generally pessimistic about the idea of 4e, any vague thing WotC posts will be made to correspond to ones fears and misgivings about 4e and will be taken as evidence that 4e is going to be another 2e disaster all over again.  As Mearls put it, "The edition that showed everyone how not to do it."


----------



## Driddle

(shudder) I just had the most disturbing premonition that 4th edition will be bumped to an _April 1_ release date, at which point they'll gleefully explain why all this information was being jerked around. ... Talk about an elaborate set-up.  I shall be deeply impressed.


----------



## Garnfellow

The draft article suggested a very radical mechanical break from past editions.  Since we really can't put these changes into any useful context, I was happy to put this info into a "need to wait and see" category. It could all turn out great or horrible, but the glimpse we got at least had some promise.

The "revised" article, though, had plenty of flavor text that _could_ be judged without knowing the larger context, and my strong response: blaugh. 

And blaugh again. Wizards got more than a little too much of their implied setting into the mechanics for my taste. 

I sure hope that exerpt's not a harbinger of things to come -- it's really the first time I've seriously thought that maybe 4e wouldn't be for me.


----------



## Yergi

Rechan said:
			
		

> You mean like how people in That Cold Place Up There are likely more interested in Cold-based evocation, People Over There are more interested in Necromancy, and People In That Place That's Full Of Intrigue are more interested in illusion/enchantment and Pacifist Area Over Yonder are inclined towards Defensive magics?




That's one way you could spin it, but I was more thinking like this:
A Master Mage immigrates into a town and after settling in accepts a small number of apprentices. He trains these apprentices in his style of magic known as "The Hidden Flame". After the apprentices come of age, they must travel outside their village and see the world to expand their knowledge of magic, as the world is only a veneer of structure supported by magic (to paraphrase a sentence from the article) in their travels they have various adventures and add to their understanding of magic, perhaps learning techniques that are very different than the Hidden Flame technique learned by their old master. At the end of their travels they immigrate into a different village just as their master did before them, except now their magical style is vastly different, and it has a new name, perhaps "The Surging Fire" or somesuch, and the cycle repeats again...


----------



## Drammattex

Love the first one. It felt more generic. Loved the tome.

Not so much on the second one. Though I haven't seen the rules, it gives me the heebie jeebies.


----------



## TheArcane

Just read the updated article.
Sounds to me like there will be three talent trees, one for each implement, and probably a fourth generic one.
Also, if the flavor is as integrated into the PHB as it is into the article, it will be quite a lot of work to fit a wizard into a homebrew campaign, more than the generic 3E wizard. Then again, could be just fluff for the preview.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> I don't get all of the hang-up about the names. Don't like it? Change it.




No, don't do it in the first place.



> It gives us a label for the (school? tree?) that's less awkward than 'Spell Set 1', 'Spell Set 2', or whatever.




"Spell Set 1" is deliberately non-evocative and a strawman. Tell me what set of spells belongs to the Golden Wyvern and I guarantee I can come up with a _more_ descriptive name, without all the setting baggage. 

What does Golden Wyvern even _mean_, in the context of the rules? Somebody up there in Design is setting down a formula for what it means, and he's passing this functional description off to the other teams, so that they all know what Golden Wyvern means.

*Give me that functional description.*

At any rate, in the context of a rulebook, I don't think you can argue that Weapon Finesse "doesn't work" and "Strike of the Cobra" does work. 

Quite frankly, this fluff is just *jargon* masquerading in thigh-high boots and puffy shirts. The rules are already an obstacle to learners. Dressing up the jargon with descriptive puffery is not a solution.



> We don't know if there will be any more detail than what is shown - e.g. history, notable figures of the school, locations of colleges; personally I wouldn't object to some bare minimum here (like a one-sentence mention of a wizard for each school, something like '<famous wizard> of <school> was best known for <notable event>' or '<school>'s <famous wizard> once remarked <witticism>').




I hazard a guess that most DMs would not appreciate this.



> Seriously, if this is all it takes to convince someone to abandon 4e, I'd have to question if they were ever going to play it in the first place.




Who said anything abandoning 4e? Quite the opposite, I want it to kick all kinds of ass, because I intend to switch over as soon as possible.


----------



## frankthedm

[IMaGel]http://resources.wizards.com/Magic/Cards/2U/en-us/Card616.jpg[/IMaGel] Hey, now wizards will depend on gear? One more point for the whoever said 4E will make the wizard more like the fighter.

Not that i _mind_ wizards using wands, staves and orbs like a fighter uses weapons, shields and armor. I do think making them tools of the wizards trade is better than having them just be spell-batteries and pricey oddball magic items.

I would like to see an Icy Manipulater and other M:tG items in 4E.


----------



## Cadfan

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> What does Golden Wyvern even _mean_, in the context of the rules? Somebody up there in Design is setting down a formula for what it means, and he's passing this functional description off to the other teams, so that they all know what Golden Wyvern means.
> 
> *Give me that functional description.*




I'm sure they will.

You know, in the rulebook.

Right now they're releasing teasers.  Because that's what you do 5 months before the release date.


----------



## Snapdragyn

> Also, if the flavor is as integrated into the PHB as it is into the article, it will be quite a lot of work to fit a wizard into a homebrew campaign, more than the generic 3E wizard.




How? Changing 'Serpent's Eye' to 'Mesmerite' or 'Royal Order of That Wizardy Kingdom' or 'Deity's Veil' is _hard_?

*boggle*



> "Spell Set 1" is deliberately non-evocative and a strawman.




Yes, it was deliberately non-evocative, since the evocative name we were given seemed objectionable in some way I've yet to comprehend.



> Tell me what set of spells belongs to the Golden Wyvern and I guarantee I can come up with a more descriptive name, without all the setting baggage.




A more descriptive name would also be more proscriptive, limiting the ability to include setting-specific homebrew spells if they don't meet specific criteria. An evocative (but empty of specific meaning) name doesn't have that problem. Of course there will be specific spells linked to that name in the PHB1, but if there is no formula - just a list of spells - then homebrew spells can more easily go wherever the DM wishs.


----------



## Baumi

What I find interesting is a sentence in the changed last paragraph:
"But if he does have a magic staff, it aids the accuracy of his attack, and his mastery of the Hidden Flame technique allows him to deal more damage with the spell."

So the Wand/Staff/Orb add in the accuracy and the tecnique (Talent-Tree?) inceases the damage...


----------



## Yergi

Baumi said:
			
		

> What I find interesting is a sentence in the changed last paragraph:
> "But if he does have a magic staff, it aids the accuracy of his attack, and his mastery of the Hidden Flame technique allows him to deal more damage with the spell."
> 
> So the Wand/Staff/Orb add in the accuracy and the tecnique (Talent-Tree?) inceases the damage...




I noticed that as well. I like it, as long as knowledge of the technique gives you more than just extra damage. I don't mind if that's one or two talents in the tree (assuming it is a talent tree), but I'd hope for some other goodies in there other than +2 dmg on Hidden Flame spells or somesuch.


----------



## GreatLemur

Grog said:
			
		

> Boy, I *really* don't like those discipline names. They sound way too kung-fu/Exalted-ish for my tastes.



They sound like typical fantasy fare, to me.  But I'm still not too happy about them.  I don't like the idea of the core rules hooking class abilities into prestige-class-like, campaign-setting-specific fluff.  Of course, I can ignore that stuff as easily as I've been ignoring the Tome of Battle discipline names.

But I hope I'm not going to find that the mechanics themselves somehow link cold-based attack spells with acid-based attack spells, or other such absurdity.  That'll be more annoying to houserule out.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I HATE the flavor/fluff. Golden Wyvern, Iron Sigil-- DROP ALL THAT CRAP.
> 
> Just give me solid, balanced rules. Do I have to have all this fluffetty-puffetty crap in my rulebooks?



Complete agreement.



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> But we're not talking about just spell write-ups. We're talking about references to entire schools/traditions/talent-trees/whatever-you-want-to-call-them of magic. I suppose one could write about those without coming up with _some_ kind of name for them, but I think it'd be awkward at best.



I think simpler, more descriptive (as opposed to _evocative_) terminology would be preferable.  I always really dug the way _Mage: The Ascension_ labelled its "spheres" of magic: Mind, Time, Forces, Matter, etc.  Arguably even more logical that Conjuration, Illusion, Enchantment, and so on, and clearer, too.  (Of course, nothing _else_ about the game was especially logical or clear...)

Of course, we could all be Chicken Littleing it up over nothing, and maybe WotC _hasn't_ erased the division between schools of magic and schools of magicians.  As always, it's wise to wait, see, and give the pros the benefit of the doubt.



			
				breschau said:
			
		

> Tome is not only a bedrock of D&D, but it's a much loved part of the archetype and original source material, no, not just Tolkien. Bring back the Tome!



I'm thinking that this edit only means that _all_ Wizards will have tomes--that is, spell books--just like they do in previous editions.


----------



## gothmaugCC

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I hazard a guess that most DMs would not appreciate this.
> .




Wulf is referencing the named presented for the various "spell diciplines' or whatever were calling them. 

WEll Wulf, I think your right in that most DM's probably will want to make thier own schools. That said, the DM's tend to be the most creative of the DND crowd. The real question that needs to be asked is "Will the average player enjoy the flavor provided"? Looking at the ecletic mix of hardcore gamers and casual players I sit with on a regular basis, I'd say that Yes, the players will love it. It makes thier lives easier, they dont have to create anything fancy, its already thre for them in Black and White. Sure the hardcore gamers will moan about the fluff, and pine over their own creations, but the average player (and especially the younger crowd) will eat it up. 

And since players outnumber DM's, what, 6 to 1? Its the players that WoTC is trying to appease.


----------



## Rechan

I promise you, those who want your PHB without fluff, will be able to. They even have a 3e version! 

http://www.d20srd.org/


----------



## breschau

Baumi said:
			
		

> What I find interesting is a sentence in the changed last paragraph:
> "But if he does have a magic staff, it aids the accuracy of his attack, and his mastery of the Hidden Flame technique allows him to deal more damage with the spell."
> 
> So the Wand/Staff/Orb add in the accuracy and the tecnique (Talent-Tree?) inceases the damage...




Nice catch.

I just thought it was funny that they got such a positive response, then they changed it. It's almost like they're watching the boards and changing things to make more people dislike it rather than more people liking it.


----------



## Yergi

breschau said:
			
		

> Nice catch.
> 
> I just thought it was funny that they got such a positive response, then they changed it. It's almost like they're watching the boards and changing things to make more people dislike it rather than more people liking it.




As has been stated earlier in the thread, I seriously doubt they changed the write-up based on a few messageboard threads. 

First off, that's not a large enough or representative enough sample for them to justify changing design rules as drastically as the differences in the two versions seem to suggest.

Second, there's no way that after a few hours of being up they'd have written an entirely new version and have it go through the entire internal approval process that would be necessary before revealing it to the public. I think it's just like Bart Carroll said on his blog: They accidentally posted an old version, the article currently up is the one that was meant to go live.


----------



## FickleGM

Well, put me in the minority that likes the new version more than the prior version.

I am very optimistic that the feel of magic will be the best feel for what I want.  Because it's still D&D magic, with it's inherent D&Disms, I'll never fully embrace it.  This may turn out to be the edition of D&D that is most to my liking.


----------



## GreatLemur

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> How? Changing 'Serpent's Eye' to 'Mesmerite' or 'Royal Order of That Wizardy Kingdom' or 'Deity's Veil' is _hard_?



No, but it's annoying to run into the "implied setting" right there in the Wizard's class features.

More to the point, though, I'm a little bit concerned about things that aren't really fixable by renaming.  For example, it sounds like Emerald Frost spells include both cold-based and acid-based attacks.  Personally, I think that sounds like a wildly illogical pairing, so I'd like to split these two properties up.  Will there be any way to do that without walking the game balance tightrope?  I dunno.  I'll have to wait and see.


----------



## TheArcane

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> How? Changing 'Serpent's Eye' to 'Mesmerite' or 'Royal Order of That Wizardy Kingdom' or 'Deity's Veil' is _hard_?




Changing names isn't hard. However, it means that such organizations must exist in some form. What if you don't want to? What if it doesn't fit your campaign? It's either modifying your campaign, modifying the class, or just ignoring the "silly names in the book" altogether, which just makes the class fit even less.
Anyway, before anyone gets angry at me, I do realize that this is only a preview and possibly the PHB will have nothing of the sort. I just hope it indeed doesn't, for the reason stated above among others.


----------



## Wormwood

Cadfan said:
			
		

> *I'm sure that schools of magic will be forced into your homebrew campaigns exactly the same way that the generic pantheon is and will be forced into your homebrew.*




Bingo!


----------



## Pygon

Well, changing from four implements to three might satisfy those that for whatever reason find 3 to be a more mystical number.


----------



## Wormwood

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Well, put me in the minority that likes the new version more than the prior version.




Yeah, I'm really warming to it. 

The tradition names are generic enough to be portable, yet evocative enough to capture my imagination.


----------



## sidonunspa

gothmaugCC said:
			
		

> Well they had me on the staff/wand/orb thing until they decided to give each discipline its own cheesy name. Half the fun of making your character is creating the cheesy orgainazion/school/discipline he belongs to!!.




I agree, I saw those names and I was like "Cheesy!!!"  I was able to taste the nacho cheese.
I wish they would just keep it more generic instead of coming up with organizations that may or may not exist in your game world.  




			
				gothmaugCC said:
			
		

> Well those names are going out he window in my home games. Players can call them waterever they want.
> 
> Oh and Pete, Nice to see you.    Nice avatar, same one from the living city boards i see.




Hay bro!  and yes it's the same avatar I use it on every board even The Paradigm Concepts Message Boards 

keeps things simple


----------



## Celebrim

Pygon said:
			
		

> Well, changing from four implements to three might satisfy those that for whatever reason find 3 to be a more mystical number.




Except 4, and not 3, is the mystic number in my homebrew (and I think it is 8 in Terry Prachett's Diskworld).  Not that that matters, but it just shows how it can become a problem if you make too much fluff out of your crunch.  (I'm assuming that that is what is going on here, since I wouldn't expect Mearls to make the opposite mistake of making too much crunch out of your fluff.)


----------



## sidonunspa

Rechan said:
			
		

> I promise you, those who want your PHB without fluff, will be able to. They even have a 3e version!
> 
> http://www.d20srd.org/




It’s not that we don't want fluff...  it's in the way you present it... 

For example; Name the discipline in a generic way, in the fluff text mention the orders that specialize in that discipline.  Now you have fluff but you have not tied the GM down to using cheesy names as the names of his disciplines. 

What they want the D&D game to be as cheesy as the D&D movie?


----------



## gothmaugCC

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> What they want the D&D game to be as cheesy as the D&D movie?





Oh dear God NO!

Pete, don't scare me like that! We'll at least I know Arcanis will keep it real and exciting


----------



## sidonunspa

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Bingo!




Umm except that you have the tools in 3e to make new gods (they have domains.. done) if they tie the schools of magic to organizations, well, that now makes you need organizations.

They don’t have generic names for the traditions...  If they did, it would be a LOT easier to change to fit your world. 

For example, let’s say I want a school to teach more than one tradition... Now I need to come up with names and explain to my players that Spell School X = tradition Y


----------



## Imaro

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> I agree, I saw those names and I was like "Cheesy!!!"  I was able to taste the nacho cheese.
> I wish they would just keep it more generic instead of coming up with organizations that may or may not exist in your game world.
> 
> 
> keeps things simple




Yep, this basically sums up my feelings on it.  Sorta like Prestige classes(as originally envisioned), let me provide the non-generic fluff.


----------



## Badkarmaboy

I'm thinking that maybe...just maybe...those "school" names might just be tied to a talent tree or some such and do not pertain to some big organization.    

Watching folks come unhinged over this is a hoot, though.

"ZOMG!  Names of magic schools!  ARRRGH!  DO NOT WANT! MUST NOT BUY 4E!"

LOL


----------



## DaveMage

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I've often felt theurge to do just that.




Lock phasers on target...


----------



## sidonunspa

gothmaugCC said:
			
		

> Oh dear God NO!
> 
> Pete, don't scare me like that! We'll at least I know Arcanis will keep it real and exciting





Bro stop that.... people are going to think I pay you to come here and post   

Don't worry, we have never been scared to cut out or change the rules, hell just look at all the core classes we have in Arcanis...

I hope someone from WotC looks at this and takes my comment above to heart.


----------



## GreatLemur

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I'm sure that schools of magic will be forced into your homebrew campaigns exactly the same way that the generic pantheon is and will be forced into your homebrew.



This is a damned good point.  Here's hoping that the mechanical traits of these schools of magic (or whatever they are) will be just as modular as the default gods' domains.


----------



## Reaper Steve

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> It’s not that we don't want fluff...  it's in the way you present it...
> 
> For example; Name the discipline in a generic way, in the fluff text mention the orders that specialize in that discipline.  Now you have fluff but you have not tied the GM down to using cheesy names as the names of his disciplines.




I agree...I totally like the shakup of the specialist types, but I don't care fot the names. The discipline should have a generic name, and then list a few names of sects.  Are all wizards  across the world that 'wield fierce powers of fire and radiance through their staves' members of the Hidden Flame? Doubtful. I would think there are many such organizations of wizards that happen to use the same type of magic.

And I love the idea of focusing on cold magic or acid magic, but for the life of me I cannot see how those two go together. I don't want my ice mage mixing in an acid spray.


----------



## F4NBOY

> "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor." Quick, identify the source!



Hmmm probably some anime crap!
I'm not sure, but it's surely from Dragon Ball Z or Knights of the Zodiac.


----------



## sidonunspa

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> This is a damned good point.  Here's hoping that the mechanical traits of these schools of magic (or whatever they are) will be just as modular as the default gods' domains.





Well the domains had generic names, they wear ties to non-generic gods...

Now if they have generic schools of magic and tie them to non-generic "traditions" that’s cool.

That way a GM can even have more than one tradition that use the same schools of magic (kind of like the fighting schools of Spain.. they all used most of the same styles, but they would always try to one up each other)


----------



## captaincursor

Anyone else notice that there is nary a mention of necromancy or summoning in either version of the article?


----------



## sidonunspa

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> Hmmm probably some anime crap!
> I'm not sure, but it's surely from Dragon Ball Z or Knights of the Zodiac.





Nope...  J. R. R. Tolkien

see even the clasics sound like Anime


----------



## Rechan

TheArcane said:
			
		

> Changing names isn't hard. However, it means that such organizations must exist in some form. What if you don't want to? What if it doesn't fit your campaign? It's either modifying your campaign, modifying the class, or just ignoring the "silly names in the book" altogether, which just makes the class fit even less.



If schools of magic don't fit in your campaign, then the wizard doesn't fit in your campaign.


----------



## Reaper Steve

captaincursor said:
			
		

> Anyone else notice that there is nary a mention of necromancy or summoning in either version of the article?



Curious.


----------



## Rechan

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> It’s not that we don't want fluff...  it's in the way you present it...
> 
> For example; Name the discipline in a generic way, in the fluff text mention the orders that specialize in that discipline.  Now you have fluff but you have not tied the GM down to using cheesy names as the names of his disciplines.



And that isn't what they did? 

I honestly don't see how the presented article ties your hands.


----------



## gothmaugCC

Badkarmaboy said:
			
		

> I'm thinking that maybe...just maybe...those "school" names might just be tied to a talent tree or some such and do not pertain to some big organization.
> 
> Watching folks come unhinged over this is a hoot, though.
> 
> "ZOMG!  Names of magic schools!  ARRRGH!  DO NOT WANT! MUST NOT BUY 4E!"
> 
> LOL





I dont think thats it at all. When I sit down to make a character I have alot of fun thinking about that characters personality, background and general look. At any given day I'd come up with a completely new and differnt concept for a wizard, each one new, fresh and exciting for ME. THey may be part of a discipline or school, have learend on thier own, or forced some eldritch daemon to teach them the dark arts. Whatever floats my boat for the day. The point is, I have a totally blank slate to work with. 

Being a master of illusion and being trained in "serpent eye" have two totally differnt connotations. By building the style into the class, it says that All wizards fall into one of those pre-chosen catergories. Sure, both use illusionary magic, but one leaves me infinate realms of possibility, the other decides it for me. There's a reason for generalizations in character creation. 

I DONT want to make a wizard of my own design, then have to go "Gee I guess Merlin learned the "serpent eye" style of magic." I'd rather just have it generic and say "gee I think merlin is a master of charm and illusion" and THEN take the time to create my own fancy names IF I WANTED IT. 

*Shrug* its just fun to speculate on what the final form will take. I have a pet peeve against most of WoTC's fluff names for organizations. They always seem childish and cheesy, like the names for some cultists from a bad B rated movie.


----------



## sidonunspa

captaincursor said:
			
		

> Anyone else notice that there is nary a mention of necromancy or summoning in either version of the article?





OMG.... 

::runs back to read the artical:::

Gasp!!  What the hell!


----------



## Rechan

Let's all just email WotC the details of our campaign worlds so that the PHB doesn't mess with the guys playing Spelljammer.


----------



## TheArcane

Rechan said:
			
		

> If schools of magic don't fit in your campaign, then the wizard doesn't fit in your campaign.




Come on, that's just not true at all. Take FR for example, either the class gets modified specifically for the setting, or specialty magic schools suddenly pop-up all over the realms.
Again, this is all persuming the flavor in the article exists in the PHB.


----------



## Rechan

gothmaugCC said:
			
		

> I dont think thats it at all. When I sit down to make a character I have alot of fun thinking about that characters personality, background and general look. At any given day I'd come up with a completely new and differnt concept for a wizard, each one new, fresh and exciting for ME. THey may be part of a discipline or school, have learend on thier own, or forced some eldritch daemon to teach them the dark arts. Whatever floats my boat for the day. The point is, I have a totally blank slate to work with.



So do you feel hamstrung that the Sorcerer class's fluff text says: "Blood of dragons"? Does that prevent you from having a feyblooded Sorcerer, one trained by a demon, or in the wrong place at the wrong time when an artifact blew up?

I am certain that if your campaign world doesn't have Dragons, you can find another source for sorcerers.


----------



## gothmaugCC

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> Nope...  J. R. R. Tolkien
> 
> see even the clasics sound like Anime





Except that line isnt a classic (as it never appeared in the book). It was cobbled together from information from the Simmirilion for the movie. 

so you need to say, "even Movies based on a classic" sound like anime. 

Just being a pain in the arse


----------



## Rechan

TheArcane said:
			
		

> Come on, that's just not true at all. Take FR for example, either the class gets modified specifically for the setting, or specialty magic schools suddenly pop-up all over the realms.
> Again, this is all persuming the flavor in the article exists in the PHB.



I said schools of magic. Transmutation/Evocation/etc. That may just be what they're called, for all we know.


----------



## Masquerade

captaincursor said:
			
		

> Anyone else notice that there is nary a mention of necromancy or summoning in either version of the article?



Actually, summoning _was _mentioned:







> A tome is tied to powers that reduce or neutralize an enemy’s capability in combat in some fashion, whether by slowing the foe, dazing, or through some other fashion. Tomes are also often important for spells of teleportation, *summoning*, shapechanging, and a few physical enhancement effects.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Imp said:
			
		

> "You finish your incantation, and three walking skeletons rise from their graves, ready to do your bidding."
> 
> "Dude.  Hey.  Remember the +2 virgin I sacrificed a couple days ago?  That still counts, right?"
> 
> "Oh.  Right.  Good job then.  Five walking skeletons rise from their graves, ready to do your bidding."
> 
> Maybe I can have fun with this.



Dark Cultist: Great evil overlord, receive the sacrifice of this +2 virgin, on this, the most damned of...
Virgin: Hey!  What?  +2?  No way!  I'm at least a +6 virgin!  Look at these innocent eyes!  Look at the quality of these diaphanous garments--which you tore, I might also point out.  I'm totally unicorn bait!
Dark Cultist: Okay, jeez.  Receive this +6 virgin, oh dark lord.

*stab*

*invoke dark ritual of evil*

Dark Cultist: Hey, it turns out she really was a +6 virgin.  Go figure.


----------



## Snapdragyn

> Umm except that you have the tools in 3e to make new gods (they have domains.. done) if they tie the schools of magic to organizations, well, that now makes you need organizations.




Yes, exactly like you had to have an Official Wizarding School of Evocation in 3e if you wanted evocation specialist wizards...

... or, you know, *not*.



> For example, let’s say I want a school to teach more than one tradition... Now I need to come up with names and explain to my players that Spell School X = tradition Y




You mean kinda like how in 3e if you want a magic school, you have to explain what specialties are taught there? So... it'll be going from the way it is now to the same as it is now.

As for someone's mention of the odd pairing of cold & acid (which I agree seems odd), we survived summoning being used for both 'bringing in allies' & 'zapping with energy attacks', so I suppose we can handle this.

I'm hopeful that they'll use descriptors a lot more on spells, which should then make it fairly easy to cobble together a homebrew tradition (at least as far as the spell list goes; will have to see if the mechanics of knowing a tradition are the same for each & thus easy to use with homebrews, or unique to each & thus harder to homebrew). My hope is that they'll opt for easy mechanics; then any DM could homebrew their own school's spell list and apply the basic mechanics to it.


----------



## F4NBOY

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> Nope...  J. R. R. Tolkien
> 
> see even the clasics sound like Anime




I think you missed your Sense Motive check by a long shot


----------



## Reaper Steve

So, I reread the 'Tomb under the Tor' playest armed with this new knowledge. Do you think Sasha is a Hidden Flame or a Golden Wyvern? Hard to tell...she wields Fire, but I'm sure that shared across both traditions. 

BTW:
1) they should stick with 'traditions' and drop 'disciplines.'
2) I know why I don't like the names...they remind of of the Houses at Hogwarts (Serpent Eye = Slytherin, Golden Wyvern = Gryfinndor, etc.) Not in execution, but they are very similar names...too similar.


----------



## F4NBOY

Masquerade said:
			
		

> Actually, summoning _was _mentioned:




Tome is gone.


----------



## Olthynn

I really don't like the revised article. In the original article, the implements seemed to enhance the purpose and the flavor of the magic. The wizard lunges his staff forward, sending out a bolt of electricity destroying everything in its path. Another wizard focuses the power of his orb and projects a spell to entangle a large group of foes. Yet another wizard invokes the ancient lore in his tome to summon forth a remarkable beast of power.

In other words, in my opinion the implements made sense with the magic they were being used for and therefore they added to the flavor of the magic.

But in the revised article, the implements just seem so arbitrary. The orb can be used for defense and spells of force and thunder? Why? Because it's the tradition of the Iron Sigil? What if I don't have, or want, the Iron Sigil tradition in my game? Sure, I can rename it, but what if I don't have a tradition that combines defense with force and thunder? What if I don't have a tradition that combines frost and acid? 

In my opinion, it's like they've put the cart before the horse. My impression of the original system was that it allowed individual spellcasters to make their own choices in regards to their suite of spells and then allow them to use implements that would logically enhance those choices. Under that system, magic organizations and traditions may or may not exist depending on a number of factors.

But with the revised system, it's like they're working backwards. They're starting with those organizations, and then forcing individual spellcasters to decide on their spells based on those organizations and using implements that have seemingly no connection to those spells other than tradition. Organizations and traditions should be _the result _ of a strong, flexible magic system, not attempting to be the underlying cause of one. To me, that's bad design.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't game-breaking or anything. I imagine I'll be able to willfully ignore most of it. But there will always be the thought that the implements now seem to be completely arbitrary (why can a wand channel frost and force but not fire or thunder?) and that they could have been a lot better; in fact, for a few days they were better, in my opinion.


----------



## gothmaugCC

Rechan said:
			
		

> So do you feel hamstrung that the Sorcerer class's fluff text says: "Blood of dragons"? Does that prevent you from having a feyblooded Sorcerer, one trained by a demon, or in the wrong place at the wrong time when an artifact blew up?
> 
> I am certain that if your campaign world doesn't have Dragons, you can find another source for sorcerers.





No, but if the sorcerer class had, lets say 3 talent trees, and the dragonblood one was called "Veins of mighty might", which is a special family tree enjoyed by those who are proficient in fire magic, then yes i would feel hamstrung, as any fire based sorcer i created would by default be assumed to be decended from a dragon and belong to this family, as opposed to perhaps a demon.

There is a BIG difference between fluff text given in the flavor entry of the class, and fluff text intregrated into the mechanics of the class itself. Flufff intregrated directly into the class limits your possibilities. This is not a big deal in home games where everyone retools the rules to thier liking, but in a tournament style game (like the RPGA or Arcanis) where you have to follow the rules verbatim, your choices are limited right out of the starting gate.


----------



## JVisgaitis

Um, did they redo the article? Looks like tome isn't there anymore...


----------



## Rechan

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Dark Cultist: Great evil overlord, receive the sacrifice of this +2 virgin, on this, the most damned of...
> Virgin: Hey!  What?  +2?  No way!  I'm at least a +6 virgin!  Look at these innocent eyes!  Look at the quality of these diaphanous garments--which you tore, I might also point out.  I'm totally unicorn bait!
> Dark Cultist: Okay, jeez.  Receive this +6 virgin, oh dark lord.
> 
> *stab*
> 
> *invoke dark ritual of evil*
> 
> Dark Cultist: Hey, it turns out she really was a +6 virgin.  Go figure.




Hahaha.

However, I will say this. That's one thing I never quite got about demons and evil gods. Why _virgins_? The pure of heart and all that generally don't sin, and thus their souls go to heaven. What you want is to sacrifice someone _bad_, so that the evil entity gets that soul for themselves. Otherwise that soul could've went under someone else's purview.


----------



## gothmaugCC

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Um, did they redo the article? Looks like tome isn't there anymore...




Yep they pulled it and replaced it with a new version


----------



## F4NBOY

Since I don't care about anime, harry potter and wuxia movies, those names looks pretty cool.
I hope they are just names, and we can change tham to fit the campaign flavor, the same way I simply change classes, spells and other game terms names to fit my setting's flavor, no big deal.
Actually I only care for the rules. The fluff part I can handle.


----------



## gothmaugCC

Rechan said:
			
		

> Hahaha.
> 
> However, I will say this. That's one thing I never quite got about demons and evil gods. Why _virgins_? The pure of heart and all that generally don't sin, and thus their souls go to heaven. What you want is to sacrifice someone _bad_, so that the evil entity gets that soul for themselves. Otherwise that soul could've went under someone else's purview.




Unless of course, by sacrificing them you send thier soul to the entity in which you dedicated the ritual. In that case its a way for demons/gods to get their hands on really pure souls they would otherwise never obtain. 

Makes a real good argument for WHY cults exist..doesnt it?


----------



## Zurai

gothmaugCC said:
			
		

> Except that line isnt a classic (as it never appeared in the book). It was cobbled together from information from the Simmirilion for the movie.




Actually, yes, yes it is in the Fellowship of the Ring. Book 2, Chapter 5; The Bridge of Khazad-Dum.



> "You cannot pass," he said. The orcs stood still, and a dead silence fell. "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. The dark fire will not avail you here, flame of Udûn. You cannot pass."


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

WizarDru said:
			
		

> A little more concealable?  How big do you think the Tomes are, exactly?  They don't have to be as big as an unabridged dictionary...any more than a standard spellbook does.




Yeah, but the wizard will look much cooler if he's got a book the size of a card table strapped to his back, especially if it periodically tries to escape.


----------



## Snapdragyn

> Why virgins? The pure of heart and all that generally don't sin, and thus their souls go to heaven. What you want is to sacrifice someone bad, so that the evil entity gets that soul for themselves. Otherwise that soul could've went under someone else's purview.




Um, that's exactly why - they're getting something via the sacrifice which they would not otherwise have gotten. The evil soul was theirs already.

If I offer to give you _your own car_, would you prefer that to someone offering to give you a new car?


----------



## gothmaugCC

Zurai said:
			
		

> Actually, yes, yes it is in the Fellowship of the Ring. Book 2, Chapter 5; The Bridge of Khazad-Dum.





I stand corrected. I bow to your superior knowledge. 

*races home to check his copy*


----------



## F4NBOY

gothmaugCC said:
			
		

> Except that line isnt a classic (as it never appeared in the book). It was cobbled together from information from the Simmirilion for the movie.



HERESY!!!!


----------



## Rechan

gothmaugCC said:
			
		

> No, but if the sorcerer class had, lets say 3 talent trees, and the dragonblood one was called "Veins of mighty might", which is a special family tree enjoyed by those who are proficient in fire magic, then yes i would feel hamstrung, as any fire based sorcer i created would by default be assumed to be decended from a dragon and belong to this family, as opposed to perhaps a demon.




Except you can't just slap "Demonblood" and then the Family is just the family of demons? 

I still don't get it. There's nothing in that description that doesn't let you swap one word out for the next. Because the fluff text of the Sorcerer says: Blood of dragons. 



> There is a BIG difference between fluff text given in the flavor entry of the class, and fluff text intregrated into the mechanics of the class itself. Flufff intregrated directly into the class limits your possibilities. This is not a big deal in home games where everyone retools the rules to thier liking, but in a tournament style game (like the RPGA or Arcanis) where you have to follow the rules verbatim, your choices are limited right out of the starting gate.



*That's* what this is about?! Con games and official tournaments?

Tournaments and con games require specific settings anyways, so you're going to get hamstrung by the setting. So if the setting says "All wizards have blue hair" then you're going to have to have blue hair. If the rules doesnt' say you can learn magic from a demon, or your sorcerer can be demonblooded, then you _can't_, so this fuss is for nothing.


----------



## Rechan

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> Um, that's exactly why - they're getting something via the sacrifice which they would not otherwise have gotten. The evil soul was theirs already.




But if it's a Good soul then they usually can't touch it. Pure good is anathema to evil, after all. It's why evil can't touch a Good sword. A Soul that is Pure has got to be one hell of a pain to look at, much less touch.



> f I offer to give you your own car, would you prefer that to someone offering to give you a new car?




Way I see it, it's not like you giving me my car. I see the Demons and such as Used Car Salesmen. Crazy Larry's Used Cars doesn't want Bob's Cheap Rides to get that old Miata; _he_ wants the old Miata. But neither are guaranteed that Miata. That 2006 Mercedes? That's likely going to get sold back to the Mercedes dealership, and Larry and Bob's clientel likely won't be able to afford that 2006 Mercedes.

In the same vein, Orcus isn't guaranteed that evil soul any more then Beelzebub is. If that murderer dies, he likely goes to Murderer's Hell, not Beelzebub's realm or Orcus's. So if you offer that evil soul to them rather than where it would be going, it's one more soul for them to play with. But that virgin's soul? That's nuclear waste; they can't touch it.


----------



## sidonunspa

Rechan said:
			
		

> So do you feel hamstrung that the Sorcerer class's fluff text says: "Blood of dragons"? Does that prevent you from having a feyblooded Sorcerer, one trained by a demon, or in the wrong place at the wrong time when an artifact blew up?
> 
> I am certain that if your campaign world doesn't have Dragons, you can find another source for sorcerers.




True, but the Sorcerer still used generic schools on magic, all I had to do is change one line and I was done..

Now if a school of magic was called "Dragon Blooded" and the spells where names like "Dragon Breath" and "Claws of the Wyrm" it becomes a bit more complicated.

See if you have basic _school names_ like Frost, Force, Thunder, enchantment, and Flame and connected them to fluff _traditions_ of X, Y, Z then you have given me the tools to create what I want by disgarding X,Y,Z, and keeping the rules as they are. 

Hell I can go so far as to say there are no traditions, but there are still schools of magic.


----------



## Stone Dog

gothmaugCC said:
			
		

> Except that line isnt a classic (as it never appeared in the book). It was cobbled together from information from the Simmirilion for the movie.
> 
> so you need to say, "even Movies based on a classic" sound like anime.
> 
> Just being a pain in the arse



From wikipedia the book says "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass. " and the movie says "I am a servant of the secret fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor! Dark fire will not avail you, Flame of Udûn! Go back to the Shadow! YOU... SHALL NOT... PASS!!! "  And the quote is in at least the BBC broadcast and a few other options.  It at least existed before the movie, but since my copies aren't available I can't confirm whether it was in the book directly or not.

Just being a (very very scooped  ) pain in the arse.


----------



## JVisgaitis

OK. That's twice the weird in one day. I never expected to see this stuff for Wizards which I think was a nice surprise in the first place. To see them gank out the Tome is double the weird, but I don't mind. I'm happy with staff, wand, and orb. The names are kinda eh, but like Ari said, you can easily swap those out for whatever you want.


----------



## sidonunspa

gothmaugCC said:
			
		

> I stand corrected. I bow to your superior knowledge.
> 
> *races home to check his copy*





Ha!! next time do not question the stat monkey!!! 

that will learn ya


----------



## JVisgaitis

This is super way off topic, but Peter B who did the cover for Psionics Unbound? Looks very cool.


----------



## Rechan

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> True, but the Sorcerer still used generic schools on magic, all I had to do is change one line and I was done..
> 
> Now if a school of magic was called "Dragon Blooded" and the spells where names like "Dragon Breath" and "Claws of the Wyrm" it becomes a bit more complicated.




Because every sorcerer calls them Evocation and Transmutation and Adjuration, right? 

I still don't see it. All you have to do is call it "Claws of the Fiend", "Hell Breath", etc.

If people can call it Melf's Acid Arrow, then calling it Dragon Breath is just as kosher.


----------



## GSHamster

I like the original article better.  For one thing, having four items and choosing two seems more interesting--and lended itself to more possibilities--than having three items, and only choosing one.

As for tomes, yeah, they are perhaps a little unwieldly in battle (though why is it that no one has the same complaint about scrolls?).  However, they are the perfect item for rituals such as summonings.


----------



## Anthraxus

Preferred the first version with generic wizardly implements/no weirdly-named disciplines.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Rechan said:
			
		

> *That's* what this is about?! Con games and official tournaments?




No, it's about defining the common language that gamers use to communicate with each other, and whether the language used to describe _game terms_ is needlessly clogged with setting-specific fluff or not.


----------



## howandwhy99

These are just optional rules like Wizard Specialization and the 8 schools, right?  It's not like every arcane caster will need to follow this kind of system - at least, that's my thinking if they are attempting to keep the classes flexible.

Another thought.  Perhaps the combinations of different focuses represent the 8 different schools?

orb = divination
wand = enchantment
staff = evocation
orb + wand = illusion
orb + staff = conjuration
wand + staff = transmutation
orb + wand + staff = abjuration
none = necromancy  (invocation from a life force)


----------



## WayneLigon

Rechan said:
			
		

> But if it's a Good soul then they usually can't touch it. Pure good is anathema to evil, after all. It's why evil can't touch a Good sword. A Soul that is Pure has got to be one hell of a pain to look at, much less touch.




Traditionally, that's not how it works. Folklore and myth is full of totally blameless people who get snatched off to Hell for no reason at all, regardless of the state of their soul.


----------



## frankthedm

captaincursor said:
			
		

> Anyone else notice that there is nary a mention of necromancy or summoning in either version of the article?



 Well, that makes sence since Mearls in on the job taking out anything that might cause encounter balancing issues. IF they can find a way for having animated dead or summoned minions _with_ the party on a permanent basis, it might be put back in.


----------



## frankthedm

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Traditionally, that's not how it works. Folklore and myth is full of totally blameless people who get snatched off to Hell for no reason at all, regardless of the state of their soul.



Not to mention sword and sorcery fantasy has a modest amount of soul eating monsters. Heck in some some settings, the soul is almost as vulnerable to harm as the body, once even a little bit of magic gets involved.


----------



## drothgery

captaincursor said:
			
		

> Anyone else notice that there is nary a mention of necromancy or summoning in either version of the article?




There's no way we'll be that lucky.

(Hates necromancy, summoning, and any other magic that adds more entities to the battlefield...)


----------



## F4NBOY

I hope the implement for necromancy is Sacrificed People.


----------



## fuindordm

Well, I'm not the first to say this but it deserves emphasizing.

Ideally, schools are to wizards as domains are to clerics.  I would be very happy with narrower schools, and I think there's some evidence for that in the article (fire and radiance; thunder and force; cold and acid; lightning and force). If creating a magical tradition is just a matter of picking two or three "arcane domains" to specialize in, and your implements are particularly potent in these domains, it would work very well.

The fluff is appropriate as long as it is given the proper context in the PH.  We would not complain about flavor text in the 3E PH which said: 

"For example, clerics of Wee Jas delve into the mysteries of death and the dark sources of arcane magic."

as long as it appeared after an explanation that domains are small groups of spells, that clerics get to choose two, and that gods grant their clerics access to a short list.

I really hope the analogy holds.  How about a PH that says:

"Wizards may design their own arcane tradition by choosing two schools to specialize in, or use one the sample traditions given in this chapter. A school is defined as a short list of themed spells associated with one of the wizard's implements."

Would that be so bad?

And on a side note, since acids seem to be liquid by default, freezing acid makes some sense. Imagine the spell Acid Shard, which drives an icicle into your flesh. As it melts, the victim takes further damage each round.


----------



## Kunimatyu

It had to happen sometime...

I feel very negative about these school names -- at least schools of magic in 3.5 aren't part of named orders, you can ignore them if you want to.

I really, really don't want to have to explain about schools for "Iron Sigil" and "Golden Wyvern", it sounds way too martial-arts-school-ish. It gets even worse with regards to published campaign settings.

Sorry Wizards, this gets the thumbs down -- make things generic enough that I don't have to do a complete flavor rewrite for my homebrew. I liked grouping powers, but I'd seriously rather have an "Orb-Enhanced Magic" heading than an "Iron Sigil" one.


----------



## helium3

drothgery said:
			
		

> There's no way we'll be that lucky.
> 
> (Hates necromancy, summoning, and any other magic that adds more entities to the battlefield...)




Nor is there anything that sounds like what we'd call transmutation or illusion. Maybe those are other classes now?

Or perhaps what they've previewed in that article is something along the lines of an advance class.


----------



## Kunimatyu

I also can't help but notice that the new "schools" appear to be more like paired elemental descriptors -- this is the foreshadowing for a vastly cut down library of spells, guys.

(I'm actually positive about this change, mind you, and it makes sense to have the implements linked to offensive spells, if they're analogous to a fighter's weapons.)


----------



## Mouseferatu

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> I liked grouping powers, but I'd seriously rather have an "Orb-Enhanced Magic" heading than an "Iron Sigil" one.




Wow, I couldn't disagree more. I mean, if you're changing the name anyway, it doesn't matter what you're changing it _from_. And for those who look to the books for inspiration as well as information, "Iron Sigil" is, at least potentially, a lot more evocative than "orb-enhanced magic."


----------



## breschau

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> So, I reread the 'Tomb under the Tor' playest armed with this new knowledge. Do you think Sasha is a Hidden Flame or a Golden Wyvern? Hard to tell...she wields Fire, but I'm sure that shared across both traditions.
> 
> BTW:
> 1) they should stick with 'traditions' and drop 'disciplines.'
> 2) I know why I don't like the names...they remind of of the Houses at Hogwarts (Serpent Eye = Slytherin, Golden Wyvern = Gryfinndor, etc.) Not in execution, but they are very similar names...too similar.




My beef is that they strike me as fighting schools out of wuxia films or monk organizations. Oh, no. Maybe "the wizard killed the monk and took his stuff."

Oh, please, no. Not that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And come on. Where'd the Orb's connection to scrying go? That's one of the things that should stay no matter what. Orb = scry spells. Period. Cool. 4th Edition isn't even out yet and I already have house rules.


----------



## Imaro

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Wow, I couldn't disagree more. I mean, if you're changing the name anyway, it doesn't matter what you're changing it _from_. And for those who look to the books for inspiration as well as information, "Iron Sigil" is, at least potentially, a lot more evocative than "orb-enhanced magic."




Why not just group them as...Order of the Staff, Order of the Wand and Order of the Orb(or something simlar).  The names they have really are cheesy, don't explain exactly what "tool" they use and require more explanation for a new player to understand.  In other words, not really seeing the point of it.


----------



## F4NBOY

_"The orb is favored by the Iron Sigil and Serpent Eye traditions. Serpent Eye cabalists use orbs to focus powers of enchantment, beguiling, and ensnaring. The mages of the Iron Sigil, on the other hand, employ orbs to guard themselves with potent defenses when invoking spells of thunder or force."_

Iron Sigil: Abjuration*
Serpent Eye: Enchantment and Illusion**

*Both names evokes the idea of strong defence.
**Serpents are mythically considered "deceptive", so a serpent's eye evokes BIG deception.

_"The staff is best suited to the disciplines of the Hidden Flame and the Golden Wyvern. Servants of the Hidden Flame wield fierce powers of fire and radiance through their staves. Golden Wyvern initiates are battle-mages who use their staves to shape and sculpt the spells they cast."_

Hidden Flame: Fire and Radiance(light?) (Evocations)*
Golden Wyvern: Metamagic school?

*Hidden Flame sound pretty much like Secret Fire, doesn't it? Staff + "Hidden Flame" + Fire and Light spells = Gandalf.  

_"The wand is a perennial favorite for wizards who favor accurate, damaging attacks. Emerald Frost adepts use wands to help channel powers of cold and deadly acidic magic, while Stormwalker theurges channel spells of lightning and force through their wands."_

Emerald Frost: Cold and Acid energies.(evocations)*
Stormwalkers: Electricty and Force (evocations)

*Emerald=green=acid. Frost=cold. Duh 

When you start looking deeper and understanding the meaning behind the names, you see that they are generic enough to do the job well.


----------



## helium3

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Wow, I couldn't disagree more. I mean, if you're changing the name anyway, it doesn't matter what you're changing it _from_. And for those who look to the books for inspiration as well as information, "Iron Sigil" is, at least potentially, a lot more evocative than "orb-enhanced magic."




I don't mind the flavor related names, but I will be annoyed by the sighs of exasperation that will come from some of my players if I try to rename them to something that more accurately reflects the campaign setting I'm in.


----------



## helium3

breschau said:
			
		

> My beef is that they strike me as fighting schools out of wuxia films or monk organizations. Oh, no. Maybe "the wizard killed the monk and took his stuff."




I'm not entirely familiar with what I'm referencing, but the almost total (there is some enchantment related stuff) emphasis on damage dealing spells makes me think of the Red Mages from Final Fantasy XI, or the Corruptors from City of Villains. Dunno what the blasting class is called in City of Heroes and WoW.

Anyhow, maybe they're just revealing a small subset of wizard related flavor or this is something more along the lines of a prestige/advanced class. Maybe this is how wizard's specialize now?


----------



## Fobok

helium3 said:
			
		

> Dunno what the blasting class is called in City of Heroes and WoW




In City of Heroes it's, fittingly, Blaster. In WoW the Mage is probably what you're referring to, though they can do a lot more than just blast.


----------



## Thundershield

Well, seeing how Illusion, Necromancy, and Transmutation appear very little here, I think we're not seeing any kind of final version yet. This might very well simply be the first of many traditions, as they all seem to be some sort of battle-mages (or evokers), except maybe for the Serpent Eye wizards (which are more like the Beguiler).

No, Necromancy and the other schools are too popular to leave out. Wizards aren't, after all, just warmages in robes instead of armor. They do more than fling explosions and ice lances about, so let's just wait and see.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Olthynn said:
			
		

> I really don't like the revised article. In the original article, the implements seemed to enhance the purpose and the flavor of the magic. The wizard lunges his staff forward, sending out a bolt of electricity destroying everything in its path. Another wizard focuses the power of his orb and projects a spell to entangle a large group of foes. Yet another wizard invokes the ancient lore in his tome to summon forth a remarkable beast of power.
> 
> In other words, in my opinion the implements made sense with the magic they were being used for and therefore they added to the flavor of the magic.
> 
> But in the revised article, the implements just seem so arbitrary. The orb can be used for defense and spells of force and thunder? Why? Because it's the tradition of the Iron Sigil? What if I don't have, or want, the Iron Sigil tradition in my game? Sure, I can rename it, but what if I don't have a tradition that combines defense with force and thunder? What if I don't have a tradition that combines frost and acid?
> 
> In my opinion, it's like they've put the cart before the horse. My impression of the original system was that it allowed individual spellcasters to make their own choices in regards to their suite of spells and then allow them to use implements that would logically enhance those choices. Under that system, magic organizations and traditions may or may not exist depending on a number of factors.
> 
> But with the revised system, it's like they're working backwards. They're starting with those organizations, and then forcing individual spellcasters to decide on their spells based on those organizations and using implements that have seemingly no connection to those spells other than tradition. Organizations and traditions should be _the result _ of a strong, flexible magic system, not attempting to be the underlying cause of one. To me, that's bad design.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, this isn't game-breaking or anything. I imagine I'll be able to willfully ignore most of it. But there will always be the thought that the implements now seem to be completely arbitrary (why can a wand channel frost and force but not fire or thunder?) and that they could have been a lot better; in fact, for a few days they were better, in my opinion.




I agree, you sum up my preference for the first article's mechanics.

As for the flavour, it's not just that you might not like the sound of _Golden Wyvern_, or that you may replace it with your own college of magic, but on the face of it, can you say what kind of magic that represents without looking it up? No. If you use Illusion or Divination, etc, it's pretty clear what sort of effect you're trying to create. Evocation and Conjuration are trickier, admittedly, but there are probably better generic names. If they alter the existing schools, fine, but don't flavour them at the cost of clarity.


----------



## F4NBOY

The Hidden Flame is clearly inspired in the Secret Fire, so the wuxia/anime lovers/haters conspirators will have to buy that one!


----------



## Snapdragyn

> ...on the face of it, can you say what kind of magic that represents without looking it up? No.



(in relation to Golden Wyvern tradition)

Exactly what I like about it! Make magic back into a realm of mystery, instead of pseudo-science. Give me "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor" over 'I am a servant of Evocation, wielder of the +3 Staff of um... Evocationiness' any day.


----------



## Geoff Watson

Personally, I prefer the older article.

"Four types of focus, picking two" seems better than "three types, pick one".

I don't have any problem with Tome-wielding wizards. While they might be rarer than staff-wielders I can think of a few examples.

The magic divisions in the first article seem more reasonable than the second article (acid & cold together but separate from other blast spells?).

I don't like the specific organization names in the second one, since it seems that they are going to be rules differences rather than just background.

Geoff.


----------



## helium3

Thundershield said:
			
		

> Well, seeing how Illusion, Necromancy, and Transmutation appear very little here, I think we're not seeing any kind of final version yet. This might very well simply be the first of many traditions, as they all seem to be some sort of battle-mages (or evokers), except maybe for the Serpent Eye wizards (which are more like the Beguiler).
> 
> No, Necromancy and the other schools are too popular to leave out. Wizards aren't, after all, just warmages in robes instead of armor. They do more than fling explosions and ice lances about, so let's just wait and see.




Someone in one of the threads here wondered whether Warlocks might pick up Necromancy and  Negative Energy in general.

I agree that it's too early to tell, but why the major focus on blasting spells in that case? Was that just the easiest thing to describe?


----------



## breschau

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> (in relation to Golden Wyvern tradition)
> 
> Exactly what I like about it! Make magic back into a realm of mystery, instead of pseudo-science. Give me "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor" over 'I am a servant of Evocation, wielder of the +3 Staff of um... Evocationiness' any day.




I completely agree about the flavor text. I just prefer that to be the job of the DM and players at the table rather than the core books, which are supposed to be setting neutral. You can't create organizations and still claim setting neutrality.


----------



## Nikosandros

Piratecat said:
			
		

> It's ironic to see people fretting about these changes and saying "It's too different, it's not D&D!" To them I would ask: do you consider 3e to be D&D? Because that _exact same complaint_ was made hundreds of times on this site in 1999 and 2000, as we waited for 3e to launch.
> 
> 3e's changes were far more extreme than I expect 4e's to be, and I'm pretty happy with how 3e turned out. For me, it's definitely D&D. I expect 4e will be the exact same way.



Well, I'm not fretting about the changes, I'm actually happy about them, because I'm looking forward to a new game... I still have 3.5 and I can play whenever I like. I also still have AD&D and I play it quite often...

That said 3e was a radical change. Its themes are similar to AD&D, but it's really a different game. I feel that the changes in 4e will be even more radical.


----------



## Kunimatyu

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Wow, I couldn't disagree more. I mean, if you're changing the name anyway, it doesn't matter what you're changing it _from_. And for those who look to the books for inspiration as well as information, "Iron Sigil" is, at least potentially, a lot more evocative than "orb-enhanced magic."




Let me rephrase that. If it's a mechanical division for game-balance purposes(and why else do you group force and lightning, for example?), then I'd prefer that you keep it a basic mechanic distinction with some available options for flavor, rather than grafting the flavor directly to the mechanics.

I *really*, really don't want to have to explain to my players why they can't have an "Emerald Flame" discipline with both acid and flame, y'know?


----------



## Olthynn

breschau said:
			
		

> I completely agree about the flavor text. I just prefer that to be the job of the DM and players at the table rather than the core books, which are supposed to be setting neutral. You can't create organizations and still claim setting neutrality.



Agreed. In my opinion, the PHB should just present the spells that are in play. Then, if I feel inclined to, I can select the fire spells and say that I study the ancient tradition of the Hidden Flame. Or, if I want, I can select the fire spells and just say I like fire. Or maybe I'll create a new wizarding school with like-minded colleagues based around summoning, fire, and spells with funny names and I'll make my own tradition. The point is, the choice regarding the flavor for my character should be mine.

If they want to put some stuff into the PHB about how to create interesting flavor for my wizard to try and spark my imagination, awesome, that'd be great. But don't just create some flavor for me and make that the basis for the structure of the magic system and its implements. That's just poor design.


----------



## Snapdragyn

I really wish people could get past the idea that names = organization. That is an assumption, & IMO a poor one. We don't expect Transmutation organizations in 3.xe just because Transmutation exists as a school of magic; I likewise see no reason to expect Serpent's Eye as an organization (as opposed to named tradition) in 4e.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> We don't expect Transmutation organizations in 3.xe just because Transmutation exists as a school of magic; I likewise see no reason to expect Serpent's Eye as an organization (as opposed to named tradition) in 4e.



I'd rather Serpent's Eye IS an organization than the name of category of the spells.


----------



## Rechan

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> I really wish people could get past the idea that names = organization. That is an assumption, & IMO a poor one. We don't expect Transmutation organizations in 3.xe just because Transmutation exists as a school of magic; I likewise see no reason to expect Serpent's Eye as an organization (as opposed to named tradition) in 4e.




Hell, being an "Serpent Eye wizard" may be no different than being called a Transmuter.


----------



## F4NBOY

I am the servant of the Serpent Eye, wielder of the Orb of Shadows!
I am the servant of the Hidden Flame, wielder of the Staff of Hellfire!
I am the servant of the Iron Sigil, wielder of the Eye of Moradin!
I am the servant of the Emerald Frost, wielder of the Frozen Finger!
I am the servant of the Stormwalker, wielder of the Wand of Thunder!

They don't look so cheesy or too fluffy. Try shouting them in front of a big demon, it looks like kinda cool! Roleplaying aficionados can't say they aren't adding RP tools in the PHB .


----------



## Kunimatyu

Rechan said:
			
		

> Hell, being an "Serpent Eye wizard" may be no different than being called a Transmuter.




Perhaps, but it sure sounds like an organization name at first glance, doesn't it?


----------



## JoelF

I liked the new article a lot more than the first version.  Not only did they ditch the crazy image of the wizard desperatly trying to get to the right page in the Tome mid battle "please stop swinging your club at me, Ogre, while I try to get to the page on burning hands", but I think three is a lot more manageable, with one being a specialty, instead of wizards trying to juggle 2 or more of the four in any given fight.  I also like the re-structuring of the effects of the wand, I couldn't get over that it was good at blasting far away but also really useful for target: personal spells.

As for the discipline names, I don't mind them, or love them.  I think it's fine to call them something like that instead of just saying Evocation specialists, and by having them be tied to specific magical traditions (and possibly talent trees) it leaves the door wide open for new disciplines with new names and game effects to fit your campaign world (and D&D Insider content.)

Overall I felt that the system described originally was too clunky, and the new version seems a lot more streamlined.


----------



## Irda Ranger

Rechan said:
			
		

> Hell, being an "Serpent Eye wizard" may be no different than being called a Transmuter.



Then they should just call it Transmutation.  "Serpent's Eye" tells me nothing. It's verbiage. It's useless. It's a big frickin' impediment to understanding and rules mastery.  Transmute, Illusion, Necro-, ... these words actually mean something. They have roots in the Latin / Enlgish speaking traditions.  They help me understand what a spell is supposed to do; how it's supposed to work.

I like that they got rid of "Tome".  Good change. 

The tradition names are crap. For the reasons stated many times and more eloquently in this thread, it's a big pile of flavor-crap in my homebrew.  It's an overly strong stench of implied setting in the Forgotten Realms campaign I want to run.  

Also, the new groupings make no sense at all. They look like they were compiled by someone who was told "make these balance", and no consideration at all was given to whether they made any sense. No consideration was given to whether DM's would want to combine elements of collumn A and B under the same umbrella.

Grrrr.  I was ambivalent about the non-revised article.  The revised article really bothers me.  I hope, STRONGLY HOPE, that the game continues to be in flux.  

The f4anboys will love it anyway unconditionally, so I hope WotC throws the rest of us a bone here.


----------



## Korgoth

"Iron Sigil"
"Golden Wyvern"
"Hidden Flame"
Mountainous Defecation"

Definitely the most foolish creative decision made by WOTC so far.  My estimation of the creative 'talents' of these guys has definitely gone from "poor" to "I'd consider firing them if I was their boss".

Isn't there someone actually in charge over there?  How does some of this stuff get past the "Get the hell out of my office" phase of development?

Totally stupid stuff.  Here's hoping they change it.


----------



## F4NBOY

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> The f4anboys will love it anyway unconditionally, so I hope WotC throws the rest of us a bone here.




Don't make generalizations please. Putting a lot of people or just one person under a negative tag is not nice.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> I also can't help but notice that the new "schools" appear to be more like paired elemental descriptors -- this is the foreshadowing for a vastly cut down library of spells, guys.
> 
> (I'm actually positive about this change, mind you, and it makes sense to have the implements linked to offensive spells, if they're analogous to a fighter's weapons.)




I certainly hope they cut down the number of spells as well. How many different variations of "I hurt him with fire" are needed?


----------



## nightspaladin

I think it is much better to have discipline names than simply calling someone a transmuter, evoker, etc if that is indeed what they are doing.

The disciplines may be a mixture of different schools to different degrees. It will be far easier to create new disciplines than it was to create new speciality wizards( as that required you creating a new school of magic)

Also, these names may only be the generic "points of light" setting names. I suspect that FR and Eberron Campiagn books will include their own different traditions for wizards.

If these traditions are simply talent tree driven then it is extremely easy for them to just drop them into the existing class framework.

Also, maybe a wizard that has accessed all of the disciplines will be what we call an "archmage" in the future.... Just a nice nod to the past and a neat bit of fluff


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> I certainly hope they cut down the number of spells as well. How many different variations of "I hurt him with fire" are needed?




I don't know.  What color fire do you want it to be?


----------



## breschau

new article said:
			
		

> Most people recognize the three *most common* tools associated with wizardcraft: the orb, staff, and wand.




Just picked that up from the WotC board. It's a nice bit of wiggle room that.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> I really wish people could get past the idea that names = organization. That is an assumption, & IMO a poor one. We don't expect Transmutation organizations in 3.xe just because Transmutation exists as a school of magic; I likewise see no reason to expect Serpent's Eye as an organization (as opposed to named tradition) in 4e.



I personally see no reason to think these _aren't_ organization/tradition names, rather than a replacement for what we call "schools" in the current edition. In fact, to me they seem like samples (note that there is more than one listed for the various implements), and serve as examples of how a DM/player could design their own. This is *good* design, IMHO, as it opens up possibilities for players.

Maybe the 3.x "schools" and specialists are gone completely in the new edition, replaced by a more flexible "traditions" system.


----------



## Mercule

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> I am the servant of the Serpent Eye, wielder of the Orb of Shadows!
> I am the servant of the Hidden Flame, wielder of the Staff of Hellfire!
> I am the servant of the Iron Sigil, wielder of the Eye of Moradin!
> I am the servant of the Emerald Frost, wielder of the Frozen Finger!
> I am the servant of the Stormwalker, wielder of the Wand of Thunder!




I actually really like Iron Sigil.  Hidden Flame and Serpent Eye are okay.  Stormwalker and Golden Wyvern are subpar, but not heinous.  Emerald Frost sucks shrivelled donkey parts.  I think that's the name that really jumped out and made me cringe.

Oh, and "Frozen Finger" strikes a (sour) chord with my inner perv.


----------



## Reaper Steve

Reagrding the lack of illusion and necromancy in the article...
maybe (HOPEFULLY) this heralds the return of the Illuionist as a stand alone class and the birth of the Necromancer as one as well. (No, I don't count the Necros from recent books because they had to be built around the 3.5 framework, wheras the way wizards are shaping up for 4e they very well could--and should--be built as unique.) Necromancers should not be a type of wizard or type of cleric...they should be separate and distinct.


----------



## Nine Hands

gothmaugCC said:
			
		

> Unless of course, by sacrificing them you send thier soul to the entity in which you dedicated the ritual. In that case its a way for demons/gods to get their hands on really pure souls they would otherwise never obtain.
> 
> Makes a real good argument for WHY cults exist..doesnt it?




Exactly.

That and for the fact that there is nothing more damning than the destruction of something so innocent and pure.  This act drives the cultist farther into the folds of evil.


----------



## F4NBOY

Mercule said:
			
		

> I actually really like Iron Sigil.  Hidden Flame and Serpent Eye are okay.  Stormwalker and Golden Wyvern are subpar, but not heinous.  Emerald Frost sucks shrivelled donkey parts.  I think that's the name that really jumped out and made me cringe.
> 
> Oh, and "Frozen Finger" strikes a (sour) chord with my inner perv.




What about Corrosive Glacier, Shivering Emerald, Green Winter, Hibernal Decay, Sulphuric Icicle, Snowy Corrotion.


----------



## grimslade

As long as they provide the rules for creating my own traditions, I could care less what the 'factory' traditions are. And put them in the PHB not the DMG, please.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Then they should just call it Transmutation.  "Serpent's Eye" tells me nothing. It's verbiage. It's useless. It's a big frickin' impediment to understanding and rules mastery.




Very well said. I prefer the term "jargon," but "useless verbiage" has a poetic quality.



> Transmute, Illusion, Necro-, ... these words actually mean something. They have roots in the Latin / English speaking traditions.  They help me understand what a spell is supposed to do; how it's supposed to work.




Jargon creates unnecessary barriers for new players. It's just bad design for a core rulebook.

Quite frankly it's so elementary I am sure my concerns are completely misplaced.


----------



## Rechan

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but it sure sounds like an organization name at first glance, doesn't it?



The problem however is 1) _First glances mean little_ and 2) We just don't have enough information here.


----------



## FireLance

gothmaugCC said:
			
		

> I stand corrected. I bow to your superior knowledge.
> 
> *races home to check his copy*



And this, my friends, is why the Tome should remain as an implement. 

It might be cut from the first PH, but hopefully it will make a re-appearance in a supplement. Perhaps the self-referential Tome of Magic?


----------



## Charwoman Gene

captaincursor said:
			
		

> Anyone else notice that there is nary a mention of necromancy or summoning in either version of the article?




War-lock!


----------



## F4NBOY

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> War-lock!



Hmmmm...


----------



## Mouseferatu

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> I really wish people could get past the idea that names = organization. That is an assumption, & IMO a poor one. We don't expect Transmutation organizations in 3.xe just because Transmutation exists as a school of magic; I likewise see no reason to expect Serpent's Eye as an organization (as opposed to named tradition) in 4e.




For that matter, given how little we actually know, isn't it possible that these sample names/traditions/organizations/whatevers are just that--samples? For all we know, the wizard picks from a variety of "talent trees," schools of magic, or some other means of dividing powers, and these names simply refer to some organizations that combine them?

In that respect (and I think someone else may have suggested this), the Iron Sigil then becomes the wizardly equivalent of a god, such as Asmodeus. Worshipers of Asmodeus (using 3E as a baseline) tend toward LE alignment, and have access to domains X, Y, and Z. Similarly, wizards of the Iron Sigil tend toward blah personality, and have access to orb spells of effects A, B, and C.

And just like clerics need not choose from the default list of gods, unless the DM decides to use them in his campaign, wizards need not choose from the listed traditions, unless the DM decides to use them in his campaign.

Obviously, I have no way of knowing if this setup is how they're going. But I think it's no less feasible than anything else, and the fact that it's at least possible just goes to show how little we actually know.

(I can say, though, that if these traditions are, in fact, optional, or merely represent a few choices among may, that I wish the article had made that fact clear. It would have prevented a lot of fretting.)


----------



## sidonunspa

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> This is super way off topic, but Peter B who did the cover for Psionics Unbound? Looks very cool.




Drew Baker...  who may very well become _the_ Arcanis cover artest... the cover for Psionics Unbound is amazing...  hell its my PC's wallpaper.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> In that respect (and I think someone else may have suggested this), the Iron Sigil then becomes the wizardly equivalent of a god,




If we get a list of traditions that "use this focus, and these two spheres of magic"...

And a list of those spheres, maybe one from utility, one from combat...

Wow... awesomeness.  They successfully MtA'ed D&D for me...

This is my uber wishful hope...


----------



## Nellisir

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> I'd rather Serpent's Eye IS an organization than the name of category of the spells.




Amen.  I'm comforting myself with the fact that flavor is not likely to make it into the 4e SRD, so hopefully there's some mechanical backup here.


----------



## Magus Coeruleus

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I can actually see a lot of potential for these implements to have powers connected to their histories, which famous wizards used them, etc.  For example, if you locate the Tome of Thanik, who was a noted demonologist, you gain special powers over demons, as well as the benefit of the rest of the lore in the book (i.e. +2 tome, +4 against demons).  Perhaps it even allows you to 1/day summon Thanik's personal demon servant.



 I don't know about those particular kinds of powers, but I do like the idea that implements wielded by powerful casters for a long time become legendary or could become valuable objects, certainly more interesting from a flavor standpoint than a generic "Staff of Power" for instance.


----------



## Kunimatyu

Rechan said:
			
		

> The problem however is 1) _First glances mean little_ and 2) We just don't have enough information here.




No no, you're missing my point -- it sounds like an organization to someone viewing it for the first time, thus confusing new players from the get-go, and also making it harder for DMs to introduce alternate traditions.


----------



## Atlatl Jones

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> In that respect (and I think someone else may have suggested this), the Iron Sigil then becomes the wizardly equivalent of a god, such as Asmodeus. Worshipers of Asmodeus (using 3E as a baseline) tend toward LE alignment, and have access to domains X, Y, and Z. Similarly, wizards of the Iron Sigil tend toward blah personality, and have access to orb spells of effects A, B, and C.
> 
> And just like clerics need not choose from the default list of gods, unless the DM decides to use them in his campaign, wizards need not choose from the listed traditions, unless the DM decides to use them in his campaign.



I really hope you're right.  If they insist on using the cheesy names in the article, I hope they're as easy to remove from the game as the default gods in the 3e PHB.  If they're more like Bo9S school names, thoroughly integrated into the entire system, then I'm going to be miffed.  They're too intrusive for the core rulebook, and they sound like something created by an "random cheesy fantasy name generator."

If they are optional and easily removable, like the default gods, then it could actually be really cool, and a great aid to DMs in making their worlds come alive.


----------



## Olthynn

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> For that matter, given how little we actually know, isn't it possible that these sample names/traditions/organizations/whatevers are just that--samples? For all we know, the wizard picks from a variety of "talent trees," schools of magic, or some other means of dividing powers, and these names simply refer to some organizations that combine them?



I don't think we'll be so lucky. After all, Tome of Battle didn't have sample disciplines, they had nine clearly seperate disciplines.

What saved Tome of Battle was that while each discipline had favored weapons, those particular weapons were of very, very little benefit to the maneuvers in that discipline. Sure, the longsword was a favored weapon of the Iron Heart discipline, but unless you had a particular feat that gave you a +1 bonus to damage rolls when using Iron Heart strikes, it didn't matter if you used a long sword or a flail. Because the weapon choices were effectively meaningless, you could pick a weapon and then pick and choose maneuvers from various disciplines and just willfully ignore the different disciplines and you were pretty much fine.

I'm not sure the same will hold true for this new magic system. For example, if you want to focus on acid spells and illusions (no more of a curious pairing than acid and frost, in my opinion), it seems like it won't be viable to use a staff and just pick the acid spells from the Emerald Frost tradition and the illusions from the Serpent Eye tradition, because thpse traditions seem to be tied pretty tightly to using wands and orbs. Maybe we'll get lucky like we did with ToB and the implement choices will be effectively meaningless, allowing you to choose the implement and the spells from the various traditions that fit your vision for your wizard. I just don't think that being reduced to hoping that the implements are effectively meaningless is a good sign for this new system.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Olthynn said:
			
		

> I'm not sure the same will hold true for this new magic system. For example, if you want to focus on acid spells and illusions (no more of a curious pairing than acid and frost, in my opinion), it seems like it won't be viable to use a staff and just pick the acid spells from the Emerald Frost tradition and the illusions from the Serpent Eye tradition, because thpse traditions seem to be tied pretty tightly to using wands and orbs.




Oh, I wasn't saying that the implements won't be tied to specific types or "schools" of spell; I'm sure they will be. (And I, for one, am okay with that. I like the notion that different types of magic require different foci/components.) For instance, if staves are connected to force magic, then that's just the way it is. I have no objection to that.

What I'm saying is that it's possible that the precise combinations of effects that make up, say, the Serpent's Eye Tradition may well be simple examples, just like the combination of the Evil, Death, and Strength domains are granted by the great god Boojie.


----------



## Exen Trik

Some thoughts:

-I expect metamagic in the form of feats or natural abilities could well go the way of the dodo. Metamagic effects could be solely in the realm of the staff/wand/orb/whatever. I figure the metamagic rods were the forbearer of this, and they might just work the same way (probably "per encounter" though).

-I doubt tomes are gone or reduced to nothing but spellbooks, but they aren't considered equal to the staff wand or orb. The "tied to powers that reduce or neutralize an enemy’s capability in combat" aspect may have been moved to the other tools, while "teleportation, summoning, shapechanging, and a few physical enhancement effects." are either passive or better suited for out of combat use.

EDIT: Hey, that could be a handy way to control spell options such as with summoning and shapechange: only with the Tome of the Shining Pact can you assume the form of even a baby gold dragon, or with the Book of Fiery Depths you summon up special kinds of fire elementals.

-They probably also tossed the dual wielding aspect of the wizards tools as well, so its takes one hand to wield the item and one free hand to actually cast spells. I doubt you could make use of more than one at a time anyways, even if you had extra limbs. Watch out for those mutant four-armed ettin wizards, though!   

-Either the "at will" abilities will be dependent of the kind of equipped tool, or the tools will just enhance them certain ways. I'm leaning toward the latter (which would imply that you don't actually need them to use it), but it could go either way. 

-I don't mind the fluff added to the rewritten article, as long as that when the 4e phb comes out that those things aren't heavily tied into the sections for the wizard class, magic spells or items. At least as separate as clerics and their religions in the 3e phb. 

-Speaking of which, I expect the wizardly disciplines will be presented in much the same way as the religions were, and just as easily modular, with some bonuses with orbs or fire spells, a special spell or ability it comes with, and so on. Options for generic disciplines are also likely.


----------



## Andor

Olthynn said:
			
		

> (no more of a curious pairing than acid and frost, in my opinion)




Huh. I keep seeing that in various posts and it kinda strikes me as odd, since both acid and frost immediately put me in mind of a water mage they seem like a pretty coherant linking to me.


----------



## helium3

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> I am the servant of the Serpent Eye, wielder of the Orb of Shadows!
> I am the servant of the Hidden Flame, wielder of the Staff of Hellfire!
> I am the servant of the Iron Sigil, wielder of the Eye of Moradin!
> I am the servant of the Emerald Frost, wielder of the Frozen Finger!
> I am the servant of the Stormwalker, wielder of the Wand of Thunder!
> 
> They don't look so cheesy or too fluffy. Try shouting them in front of a big demon, it looks like kinda cool! Roleplaying aficionados can't say they aren't adding RP tools in the PHB .




Just don't forget to append each of those statements with "I am the Sorcerer Supreme!!"


----------



## Gentlegamer

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> The only one that stands out as a little strange to me is the Tome, because I find it more difficult to see that being used in the midst of battle.



1. I pray that combat (midst of battle) is not the cardinal upon which all character classes's abilities are measured, especially the wizard.

2. The magical effects tomes are said to influence are generally not those used in the midst of a battle. Teleportation, summoning, and the like all seem more at home as spell-casting to be done in the wizard's laboratory, tower, or other safe location. I especially hope that combat summoning is greatly reduced because I feel it is at least one ability that does feel videogamey/anime (forgive the terms) to me. I'd rather summoning be done "at home," with the wizard needing to draw pentagrams or other arcane symbols on the floor to contain the devil/demon/monster while he performs the rites to bind it to his will.


----------



## Khaalis

My hypothesis is that the information in the article is very telling of the Wizard's "per encounter" power source aspects. 

The article sounds very much like wizards will have disciplines very much like those from _Bo9S:ToB_ as well as the paths of the Shadowcaster in _ToM_.  The wizard will likely choose these "lesser spells" similar to how _ToB_ classes chose their maneuvers, either going deep into a single tree or diverging and dabbling in many lower level maneuvers from a wider range of disciplines. The focus items mentioned (orb, wand, staff) seem also very similar to how each maneuver discipline had favored weapons, only allowing you to use certain maneuvers with a weapon from that discipline in some cases. I do like however, that they appear to be tying the focus item into the success and potency of using such powers.

I also believe that the wizard will then likely retain their classic Spellbook with their "greater spells" as their "per day" power source aspects, since they said that Vancian casting is mostly, but not completely going away. In this way you can still memorize your classic Named (e.g. "Polymorph" or "Summon Monster") type spells, but additionally have a selection of lesser magical powers that you can use repeatedly in multiple encounters throughout the day.

As an example you might have the "discipline power" to blink (i.e. teleport short distances) around the battle field once per encounter, but can also cast "Greater Teleport" once per day (or however many times you memorize it?).

Additionally we know that the wizard is getting Power Words (similar to a cleric's Holy Words). I believe these are the basic "at will" powers the wizard can learn, which will likely be similar to what a reserve feat can currently do.

Overall, if I am even close to accurate, I am not too disturbed by this as it makes a nice dynamic change to the wizard. It makes resource management different, makes the wizard feel more empowered, and gives them some staying power and hopefully a little more flavor as well as giving them a bit more thematic element.

On a side note, I think this will be differentiated from the Sorcerer in that I think the sorcerer will be built around a more specialist framework. Taking a page from the trend of new sorcerers - the Beguiler, Warmage, Dread Necromancer, etc., I see the new sorcerer following the same path. I am hypothesizing that the sorcerer will choose a focus similar to a specialization (such as the beguiler's enchantment/illusion). They will then gain talents and "maneuvers/lesser spells" similar to how all the classes will, but related to their specialty. I am also betting that the sorcerer does NOT learn and gain spell slots in the same way a wizard does (as they do in 3X). I am suspecting that the sorcerer will be more a specialist in the use of their "lesser spells" (i.e. maneuvers).  If you compare it to _ToB_ the wizard would be more like the Crusader and the Sorcerer more like the Warblade in that the wizard will likely use their "lesser" powers once per encounter and also toss around some greater spells as well, but the sorcerer would have some sort of refresh mechanic like the Warblade does, allowing them to keep cycling their "lesser powers" multiple times per encounter, but not relying on "greater spells" as much.  

Just a thought. JMHO. YMMV.


----------



## Jhaelen

These new 'schools' remind me strongly of the magical colleges in the DSA rpg. If there are any similarities these 'schools' will more closely resemble the psionic disciplines than the 3E schools, i.e. the majority of spells is available to everyone but to get 'specialist' spells you have to be a member/visit the associated college.

If my guess is correct it would also mean that you could create an endless number of new 'schools' that have a different mix of 'specialist' spells.


----------



## TheArcane

Khaalis said:
			
		

> ...




Sounds about right to me, that's what I'd guess is going to be. Problem is, it also sounds like a combat wizard. Where will the utility spells/abilities be? I doubt many players will opt to choose, say, Knock/at will over Magic Missile/at will, as a permanent ability, while earlier wizards could mix and match according to their specific mission or other requirements. Then again, if all these utility spells (at least the ones not deemed as game-breaking) are normal per-day vancian spells, while at will and per-encounter abilities deal mostly with blasting stuff and combat support, well, video game copmarisons may arise...


----------



## Plane Sailing

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> The f4anboys will love it anyway unconditionally, so I hope WotC throws the rest of us a bone here.




Keep it civil please - 4e is a tense forum, and we don't need anyone casting fuel onto warm coals.

Thanks


----------



## Plane Sailing

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> 1. I pray that combat (midst of battle) is not the cardinal upon which all character classes's abilities are measured, especially the wizard.
> 
> 2. The magical effects tomes are said to influence are generally not those used in the midst of a battle. Teleportation, summoning, and the like all seem more at home as spell-casting to be done in the wizard's laboratory, tower, or other safe location. I especially hope that combat summoning is greatly reduced because I feel it is at least one ability that does feel videogamey/anime (forgive the terms) to me. I'd rather summoning be done "at home," with the wizard needing to draw pentagrams or other arcane symbols on the floor to contain the devil/demon/monster while he performs the rites to bind it to his will.




The point is moot since Tomes have been removed from the list, but if you consider the full list originally ascribed to tomes

"A tome is tied to *powers that reduce or neutralize an enemy’s capability in combat in some fashion, whether by slowing the foe, dazing, or through some other fashion*. Tomes are also often important for spells of teleportation, summoning, shapechanging, and a few physical enhancement effects."

Frankly, powers that reduce or neutralise and enemy's capability has got to be usable in combat or else... it's not going to be very useful, eh?

I also think that you are confusing summoning (lasts less than two minutes at best, and can't teleport - almost like creating a shadow of a real creature) with planar binding (takes a long, long time to do and gets a creature with full capabilities, but at some risk to yourself and the creature is really there, and dies if it is killed).

I can understand a personal preference for less summoning going on - as well as the thematic reasons you give, each summoned critter is an additional figure to account for during combat, and can be time consuming.

Cheers


----------



## Plane Sailing

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Very well said. I prefer the term "jargon," but "useless verbiage" has a poetic quality.




Although arguably "useless" is unnecessary in this context, as the word verbiage already contains that connotation


----------



## Khuxan

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> These new 'schools' remind me strongly of the magical colleges in the DSA rpg.




What's the DSA RPG?


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye

Khuxan said:
			
		

> What's the DSA RPG?



"Das Schwarze Auge" - Biggest German RPG
Wikipedia link


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> 1. I pray that combat (midst of battle) is not the cardinal upon which all character classes's abilities are measured, especially the wizard.




It will be. I don't even need to pray for it. The rules of D&D always have been, and always will be, predicated on combat and balanced to that core goal. 

It's a rules system for combat to which, at its best, you may bring a number of other, excellent elements of play.



			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Although arguably "useless" is unnecessary in this context, as the word verbiage already contains that connotation




That's what gives it its poetic quality. Try sneering it out like, say, a villainous John Hurt.


----------



## Pbartender

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That's what gives it its poetic quality. Try sneering it out like, say, a villainous John Hurt.










"Useless verbiage!"

 

I like it.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Try sneering it out like, say, a villainous John Hurt.




Ah, that works well


----------



## WayneLigon

Khaalis said:
			
		

> On a side note, I think this will be differentiated from the Sorcerer in that I think the sorcerer will be built around a more specialist framework.




All this has got me to wondering just what sorcerers will be like and what they'll be doing. I don't think we've heard word one about sorcerers or, really, clerics.


----------



## Malhost Zormaeril

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> I really wish people could get past the idea that names = organization. That is an assumption, & IMO a poor one. We don't expect Transmutation organizations in 3.xe just because Transmutation exists as a school of magic; I likewise see no reason to expect Serpent's Eye as an organization (as opposed to named tradition) in 4e.




...Serpent Eye cabalists...
...mages of the Iron Sigil...
...Servants of the Hidden Flame...
...Golden Wyvern initiates...
...Emerald Frost adepts...
...Stormwalker theurges...

I certainly hope I'm assuming poorly, because that would mean I have nothing to worry about, but consider the actual words reported by Alaric on post #311 (repeated above).  If the Serpent Eye were nothing but a new name for a grouping of spells, shouldn't we see "wizards who draw upon the Serpent Eye" rather than "Serpent Eye cabalists"?



			
				Merriam-Webster said:
			
		

> ca·bal
> Pronunciation: k&-'bäl, -'bal
> Function: noun
> Etymology: French cabale cabala, intrigue, cabal, from Medieval Latin cabbala cabala, from Late Hebrew qabbAlAh, literally, received (lore)
> 1 : the artifices and intrigues of a group of persons secretly united in a plot (as to overturn a government); also : a group engaged in such artifices and intrigues
> 2 : CLUB, GROUP <a cabal of artists>




The word "initiates" in "Golden Wyvern initiates" has the same kind of problem.  I'll admit that the others can be construed in good faith not to be organisations, but it cannot be that _some_ groupings of spells give rise to an organisation while others do not?  So yes, I am assuming, but unfortunately I do not have reason to believe it is a poor assumption.

EDIT: From the last paragraph of the (new) article:



> For instance, a wizard belonging to the Hidden Flame order...


----------



## Rugger

Nothing I've seen in the changed article has changed my mind about the new focuses: That they may simply be class features that you prioritize as you level up.

It could be that a wizard attunes himself to the appropriate item, and then prioritizes their potency: Lvl 1 lets them pick one at +1, and then going forward, the others start to fall into place, so that by 10 lvl or so, the Wizard will have a +4 focus, +3 focus, +2 focus and a +1 focus? 

And these "order names" seem to have NO rules elements... I'd bet that they are simply fluff names in the class writeup to describe how someone decided to prioritize their "focuses."

-Matt


----------



## Raven Crowking

gothmaugCC said:
			
		

> Except that line isnt a classic (as it never appeared in the book). It was cobbled together from information from the Simmirilion for the movie.
> 
> so you need to say, "even Movies based on a classic" sound like anime.
> 
> Just being a pain in the arse





I think you need to go back and read _Fellowship of the Ring_ once more.

The line may be misquoted, but it is in there.  Of course, Gandalf says things like that....what, once in how many pages?  Good luck with your serpent eye coming up as infrequently......


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Ah, that works well




Thank you, though I expected you to note that a _villainous John Hurt_ is useless verbiage of its own sort.


----------



## GreatLemur

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> If we get a list of traditions that "use this focus, and these two spheres of magic"...
> 
> And a list of those spheres, maybe one from utility, one from combat...
> 
> Wow... awesomeness.  They successfully MtA'ed D&D for me...
> 
> This is my uber wishful hope...



Yeah, this is what I'm hoping for, too.  If these schools of magic and like clerical domains rather than Tom of Battle disciplines, I will be completely happy.  A nice, modular, adaptable system that encourages players or DMs to come up with their own schools of magic would be extremely awesome.


----------



## apoptosis

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> For that matter, given how little we actually know, isn't it possible that these sample names/traditions/organizations/whatevers are just that--samples? For all we know, the wizard picks from a variety of "talent trees," schools of magic, or some other means of dividing powers, and these names simply refer to some organizations that combine them?
> 
> In that respect (and I think someone else may have suggested this), the Iron Sigil then becomes the wizardly equivalent of a god, such as Asmodeus. Worshipers of Asmodeus (using 3E as a baseline) tend toward LE alignment, and have access to domains X, Y, and Z. Similarly, wizards of the Iron Sigil tend toward blah personality, and have access to orb spells of effects A, B, and C.
> 
> And just like clerics need not choose from the default list of gods, unless the DM decides to use them in his campaign, wizards need not choose from the listed traditions, unless the DM decides to use them in his campaign.
> 
> Obviously, I have no way of knowing if this setup is how they're going. But I think it's no less feasible than anything else, and the fact that it's at least possible just goes to show how little we actually know.
> 
> (I can say, though, that if these traditions are, in fact, optional, or merely represent a few choices among may, that I wish the article had made that fact clear. It would have prevented a lot of fretting.)




Strangely that is exactly how I took them. I thought of them more like just vague examples for some flavor and not some defined traditions that are a necessary part of play.

I really liked in Gary's writing where he just would throw out some flavorful lore that was not necessarily part of a campaign but just added some evocative flavor to make reading the game books more interesting.


----------



## sidonunspa

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Yeah, this is what I'm hoping for, too.  If these schools of magic and like clerical domains rather than Tom of Battle disciplines, I will be completely happy.  A nice, modular, adaptable system that encourages players or DMs to come up with their own schools of magic would be extremely awesome.




I agree, 

  besides if WoTC dosing do it, I'm sure some d20 publisher will pick it up and run with it. ::evil smirk:::


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> If these schools of magic are like clerical domains rather than Tom of Battle disciplines, I will be completely happy.  A nice, modular, adaptable system that encourages players or DMs to come up with their own schools of magic would be extremely awesome.




If "Wizard of the Emerald Frost" is a parallel structure to "Cleric of Loviatar" that'd be just fine.

I still think it's an unnecessary addition of fluff to a core rulebook, however. The 3rd edition PHB would be significantly improved if the gods were removed and "Pick any two domains" was the default ruleset. (Actually, this is acceptable as written in the cleric class description, but nobody I know plays it that way-- everybody assumes that "Choose the diety, then choose your domains..." is the only way.)


----------



## Irda Ranger

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> If "Wizard of the Emerald Frost" is a parallel structure to "Cleric of Loviatar" that'd be just fine.



Each school as any X Spell Descriptors + 1 Implement?  I hadn't read it that way, but yes, this would be fine.  There's also a strong literary tradition of "magical schools as actual 'teacher and student' schools" with their own traditions, rather than themed groups of spells, so rules of this nature would actually help with world-building. I would be in favor of that.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I still think it's an unnecessary addition of fluff to a core rulebook, however. The 3rd edition PHB would be significantly improved if the gods were removed and "Pick any two domains" was the default ruleset.



I'm going to disagree here.  I think it's helpful to provide some samples and flavor, so that new players and DM's have at least a base to work from.  Honestly, I thought Grim Tales was a little too dry, and could have used a little more flavor to show what was possible using the (awesome) rules given.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> (Actually, this is acceptable as written in the cleric class description, but nobody I know plays it that way-- everybody assumes that "Choose the diety, then choose your domains..." is the only way.)



Most people build characters in an already-existing world though, with a defined deity list. "Pick the domains, then name the god" is a good way of building a pantheon at the world-building stage, but I think it's perfectly reasonable for a player to pick from the list of Gods available once his character concept is clear.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

apoptosis said:
			
		

> Strangely that is exactly how I took them. I thought of them more like just vague examples for some flavor and not some defined traditions that are a necessary part of play.




I'm also hoping this is the case.


----------



## Jer

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The 3rd edition PHB would be significantly improved if the gods were removed and "Pick any two domains" was the default ruleset. (Actually, this is acceptable as written in the cleric class description, but nobody I know plays it that way-- everybody assumes that "Choose the diety, then choose your domains..." is the only way.)




That's almost entirely a function of the level of control the GM has over the setting in comparison to the rest of the table.  If the GM has a whole world mapped out - whether his own or a prepublished setting - there's not much room for a player to just pick to domains and make up a god around them.

OTOH - this is exactly how I run things in my games.  I've mostly gotten away from doing extensive worldbuilding before a campaign starts, and since I don't have a list of gods and their domains I'll ask the players who want to have clerics to pick out a couple of domains and describe a god that they're associated with.  If they want to come up with a name that's fine - if not I'll come up with one or ask the other folks at the table if they have a good name.

I certainly hope that the names given in that design and development article are easily replaceable fluff and not something intimately tied to the rules -- and I don't mean "well, you can have another group that has acid and cold spells but named 'The Cold Hunger' instead of 'Emerald Frost'".  The same with the wizard implements - if I want to replace "staff, wand, and orb" with "flame, chalice and athame" or "bell, book and candle" or even "bacon, lettuce and tomato" I should be able to do it without having to rewrite rules.


----------



## Cadfan

I kind of hope that the schools are actually enforced parts of the rules.

Lets face it.  Being an Evoker or an Enchanter made almost no difference whatsoever to your character in 3.x.  So you got an extra spell per spell level that had to be in your specialty.  Big freaking deal.  My Evoker could out enchant your enchanter if that's what i felt like memorizing that day.

If schools of magic with enforced limits on how much you can dabble between them are what it takes to avoid that, sign me up.

If I don't like the specific school names and flavors, or organizational histories, or whatever, I'll ignore them.  I'm only interested in the crunch distinctions.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Jer said:
			
		

> That's almost entirely a function of the level of control the GM has over the setting in comparison to the rest of the table.  If the GM has a whole world mapped out - whether his own or a prepublished setting - there's not much room for a player to just pick to domains and make up a god around them.




The rules as written permit a cleric player to have "no particular deity" and instead just pick two domains based on his "spiritual inclination," with further abilities limited by his alignment.

If you force a cleric to choose a deity, technically, you're house-ruling that restriction.

Seriously, it's right there-- read the class description.

It's just that, as I said, nobody plays it this way, though it is completely supported by the rules as written.


----------



## TwoSix

Olthynn said:
			
		

> But with the revised system, it's like they're working backwards. They're starting with those organizations, and then forcing individual spellcasters to decide on their spells based on those organizations and using implements that have seemingly no connection to those spells other than tradition. Organizations and traditions should be _the result _ of a strong, flexible magic system, not attempting to be the underlying cause of one. To me, that's bad design.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, this isn't game-breaking or anything. I imagine I'll be able to willfully ignore most of it. But there will always be the thought that the implements now seem to be completely arbitrary (why can a wand channel frost and force but not fire or thunder?) and that they could have been a lot better; in fact, for a few days they were better, in my opinion.




Agreed...you captured the exact issue that was nagging at me.


----------



## TwoSix

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> For that matter, given how little we actually know, isn't it possible that these sample names/traditions/organizations/whatevers are just that--samples? For all we know, the wizard picks from a variety of "talent trees," schools of magic, or some other means of dividing powers, and these names simply refer to some organizations that combine them?
> 
> In that respect (and I think someone else may have suggested this), the Iron Sigil then becomes the wizardly equivalent of a god, such as Asmodeus. Worshipers of Asmodeus (using 3E as a baseline) tend toward LE alignment, and have access to domains X, Y, and Z. Similarly, wizards of the Iron Sigil tend toward blah personality, and have access to orb spells of effects A, B, and C.
> 
> And just like clerics need not choose from the default list of gods, unless the DM decides to use them in his campaign, wizards need not choose from the listed traditions, unless the DM decides to use them in his campaign.
> 
> Obviously, I have no way of knowing if this setup is how they're going. But I think it's no less feasible than anything else, and the fact that it's at least possible just goes to show how little we actually know.
> 
> (I can say, though, that if these traditions are, in fact, optional, or merely represent a few choices among may, that I wish the article had made that fact clear. It would have prevented a lot of fretting.)




Please tell me where I can preorder this book.


----------



## Remathilis

Anyone else think that the "schools" of magic mentioned might be more akin to the disciplines of the Shugenja in Complete Divine? Each wizard has a select element (staff spells, orb spell) and some free choices, but then has some specific spells that ONLY come from that discipline (hidden flame spells, emerald frost spells). Almost like Cleric Domains in that regard....


----------



## BryonD

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I'm going to disagree here.  I think it's helpful to provide some samples and flavor, so that new players and DM's have at least a base to work from.



I strongly disagree here.
It is yet another case of forcing something in the baseline when you can readily have the best of both worlds with the addition of a setting book.


----------



## herald

Removing to post in differant thread.


----------



## WizarDru

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The rules as written permit a cleric player to have "no particular deity" and instead just pick two domains based on his "spiritual inclination," with further abilities limited by his alignment.




We've never misunderstood it to mean you HAD to pick a deity...but it seems inherently flavorless to do so to most folks I know.  Membership in an organized religion is rather a defining flavor aspect of the cleric as a class, IMHO, and to disassociate one from any actual real deity and dogma may be liberating, few people really want to do that.

This leaves aside the perceived RP benefits both to the PC/DM of the assumed cleric structure and the various plug-in ideas of setting that a cleric, more than almost any other class, brings to the table.  Being a 'generic' cleric might be a refreshing change once in a while, but overall one wants to be "Brother Desmond of the Cudgel, follower of St. Cuthbert" instead of "Brother Desmond, general believer in Good Behavior".


----------



## Slander

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I'm going to disagree here. I think it's helpful to provide some samples and flavor, so that new players and DM's have at least a base to work from.





			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> I strongly disagree here.
> It is yet another case of forcing something in the baseline when you can readily have the best of both worlds with the addition of a setting book.




Gotta agree with IR. Any books attempting to explain a set of rules (e.g. RPGs, math books, computer programming books) are much easier to understand if examples are given showing how the rules are applied. As long as the rules themselves aren't built on/around the sample traditions, I absolutely believe they should be included in the core books. 

Requiring new players to pay another $20-$50 book to see the rules in action (i.e. a setting book) is not the way to go. Those of us already in the know are more than capable of ignoring the samples.


----------



## Andor

Jer said:
			
		

> The same with the wizard implements - if I want to replace "staff, wand, and orb" with "flame, chalice and athame" or "bell, book and candle" or even *"bacon, lettuce and tomato"* I should be able to do it without having to rewrite rules.




Bow before me mortals! For I wield the might of the allmighty SAMMICH!


----------



## Charwoman Gene

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13826013&postcount=23

Dave Noonan replies in part...



> Another thing about implements and the "Iron Sigil"-style disciplines/traditions: They're extensible. I've read a lot of threads that essentially say, "Here's how I'm going to make it work in my campaign..." Yes! That's exactly what we had in mind. You can add your own implements and disciplines/traditions to the mix. Doing so takes some work, but it's not a massive undertaking.


----------



## Exen Trik

herald said:
			
		

> One more thing to think of. Three foci, three forms of defense.
> 
> Staff Foci spells work against Fortitude
> Orb Foci spells work against Will
> Wand Foci spells work against Reflex



 Well now, that _is _ nice and simple, and it fits with the orb, but nothing seems to indicate that separation between wands and staffs. They all seem to blast in different ways, and in the new article fortitude type spells don't seem to come up at all.



> And that is why they dropped tome.
> 
> I would be willing to bet during one incarnation of this article, AC was still going to be the 4th defense and that is what tome would have handled. But since that time they have decided to go with 3 forms of defense and tome was dropped.



On the other hand, the original description for tomes was strongly tied to fortitude and will (via the "debuffs" theme), not AC, so I doubt it would have been dropped for that reason. If any version was going this direction, the wand or staff would have more likely taken the AC aspect.

According to the new info wizards will be strongly tied to their chosen implement, so they probably wouldn't be swapping them out just to effect a different kind of defense.


----------



## Jer

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The rules as written permit a cleric player to have "no particular deity" and instead just pick two domains based on his "spiritual inclination," with further abilities limited by his alignment.
> 
> If you force a cleric to choose a deity, technically, you're house-ruling that restriction.
> 
> Seriously, it's right there-- read the class description.
> 
> It's just that, as I said, nobody plays it this way, though it is completely supported by the rules as written.




You're right, of course - I'd forgotten about that because I've never had a player come to me with two domains and no god or philosophy that he wants his cleric to follow.  Ever.  I've had one player who wanted to be an "atheist cleric" who followed a philosophical path instead of a god.  But I've never had a player who wanted to play a cleric who didn't have some kind of idea of what his character's religious belief was going to be like.

I think if I did, I'd insist that he come up with at least a philosophy to follow - even if it was the philosophy of "killing evil things and taking their stuff" - I mean, you have to insist on at least a little bit of effort for these things, even if the rules don't technically require it.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Jer said:
			
		

> You're right, of course - I'd forgotten about that because I've never had a player come to me with two domains and no god or philosophy that he wants his cleric to follow.




Well, because I'm an incorrigible munchkin, this happens to me every time I want to play a cleric. I build my concept around the domains and probably the favored weapon, and then spend more time than I should trying to find a deity who has everything I am looking for-- AND serves the race of my choice. And there's never a perfect fit, so I end up having to give something up with respect to what I envisioned.

I can't believe that experience is unique to me.

In other news, from Dave Noonan's most recent reply:



			
				Noonan said:
			
		

> And it probably won't shock you to learn that we might crank out some new implements and disciplines/traditions ourselves at some point.




I think this pretty much shoots a hole straight through the "Wizard disciplines are more like deities who grant you domains" theory and falls back squarely on "Wizard disciplines are like fighting stances" theory, and then drives straight over the cliff with, "And we can't wait to give you a splat book full of new weapons and fighting stances, except they're for your wizard."

It looks like the fluffy-puffy bloated rulesbeast I was originally afraid of.


----------



## Driddle

Jer said:
			
		

> I've never had a player come to me with two domains and no god or philosophy that he wants his cleric to follow.  Ever.  I've had one player who wanted to be an "atheist cleric" who followed a philosophical path instead of a god.  But I've never had a player who wanted to play a cleric who didn't have some kind of idea of what his character's religious belief was going to be like.
> 
> I think if I did, I'd insist that he come up with at least a philosophy to follow - even if it was the philosophy of "killing evil things and taking their stuff" - I mean, you have to insist on at least a little bit of effort for these things, even if the rules don't technically require it.




Last time I played a cleric, I chose the animal and healing domains and defined the character's beliefs as a variant interpretation of the religion of Ehlonna. I wanted something that was outside the given god description, so I made made it myself in accordance with the rules. True, the DM had a loophole for disallowing church-related favors to my PC during the game, but that never really came up.


----------



## Mercule

Exen Trik said:
			
		

> On the other hand, the original description for tomes was strongly tied to fortitude and will (via the "debuffs" theme), not AC, so I doubt it would have been dropped for that reason. If any version was going this direction, the wand or staff would have more likely taken the AC aspect.




It's also possible that wands (randomly chosen) were originally going to be vs AC.  When they decided to drop AC, they got rid of the weakest implement (aka tome) and moved wand into its place.

I'm not saying that's what happenned.  Just pointing out that whatever else they changed between the "oops" post and the revised version doesn't have to be a 1:1 change with the removal of tomes.


----------



## Victim

Jer said:
			
		

> I think if I did, I'd insist that he come up with at least a philosophy to follow - even if it was the philosophy of "killing evil things and taking their stuff" -




"Sorry, guys.  Right now, I can only cast Atonement - I screwed up following my philosophy when I sundered that sword instead of saving it to loot."


----------



## senna

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I think this pretty much shoots a hole straight through the "Wizard disciplines are more like deities who grant you domains" theory and falls back squarely on "Wizard disciplines are like fighting stances" theory, and then drives straight over the cliff with, "And we can't wait to give you a splat book full of new weapons and fighting stances, except they're for your wizard."
> 
> It looks like the fluffy-puffy bloated rulesbeast I was originally afraid of.




I don´t see it that way. They gave us new domains and expanded the "core pantheon" in almost every book that touches the matter of divine magic, be it defender of faith, or frostburn or complete divine. Disciplines are ideas at first and names that needs changes at worst, like a lot of people replied a base is beter for those who are new to the game and they can sparkle imagination on who cares to read them in a way that he must used them. 

To me there is no down side in put sample names and organizations, except for a couple more words that have their uses, like i said above.


----------



## Jer

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Well, because I'm an incorrigible munchkin, this happens to me every time I want to play a cleric. I build my concept around the domains and probably the favored weapon, and then spend more time than I should trying to find a deity who has everything I am looking for-- AND serves the race of my choice. And there's never a perfect fit, so I end up having to give something up with respect to what I envisioned.
> 
> I can't believe that experience is unique to me.




Like I said - at my table you'd just have to come up with a new deity that fits your domain concept.  No need to search through lots of tables and books to find one if you can come up with an idea yourself.  If you want to be a priest of a god of War and Fire, I'm more than happy to oblige provided you come up with a name and a few ideas of how your god fits into the world.




			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I think this pretty much shoots a hole straight through the "Wizard disciplines are more like deities who grant you domains" theory and falls back squarely on "Wizard disciplines are like fighting stances" theory, and then drives straight over the cliff with, "And we can't wait to give you a splat book full of new weapons and fighting stances, except they're for your wizard."
> 
> It looks like the fluffy-puffy bloated rulesbeast I was originally afraid of.




And i don't see a problem with this.  Wizards is trying to figure out what people want to spend money on.  Historically, people have wanted to spend money on splat books.  Therefore, Wizards is going to try their hands at - splat books.  Shocking.  

If they build the rules right it won't matter - it'll be a book like Spell Compendium or Complete Mage but with a bit more flavor.


----------



## Zurai

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I think this pretty much shoots a hole straight through the "Wizard disciplines are more like deities who grant you domains" theory and falls back squarely on "Wizard disciplines are like fighting stances" theory, and then drives straight over the cliff with, "And we can't wait to give you a splat book full of new weapons and fighting stances, except they're for your wizard."
> 
> It looks like the fluffy-puffy bloated rulesbeast I was originally afraid of.




Name me a splat book that was even *vaguely* divine-related that did not introduce new deities, domains, or ways to interact with deities and domains.

Furthermore, name me any splat book other than Tome of Battle where fighting disciplines were used at all.

Tempest in a teapot.


----------



## Imaro

Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say these "orders" are probably like the different force traditions in SW saga edition.  If that is the case they will be slightly more than just fluff, but not so integrated as to be unremovable or unchangeable with some work.  Basically in SW a force tradition gives you access to cetain talents/feats that are unique to that tradition, and are generally geared towards reinforcing the particular flavor of that group.  Now my thoughts on that...

It will definitely allow them to publish more splat-books with a bunch of traditions in them, and certainly adds another fiddly bit for players to mess around with.  As far as it eliminating the PrC's, that wasn't the case in Star Wars.  The traditions only deal with specific feats/talents...in other words PrC's still dealt with class abilities, progrssion for spells etc.  So basically it allows another avenue to make more options for, but doesn't eliminate or streamline anything else.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The 3rd edition PHB would be significantly improved if the gods were removed and "Pick any two domains" was the default ruleset.




Oof. I _strongly_ disagree. It goes back to my discussion about evocative RPG writing. I think D&D is _far_ stronger for having a default setting, and providing examples from said setting. A list of deities is one of the major elements of that to be found in the PHB, and I'd be very sorry to see it go. Especially when it is, indeed, clearly called out as optional.


----------



## Howndawg

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Oof. I _strongly_ disagree. It goes back to my discussion about evocative RPG writing. I think D&D is _far_ stronger for having a default setting, and providing examples from said setting. A list of deities is one of the major elements of that to be found in the PHB, and I'd be very sorry to see it go. Especially when it is, indeed, clearly called out as optional.




I think one can argue either way.  On the one hand, a list of deities can be seen as straightjacketing.  On the other hand, it can give a player a good starting point with which he can build a character.  

Howndawg


----------



## Imaro

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Oof. I _strongly_ disagree. It goes back to my discussion about evocative RPG writing. I think D&D is _far_ stronger for having a default setting, and providing examples from said setting. A list of deities is one of the major elements of that to be found in the PHB, and I'd be very sorry to see it go. Especially when it is, indeed, clearly called out as optional.




If these are like the specific force traditions that are in SW(see my above post) I would prefer they be generic.  D&D doesn't have the same tropes as Star Wars, basically a pre-defined universe, and restricting what basically amounts to certain feats from characters will again bring about the whole character I want to create vs. these are order specific feats/talents.  Now I'm not sure if there's going to be a specific difference between a "general" feat and something your order allows you to take, but if there isn't I see no need for the artificial seperation.  If there is then just give a list with good rules for the DM on constructing his own orders in the DMG.

I think putting setting specific material that is connected to game mechanics is a very fine line WotC should be careful when treading.  I feel setting specific that is tied to the rules should be the purview of campaign sourcebooks.  What I definitely don't want to see is what was done with PrC's...no real rules to make them and an endless number churned out to pad books.  I'd just rather they establish that these orders are for individual campaign flavor and stick with it, whether it's in their campaign sourcebooks or my homebrew.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Oof. I _strongly_ disagree. It goes back to my discussion about evocative RPG writing. I think D&D is _far_ stronger for having a default setting, and providing examples from said setting. A list of deities is one of the major elements of that to be found in the PHB, and I'd be very sorry to see it go. Especially when it is, indeed, clearly called out as optional.



I tend to agree with our necro(ro)mantic rodent.
If the D&D core rulebooks were just supposed to be a toolbox, then maybe it was okay to leave the spells out. But honestly, I don't think D&D would be so easy to pick up without the "implied" setting information. 

I guess it is more a matter of experience with the system - today, I don't care about the gods in my PHB 3.5 and would prefer a longer classes, feat or spells chapter or more "Behind the Curtain" entries. Because I am playing Eberron, Forgotten Realms or some homebrew game, and I am playing for a long time now, too. 
But when I started playing D&D, this content was vital to help me get into the game.


----------



## breschau

Check it.



			
				WotC Boards said:
			
		

> Re: Noonan on Implements...
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by TharrDuus View Post
> Mr Noonan,
> 
> The point being made is that these traditions are fluffy groupings of wizards spells/spell schools/etc, that many people simply hate.
> I may have good news for you, then: traditions are not groupings (fluffy or otherwise) of spells/spell schools/etc.
> 
> I can see how someone could read the preview article and make the reasonable speculation that the traditions we mention are analogous to spell schools or domains. While that's a decent guess, and it fits the available data, it's not a correct guess.
> 
> --Dave.


----------



## Greg K

My preference would be that any setting specific material (e.g., deities, organizations) be in an appendix as a sample campaign setting.  Then, in the appropriate sections of the phb (e.g.,  clerics or domains), make a note for the player to talk to the DM before choosing domains (or  whatever specific item) as the DM may be using a setting and, thus, have such things predetermined.


----------



## Imaro

breschau said:
			
		

> Check it.






			
				WotC Boards said:
			
		

> Re: Noonan on Implements...
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by TharrDuus View Post
> Mr Noonan,
> 
> The point being made is that these traditions are fluffy groupings of wizards spells/spell schools/etc, that many people simply hate.
> I may have good news for you, then: traditions are not groupings (fluffy or otherwise) of spells/spell schools/etc.
> 
> I can see how someone could read the preview article and make the reasonable speculation that the traditions we mention are analogous to spell schools or domains. While that's a decent guess, and it fits the available data, it's not a correct guess.
> 
> --Dave.




Now my money's really on them being like the force traditions in Star Wars...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Dave Noonan said:
			
		

> I can see how someone could read the preview article and make the reasonable speculation that the traditions we mention are analogous to spell schools or domains. While that's a decent guess, and it fits the available data, it's not a correct guess.




Zing! The designers win another round!

No more information is forthcoming, and the underlying complaint goes unaddressed, but at least we know we guessed wrong!


----------



## F4NBOY

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Zing! The designers win another round!
> 
> No more information is forthcoming, and the underlying complaint goes unaddressed, but at least we know we guessed wrong!



At least that's better than: "You got it!"
Considering the present issue.


----------



## Mercule

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Oof. I _strongly_ disagree. It goes back to my discussion about evocative RPG writing. I think D&D is _far_ stronger for having a *default* setting, and providing examples from said setting. A list of deities is one of the major elements of that to be found in the PHB, and I'd be very sorry to see it go. Especially when it is, indeed, clearly called out as optional.




Agreed, except that I'd prefer "implied" setting.  

I'm not entirely certain how I'd want to see the domains/gods thing presented, though.  I generally ignored the 3E list, but it probably wasn't bad.  Something about it makes me think it's too specific.  

As I've typed up this message, though, I think my preferrence would simply be for them to make up some deities from whole cloth.  Including "Hand and Eye of Vecna" certainly improved 1E.  I think the inclusion of pre-existing deities for 3E, though, invited some misinterpretation/reinterpretation (not sure of best word) which caused some friction from older Greyhawk players -- even the extremely casual ones like myself.


----------



## Badkarmaboy

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Zing! The designers win another round!
> 
> No more information is forthcoming, and the underlying complaint goes unaddressed, but at least we know we guessed wrong!




Considering that they're still nailing down the particulars (esp. with playtesting starting now) I'm not surprised they didn't give a hard answer.    

Is it just 4E that makes you this angry Wulf?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Badkarmaboy said:
			
		

> Is it just 4E that makes you this angry Wulf?




Heh... No, actually I love it.   

I am "over eager."


----------



## Andor

Howndawg said:
			
		

> I think one can argue either way.  On the one hand, a list of deities can be seen as straightjacketing.  On the other hand, it can give a player a good starting point with which he can build a character.
> 
> Howndawg




Meh. I honestly doubt that anybody so dim that they would be straightjacketed by a default pantheon _could_ be creative enough to come up with their own deity.


----------



## Badkarmaboy

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Heh... No, actually I love it.
> 
> I am "over eager."




That's some passion man...bless your heart.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I am of the old school that magic items, even the most minor ones, should be special, have a history, and do something that makes them a useful tool more than just a bonus to a die roll.



They're not mutually exclusive. Every wizard in Harry Potter has a wand, but every wand is definitely special.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> A list of deities is one of the major elements of that to be found in the PHB, and I'd be very sorry to see it go.



Myself, I'd be happy to see it gone from the PHB#, but I _would_ be upset to see it gone from Core. IMO, a sample pantheon belongs in the DMG# along with a sample cosmology of planes, but not in the PHB#.


----------



## Andor

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Myself, I'd be happy to see it gone from the PHB#, but I _would_ be upset to see it gone from Core. IMO, a sample pantheon belongs in the DMG# along with a sample cosmology of planes, but not in the PHB#.




So... You want to wait for the DMG to come out to play a cleric? :\


----------



## Mercule

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Myself, I'd be happy to see it gone from the PHB#, but I _would_ be upset to see it gone from Core. IMO, a sample pantheon belongs in the DMG# along with a sample cosmology of planes, but not in the PHB#.




Yes, this.

For those who can't wait a month, pick two domains and carry on with life.


----------



## Atlatl Jones

Imaro said:
			
		

> Now my money's really on them being like the force traditions in Star Wars...



I think you're right, in concept if not in mechanics.  I'm glad that Noonan clarified that.

I suspect that many of us came to the conclusion that they were groupings of spells/spell schools because that's how the implements were described in the first version if the article:  the 4 items each influences certain categories of effects.


----------



## F4NBOY

Imaro said:
			
		

> Now my money's really on them being like the force traditions in Star Wars...



If it happens to be the case it will be awesome!
Just create some 4 or 5 Talents, put a cool and cheesy name on it and you have your Arcane tradition ready to flesh your character. Much better than creating a whole new Prestige Class.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Andor said:
			
		

> So... You want to wait for the DMG to come out to play a cleric? :\



I'm perfectly capable of picking two domains and running with it as a player.

The campaign pantheon is always something the DM customizes anyway, so IMO it belongs with the book of tools for the DM.


----------



## F4NBOY

Andor said:
			
		

> So... You want to wait for the DMG to come out to play a cleric? :\



No. I'm gonna ask my DM: "Hey DM dude, what are the names of the gods from your setting, and what are their domains?"


----------



## Andor

You guys are luckier than I am I guess. Most GMs I play with tend to be pretty by the book.  :\


----------



## Rechan

I'd actually be wary of a PC just picking any two domains. Because I know that would lead to picking the two strongest domains and having at it.

Like War and Magic, or something.


----------



## F4NBOY

Andor said:
			
		

> You guys are luckier than I am I guess. Most GMs I play with tend to be pretty by the book.  :\



So it seems you'll have to wait even more to play 4E. 
The Forgotten Realms Setting will be available in august only.


----------



## Driddle

Rechan said:
			
		

> I'd actually be wary of a PC just picking any two domains. Because I know that would lead to picking the two strongest domains and having at it.
> 
> Like War and Magic, or something.




So?
It's not as though someone could "have at it" to any great effect.


----------



## Zurai

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> No. I'm gonna ask my DM: "Hey DM dude, what are the names of the gods from your setting, and what are their domains?"




And your DM is going to say "I don't even know what the valid domains ARE, yet alone what they're supposed to do in this edition!"


----------



## F4NBOY

Zurai said:
			
		

> And your DM is going to say "I don't even know what the valid domains ARE, yet alone what they're supposed to do in this edition!"



Then I'll say: "The only possible logical explanation for that is that domains do not exist anymore, they are called cleric powers, and each kind of power is linked to a "divine element" such as good, lawful, healing, sun, death etc. Tell me the portfolio from the gods of your campagin and I'll get the powers that fit that concept."

Trust me, cleric power WILL be in the PHB and not in the DMG


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Zurai said:
			
		

> And your DM is going to say "I don't even know what the valid domains ARE, yet alone what they're supposed to do in this edition!"



And he'll say, "Well, you'd better read the PHB then, where all the information related to character generation, including the abilities of divine spellcasters, is contained.  Actually, if you haven't read that, why are you the DM?"

Aww...he beat me to it...


----------



## Rechan

Driddle said:
			
		

> So?
> It's not as though someone could "have at it" to any great effect.



Because many domain selections are limited. "Only x god of the whole pantheon has that domain", limiting very powerful combos.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Rechan said:
			
		

> Because many domain selections are limited. "Only x god of the whole pantheon has that domain", limiting very powerful combos.




Not by the rules as written, as I pointed out above. "Just choosing any two domains" is a valid choice, it's just been overlooked since... forever.


----------



## Rechan

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Not by the rules as written, as I pointed out above. "Just choosing any two domains" is a valid choice, it's just been overlooked since... forever.



And as I said, I would be distrustful of just nabbing two unrelated domains for the potential of grabbing two powerful domains.

I'm aware the option exists, just that I think it can easily be abused.


----------



## FireLance

Rechan said:
			
		

> And as I said, I would be distrustful of just nabbing two unrelated domains for the potential of grabbing two powerful domains.
> 
> I'm aware the option exists, just that I think it can easily be abused.



While complete balance is probably impossible to achieve, reducing the differential between the most and least powerful domains will go some way towards limiting the abuse.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Rechan said:
			
		

> I'm aware the option exists, just that I think it can easily be abused.




Seems a pretty big "abuse" loophole for the designers to have left it in the game, even through the 3.5 revision.

I don't think it's particularly abusable except in comparison to the assumed "default," or unless  "choice" instantly equates to "abuse" in the minds of some DMs.

I'm certainly not sure why War and Magic would qualify as "abuse" in the hands of anyone other than an elven cleric of Corellan, for example.


----------



## Cadfan

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> No. I'm gonna ask my DM: "Hey DM dude, what are the names of the gods from your setting, and what are their domains?"




And I'm going to reply, "Umm, creating a bunch of deities that probably won't ever get used was such a low priority for me that I never got around to it.  Why don't you just make one up?"


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Cadfan said:
			
		

> And I'm going to reply, "Umm, creating a bunch of deities that probably won't ever get used was such a low priority for me that I never got around to it.  Why don't you just make one up?"



I would hope that my DM had more interest in his own homebrew than this.


----------



## Just Another User

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> What I'm saying is that it's possible that the precise combinations of effects that make up, say, the Serpent's Eye Tradition may well be simple examples, just like the combination of the Evil, Death, and Strength domains are granted by the great god Boojie.



Yeah, about those "I hope traditions are the equivalent of domains" comments that are running around in this thread, I hope not, because to be blunt, domains as a way to personalize gods and religons sucks.
I hope (but, to be honest, doubt it) that they will come out with something better for 4D!.


----------



## F4NBOY

Cadfan said:
			
		

> And I'm going to reply, "Umm, creating a bunch of deities that probably won't ever get used was such a low priority for me that I never got around to it.  Why don't you just make one up?"




And then I'm gonna say: "Nice idea DM, thanks. That's so good WOTC didn't waste PHB pages with useless fluff, since you are allowing us to make our own goods. Briliant!"


----------



## Cadfan

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> And then I'm gonna say: "Nice idea DM, thanks. That's so good WOTC didn't waste PHB pages with useless fluff, since you are allowing us to make our own goods. Briliant!"




While I personally agree with you, a lot of people I've played with have historically found it easier to just take a deity from the Player's Handbook.

You know how the section of the book on character classes includes roleplaying advice?  Basic stuff usually like, "most dwarfs are gruff" or "rogues and paladins don't get along much."  I consider the section on the pseudo official pantheon to be the same.  It helps some people get into the game, and if I want a stripped down version of the rules (which is always at this point), I go to the SRD.



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I would hope that my DM had more interest in his own homebrew than this.




Why write up deities and religions that won't be encountered by the PCs?  That's a lot like statting out NPCs that the characters will never directly meet.  Writing up a religion for a cleric is a lot like writing up a backstory for a character.  I like to give the players a lot of freedom there.  It hasn't hurt anything yet, and they enjoy it.


----------



## F4NBOY

Cadfan said:
			
		

> You know how the section of the book on character classes includes roleplaying advice?  Basic stuff usually like, "most dwarfs are gruff" or "rogues and paladins don't get along much."



Eek! I hope that kind of descriptions are gone too.
It makes DM's work harder sometimes:

Player: "But I just read here dwarves and elves don't get along!"
DM: "Forget that part, in my setting that's not true"

Paladin Player: "I'll won't travel with this rogue, I don't like their kind"
DM: "Oh lord...."


----------



## Driddle

I can't imagine what mechanic benefits the magical "traditions" will provide. But I'm guessing the roleplaying intent will be akin to the intent behind current clerical domains -- i.e. providing ready-made social structure for players to tap into (wizardly traditions, clerical churches), _or not_. While the PHB offers about a dozen religions and outlines their related domains, it also offers the option for a cleric to ignore those religions and pick any two domains for more personal character concepts. That particular church-like flavor has been absent from the mage's world in 3rd edition, except in supplemental prestige classes (Argent Hand, Scarlet Flame, etc.). I appreciate the effort. ... As long as the traditions aren't _required._ (Rule-0 notwithstanding.)


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Not by the rules as written, as I pointed out above. "Just choosing any two domains" is a valid choice, it's just been overlooked since... forever.




... Unless you're playing in the FR ...

... or in most games where the pantheon is fairly set ...


----------



## Just Another User

Cadfan said:
			
		

> You know how the section of the book on character classes includes roleplaying advice?  Basic stuff usually like, "most dwarfs are gruff" or "rogues and paladins don't get along much."  I consider the section on the pseudo official pantheon to be the same.  It helps some people get into the game, and if I want a stripped down version of the rules (which is always at this point), I go to the SRD.




Wait, are you saying that there is really someone that reads and actually *use* those parts? I thought that they put it there because... well, to be honest I've no idea why they put it there, they are at best useless and at worse damaging, with their implied concept that things like Classes are actually concepts that exist in-game, like if a PC or NPC actually think to himself as a Rogue, or Expert or a Exotic Weaponmaster.


----------



## JDJblatherings

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Wait, are you saying that there is really someone that reads and actually *use* those parts? I thought that they put it there because... well, to be honest I've no idea why they put it there, they are at best useless and at worse damaging, with their implied concept that things like Classes are actually concepts that exist in-game, like if a PC or NPC actually think to himself as a Rogue, or Expert or a Exotic Weaponmaster.





since when do people not idnetify themselves (or others) by career?  Butcher, Baker, Doctor, Teacher, Fireman, Lawyer...


----------



## Cadfan

Yes, I think people read those sections and use them.

Mostly new players.

Having a section like that is better than telling them that dwarfs are just short people who don't trip, and expecting them to take it from there.


----------



## Mercule

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> ... Unless you're playing in the FR ...




Not true.  By RAW, a cleric does not need a deity at all.  They run on ethanol... er... pure belief.

While I find the idea of a godless priest to be absurd and annoying, it is in the RAW.  My laughter at any player who would actually request to play such a character is most assuredly a house rule.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Mercule said:
			
		

> Not true.  By RAW, a cleric does not need a deity at all.  They run on ethanol... er... pure belief.




Very true.

In the FR, in order to cast divine spells at all, you must have a patron deity.


----------



## BryonD

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> ... Unless you're playing in the FR ...
> 
> ... or in most games where the pantheon is fairly set ...



Right.

But doesn't that exactly make the point?

The best solution is a open-ended base ruleset for which more specific details are developed within custom settings.


----------



## Greg K

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I would hope that my DM had more interest in his own homebrew than this.



Me too. if a DM said that to me, I would say, "Thanks for the invitation.  Please, call me when you have taken more interest in your homebrew setting. I'll show myself the door."


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

BryonD said:
			
		

> Right.
> 
> But doesn't that exactly make the point?
> 
> The best solution is a open-ended base ruleset for which more specific details are developed within custom settings.




Regardless of that, it does make precisely my point that the PHB says _specifically_ that a cleric can choose any two domains, and this core rule has to be revisited if the intent is to patch over it.

(It makes my point so precisely, frankly, I can't fathom why he thought he was rebutting it.)


----------



## Jer

Greg K said:
			
		

> Me too. if a DM said that to me, I would say, "Thanks for the invitation.  Please, call me when you have taken more interest in your homebrew setting. I'll show myself the door."




Bah - I'd never ask you to play at my table with that attitude anyway   I'm long past the point where I want to make my own homebrew setting whole cloth - nowadays my settings are done in collaboration with my players.  I haven't made a whole pantheon for a campaign setting all by myself without player input in well over a decade at this point.


----------



## WayneLigon

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Wait, are you saying that there is really someone that reads and actually *use* those parts? I thought that they put it there because... well, to be honest I've no idea why they put it there, they are at best useless and at worse damaging, with their implied concept that things like Classes are actually concepts that exist in-game, like if a PC or NPC actually think to himself as a Rogue, or Expert or a Exotic Weaponmaster.




A lot of the broader classes are just generic; the four main ones certainly are, and for a very good reason. But some of the other classes (and a lot of the prestige classes) are also professions in and of themselves. If you're a paladin, people are going to call you that; it's not what you do, it's what you _are_. Most of the caster variants are specific enough that I have no problem with someone self-identifying themseves as one, such as 'I am Lazlo the Warlock' or 'I am Pinebracken, a druid of the Winterfrost Caern'.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Jer said:
			
		

> Bah - I'd never ask you to play at my table with that attitude anyway   I'm long past the point where I want to make my own homebrew setting whole cloth - nowadays my settings are done in collaboration with my players.  I haven't made a whole pantheon for a campaign setting all by myself without player input in well over a decade at this point.



There is a significant difference between:

"Deities?  I can't be bothered to think about that."

and

"Deities?  I expect the players to collaborate with me to develop them so that we have a pantheon that suits all of us."


----------



## WayneLigon

Zurai said:
			
		

> And your DM is going to say "I don't even know what the valid domains ARE, yet alone what they're supposed to do in this edition!"




I would have to seriously question if someone with that attitude or level of interest is really a good choice to be a GM. If he hasn't paid attention to something that basic, then what else has he neglected to learn, especially if he mentions 'edition'. Is he going to be constantly thinking a rule works like it did in 1E or 2E. (I've encountered just such a GM. It was not a pretty sight, let me tell you. Sloppy adventures, rules that came and went based on his half-remembered houserules for 1E, eeeeaaggh.)


----------



## Cadfan

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> There is a significant difference between:
> 
> "Deities?  I can't be bothered to think about that."
> 
> and
> 
> "Deities?  I expect the players to collaborate with me to develop them so that we have a pantheon that suits all of us."




Right, because deities as a central part of a campaign is an obligatory aspect of D&D.  If your campaign doesn't deal with religions in a meaningful way, _you're playing wrong._  Stop playing _now_ before you sin again.

The last campaign I ran was a war campaign using a lot of Heroes of Battle material.  The only religious character we had in the party was a Favored Soul who wasn't particularly religious- he was just a devotee of healing the injured amongst his people, who had been blessed by some unknown god so that he could excel in his life's work.

Religion was not involved in any meaningful way at any point.  Presumably it was there, and if a player had inquired into the subject I would have come up with something, but why should I bother in advance?  I didn't stat out the king of the PC's kingdom because they weren't likely to fight him.  I never mapped out the streets of the capital city because the only thing that mattered was the walls.

Why should deities be any different?

The important parts of my campaign (important as in the players would encounter them) were things like military ranks, militant orders, and the politics amongst the nobles who comprised the king's army.  Unimportant parts were things like the religious pantheon of the major humanoid races of the world.  I won't criticize your campaign for not having a strictly defined military chain of command for the major armies of the world, and you can stop labeling my dismissal of unimportant aspects of _my_ campaign as wrongbadfun.

Or in short, until the gnomish fertility goddess becomes campaign-relevant, I'm not statting out her clerical order, and you can't make me.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Right, because deities as a central part of a campaign is an obligatory aspect of D&D.  If your campaign doesn't deal with religions in a meaningful way, _you're playing wrong._  Stop playing _now_ before you sin again.




If your players are asking you about the gods, then there is a big difference between

"Deities? I can't be bothered to think about that."

and

"Deities? I expect the players to collaborate with me to develop them so that we have a pantheon that suits all of us."

Since the quote itself is in response to a question about deities, there is already as assumption that this information is important to at least one player.


RC


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> (It makes my point so precisely, frankly, I can't fathom why he thought he was rebutting it.)




I'm pointing out that while, yes, it is an option in the core rules psuedo-Greyhawk milieu, that usually doesn't work out in practice (where generally clerics are the servants of specific gods, and those specific gods determine what domains are available).


----------



## Just Another User

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> A lot of the broader classes are just generic; the four main ones certainly are, and for a very good reason. But some of the other classes (and a lot of the prestige classes) are also professions in and of themselves. If you're a paladin, people are going to call you that; it's not what you do, it's what you _are_. Most of the caster variants are specific enough that I have no problem with someone self-identifying themseves as one, such as 'I am Lazlo the Warlock' or 'I am Pinebracken, a druid of the Winterfrost Caern'.




that some classes are so specific i.e. not generic is IMHO one of the flaws of 3rd edition, While I think that the generic classes of unhearted arcana are a little too extreme I believe that classes should in the direction to be as generic as possible and heavily customizable.
That said while identifing the character with your class is possible, it is also not necessary or (IMHO) desiderable, with some minor tweaking and some flavour adaptation even in 3.x a bard could be journalist, a detective, a preacher-like figure, a paladin could be a charismtic officer, etc. etc. You can say "I'm a Paladin", but you do not and should not *have* to.
And OTOH, an expert with ranks in perform would call himself a bard and nobody would have anything to object, exactly like a lawful good fighter/cleric would call and be called by everyone else a paladin, the only way to say him that it is not one would be by metagaming.


----------



## BryonD

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I'm pointing out that while, yes, it is an option in the core rules psuedo-Greyhawk milieu, that usually doesn't work out in practice (where generally clerics are the servants of specific gods, and those specific gods determine what domains are available).



But that is for flavor reasons, not mechanical reasons.  Which, again, actually makes the point that keeping the core open and leaving specific flavor to taste of a given setting is the best of both worlds.  You are still re-enforcing the real point being made, and not at all rebutting it.


----------



## WayneLigon

Just Another User said:
			
		

> And OTOH, an expert with ranks in perform would call himself a bard and nobody would have anything to object,




He certainly can and a lot certainly do, right up until someone asks them to do something only a true Bard can do. He's not a spellcaster, nor will his voice ever stir the courage in people's souls no matter how good his Perform skill might be.



			
				Just Another User said:
			
		

> exactly like a lawful good fighter/cleric would call and be called by everyone else a paladin, the only way to say him that it is not one would be by metagaming.




No, I think at least the educated are going to know the difference between a spellcaster and someone who can do their ability at will. He might well be able to call himself a paladin, but he won't actually be one.


----------



## Someone

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> He certainly can and a lot certainly do, right up until someone asks them to do something only a true Bard can do. He's not a spellcaster, nor will his voice ever stir the courage in people's souls no matter how good his Perform skill might be.




I know of plenty of people that could stir other people's souls with music, and they aren't spellcasters. Regardless, how a class is named doesn't forbid characters to name themselves that way. Continuing with the bard example, people could certainly know that there are Bards that can cast spells and bards that cannot.


----------



## F4NBOY

From Chris Perkins blog:


> When Dave Noonan writes a D&D adventure and makes reference to a new demon lord named Mu-Tahn Laa, he's giving DMs everywhere something from his home game that they can pillage for their own campaigns.





> (As far as I can tell, Mu-Tahn Laa doesn't appear anywhere in the 4E core rulebooks, but I know Dave's working on the DMG right now, and he's a sneaky guy.)




Can I deduce that the Gods will be in the DMG and not PHB?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If your players are asking you about the gods, then there is a big difference between
> 
> "Deities? I can't be bothered to think about that."
> 
> and
> 
> "Deities? I expect the players to collaborate with me to develop them so that we have a pantheon that suits all of us."
> 
> Since the quote itself is in response to a question about deities, there is already as assumption that this information is important to at least one player.
> 
> 
> RC



You beat me to it.  Good answer.

The answer to the question, "Hey, DM.  I'm the cleric, who are the deities in this campaign," is not, "who cares?"  And it's not an accusation of badwrongfun to take it for granted that if you're playing a cleric in D&D that there are going to be some deities around to worship.  Or at least an explanation that there are no deities, so you should choose some domains based on a philosophy.  At the very least, if the DM doesn't care about the deities in his campaign, he should be able to say, "use the default setting deities.  Here they are."  It seriously doesn't matter if they're in the DMG, because the DM should have a copy of the DMG, and be capable of handing it to a player for five minutes so that he can choose a deity, or at the very least, tell the player which gods are available in that setting.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

BryonD said:
			
		

> You are still re-enforcing the real point being made, and not at all rebutting it.




His real point seems to be, "It's here in the core; why don't people use it?"

My rebuttal is, "Because most DMs, in practice, don't allow it."


----------



## Masquerade

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> Can I deduce that the Gods will be in the DMG and not PHB?



I don't think there is any evidence for that. Mu-Tahn Laa is not a god, and demon lords were not listed alongside gods in the 3.X books.


----------



## Just Another User

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> No, I think at least the educated are going to know the difference between a spellcaster and someone who can do their ability at will. He might well be able to call himself a paladin, but he won't actually be one.




And how you or them can tell without reading the PHB/DMG? like Someone said what people would know is that there are bards that can cast spells and bard that cannot. The only thing people could say is that some paladin can i.e. heal spontaneously and someone cannot. it is not like NPCs goes around with their character sheet. And to complicate things consider all the feat, prestige classes,variant classes domains,and special abilities etc, etc, or even just DM cutomizations are you really sure that there is not a way for a fighter/cleric to not be able to lay on hands someway (Or that every paladin can lay on hands) ?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> His real point seems to be, "It's here in the core; why don't people use it?"
> 
> My rebuttal is, "Because most DMs, in practice, don't allow it."




More like, "It's in the core, why don't DMs allow it?"

It's not hidden, it's not optional, it's not broken... What happened?

So I don't think the situation is that players are going to the PHB, asking their DMs if they can do it and being told NO. 

My point is that it's as if that paragraph simply doesn't exist and nobody has ever played it any other way.

I wonder if the FRCS started folks down the "Deity Only" path and nobody ever thought to play it any other way ever again?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> More like, "It's in the core, why don't DMs allow it?"




My guess is that designing pantheons, and the individual spheres of influence within that pantheon, is something most DMs like to do as part of designing their world.  Assigning available domains based on the deities' roles is a natural extension of that.

Then, when a player decides to play a cleric, there's an instant character hook when that player decides to be a cleric of the Hearth Goddess, or the Bloody Warbringer, or the Enlightened One.  And if you're a cleric of the Enlightened One, it doesn't really make sense to have the War and Ocean domains, because those don't fit the deity's role.  Neither should the priests of the Bloody Warbringer be taking the Pacifism and Healing domains (though these are perfectly appropriate to his twin sister).



> It's not hidden, it's not optional, it's not broken... What happened?




It's probably not broken in the core rules, but there's probably a good argument to be made that certain expansion domains shouldn't be allowed to mix.



> So I don't think the situation is that players are going to the PHB, asking their DMs if they can do it and being told NO.
> 
> ...
> 
> I wonder if the FRCS started folks down the "Deity Only" path and nobody ever thought to play it any other way ever again?




My experience is that, generally, it *does* work like the FR system (and worked like that in previous editions, as well).  A player decides to play a cleric, and the DM says "Here's the list of gods, their domains, and some info about their churches.  Which one do you want to use?"

I think that there's a reason that, in the section on gods (or clerics; I can't recall) in the Eberron Campaign Setting, they specifically restate the ability to take any two domains of your choice (pursuant to DM oversight), representing pulling philosophical power from the remains of the Dragon Above.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> It's probably not broken in the core rules, but there's probably a good argument to be made that certain expansion domains shouldn't be allowed to mix.



Force and anything, for example.


----------



## Rechan

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I'm certainly not sure why War and Magic would qualify as "abuse" in the hands of anyone other than an elven cleric of Corellan, for example.




The War domain provides a cleric with martial proficiency and focus in his deity's favored weapon. If he doesn't have a deity, he picks his favored weapon. The war domain also gives him access to Divine Power. 

An 8th level cleric with the Magic domain is treated like a 4th level wizard when casting from scrolls, wands or other spell-devices. The cleric grabs a wand of Polymorph and a scroll of stoneskin. He casts polymorph into an Ogre (4 HD, what he can assume), casts Divine Power, and Stoneskin, then picks up a huge reach weapon (said reach weapon is the weapon he picked as his god's favored weapon).

Now he has at least 20ft reach and can attack practically anything on the battlefield, including whatever offends AoOs against him. He's also fighting with the BAB of a fighter of his level, has a 27 Str (Ogre's 21 str and +6 Str from Divine Power) for +8 to attack/damage. He'll be wielding that reach weapon two handed for a total of +12 to attack and damage. Give him the Power Attack feat and with Divine Power's fighter BAB he could add +8 to his damage for +20 to damage. Combat reflexes + Cat's Grace for extra hilarity. Don't forget his full clerical spells and his stoneskin.

In other words, the Cleric is bar none the most powerful class in the game. Giving him access to any domain, with all their variable abilities and potential combos, makes him even more powerful.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Rechan said:
			
		

> An 8th level cleric with the Magic domain is treated like a 4th level wizard when casting from scrolls, wands or other spell-devices. The cleric grabs a wand of Polymorph and a scroll of stoneskin. He casts polymorph into an Ogre (4 HD, what he can assume), casts Divine Power, and Stoneskin, then picks up a huge reach weapon.



And in a game where combat is over in three round, this cleric took 3 complete rounds to get to powered up. *shrug* Yeah, he becomes teh awesome but he burned through a ton of treasure to get there and can only do it a few times a day.


----------



## Rechan

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> And in a game where combat is over in three round, this cleric took 3 complete rounds to get to powered up. *shrug* Yeah, he becomes teh awesome but he burned through a ton of treasure to get there and can only do it a few times a day.



How do you figure he burned "a ton of treasure"? One charge on his Wand of Polymorph. He doesn't even need the Scroll of Stoneskin - his healing spells will handle that. So one charge of his wand and 4th one domain spell.

So two rounds prep. Unless they're ambushed, he'll stomp over anything they face at 8th level.


----------



## IanArgent

He does have to cart that orge-sized weapon along - but as an 8th level character he might have an extra-dimensional place ot keep it when he's not Large.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Rechan said:
			
		

> How do you figure he burned "a ton of treasure"? One charge on his Wand of Polymorph. He doesn't even need the Scroll of Stoneskin - his healing spells will handle that. So one charge of his wand and 4th one domain spell.
> 
> So two rounds prep.



Well, you said a scroll of _stoneskin_ in your post. That's what I replied to. If _stoneskin_ is going to be used every combat in a day, the hypothetical cleric will need it as a scroll.

Round 1: _Wand of polymorph _
Round 2: _Divine power
_Round 3: _Stoneskin_ and pick up huge reach weapon.


			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> Unless they're ambushed, he'll stomp over anything they face at 8th level.



He'll stomp for one combat.

However, compare this to the ordained champion PrC in Complete Champion.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Rechan said:
			
		

> The War domain provides a cleric with...




[snip]

I know what they do. We don't need examples on the potential synergy. (Although you should probably be set straight on the fact that Divine Power is available to any cleric, with or without the War domain.)

You didn't answer the question:

Why is War + Magic suddenly "abuse" in the hands of anyone OTHER than an elven cleric of Corellan, for whom this is a valid choice? (FRCS)

Are you suggesting that elves are so underpowered that it's OK for them to go rampaging all over the battlefield at 8th level, but for humans, dwarves, half-orcs, gnomes, halflings-- you've really got to clamp down on that sort of thing?


----------



## Rechan

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> He'll stomp for one combat.



Fine, take out the scroll of stoneskin; I pulled that out of the air as just "a combat buff". And, for "A combat" is a misnomer, as he has 3 4th level spells at 8th level, so with the War Domain he could manage 3 castings of Divine Power, which is three combats.



> (Although you should probably be set straight on the fact that Divine Power is available to any cleric, with or without the War domain.)



I'm aware of this. But it being a domain spell means it doesn't take up a regular 4th level slot that could go to something else (like a second Divine Power).



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Why is War + Magic suddenly "abuse" in the hands of anyone OTHER than an elven cleric of Corellan, for whom this is a valid choice? (FRCS)
> 
> Are you suggesting that elves are so underpowered that it's OK for them to go rampaging all over the battlefield at 8th level, but for humans, dwarves, half-orcs, gnomes, halflings-- you've really got to clamp down on that sort of thing?



Ah, I see the discrepancy. I wasn't suggesting that Elven Clerics of Corellan aren't muchkins with this combo or that they deserve it - I honestly wasn't aware there was a God that had both Magic and War domains. I haven't looked at the FRCS book since... six months after it came out?

My initial point was that a god with a powerful domain in its portfolio _usually_ has weaker domains in its portfolio, so that the single powerful domain isn't coupled with other powerful domains. And the ability to just staple two powerful domains together is rife for abuse.


----------



## Upper_Krust

howdy Sir Brennen! 



			
				Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> So here's a question: will *all* classes have "implements" somewhat equivalent to the fighter's sword and shield? What would you imagine a Druid's implements to be?




Perhaps a Druid has no such implements, but is instead 'locale relevant'.

With its feet on solid earth the Druids earth-based magic is augmented, when flying its air-based magic is augmented.

Air
Earth
Plant...when standing with grass beneath their feet.
Water


----------



## Rechan

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Perhaps a Druid has no such implements, but is instead 'locale relevant'.
> 
> With its feet on solid earth the Druids earth-based magic is augmented, when flying its air-based magic is augmented.
> 
> Air
> Earth
> Plant...when standing with grass beneath their feet.
> Water



While interesting, I have the feeling that would get irksome quickly. Assuming the other classes like the Wizard and Cleric and such can carry around their implements, it would be very crippling for a Druid if he can't. 

Sort've like how your druid can't cast Entangle in a dungeon because there's no plants.


----------



## jasin

Rechan said:
			
		

> The War domain provides a cleric with martial proficiency and focus in his deity's favored weapon. If he doesn't have a deity, he picks his favored weapon. The war domain also gives him access to Divine Power.
> 
> An 8th level cleric with the Magic domain is treated like a 4th level wizard when casting from scrolls, wands or other spell-devices. The cleric grabs a wand of Polymorph and a scroll of stoneskin. He casts polymorph into an Ogre (4 HD, what he can assume), casts Divine Power, and Stoneskin, then picks up a huge reach weapon (said reach weapon is the weapon he picked as his god's favored weapon).



He'd be better off as a troll or a hag. That wand isn't CL 4th, even though the cleric effectively is.

But a cleric with a friendly wizard (and what PC doesn't have a friendly wizard?) could go around polymorphed into a troll without Magic, and he could cast divine power without War, and use a longspear, a simple reach weapon not that much worse than the martial polearms.

Instead, he could have Travel, with it's dimension door and longstrider and freedom of movement as needed, things no allied wizard can give you.

And Luck, with it's awesome lifesaver of a domain power, that cannot be picked up elsewhere like proficiencies and Weapon Focus can. And there's also moment of prescience.

Fharlanghn, a PHB deity, grants both Travel and Luck.

Letting clerics just pick their domain freely really doesn't appreciably increase their power. And even if it does, it's not because you can pick War and Magic. They're good, but not that good.


----------



## Jer

Rechan said:
			
		

> In other words, the Cleric is bar none the most powerful class in the game. Giving him access to any domain, with all their variable abilities and potential combos, makes him even more powerful.




And yet - this has never been a problem in my 3e games.  Even the one time I had a player with a cleric with the Magic and War domains.

Also - what you're describing doesn't sound that overpowering to me - an 8th level wizard could also transform an 8th level cleric of a god of War into an ogre and you'd end up with the same thing - except the cleric would still have his action that round.  I'm not sure why something that could be accomplished by a party in one round is suddenly unbalanced if the same party can accomplish it in two rounds.

And I don't think that the designers think that domain selection is a place where balance is an issue, since there are rules in various places about worshiping a pantheon instead of a single god, and when you worship a pantheon you can select any two domains represented by anyone in the pantheon.  In Eberron, a cleric of the Sovreign Host can pretty much have any two domains he wants, since all of the core domains are covered by the Host.


----------



## Rechan

Jer said:
			
		

> And yet - this has never been a problem in my 3e games.  Even the one time I had a player with a cleric with the Magic and War domains.




I'm glad that you've never encountered it as a problem. I've never played in a game where Polymorph was used, but my lack of personal experience with it doesn't discount the potential for abuse. 



> And I don't think that the designers think that domain selection is a place where balance is an issue, since there are rules in various places about worshiping a pantheon instead of a single god



I could counter by pointing out that in Forgotten Realms, it states _Clerics must worship a Deity_, as it was stated earlier. And in the PHB it says you can select any two domains.

Just because it is not acknowledged by being a potential for abuse doesn't mean it can't be abused.


----------



## Rechan

jasin said:
			
		

> He'd be better off as a troll or a hag. That wand isn't CL 4th, even though the cleric effectively is.




Ah, thank you for that.

As far as the Friendly Wizard, the Friendly Wizard is expending a 4th level spell slot, which is reducing _his_ effectiveness, whereas the Wand isn't effecting the party's overall capacity. If you wanted to undercut the example, you could say the Wizard uses the wand instead of wasting one of his spells.



> Instead, he could have Travel, with it's dimension door and longstrider and freedom of movement as needed, things no allied wizard can give you.
> 
> And Luck, with it's awesome lifesaver of a domain power, that cannot be picked up elsewhere like proficiencies and Weapon Focus can. And there's also moment of prescience.
> 
> Fharlanghn, a PHB deity, grants both Travel and Luck.




Must have been added in the 3.5 PHB. But thank you for helping my point.



> Letting clerics just pick their domain freely really doesn't appreciably increase their power. And even if it does, it's not because you can pick War and Magic. They're good, but not that good.



I was using Magic and War as an example. There are worse combinations, especially as previously noted, when you consider suppliments. There's a domain in most suppliments, campaign settings, etc.

Your mileage may vary, but I'm going to heavily scrutinize a player that just says "I'm going to pick my domains, forget the gods".


----------



## Jer

Rechan said:
			
		

> Just because it hasn't been an issue in your game doesn't mean that it isn't an issue.




This is true - anecdote does not equal data.  But still, it doesn't seem broken at all to me.  There are far more things broken about the cleric in my mind (see Turn Undead, just to start)



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> I could counter by pointing out that in Forgotten Realms, it states _Clerics must worship a Deity_, as it was stated earlier. And in the PHB it says you can select any two domains.
> 
> Just because it is not acknowledged by being a potential for abuse doesn't mean it can't be abused.




The Realms stuff is pure flavor, though - not game mechanics.  The reason why you have to pick a deity in the realms isn't because certain combinations of domains were perceived as unbalanced by the designers - it's because in the Realms clerics have to have gods.

And what I'm trying to say is that the designers didn't build domain choice in as a balancing factor - and so the domains are supposed to be designed such that they can combo in any possible pairing.  Any "brokenness" in domain combos just points to the general "overpowered" nature of the cleric class.


----------



## Rechan

Jer said:
			
		

> This is true - anecdote does not equal data.  But still, it doesn't seem broken at all to me.  There are far more things broken about the cleric in my mind (see Turn Undead, just to start)



Wow. Completely 180 from me. I'd have never thought Turn Undead was a source of brokeness. 



> The Realms stuff is pure flavor, though - not game mechanics.  The reason why you have to pick a deity in the realms isn't because certain combinations of domains were perceived as unbalanced by the designers - it's because in the Realms clerics have to have gods.



So you don't see "Pick any two domains, forget a deity and take a philosophy" as a fluff choice?


----------



## WayneLigon

Just Another User said:
			
		

> And how you or them can tell without reading the PHB/DMG?




Spellcasting requires gestures and spoken words. It's impossible to disquise it unless you've been an idiot and invested in the three or four feats nessesary to do it. Using a special power does not. It simply follows as natural that most educated people will know these things, as they are natural and normal parts of their world.

Much like anyone with education will know that normally a fireball encompases roughly a 20' radius, or that clerics can see into men's souls to know who is wicked and who is truly righteous.


----------



## WayneLigon

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> My point is that it's as if that paragraph simply doesn't exist and nobody has ever played it any other way.
> 
> I wonder if the FRCS started folks down the "Deity Only" path and nobody ever thought to play it any other way ever again?




Nope; in all the campaigns I've ever played in - from OD&D onwards - it was natually and normally assumed that clerics got their power directly from the gods and no other sources. I've never known of a campaign to assume otherwise, and seeing such a thing as a 'cleric of no god' in 2E was generally looked at as something somewhat silly. In every single game I've ever played since 3E came out, that paragraph _might as well _ not exist.


----------



## jasin

Rechan said:
			
		

> Ah, thank you for that.
> 
> As far as the Friendly Wizard, the Friendly Wizard is expending a 4th level spell slot, which is reducing _his_ effectiveness, whereas the Wand isn't effecting the party's overall capacity. If you wanted to undercut the example, you could say the Wizard uses the wand instead of wasting one of his spells



I would argue quite the opposite: a wizard's daily slot is unused potential if it remains... well, unused, and if we're talking abusing the rules for combat bonues, there's few better things a wizard can do with a 4th-level slot than cast polymorph.

On the other hand, a charge from a 4th-level wand is 420 gp, which does effect the party's overall capacity



> Must have been added in the 3.5 PHB. But thank you for helping my point.



What's your point again?

I thought that it was that it's unbalancing to allow clerics free pick of domains regardless of deities, because deities restrict the choice so you can't pick two powerful domains.

Fharlanghn disagrees, since he offers two very powerful domains, possibly the best two.

And I don't think his domains were changed for 3.5.



> I was using Magic and War as an example.



An example of picking two very powerful domains by going outside the lists offered by deities. But list offered by the deities offer combinations just as powerful, so going outside the lists is a non-issue.

Again, I'm assuming that the topic is going outside the deities' lists. If the topic is that the cleric is a powerful class, well, no argument there.



> There are worse combinations, especially as previously noted, when you consider suppliments.



Or when you don't and when you just pick one of the PHB gods, and take Travel and Luck.



> Your mileage may vary, but I'm going to heavily scrutinize a player that just says "I'm going to pick my domains, forget the gods".



Me too, but that's because it shows an aggressive tendency towards powergaming at the expense of other aspects which I might find annoying later, not because the choice itself is problematic mechnically.

If that player said "I really want War and Magic but no deity offers that, could you or I create one that does, or could I come up with a plausible philosophy that would be represented by those two domains?" I'd have absolutely no problem with it, even though the mechanical effect is exactly the same: picking two domains of player's choice regardless of the deities' domain lists.


----------



## Arthnek

Wizards need magic wands?

I'm sorry but this is just too Harry Potter for me.

I can't even put words together to describe how absolutely horrible this is.


----------



## jasin

Arthnek said:
			
		

> Wizards need magic wands?
> 
> I'm sorry but this is just too Harry Potter for me.
> 
> I can't even put words together to describe how absolutely horrible this is.



 ... is this a joke?

Wizards need wands in 3E, and they need them bad. And magic wands predate both Harry Potter and D&D by a _long_ time.

That you'd immediately make the leap from "wand as magic tool" to "Harry Potter" shows you are too much influenced by Harry Potter, not WotC.


----------



## shilsen

Arthnek said:
			
		

> Wizards need magic wands?
> 
> I'm sorry but this is just too Harry Potter for me.
> 
> I can't even put words together to describe how absolutely horrible this is.



 You do know that wizards and magic wands have a teensy-weensy longer existence in mythology, literature and fantasy than Harry Potter, right?


----------



## Driddle

shilsen said:
			
		

> You do know that wizards and magic wands have a teensy-weensy longer existence in mythology, literature and fantasy than Harry Potter, right?




Re literature: I read about wands in the novelization of those Harry Potter movies. Good books, for what they were. Although I was disappointed that the Rawling author (or whatever his name was) added so many scenes that weren't originally in the movies -- seemed sorta cheesy. ... But, yeah, I can suggest anyone who wants to do research on wands pick up a book like that. Good stuff.


----------



## Clavis

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Nope; in all the campaigns I've ever played in - from OD&D onwards - it was natually and normally assumed that clerics got their power directly from the gods and no other sources. I've never known of a campaign to assume otherwise, and seeing such a thing as a 'cleric of no god' in 2E was generally looked at as something somewhat silly. In every single game I've ever played since 3E came out, that paragraph _might as well _ not exist.




In most of my campaign worlds I assumed that the gods as such didn't really exist, and Clerics who actually believed in their religion were deluded people. When they could work apparent miracles, they actually unknowingly practiced a variant form of magic. In my current campaign there are militantly atheistic Philosophers, who have the same powers as clerics but ascribe those powers to having a superior understanding of reality.

Besides, a "cleric of no god" could also describe some Buddhists.


----------



## WayneLigon

Clavis said:
			
		

> Besides, a "cleric of no god" could also describe some Buddhists.




It certainly can, but in most games I've been in that would have been taken care of by wizards with a philosophical bent.. It's also good for a campaign with 'small gods', like kami; spirits of wood or wind or a particular mountain. It's just that I've seldom if ever encountered a campaign like that.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

We've seriously derailed this thread. 

Just sitting here thinking, IIRC, the Shaman in Oriental Adventures is Pick Two.

(Wayne's _kami_ comment was obviously the reminder.)


----------



## Rechan

jasin said:
			
		

> I would argue quite the opposite: a wizard's daily slot is unused potential if it remains... well, unused, and if we're talking abusing the rules for combat bonues, there's few better things a wizard can do with a 4th-level slot than cast polymorph.



If the wizard's slot is not being wasted on a polymorph spell, then it can do something else in combat. I'm not saying the slot is "unused", but rather that it is freed up to be used for something else.



> I thought that it was that it's unbalancing to allow clerics free pick of domains regardless of deities, because deities restrict the choice so you can't pick two powerful domains.
> 
> Fharlanghn disagrees, since he offers two very powerful domains, possibly the best two.



And I was clearly mistaken about him having them, but it helps illustrate that certain domains are more powerful than others and letting them be combined isn't great. 



> Me too, but that's because it shows an aggressive tendency towards powergaming at the expense of other aspects which I might find annoying later, not because the choice itself is problematic mechnically.




"At the expense" of other aspects? So if the player is powergaming _but_ is trying to make a story that accommodates it, that's okay? 

Even if a player has a seven page backstory and his history is intimately tied to the setting, I'm still going to vehemently say no when he proposes that half-dragon gargoyle for a level 1 party.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Rechan said:
			
		

> Even if a player has a seven page backstory and his history is intimately tied to the setting, I'm still going to vehemently say no when he proposes that half-dragon gargoyle for a level 1 party.




I suppose in the absence of any actual abuse you can point to, it makes sense to up the ante by equating "Pick Two Domains" to "I want to play a half-dragon gargoyle!"

Good lord.


----------



## Rechan

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I suppose in the absence of any actual abuse you can point to, it makes sense to up the ante by equating "Pick Two Domains" to "I want to play a half-dragon gargoyle!"



I'm sorry, do you not like hyperbole? 

And I used it as an example because I had a player once try to sneak that one past me.


----------



## WizarDru

Clavis said:
			
		

> Besides, a "cleric of no god" could also describe some Buddhists.




More often than not, though, you could effectively cross out 'God' and write in 'Buddha' or 'Bodhisattva' and get the same net effect.  Intoning a chant on behalf of Kwannon (or Quan Yin, if you prefer) or Amida Buddha or Acala (or Fudo Myou, if you prefer) instead of some other higher power yields the same net effect in many legends and myths.  On the other hand, there were more than a few mountain ascetics who certainly fit the bill of 'cleric of no god', especially some Zen Buddhist sects.  Taoism probably would qualify, as would lots of proponents of ancestor worship.

Wulf has a pretty good point about the domains and Corellian.  It pretty much, to me, short changes any argument against abuse, unless you assume that some of the core entries in the PHB themselves are flawed, which I can't recall anyone ever claiming.

While I find the idea of "Bob, the guy who has a good outlook on life" is far more flavorless than "Bob, The Light of Pelor" or "Bob, who pays fealty to the spirits of his ancestors", I don't see any reason to force a player to a concept, necessarily, if he doesn't want one....unless it messes up some aspect of the DM's design.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Wulf has a pretty good point about the domains and Corellian.  It pretty much, to me, short changes any argument against abuse, unless you assume that some of the core entries in the PHB themselves are flawed, which I can't recall anyone ever claiming.




Yeah, pretty much that.


----------



## Rechan

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Yeah, pretty much that.



Hey, I'm not saying Corellan or Fharlanghn deserves to have the domain combos they do. I don't like the powerful domains paired up together, simple as that.


----------



## Kesh

Does this mean we can get away from the Cleric domains and back to what this thread is about: complaining about the wizard's implements?


----------



## jasin

Rechan said:
			
		

> Even if a player has a seven page backstory and his history is intimately tied to the setting, I'm still going to vehemently say no when he proposes that half-dragon gargoyle for a level 1 party.



That's not powergaming, that's simply going outside of parameters. Well outside.


----------



## Just Another User

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Spellcasting requires gestures and spoken words. It's impossible to disquise it unless you've been an idiot and invested in the three or four feats nessesary to do it. Using a special power does not. It simply follows as natural that most educated people will know these things, as they are natural and normal parts of their world.
> 
> Much like anyone with education will know that normally a fireball encompases roughly a 20' radius, or that clerics can see into men's souls to know who is wicked and who is truly righteous.




Quote (and read) all the message, please

How could they know he is not a paladin but a fighter /cleric ? Just because Paladins have i.e. Lay-on-hands? But how could they know that paladins have lay-on-hands?, all they know is that there are some holy warriors that have this special ability to heal with the touch of they hands and someone that need gestures and words to do the same, but  some Paladin variant don't have lay-on-hand, and it is probable that somewhere in some book there are ways to give clerics a lay-on-hand effect or something very similiar (even a metamagiked Silenced healing spell would do, in a pinch. So how they could know that he is not a paladin without seing his character sheet?


----------



## Merlion

Imaro said:
			
		

> Isn't that what ability increases and feats are for?  Basically if you spent your adventuring time honing your reflexes and getting better at dodging things...then you should raise your Dexterity, take Combat Reflexes, Dodge, etc.  Just because a characters a fighter doesn't mean he should automatically get better at dodging blows than a person with higher natural talent.






Thats what a class-based defense bonus...an AC version of BAB, should be for.


----------



## Merlion

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> Unless that defense bonus per level stacks with armor bonus, it would make armor useless in the game, like in SWSE.
> .





Thats one of many reasons why armor should be expressed as DR, not make you harder to "hit"


----------



## Merlion

Simplicity said:
			
		

> For the surreptitious caster, it really depends on how effective "still effective" is, doesn't it?






  From what they've said so far, it looks like spells cast without these objects will be exactly as effective as normal, and spells cast with them will be more effective than normal.


----------



## FireLance

Merlion said:
			
		

> From what they've said so far, it looks like spells cast without these objects will be exactly as effective as normal, and spells cast with them will be more effective than normal.



Until, of course, spells cast with the implements become the new "normal".


----------



## Arthnek

Yes I realize that wizards have used magic item / wands for a long time.

Yes I realize that wizards have had magic wands in literature for longer than Harry Potter although none of the wizards in the fantasy fiction i enjoy reading use anything as hokey as a magic wand.  Wands seem so completely presto the stage magician I've never even used them in my games.

What makes this smack of Harry Potter is that the post implies that Wizards function more effectively with a wand or some other object than without one.  Wizards leaning heavily on their wands is very much a Harry Potterism.

Having a wizard carry a magic wand as a simple magic item, a wand of magic missiles for example, seems to present a very different flavor from wizards leaning on these objects in order to cast spells effectively.

If the wizards can still cast just fine without them then great.  Then it won't matter one bit when I toss the entire magic wand stuff out the window.


----------



## Merlion

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Regardless of that, it does make precisely my point that the PHB says _specifically_ that a cleric can choose any two domains, and this core rule has to be revisited if the intent is to patch over it.
> 
> (It makes my point so precisely, frankly, I can't fathom why he thought he was rebutting it.)





  Because in some settings, like FR, the "just pick two domains" rule is overrulled. In the FR campaign setting it states that any divine spellcaster in that setting MUST have a patron deity to cast divine spells


----------



## Merlion

FireLance said:
			
		

> Until, of course, spells cast with the implements become the new "normal".





  I dont think that will be possible for all spells. Not even if a wizard has several implements. And there will most likely be degrees.

  My point is, some people think they will be required to cast spells as written. Nothing has indicated this. Just as how right now you can cast a spell without a Metamagic Rod, but its more powerful with it.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Arthnek said:
			
		

> What makes this smack of Harry Potter is that the post implies that Wizards function more effectively with a wand or some other object than without one.  Wizards leaning heavily on their wands is very much a Harry Potterism.




Not at all. There are _huge_ numbers of fantasy systems, to say nothing of various real-world magic beliefs throughout history, in which a caster is far more effective with implements than without them. (Heck, in some, a caster is _helpless_ without them.)

This is true even of Tolkien. While we're not given specifics (and while it's admittedly inconsistent), it's _heavily_ implied in _The Lord of the Rings_ that Gandalf is far more dangerous with his staff than without it.

Harry Potter may have focused more on wands _specifically_ than on other tools, but the notion of wizards needing _something_ akin to a wand or staff is about as old as the notion of magic itself.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Not at all. There are _huge_ numbers of fantasy systems, to say nothing of various real-world magic beliefs throughout history, in which a caster is far more effective with implements than without them. (Heck, in some, a caster is _helpless_ without them.)
> 
> This is true even of Tolkien. While we're not given specifics (and while it's admittedly inconsistent), it's _heavily_ implied in _The Lord of the Rings_ that Gandalf is far more dangerous with his staff than without it.
> 
> Harry Potter may have focused more on wands _specifically_ than on other tools, but the notion of wizards needing _something_ akin to a wand or staff is about as old as the notion of magic itself.



Quite right! Magical accoutrements have a long standing "source material" basis throughout many real-life and fictional fantasy magic systems.


----------



## Merlion

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Not at all. There are _huge_ numbers of fantasy systems, to say nothing of various real-world magic beliefs throughout history, in which a caster is far more effective with implements than without them. (Heck, in some, a caster is _helpless_ without them.)
> 
> This is true even of Tolkien. While we're not given specifics (and while it's admittedly inconsistent), it's _heavily_ implied in _The Lord of the Rings_ that Gandalf is far more dangerous with his staff than without it.
> 
> Harry Potter may have focused more on wands _specifically_ than on other tools, but the notion of wizards needing _something_ akin to a wand or staff is about as old as the notion of magic itself.





  And its important to remember that at this point, the implements are being presented as enhancements, not requirements like the Magister's Staff in AU.


----------



## Lurks-no-More

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Not at all. There are _huge_ numbers of fantasy systems, to say nothing of various real-world magic beliefs throughout history, in which a caster is far more effective with implements than without them. (Heck, in some, a caster is _helpless_ without them.)



The (A)D&D take of wands and staffs as "magical six-guns" doesn't really have much mythical or fictional background that I can recall. 

I'm hoping the tools of wizardry will replace material components (another D&Dism) for most spells; expensive and elaborate stuff for rituals, summonings and earth-shaking Spells of Doom are fine, but carrying around a bag filled with miscellanceous bric-a-brac for spellcasting isn't interesting.


----------



## Celebrim

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> The (A)D&D take of wands and staffs as "magical six-guns" doesn't really have much mythical or fictional background that I can recall.




I'm not sure that you'd be able to tell.

Was the wizard using a wand all the time because he couldn't use magic at will without it, or was the wizard using the wand all the time even though he could use magic at will without it but not as effectively?  Most fantasy texts aren't going to make explicit the difference between wand as spell battery for wizard's with limited spells per day, and wand as spell enhancer for wizard's with unlimited spells per day.

Either way, he still flicks the wand every round and something magical happens.  Whether the magic stuff is coming from an infusion of power he put in the wand previously or power he's channelling through it currently is mostly semantics.


----------



## Rechan

> What makes this smack of Harry Potter is that the post implies that Wizards function more effectively with a wand or some other object than without one. Wizards leaning heavily on their wands is very much a Harry Potterism.



I think you're just saying that because Harry Potter came before 4e. Yes, Potter did it, but it wasn't the first, nor the last, it's just _the most recent_ that you're familiar with.

I could accuse the Staff wizard of ripping off _The Dresden Files_, but that's ludicrous because clearly he got it from someone else (and he's less popular so it likely isn't the direct source). But the implements are very strongly present in The Dresden Files.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> I'm hoping the tools of wizardry will replace material components (another D&Dism) for most spells;



Material components are not a D&Dism. They are from the real-world tradition of sympathetic magic, filtered through depiction in the "Harold Shea" stories of Pratt & Camp ("The Roaring Trumpet," "The Mathematics of Magic," et al.).


----------



## Mercule

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Harry Potter may have focused more on wands _specifically_ than on other tools, but the notion of wizards needing _something_ akin to a wand or staff is about as old as the notion of magic itself.




Quite right.  We know about other schools in France and Hungary (IIRC).  Maybe one of them uses staves and the other uses orbs.


----------

