# More about wizards by kunadam



## Jonkymm (Dec 1, 2007)

Wizard
We know the wizard. Their focus is not more an evoker than anything else. They blast enemies while remaining in the back.
Spells are divided among at will (lesser power than a fighter’s melee attack), per encounter, per day (the really powerful stuffs, these are the most powerful abilities in the game) and rituals. Rituals cover magic item creation, and non-combat spell (divinations are prime examples).
Schools are dead, long live the implements: the orb, the staff and the wand (with others, such as the dagger, possible in later supplement). Staffs are for rays and cones, wands for long distance control, while orb stands for blasts, terrain control, and retributive and perception based effects.
Divinations, long range teleport, restorative effects (the cleric’s remove disease for example) are rituals.
Evocation and illusion is there and now they are the focus of wizardry.
Necromancy was nerfed mostly by removing save or die effects.
Transmutation was a haphazard pile of powers (according to them), and some part remains, other do not.
Echantment is nerfed to be saved for other classes (others they state that it will be the psi).
Wizards spell failure due to armor is gone (hurray!). Picking the right feats wizards can go around in heavy armor.
Feats don’t have class as a prerequisite. Race, level or skill training might be needed, but no class. You can steer your character wherever you want.
There are class training feats (Fighter training, Wizard training, Warlock training, etc.) that gives some power of that class to someone not in that class.

Power progression
There is 2 or so pages on tiers of power (heroic, paragon and epic). The important part is the paragon paths and epic destinies. They replace prestige classes. They are additional power/abilities, that you can choose once you hit 11th or 21st level. They are very much like prestige classes and battle captain, mystic theurge, weapon master, prince of knaves and cavalier are mentioned.
Epic destiny gives few but very powerful ability. Also it describes how you exit the world (seem like at level 30 you retire). You can become a demigod for example.
Epic level game is much about slaying gods and clearing the Nine Hell (I made the last up). In the cleric section they muse about gods being redesigned, and one of their goals is, that they can be challenged by epic level characters. I cannot say that I like it.


----------



## med stud (Dec 1, 2007)

That looks really nice.

What I liked most:
*The division of spells based on what they are used for (combat and non combat)
*Class training feats (at least the idea; if they aren't designed good I don't like them  )
*Wizards being able to cast in armor: Finally!
*The further division between the tiers. I think this sounds better and better the more I think about it.

What I think can be wonky:
*The implements. The estethics of a wizard switching between them might be a bit uncool.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Dec 1, 2007)

:\

...

:\

EDIT: This would be more accurate if smiley #2 was the other way.


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 1, 2007)

Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Wizard
> We know the wizard. Their focus is not more an evoker than anything else. They blast enemies while remaining in the back.
> Spells are divided among at will (lesser power than a fighter’s melee attack), per encounter, per day (the really powerful stuffs, these are the most powerful abilities in the game) and rituals. Rituals cover magic item creation, and non-combat spell (divinations are prime examples).
> Schools are dead, long live the implements: the orb, the staff and the wand (with others, such as the dagger, possible in later supplement). Staffs are for rays and cones, wands for long distance control, while orb stands for blasts, terrain control, and retributive and perception based effects.
> ...




Mixed bag....

I like the idea of rituals for divinations, magic item creation, and some healing spells.

I don't like the implements.

Meh on the other stuff.


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Dec 1, 2007)

Overall I like it a lot.  Splitting powers into combat powers and rituals seems to be what the designers were talking about when they said they were "siloing" powers.

I'm not sure how I feel about restricting the focus of Wizard powers.  On one hand, I like wizards to be potentially able to do anything, like a generic master of all powers.  On the other hand, it is nice to leave space for other magic-using classes to be specialized in.  I just hope that through multiclassing and class training feats its possible for a character

I wonder if those class training feats are the replacement for 3e-style multiclassing.  I hope they're very flexible: I would love to play a fighter or ranger who has access to wizard rituals.  I have always loved characters who are primarily fighters, but have non-combat magical powers.  Characters like Vlad Taltos and any number of Roger Zelazny characters.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Dec 1, 2007)

Ugh! The death of magic schools is the first major 4E crimp in my exisitng homebrew. I had a zodiac-like set of demigods, each representing one of the schools. Back to the drawing board on that one...

I do like implements though. And wizards in armor as an option (though not the standard). Curious about how rituals are different than normal spells.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Dec 1, 2007)

I dunno. I'm not opposed to alternatives to vancian magic or "tradition" D&D magic concepts (I love Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, for example), but this just doesn't look like "my" wizard, and I love playing wizards.

Still think I'll be sticking with 3.5.


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Dec 1, 2007)

I suspect that the coolness of implements will depend entirely on how they're used.  If all spells are divivided into staff spells, orb spells, etc., or the implement is required to cast the spell at all, that would be a bit dorky.  But if the implements are essentially feats or talents that give bonuses when casting certain spells, that wouldn't be a bad thing.

I'm curious how the rituals are going to be restricted.  Will they be usable per day, like some powers?  Will they be usable at will?  Perhaps some combination of the two.  I also wonder if all rituals have a significantly longer casting time, to fit the name.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Dec 1, 2007)

Rituals for what used to be adventure-breaking spells sounds like a good idea. Everything else has me shrugging my shoulders in indifference.

I really don't like the idea of even epic-level characters fighting gods. I'd prefer deities that are more mysterious, not known quantities that can be taken on in a fight. But perhaps this is the first step to bringing divine ascension back into the game as a post-30th level offering to adventurers.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 1, 2007)

Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Spells are divided among at will (lesser power than a fighter’s melee attack), per encounter, per day (the really powerful stuffs, these are the most powerful abilities in the game) and rituals.



Sounds good. It still preserves the flavour of spellcasters with a natural limit on magic, but without crippling the flow of play (I know that we knew that before, but since the at will-abilities are weaker than attacks and the per day-abilities are the most powerful stuff in game, we know that the focus is on the "limited magic"-idea, not on magic-all-the-time).



			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Rituals cover magic item creation, and non-combat spell (divinations are prime examples).



Good. That's good.


			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Schools are dead, long live the implements: the orb, the staff and the wand (with others, such as the dagger, possible in later supplement). Staffs are for rays and cones, wands for long distance control, while orb stands for blasts, terrain control, and retributive and perception based effects.



Sadly, this rather sounds like the original Wizard Implements article, pre-Golden Wyvern. I guess that distinction has been changed in the meantime to the traditions.


			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Divinations, long range teleport, restorative effects (the cleric’s remove disease for example) are rituals.



See above (i.e. good).


			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Evocation and illusion is there and now they are the focus of wizardry.



Strange, after hearing that Illusions are rather for illusionists. And evocation... was predictable.


			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Necromancy was nerfed mostly by removing save or die effects.



Well, I wouldn't say Necromancy consists of save-or-die, rather save-or-suck. Well, we'll see the results.


			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Transmutation was a haphazard pile of powers (according to them), and some part remains, other do not.



Oh yes! Transmutation WAS a mess - because - like Conjuration - it could do almost everything (apropos Conjuration... why isn't that mentioned).


			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Echantment is nerfed to be saved for other classes (others they state that it will be the psi).



I'm a bit sad to see the traditional mind mage/enchanter/enchantress/bewitching whatever gone... but I like the idea of thinking ahead and niche protection.


			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Wizards spell failure due to armor is gone (hurray!). Picking the right feats wizards can go around in heavy armor.



Yes. Yes. Yes.


			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Feats don’t have class as a prerequisite. Race, level or skill training might be needed, but no class. You can steer your character wherever you want.



That's nothing new, but it was one of the good part of the feats.


			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> There are class training feats (Fighter training, Wizard training, Warlock training, etc.) that gives some power of that class to someone not in that class.



Seems like the new multiclassing. Or (as I hope) a way to make multiclassing less painful. Definitively good.



			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Power progression
> There is 2 or so pages on tiers of power (heroic, paragon and epic). The important part is the paragon paths and epic destinies. They replace prestige classes. They are additional power/abilities, that you can choose once you hit 11th or 21st level. They are very much like prestige classes and battle captain, mystic theurge, weapon master, prince of knaves and cavalier are mentioned.



Nice idea... I hope for a good implementation, though I dislike the mentioning of a "mystic theurge" - that was a multiclassing-fix, not a true PrC. But the rest sounds good.


			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Epic destiny gives few but very powerful ability. Also it describes how you exit the world (seem like at level 30 you retire). You can become a demigod for example.



Interesting. Nice. And gives the high-powered-Exalted-players a place where they can play their D&D. It's as if they had invented E6 again... 


			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Epic level game is much about slaying gods and clearing the Nine Hell (I made the last up). In the cleric section they muse about gods being redesigned, and one of their goals is, that they can be challenged by epic level characters. I cannot say that I like it.



Well, I like it, because with this paradigm, DMs now know where to cut off the game to maintain their "fantasy", see the principles of E6.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Abstraction (Dec 1, 2007)

Atlatl Jones said:
			
		

> Overall I like it a lot.  Splitting powers into combat powers and rituals seems to be what the designers were talking about when they said they were "siloing" powers.
> 
> I'm not sure how I feel about restricting the focus of Wizard powers.  On one hand, I like wizards to be potentially able to do anything, like a generic master of all powers.  On the other hand, it is nice to leave space for other magic-using classes to be specialized in.  I just hope that through multiclassing and class training feats its possible for a character
> 
> I wonder if those class training feats are the replacement for 3e-style multiclassing.  I hope they're very flexible: I would love to play a fighter or ranger who has access to wizard rituals.  I have always loved characters who are primarily fighters, but have non-combat magical powers.  Characters like Vlad Taltos and any number of Roger Zelazny characters.




I agree in concept, but I have to argue with the comparison with Vlad. His witch abilities are, in D&D 4E terms, rituals. But he is also a sorceror and much of that is in-combat or at least quick. Do you remember when he summoned a second jhereg during a fight? I think he was breaking the rules.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 1, 2007)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Ugh! The death of magic schools is the first major 4E crimp in my exisitng homebrew. I had a zodiac-like set of demigods, each representing one of the schools. Back to the drawing board on that one...



Well... you could take the "Golden Wyvern"-approach and make specific spells with a certain style feat-assisted by some traditions/schools, no?

Cheers, LT.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Dec 1, 2007)

I'm glad to see schools dead--they were a bit of flavor that I don't think was able to bear the weight hung on them starting in 2E, and especially with 3E's focus on both balance and flexibility.  I think most of what the designers tried to do with them can be done with descriptors (for spells), and feats and class abilities (for specialist powers), with specialized caster classes for the stronger archetypes or the really focused sort.


----------



## jester47 (Dec 1, 2007)

I don't think enchantment should be nerfed for psi.
Psionics is a different way of delivering magic effects.  
I think it would be cool to see an enchanter and a psion fight over the will of a crowd.
Don't get that if all the best stuff is psi.


----------



## A'koss (Dec 1, 2007)

> Spells are divided among at will (lesser power than a fighter’s melee attack), per encounter, per day (the really powerful stuffs, these are the most powerful abilities in the game) and rituals. Rituals cover magic item creation, and non-combat spell (divinations are prime examples).



Though we essentially knew this already, I think this a very good way to go. I wonder now how they'll handle the spells a character knows. Will they all be available to a wizard or will they limit the number you can have access to at any one time (a la Bo9S)...



> Schools are dead, long live the implements: the orb, the staff and the wand (with others, such as the dagger, possible in later supplement). Staffs are for rays and cones, wands for long distance control, while orb stands for blasts, terrain control, and retributive and perception based effects.



I'm really on the fence with the idea of juggling various implements, though I am not sad to see the schools disappear. I know that they said that wizards don't actually _require_ implements in order to cast spells, but I image the penalty for not will be great enough to motivate you to have them at all times.



> Divinations, long range teleport, restorative effects (the cleric’s remove disease for example) are rituals.



I'm hoping that, by becoming rituals, divinations and teleport become far less a problem on a campaign level...



> Feats don’t have class as a prerequisite. Race, level or skill training might be needed, but no class. You can steer your character wherever you want.
> There are class training feats (Fighter training, Wizard training, Warlock training, etc.) that gives some power of that class to someone not in that class.



We know that multiclassing rules were in a serious state of flux not so long ago so this might not be what appears in the final version.



> The important part is the paragon paths and epic destinies. They replace prestige classes. They are additional power/abilities, that you can choose once you hit 11th or 21st level. They are very much like prestige classes and battle captain, mystic theurge, weapon master, prince of knaves and cavalier are mentioned.
> Epic destiny gives few but very powerful ability. Also it describes how you exit the world (seem like at level 30 you retire). You can become a demigod for example.



I'm pretty psyched about what they plan on doing here. Hopefully they'll toss us some tidbits here to see how this is being implemented.



> Epic level game is much about slaying gods and clearing the Nine Hell (I made the last up). In the cleric section they muse about gods being redesigned, and one of their goals is, that they can be challenged by epic level characters. I cannot say that I like it.



This on the other hand I'm not keen on. I'd rather they produce a new book on how to run godly characters who operate on another level from mortals and have their own challenges.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Dec 1, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Well... you could take the "Golden Wyvern"-approach and make specific spells with a certain style feat-assisted by some traditions/schools, no?



Perhaps. Still have to see what actually constitutes a "tradition". But from what we know right now they don't seem like fundamental distinctions in types of magic to me (and therefore ripe for personification in godlike entities) the way schools do.


----------



## Joh (Dec 1, 2007)

jester47 said:
			
		

> I don't think enchantment should be nerfed for psi.
> Psionics is a different way of delivering magic effects.
> I think it would be cool to see an enchanter and a psion fight over the will of a crowd.
> Don't get that if all the best stuff is psi.




Everything is shifting in 4e, and limiting what they are doing to what's been done is silly.

Psions as wizards with less salt, more pepper, is boring, in my honest opinion. This is a perfect chance for them to give Psionics a new feel. I personally think that ESP, Pyrokenesis, mind control and telepathy are much more fitting to the idea of a psion than summoning ectoplasmic goo to wash your bedding for you.


----------



## Wepwawet (Dec 1, 2007)

WOW!

Love it all!
Especially the rituals.
Always wanted to have players doing rituals in my game (which already happened, but the details where very difficult to work, and very expensive for the players.)


----------



## Gold Roger (Dec 1, 2007)

I like the stuff on wizards, especially focusing them on evocations and illusions.

The stuff on epic level is, well, I guess will not play much epic level anyway.


----------



## delericho (Dec 1, 2007)

I wonder how Paizo are going to react to the death of schools - their Pathfinder setting seems to make them quite important.

For the rest of it - I don't like the nerfing of Enchantment. I _really_ don't like the nerfing of Necromancy. I'm okay with Arcane Spell Failure going away, and don't mind the end of the schools as such, either. The movement of Divinations to ritual magic is a good thing.


----------



## med stud (Dec 1, 2007)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> I like the stuff on wizards, especially focusing them on evocations and illusions.
> 
> The stuff on epic level is, well, I guess will not play much epic level anyway.



Gold Rogers post made me think; I wonder if it's possible in 4e RAW to continue playing Heroic after level 10? If you limit the available feats to the heroic feats and do the same for talents (or what they are called in 4e), maybe you can keep the heroic "flavour" even beyond level 10.


----------



## Aage (Dec 1, 2007)

Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Wizard
> Spells are divided among at will (lesser power than a fighter’s melee attack), per encounter, per day (the really powerful stuffs, these are the most powerful abilities in the game) and rituals. Rituals cover magic item creation, and non-combat spell (divinations are prime examples).




Ugh :\ Does most powerful in game mean that they're stronger than the fighter's daily powers? If that is the case, this is the first thing I don't like :/


----------



## Irda Ranger (Dec 1, 2007)

Mostly sounds good, but I do NOT like that Enchanters have been removed entirely to leave space for Psionics.   I mean, I understand that a game with both Psions and Enchanters would see them step on each other's feet a lot, but I don't like psionics. My game will never have them, and I want my Enchanter.

At this time it is my fervent hope that WotC or some other publisher comes out with a good expansion book for Necromancers, Enchanters and Illusionists as Core, 30-levels classes on par with the "Wizard" (which is really an Evoker now).

And what did happen to Conjuration? Any mention at all?


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 1, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Mostly sounds good, but I do NOT like that Enchanters have been removed entirely to leave space for Psionics.   I mean, I understand that a game with both Psions and Enchanters would see them step on each other's feet a lot, but I don't like psionics. My game will never have them, and I want my Enchanter.
> 
> At this time it is my fervent hope that WotC or some other publisher comes out with a good expansion book for Necromancers, Enchanters and Illusionists as Core, 30-levels classes on par with the "Wizard" (which is really an Evoker now).
> 
> And what did happen to Conjuration? Any mention at all?




I doubt enchantment is being removed entirely, but the "good" stuff is saved for psions.

Wizard: I'll charm the guard and tell him we need to see the King.
Psion: Meh. I dominate him and force him to let us, then I wipe his memory of the event. 
Wizard: ....


----------



## DreamChaser (Dec 1, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> And what did happen to Conjuration? Any mention at all?







			
				kunadam the other day said:
			
		

> Summoning spells are removed along with alignment specific ones (at least for now).





the rest of the school has probably been absorbed into rituals (Planar Binding) and the general "evocations" (Creation subschool).

DC


----------



## Mostlyjoe (Dec 2, 2007)

To me my fellow Tank Mages! Hooooo!!!!


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 2, 2007)

Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Epic level game is much about slaying gods



I absolutely love this. Nothing is invincible. There is no infinite power in the D&D universe. Only large finite powers that can be defeated if you can somehow amass a greater power.

Very Moorcockian.


----------



## Masquerade (Dec 2, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I doubt enchantment is being removed entirely, but the "good" stuff is saved for psions.



As it should be. My biggest complaint with 3.5 psionics is that psionicists can't do anything that arcanists can't already do at the same level.


----------



## Traycor (Dec 2, 2007)

I love all of this. Even the wizard impliments is something that I've wanted for a long time. Unfortunately my fave wizard to play is an enchanter, but I think scaling back enchantment to make elbow room for the psion is a good design decision and will encourage more psionics play in the future while better defining that catagory of powers.

Woot for rituals!


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 2, 2007)

These changes may actually makes me want to have a wizard character now that they sound far more dynamic.


----------



## Traycor (Dec 2, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> And what did happen to Conjuration? Any mention at all?



In the Hungarian info released prior, it was stated that summoning and summoning tables were completely out for the time being. That means for clerics, druids, and wizards.

Conjurers were cool and all, but from a DM point of view... WOOT!!!


----------



## Abstraction (Dec 2, 2007)

There had better be some kind of enchanter arcanist class available later, because there is no way I am letting psionics into my game. My world does not need Jedis


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Dec 2, 2007)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> There had better be some kind of enchanter arcanist class available later, because there is no way I am letting psionics into my game. My world does not need Jedis




So cross out the word "psion" at the top of the character sheet and write in "enchanter."  Game on.


----------



## Victim (Dec 2, 2007)

Traycor said:
			
		

> In the Hungarian info released prior, it was stated that summoning and summoning tables were completely out for the time being. That means for clerics, druids, and wizards.
> 
> Conjurers were cool and all, but from a DM point of view... WOOT!!!




Summoning monsters was only a tiny fraction of Conjuration.  Conjuration had Grease, Web, Stinking Cloud, walls, etc.  Plus orbs and such, but those fall under blasting.


----------



## Gort (Dec 2, 2007)

Yeah, to be honest I always saw psionics as "mind control with extra bits to let them do stuff when the target doesn't have a mind", so making the psion be the main mind-control guy fits for me.

My real questions would be "how is the sorcerer going to be different from the warlock and wizard?"


----------



## Traycor (Dec 2, 2007)

Gort said:
			
		

> My real questions would be "how is the sorcerer going to be different from the warlock and wizard?"



I believe that some of the earlier Hungarian stuff suggested that the sorcerer would be closer to what a wild mage is... barely able to contain or control the primal forces of magic within them. I believe the example was given of sending out a wave of fire, but still having risidual flames wrapped around the sorcerer afterwards that would burn targets in melee.


----------



## danbuter1 (Dec 2, 2007)

In general, I like the entire post. I am kinda wary about the wand/staff/orb thing, depeding on how it is implemented. And wouldn't it make more sense for rays to be controlled by the wand instead of the orb?


----------



## Gloombunny (Dec 2, 2007)

Wait, who's kunadam?

I don't like the "making room for psionics" thing.  Having psionics that are separate from arcane magic is annoying enough when they're easily ignored.  Hopefully psions will be easy to reflavor as enchanters, and not weighted down with telekinesis and crap.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 2, 2007)

Atlatl Jones said:
			
		

> I suspect that the coolness of implements will depend entirely on how they're used.  If all spells are divivided into staff spells, orb spells, etc., or the implement is required to cast the spell at all, that would be a bit dorky.  But if the implements are essentially feats or talents that give bonuses when casting certain spells, that wouldn't be a bad thing.



I recall the wizard article saying that you can cast spells without the implements, but it's going to be less effective.


----------



## Voss (Dec 2, 2007)

Traycor said:
			
		

> In the Hungarian info released prior, it was stated that summoning and summoning tables were completely out for the time being. That means for clerics, druids, and wizards.
> 
> Conjurers were cool and all, but from a DM point of view... WOOT!!!




Except for warlocks, which the guy also posted.


----------



## DarkWhite (Dec 2, 2007)

I wonder if implements are a simplification/replacement of requiring material components, which most players ignored anyway.


----------



## WarlockLord (Dec 2, 2007)

I'm a psionics fan.  And I STILL hate the enchantment nerf, and the necromancy nerf.  So, no dark wizards?  And now they're all evokers.  

A ray of hope: the multiclassing rules.  My 3e generalist wizard might be able to use them to snatch cool stuff from other magic users and just call himself a "magus".  Still, turning all wizards into evokers rankles.  Evocation is probably the most boring of the wizard's powers.  I find summoning phantasmal terrors, domination, and finger of death to be far more interesting, awesome, and effective than "Me mage.  Me fireball".

The implements are good.  Long time needed.

As for god-slaying...it's fun.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Dec 2, 2007)

Hella_Tellah said:
			
		

> So cross out the word "psion" at the top of the character sheet and write in "enchanter."  Game on.



Assuming it's that easy. I doubt it will be.  Since Psions are going to have an explicitly new power source (Psi, not Arcane), I bet there will be all new mechanics, Feats, etc.

I don't want a re-labeled Psion.  I want an Arcane Enchanter.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Dec 2, 2007)

They've got a long way to go to win me over with regards to undercutting transmutation in the general wizard.

A very, very, Sisyphean long way.

:\


----------



## Rechan (Dec 2, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I don't want a re-labeled Psion.  I want an Arcane Enchanter.



I am absolutely certain that some 3rd party will put a book out with an Enchanter in it. Paizo or Necromancer or someone.

I like that Necromancy is getting its own class. As someone who's about to play a beguiler, a class _structured_ around a certain "school" or spell theme is better than a specialty wizard. I wish Transmutation had gotten its own little class, like the Warmage/Dread Necro/Beguiler did.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 2, 2007)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> I'm a psionics fan.  And I STILL hate the enchantment nerf, and the necromancy nerf.  So, no dark wizards?  And now they're all evokers.



Yeah, that's stuff I miss. But for enchantment: I'd rather see niche protection for psionics than batman-wizards. For the evocation thing... yeah, that's a bummer. I'm going to miss transmutation... but then, I'd rather see a solid 4E framework (even with evocation as focus) than the batman-wizard again.

Why? Because it's probably easier to re-batman the wizard than to do the reverse. Sufficient splats will do the job. Splats or 3rd party or homebrew. I'm sure we'll see a bunch of 3.5 spells as 4E powers from homebrew.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Valiantheart (Dec 2, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I recall the wizard article saying that you can cast spells without the implements, but it's going to be less effective.




Easy enough to fix:

If the Wizard has his 'material components' on his person he doesnt have to fiddle with the 15 implements and has the highest bonus they normally grant.  Remove his 'material components' and he casts normally.


----------



## Stogoe (Dec 2, 2007)

I hope the Wizard will have to choose Staff, Wand, or Orb at the outset, much like the Fighter will have to choose THF or 1H/Shield.

That is, his chosen implement makes him better in the things he wants to do anyways, and the other things are there, but not as powerful as a specialist.  You'll get your one implement, and you won't get any bonuses for waving around the ones you didn't choose.



			
				WarlockLord said:
			
		

> I find summoning phantasmal terrors, domination, and finger of death to be far more interesting, awesome, and effective than "Me mage. Me fireball".



Well, we've heard recently that Warlocks have some summoning, so there's that.

Honestly, I'm looking forward to spellcasters that aren't just a blinking Win button.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 2, 2007)

Valiantheart said:
			
		

> Easy enough to fix:
> 
> If the Wizard has his 'material components' on his person he doesnt have to fiddle with the 15 implements and has the highest bonus they normally grant.  Remove his 'material components' and he casts normally.



My thinking is that the wizard won't be juggling his foci so much as he'll specialize in one. He's a Staff wizard who sometime uses the orb, or an Orb wizard who sometimes uses his wand, but he's not carrying all three onto the battlefield.

Before they edited the Wizard article, they had four implements, and the impression I got was that a wizard focused on a Major and Minor implement. Which would've been cool, IMHO.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 2, 2007)

Stogoe said:
			
		

> Honestly, I'm looking forward to spellcasters that aren't just a blinking Win button.



I'm looking for spellcasters that don't wake up one day a summoner, the next day casting all illusions, and the next casting all blasting. I understand the desire to be a generalist, but being a generalist doesn't mean you should be able to do a little of _everything_. 

Like what they said in the last podcast, the problem is that the Wizard is supposed to be able to do _everything_, and so it ties their hands when they're trying to carve out his niche in the game.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Dec 2, 2007)

Aage said:
			
		

> Ugh :\ Does most powerful in game mean that they're stronger than the fighter's daily powers? If that is the case, this is the first thing I don't like :/




Nah, sounds balanceable to me. Remember, the wizard "at will" powers are weaker than the fighters' (normal attacks being a fighter's "at-will" ability), and it may well be that the fighter "per day" stuff is more along the lines of the barbarian's Rage - synergistic effects rather than powerful one-hit abilities.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 2, 2007)

> Ugh Does most powerful in game mean that they're stronger than the fighter's daily powers? If that is the case, this is the first thing I don't like :/




Here's an example of a per-day ability of the wizard:


> On my next round I saw several bad guys lined up in a row, so Karhun dashed a few squares over and used another wizard ability—my once-per-day scorch, a powerful fire attack. Karhun blasted two mummies and a hapless vampire minion for a pile of fire damage.



What the article meant by a wizard's at will power being on par with a fighter's attack means that 'a wizard's at-will ability will be on par with a fighter swinging his sword'. Sort've like how a warlock's Eldrich Blast is on par with a fighter's sword swinging. 

A wizard's per day ability is going ot be on par with a fighter's - the per day ability is meant to be straight up Spells as we know them.


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 2, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I absolutely love this. Nothing is invincible. There is no infinite power in the D&D universe. Only large finite powers that can be defeated if you can somehow amass a greater power.
> 
> Very Moorcockian.




Very Stephen Erikson (Malazan) as well.  I'm on the fence about it.  Not keen on PCs killing gods.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 2, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I'm looking for spellcasters that don't wake up one day a summoner, the next day casting all illusions, and the next casting all blasting. I understand the desire to be a generalist, but being a generalist doesn't mean you should be able to do a little of _everything_.
> 
> Like what they said in the last podcast, the problem is that the Wizard is supposed to be able to do _everything_, and so it ties their hands when they're trying to carve out his niche in the game.




The one suggestion I haven't heard on these boards is whether the new wizard might end up looking more like the the Shadowcaster from the Tome of Magic.  You know...you get certain "slots" as a character.  You can spread them out into a whole whack of different abilities, or focus those "slots" onto a specific, limited set of abilities, which in turn means you're more focused, with less flexibility, but the things you can do are more powerful.  This could work with those traditions, for instance.  And could fit with the whole idea of per day, per encounter abilities, etc.

Still really unsure about it though.  I don't like *at all* that a wizard is starting to become basically an evoker/illusionist.  I can understand that it's probably inspired by the Mage class from WoW, but I really didn't like that kind of limited magic-user there either.  Did it ever get boring after a short while!

Hopefully stuff like Stoneskin, Grease, Web, Scry, Contingency, Polymorph, Time Stop, Mending, Telekinesis etc. haven't all be excised from the game...

Banshee


----------



## Rechan (Dec 2, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Still really unsure about it though.  I don't like *at all* that a wizard is starting to become basically an evoker/illusionist.



They can do divinations and such with rituals, from the sounds of it. 

Also, they're not JUST blasting. They'll be doing buffing, and the Orb sounds like it does a lot of conjuration (Walls, fogs, grease, etc; effecting large areas without specifically doing damage).


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 2, 2007)

Aage said:
			
		

> Ugh :\ Does most powerful in game mean that they're stronger than the fighter's daily powers? If that is the case, this is the first thing I don't like :/



It probably means that spells are more powerful than a fighter's per-day ability - but I think that's pretty important. If a wizard's per-day ability would be as powerful as a fighter's per-day ability... then the wizard would rather be a fighter-sans-flavour.

It's the wizard's shtick to be focused on powerful, reality-bending effects. In contrast, they have weaker at-will stuff and will probably be wimpy and hardly armoured (without the right feats).

It sounds right that the wizard has the most powerful abilities (albeit very limited) - as long as they are not _game-breaking as now_.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Geoffrey (Dec 2, 2007)

Not only is slaying gods Moorcockian, but so is "Wizards spell failure due to armor is gone (hurray!). Picking the right feats wizards can go around in heavy armor" (think Elric).

I'm all in favor of slaying gods. 

I'm all in favor of wizards in armor. 

It's very UN-Moorcockian, though, to essentially strip out all the spells that summon extra-planar beings.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 2, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> It probably means that spells are more powerful than a fighter's per-day ability - but I think that's pretty important. If a wizard's per-day ability would be as powerful as a fighter's per-day ability... then the wizard would rather be a fighter-sans-flavour.



More like a fighter's per day ability was bumped up to be on par with a wizard's. 



> It's the wizard's shtick to be focused on powerful, reality-bending effects.



Reality bending? Like what?

Seriously, wizards are great at blowing stuff up, but when it comes down to bending reality over and spanking it, no body seems to do it.

I consider Reality Bending like, say, "I cast a spell. It's now sunup."


----------



## Gloombunny (Dec 2, 2007)

It would be pretty weird of WotC to declare that wizards are controllers and then take away all the battlefield-control spells like grease, web, stinking cloud, black tentacles, wall of stone, acid fog, etc...  so I think conjuration other than summons is pretty safe.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 2, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> It would be pretty weird of WotC to declare that wizards are controllers and then take away all the battlefield-control spells like grease, web, stinking cloud, black tentacles, wall of stone, acid fog, etc...  so I think conjuration other than summons is pretty safe.



They said *summoning*. As in 'Summon X'. They didn't say Conjuration. 

I am certain that there will be stinking cloud, web, etc as Orb-specific powers.


----------



## Gloombunny (Dec 2, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> They said *summoning*. As in 'Summon X'. They didn't say Conjuration.
> 
> I am certain that there will be stinking cloud, web, etc as Orb-specific powers.



That's... exactly what I was saying.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Dec 2, 2007)

I wouldn't be sad if Grease left -- it's a little too slapstick, IMO.


----------



## Victim (Dec 2, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I'm looking for spellcasters that don't wake up one day a summoner, the next day casting all illusions, and the next casting all blasting. I understand the desire to be a generalist, but being a generalist doesn't mean you should be able to do a little of _everything_.
> 
> Like what they said in the last podcast, the problem is that the Wizard is supposed to be able to do _everything_, and so it ties their hands when they're trying to carve out his niche in the game.




Yeah.  I like the versatility of wizards, but I can agree that it causes problems when the character can massively retool her abilities on a day to day basis.  It can be very easy and rewarding to violate concept - even barred schools aren't that much of a problem, especially with lots of extra spells from supplements or UMD.  

And the flexibility also makes it 'okay' for some types of wizards to really suck.  Necromancers in DnD aren't so good at the whole raising the undead thing, although the school does pack some great debuffs (easily used by non necromancers).  Non necromancy spells likely form the bulk of the character's abilities and generalist wizards aren't so far behind at using necromancy spells.  The quality of being a necromancer (or pretty much any specialty) is seconded to the overall quality of being a wizard.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Dec 2, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I doubt enchantment is being removed entirely, but the "good" stuff is saved for psions.
> 
> Wizard: I'll charm the guard and tell him we need to see the King.
> Psion: Meh. I dominate him and force him to let us, then I wipe his memory of the event.
> Wizard: ....




This, sir, is perfection.

I'm really liking what I'm hearing so far, but I'll be very interested to see if the book gives any hint that the wizard will be getting flavor to match the new structure.

What I'm thinking is that the wizard will be the quintessential arcane pragmatist: a versatile problem solver with a lot of power who isn't really going to bother with the ultimate enchanter technique when a creative use of a simple charm will do just as well.

I think it also does a lot to make them feel like adventurers where before they always struck me as the sort of academics who were too eccentric to stay in the academy and got helplessly cycled out into the real world whether they willed it or not.


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 2, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> They said *summoning*. As in 'Summon X'. They didn't say Conjuration.
> 
> I am certain that there will be stinking cloud, web, etc as Orb-specific powers.




Actually, didn't they say summoning was gone for *clerics*?


----------



## ForceUser (Dec 2, 2007)

Mostlyjoe said:
			
		

> To me my fellow Tank Mages! Hooooo!!!!



hee hee


----------



## pogre (Dec 2, 2007)

I'm not big on psions having a primary niche. Hopefully I can just relabel them as suggested above.

The rituals could certainly make Dming a lot easier - I hope most of the challenging spells (think adventure busters) become rituals.

I know I'm in the minority on this one, but I would like to see invisibility and flying go to a much higher level too.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 2, 2007)

So, I'm a little surprised no one has mention the Bard yet. I know that the posting suggests psionics taking enchantment, and maybe the Bard will have Psi as a source, though I hope not.  

One of the Bard's biggest problems is that it was supposed to be more on the passive offense side of things, and enchantment fits that.  If you wanted to be an enchanter, it was often more effective to be a Wiz/Sor to have a little more offensive clout and flexibility than to buff (passive defense), but be so diffuse in ability like the Bard.  I know Bard has been talked about as an Arcane Leader, but enchantment (and enchantment spells) fits the concept of the Bard almost perfectly.

So, while I expect that Bards will end up being enchanters, I sincerely hope they stay Arcane rather than Psionic.  I can see them fitting into both roles though.


----------



## Andor (Dec 2, 2007)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> *One of the Bard's biggest problems is that it was supposed to be more on the passive offense side of things*




I read that as "Bards are supposed to be passive-offensive" and it cracked me up.


----------



## Imp (Dec 2, 2007)

I could see bards being good at mass enchantment effects, emotional manipulation, etc. while psions do the really deep stuff, the I-will-control-you and make-you-have-no-memory-of-what-you-did type of powers, but not really as much being able to move the crowd.  Wizards still should be able to pull off charms, holds, suggestions of some sort, I think... it's not like their enchantment repertoire in core 3e is all that expansive anyway.  I still really think they should have summoning abilities, though perhaps limited somehow, because it seems a huge part of being an arcane controller – I hope people are right about summoning just getting kicked away from the clerics.  That's fine with me.

_Grease_ is a pretty silly spell.  Maybe some movement-limiting arcane bog/quicksand would be a better idea, and more wizard-like as well.

I like the distinction between spells and rituals.  I always wanted to implement incantations in 3e.


----------



## Aage (Dec 2, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> It probably means that spells are more powerful than a fighter's per-day ability - but I think that's pretty important. If a wizard's per-day ability would be as powerful as a fighter's per-day ability... then the wizard would rather be a fighter-sans-flavour.
> 
> It's the wizard's shtick to be focused on powerful, reality-bending effects. In contrast, they have weaker at-will stuff and will probably be wimpy and hardly armoured (without the right feats).
> 
> ...




I'm really hoping you're wrong here. I for one want fighter daily = wizard daily. If the multiclassing works by picking up powers from other classes this is needed, actually...

Anyway, I thought about those rituals; could the cleric get something similar (I'm thinking miracles )


----------



## Imban (Dec 2, 2007)

Well, they've already said that their intent is for Wizard at-will to be be less useful than Fighter at-will abilities. Since daily abilities aren't nearly the whole of one's arsenal anymore, this is pretty fair in most cases.

(Exceptions being, I guess, if you only have one short fight a day ever.)


----------



## resistor (Dec 2, 2007)

Interesting.  I like most of it, though there are a few parts I disagree with:

- I'm not a fan of having a separate class for necromancy.  Wizards are wizards to me.
- I think I'd switch the associations of wand and staff, just based on my personal tastes.


----------



## KingCrab (Dec 2, 2007)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Ugh! The death of magic schools is the first major 4E crimp in my exisitng homebrew. I had a zodiac-like set of demigods, each representing one of the schools. Back to the drawing board on that one...




I like your pantheon idea.  Wish I had thought of it myself.


----------



## KingCrab (Dec 2, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> I read that as "Bards are supposed to be passive-offensive" and it cracked me up.




Could they be passive agressive?  They could sign criticisms about their compainions in their bardic music.


----------



## Sammael (Dec 2, 2007)

I think this is the first (out of many to come) problems caused by the fact that _Races & Classes_ was written while the _major_ rules were still being worked on.

Mearls said a while ago (but after GenCon) that wizards schools are still present in 4E. I'll believe him over _Races & Classes_ any day.


----------



## erf_beto (Dec 2, 2007)

Hmmm... "dagger" as a possible implement for future releases? Fantastic! This probably means the _staff/orb/wand_ triad isn't set in stone. And we'll see _tome _ again. Sweet.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 2, 2007)

Jonkymm said:
			
		

> There is 2 or so pages on tiers of power (heroic, paragon and epic). The important part is the paragon paths and epic destinies. They replace prestige classes. They are additional power/abilities, that you can choose once you hit 11th or 21st level. They are very much like prestige classes and battle captain, mystic theurge, weapon master, prince of knaves and cavalier are mentioned.






My favorite Prestige Classes were the 5-level ones you could take at 6th level. I don't think I ever played above level 13 in 20 years of D&D, my campaigns (and the ones I played in) never lasted that long.


----------



## JosephK (Dec 2, 2007)

I really like the idea of implements. Except the effing' wand... I loathe the wand. Yeah, I know it's a bit juvenile, but it's just too 'harry' for me. Fireballum mortum! *ZAAAAAP*, nix the wand, gief tome plz!

I really hope warlock will be able to summon stuff, if it's gone from wizards.. Even though it's extremely time consuming (with multiple critters all rolling attacks, grapples, saves, aoos and so forth), I *really* loved playing a character specialized in summoning stuff (Giant crocodile, I choose you!).

Rituals sounds cool. 

As far as enchantment going out, I dunno.. I think think that the wizardly stunningly beautiful enchantress ('All shall love me and despair!') is a fairly 'iconic' role, a shame to see it go. 

I really hope they take a big hint from mindscape and once they publish psions, finally do the psionic combat stuff right


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 2, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I consider Reality Bending like, say, "I cast a spell. It's now sunup."



For me, as physics-nerd and student, violating the conservation of mass and energy is reality-bending, so producing a _web_ out of thin air is pretty rad for my standards! 


			
				Aage said:
			
		

> I'm really hoping you're wrong here. I for one want fighter daily = wizard daily. If the multiclassing works by picking up powers from other classes this is needed, actually...



Well, if fighter daily = wizard daily... then why should the wizard at will =/= fighter at will?

My point is NOT that wizards are more powerful in overall game balance (the average over 4-5 encounters should be the same), but I like that wizards have a focus on their daily powers, while the fighters probably focus more on their at will abilities - this will give the classes a different way of tactics. Otherwise, the wizard would be a fighter in all but name.

I do NOT want a more powerful wizard, just a slight shift of their category they're best in. I'd say rogues and rangers could be best at per-encounter stuff, for example, so every class has some focus where they can shine.

Unless they're so disparate that you'll get the five-minute work day again. THEN something is wrong.

I hope you can understand (even if you do not share my opinion) my point of view.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 2, 2007)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> My point is NOT that wizards are more powerful in overall game balance (the average over 4-5 encounters should be the same), but I like that wizards have a focus on their daily powers, while the fighters probably focus more on their at will abilities - this will give the classes a different way of tactics. Otherwise, the wizard would be a fighter in all but name.



My thinking is that it's weaker because it's an area affect ability the wizard can do all day long. And, well, that's more potent than a fighter swinging his sword against one enemy.


----------



## NexH (Dec 2, 2007)

Im either very enthusiastic about the mentioned features or expectantly neutral, so I can hazard to guess that I'm going to like 4th Edition very much.



			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Spells are divided among at will (lesser power than a fighter’s melee attack), per encounter, per day (the really powerful stuffs, these are the most powerful abilities in the game) and rituals.




Good.



			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Rituals cover magic item creation, and non-combat spell (divinations are prime examples).




This has the potential to be very interesting.



			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Divinations, long range teleport, restorative effects (the cleric’s remove disease for example) are rituals.




In my opinion, a significant improvement both mechanically and in flavour.



			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Necromancy was nerfed mostly by removing save or die effects.




I like that the removal of "save or die" effects will lead to more balanced (with less randomness in their outcome) combats. I don't believe that a conclusion can be made yet about the effectiveness of necromancy without them.



			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Echantment is nerfed to be saved for other classes (others they state that it will be the psi).




Surely enchanters will be viable, but their focus and feel will be different from that of psions.
On another note, I'm very impressed that they are planning ahead this kind of things. Overall, I like a lot how they are designing classes, monsters, and etcetera so that they have a clearly defined role and feel.



			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Epic destiny gives few but very powerful ability. Also it describes how you exit the world (seem like at level 30 you retire). You can become a demigod for example.
> Epic level game is much about slaying gods and clearing the Nine Hell (I made the last up). In the cleric section they muse about gods being redesigned, and one of their goals is, that they can be challenged by epic level characters. I cannot say that I like it.




While I prefer, for many reasons, "beatable" gods over their current status, I hope that greater gods will remain well beyond the reach of most 30 level parties.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 2, 2007)

Now I like the way 4E is going, BUT, the following text kinda does sound like doubletalk...


> Their focus is not more an evoker than anything else. They blast enemies while remaining in the back



Anyody else reading the way i am.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 2, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Now I like the way 4E is going, BUT, the following text kinda does sound like doubletalk...
> Anyody else reading the way i am.



 I think there's a typo in there.

Here's what I think it should read:



> Their focus is *now* more an evoker than anything else. They blast enemies while remaining in the back.




Meaning the wizard is the blaster type. Subtle magic will go to other classes (such as Enchantment powers being the province of psionics).


----------



## Voss (Dec 2, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> My thinking is that it's weaker because it's an area affect ability the wizard can do all day long. And, well, that's more potent than a fighter swinging his sword against one enemy.




Not necessarily.  For one thing, the only at will ability we've seen from a wizard is that staff strike thing, which while it hit multiple wolves at one point, required the wizard to essentially be in melee.  Traditionally, that isn't a good place for a wizard to be.

Second, it depends on a real comparison between those abilities.  If the fighter averages 10 points with his weapon, and the wizard has an AoE that does 5 points to 2 critters, it isn't really more potent.  In fact, the fighter option would be better, since he'll drop his opponent twice as fast, and will therefor have fewer attacks coming at him later.  All purely hypothetical,  of course, we really have to see what these abilities look like.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 2, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Meaning the wizard is the blaster type. Subtle magic will go to other classes (such as Enchantment powers being the province of psionics).



If that's true... and that's their idea of controller... then there will be major teeth-gnashing from me.

Because the warlock (as a striker) should have the blast-'em-up shtick. And wizards are... more subtle in their approach, at least for me.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Smerg (Dec 2, 2007)

jester47 said:
			
		

> I don't think enchantment should be nerfed for psi.
> Psionics is a different way of delivering magic effects.
> I think it would be cool to see an enchanter and a psion fight over the will of a crowd.
> Don't get that if all the best stuff is psi.




Remember to drop the 3e mindset.

3e and previous editions had magic using Vancian style casting.  Psi was different to magic because it was a spell point/power point system.

With the end of Vancian system and the movment to a unified slot system with riders; do you think that the Spell Point/Power Point system will still be in 4e?

My guess is that Psi, Arcane, and Divine will look remarkably similar when stacked up against each other with some differances in areas of effect, access to certain powers, and which domain belongs to whom.

I do not see a seperate power point system returning for psi in 4e if all of the other three power sources are going to be a slot based system.


----------



## DarthDiablo (Dec 2, 2007)

JosephK said:
			
		

> I really like the idea of implements. Except the effing' wand... I loathe the wand. Yeah, I know it's a bit juvenile, but it's just too 'harry' for me. Fireballum mortum! *ZAAAAAP*, nix the wand, gief tome plz!
> 
> I really hope warlock will be able to summon stuff, if it's gone from wizards.. Even though it's extremely time consuming (with multiple critters all rolling attacks, grapples, saves, aoos and so forth), I *really* loved playing a character specialized in summoning stuff (Giant crocodile, I choose you!).
> 
> ...




     As far as the implements go, I'm sure there will be feats/rules that allow you to use your Staff to do wand/orb tricks or vice-versa.  I'm thinking the designers may have been influnced by Potter's wand & Gandalf's staff for the whole implement thing.  The crystal ball (orb) is also a popular theme.  After all they did say wizards could still cast these spells, but they are just weaker without the implements, which I like because it gives more reason for the wizard to carry a staff than it's a simple weapon and he doesn't want to multi-class of use a feat for a better one.

     I hope they will make some magic-specific classes like the Illusionist, Necromancer Enchanter, or Summoner.  These are iconic mages that appear in a variety of fantasy stories.  I think they can make an enchantress type once the Psi rules come out.  Just modify the Psion a bit and change the power source from Psi to Arcane.  Of course all of this will remain to be seen but I'm, optimistic.

     Overall I like the changes to wizards.  I liked the specialty schools when 2E came out, but for 3E/3.5 it wasn't the same.  Especially with PrC's like Dread Necromancer/True Necromancer etc.  That really made a Necromancy Specialist look weak.  With 4E they can just make a whole new base class and give them cool abilities which could be unique to that class.  Thus the Necromancer could do things at will or per encounter that the wizard might only be able to do once per day (or not at all!), like control or create lesser undead (maybe a bad idea for balance, but just throwing something out there), or resistances to negative energy, ability damage or whatever they come up with for 4E.  This would still give the wizard some versitility, but would make him pale in that specific area compared to the new base class specialist.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Dec 2, 2007)

Exactly, Smerg. I'd rather see similar mechanics for completely different end effects and types of magic by class than completely different mechanics to do pretty much the same thing as another class.


----------



## DarthDiablo (Dec 2, 2007)

NexH said:
			
		

> While I prefer, for many reasons, "beatable" gods over their current status, I hope that greater gods will remain well beyond the reach of most 30 level parties.




If you don't want PC's to fight your Gods make the Dieties stronger, or non-accessable, like Ebberon's pantheon.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 2, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> Not necessarily.  For one thing, the only at will ability we've seen from a wizard is that staff strike thing, which while it hit multiple wolves at one point, required the wizard to essentially be in melee.  Traditionally, that isn't a good place for a wizard to be.



Pretty sure that the arcane strike is going to be a cone that originates from the wizard's staff. That's my guess.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 2, 2007)

DarthDiablo said:
			
		

> As far as the implements go, I'm sure there will be feats/rules that allow you to use your Staff to do wand/orb tricks or vice-versa.  I'm thinking the designers may have been influnced by Potter's wand & Gandalf's staff for the whole implement thing.  The crystal ball (orb) is also a popular theme.  After all they did say wizards could still cast these spells, but they are just weaker without the implements, which I like because it gives more reason for the wizard to carry a staff than it's a simple weapon and he doesn't want to multi-class of use a feat for a better one.




Also, as I pointed out in a wizard-related thread some time ago, it appears as though the wizard's "wizard strike" will be conditioned by the implement used.  The staff allowed the wizard in the playtest to move opponents around with her strike.  Perhaps if you have a wand you do the same damage but add a different "special effect," a confusion effect, perhaps.  Or you set the enemy on fire.  Or whatever.  



> I hope they will make some magic-specific classes like the Illusionist, Necromancer Enchanter, or Summoner.



I think we have been promised at least some of these already.  Illusionists are apparently in the design queue.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 2, 2007)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be sad if Grease left -- it's a little too slapstick, IMO.



...says the guy whose avatar is getting hit in the face with a fish.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 2, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Also, as I pointed out in a wizard-related thread some time ago, it appears as though the wizard's "wizard strike" will be conditioned by the implement used.  The staff allowed the wizard in the playtest to move opponents around with her strike.  Perhaps if you have a wand you do the same damage but add a different "special effect," a confusion effect, perhaps.  Or you set the enemy on fire.  Or whatever.



That would make me squee with joy.


----------



## Li Shenron (Dec 2, 2007)

(comments before reading the other replies)



			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Wizard
> We know the wizard. Their focus is not more an evoker than anything else. They blast enemies while remaining in the back.




Sounds restrictive, but as long as it's their "focus" and not the only thing they can do, this can be fine.



			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Rituals cover magic item creation, and non-combat spell (divinations are prime examples).




This is interesting indeed. I love spells with long casting time. I NEVER house ruled _Identify_ to be quicker than it was in 3.0 (I actually think that 4e will have an immediate way to identify magic items, but this is just an example). It's nice also if magic item creation is defined in a more interesting way than before, but I'm worried it will be shortened to 1 day.



			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Schools are dead, long live the implements: the orb, the staff and the wand (with others, such as the dagger, possible in later supplement). Staffs are for rays and cones, wands for long distance control, while orb stands for blasts, terrain control, and retributive and perception based effects.




No major problem with schools gone. At least, it means that one of the thing that bothered me (forbidden schools for specialists) are gone as well. 

The implements, I don't like... because I do like having orbs and staffs and wands, but not the idea that they are shoehorned to a narrow set of effects.



			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Divinations, long range teleport, restorative effects (the cleric’s remove disease for example) are rituals.




This sounds great. At least rituals are probably impossible to run in combat. Now the big question is... can you cast a ritual anytime during a day, or does it require MORE days? I suspect the latter option would be unpopular, but it may help to lessen the problems with teleportation and strong divinations, and why not even resurrections!



			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Evocation and illusion is there and now they are the focus of wizardry.




Fine, as long as "focus" doesn't become "the only thing they can do decently enough".



			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Necromancy was nerfed mostly by removing save or die effects.




I like save-or-die. However I use necromancy typically for evil NPCs, and I'm not a fan of having it used by good PCs. My guess is that it will be largely more supported in later products, which makes it more for NPCs.



			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Transmutation was a haphazard pile of powers (according to them), and some part remains, other do not.




Yeah, we know they're talking about shapechanging. Not having polymorph in a game which is a lot about magic, is a big thumb down for me. I swear I prefer to have problematic rules for it rather than not have rules at all! There are hundreds of way to properly house rule polymorph for those DMs who are not satisfied, but bringing it back into the game will be much harder.



			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Echantment is nerfed to be saved for other classes (others they state that it will be the psi).




That idea I do not like. There is no need for a separate class, and I'm a fan of the idea of playing core only. I am also a fan of few classes with lots of options (fighters that can be tanks, swashbuckler or archers) rather than many narrow classes. They might have in mind a Necromancer, Beguiler etc.



			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Wizards spell failure due to armor is gone (hurray!). Picking the right feats wizards can go around in heavy armor.




3rd party books had many ways of doing this via feats. I like the option of a wizard to wear armor. Of course, it must not be a no-brainer advantage...



			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Feats don’t have class as a prerequisite. Race, level or skill training might be needed, but no class. You can steer your character wherever you want.




Basically same as before.



			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> There are class training feats (Fighter training, Wizard training, Warlock training, etc.) that gives some power of that class to someone not in that class.




Ok, this is the new multiclassing rules. Interesting take. Generally speaking, I don't care much for multiclassing, so I'm neither excited nor disappointed. Let's see what the consequences will be.



			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Power progression
> There is 2 or so pages on tiers of power (heroic, paragon and epic). The important part is the paragon paths and epic destinies. They replace prestige classes. They are additional power/abilities, that you can choose once you hit 11th or 21st level. They are very much like prestige classes and battle captain, mystic theurge, weapon master, prince of knaves and cavalier are mentioned.




Sounds ok.



			
				Jonkymm said:
			
		

> Epic destiny gives few but very powerful ability. Also it describes how you exit the world (seem like at level 30 you retire). You can become a demigod for example.
> Epic level game is much about slaying gods and clearing the Nine Hell (I made the last up). In the cleric section they muse about gods being redesigned, and one of their goals is, that they can be challenged by epic level characters. I cannot say that I like it.




I like the idea of having an end for the game, so that at some point you just have to stop. 

I don't like PCs to challenge the gods, but of course no one is going to force me to use those 25th level gods they will write up   They will only be avatars for me even in the best case.


----------



## NexH (Dec 2, 2007)

DarthDiablo said:
			
		

> If you don't want PC's to fight your Gods make the Dieties stronger, or non-accessable, like Ebberon's pantheon.




I shall explain my position:

If I have read it correctly, the text seems to mention that a possible path of advancement for 30th level PCs is to become demigods. That seems to imply that an average 30th level PC has about the same power level as a standard demigod, or less. But it seems to me that 4-6 demigods shouldn't be too hard for a greater god to defeat.
Also, on a more gamist and perhaps absurd perspective, I want there to be the possibility of adventures beyond level 30; but if you can defeat greater gods at level 30, ¿how many meaningful adversaries could remain to fight?

To clarify and summarize: I am not opposed to epic level PCs slaying deities, I just believe that the strongest tier of divine beings should remain virtually beyond their reach.


----------



## Imp (Dec 2, 2007)

Fighting gods is fun and all, but the power curve is supposed to be much shallower for 4e characters, right?  I mean, top-level 3e characters are basically demigods, and I can see them fighting deities (because I'm happy to ignore the epic rules), but my understanding was that a 30th-level 4e character would be somewhat less powerful, relative to his environment, than a 20th-level 3e hero.  Not having multiple _wishes_ at their disposal, so and so forth from there.

I mean, it sounds like a lot of fun, I just hope they can finesse that.


----------



## GlassJaw (Dec 2, 2007)

Hmm, more 4E stuff I don't like the sounds of.  Not a fan of removing the schools and it sounds like the wizard is getting more focused overall.

On top of that, the implements sound unbelievably LAME!  Sheesh, the devs have been reading Harry Potter too much.  Ugh.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 2, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> On top of that, the implements sound unbelievably LAME!  Sheesh, the devs have been reading Harry Potter too much.  Ugh.



Wizard minis have been holding wands, staves, books, orbs and other implements from long before Rowling began typing.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 2, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Hmm, more 4E stuff I don't like the sounds of.  Not a fan of removing the schools and it sounds like the wizard is getting more focused overall.
> 
> On top of that, the implements sound unbelievably LAME!  *Sheesh, the devs have been reading Harry Potter too much. * Ugh.



Or Lord of the Rings and Le Morte d'Arthur or any fantasy with wizards and their iconic tools of the trade.


----------



## GlassJaw (Dec 2, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Wizard minis have been holding wands, staves, books, orbs and other implements from long before Rowling began typing.




But since when have they been tied to specific effects?  It's just not a necessary limitation from a game design standpoint other than continually tying mechanics to fluff, which has clearly been the 4E design direction.


----------



## Voss (Dec 2, 2007)

Is more focused overall really a bad thing?  At the moment, 3E wizards can do anything. Maybe not at all once, but if they can't do something today, they can swap some spells around and do it tomorrow.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 2, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> But since when have they been tied to specific effects?




They're not tied to specific effects in Harry Potter.


----------



## med stud (Dec 2, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> On top of that, the implements sound unbelievably LAME!  Sheesh, the devs have been reading Harry Potter too much.  Ugh.



To be fair to the developers, implements are pretty classic to real world magicians. It defenitly predates Harry Potter (not to mention the staff, which Tolkien made important before JK Rowling was born).


----------



## Zurai (Dec 2, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> But since when have they been tied to specific effects?  It's just not a necessary limitation from a game design standpoint other than continually tying mechanics to fluff, which has clearly been the 4E design direction.




Since before first edition. I don't think I've ever seen an RPG with magic that DIDN'T include wands and staves that produced specific effects.


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Dec 2, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Since before first edition. I don't think I've ever seen an RPG with magic that DIDN'T include wands and staves that produced specific effects.



In the Mabinogion, which is about 600-800 years old, many of the wizard types used wands to work their magic.  Staves have been around at least since Tolkien, if not before.  Orbs have been around for ages as well, in various forms.


----------



## Raduin711 (Dec 2, 2007)

I expect to see classes that fill the spaces that the old specialist wizards used to fill.  Not just Illusionists, but Necromancers, Enchanters, Transmuters, Conjurors, Diviners, and so on with their own spells.  That is an exciting idea to me.  

But having to wait for these classes past the PHB... this saddens me.


----------



## Smerg (Dec 2, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> But since when have they been tied to specific effects?  It's just not a necessary limitation from a game design standpoint other than continually tying mechanics to fluff, which has clearly been the 4E design direction.




This is a mixture of two concepts.

The first idea is the requirement for material items.  Clerics had it easy as they could by one small wood icon at level 1 and still be using it at level 20.  Mages were 'technically' supposed to be hunting down bits of bat guano, broken mirrors, and all sorts of other unusual items.  The concept was to simply the lists of material items (tons of fluff with little to no crunch value -- this also saves lines of text over some 300+ spells which can go to better spells and items).

The second idea is the metamagic rods of 3.0.  The idea that some piece of carved wood that a priest gets at level 1 is the same piece of wood that the Pope (or other level 20 church official) uses to unleash divine magic seems a stretch.  History is filled with descriptions of relics that are passed down from cleric to cleric.  The same goes for mages where famous wands, staves, orbs, and tombs are transfered from master to apprentice depending on the level of the apprentice to use and manipulate an item.

These two ideas are very iconic to the nature of magical or divine spells in our understanding of the world and it saves having to say that your mage (when no one is looking) is running to the local bat cave for more guano.


----------



## GlassJaw (Dec 2, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Since before first edition. I don't think I've ever seen an RPG with magic that DIDN'T include wands and staves that produced specific effects.




Thank you captain obvious.

Of course, wands, staves, etc are common to wizards in fantasy literature.  But to have these implements tied to specific effects, and by effect I don't mean "spell", isn't good design.  It's confusing and hokey and is based on fluff.

Why do I need a staff if I want to cast Cone of Cold or Ray of Enfeeblement?  It's just random design.  It's arbitrary.  

It's one thing if need an implement to use magic at all or an implement boosts your magic power but did you ever see Harry or Gandalf have to switch implements to cast different spells?  It just stinks of trying to emulate the fighter's golf bag of weapon for the wizard.


----------



## RandomCitizenX (Dec 2, 2007)

Where is it stated that the implements are NEEDED to cast the spell? The only previews I have seen *including the Dragon article about wizards* made them out to applying bonuses to the spells.


----------



## Zurai (Dec 2, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Why do I need a staff if I want to cast Cone of Cold or Ray of Enfeeblement?  It's just random design.  It's arbitrary.




Yes, it is arbitrary. So is your decision that, despite all evidence to the contrary, that's how the wizard class will function in 4E.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 2, 2007)

RandomCitizenX said:
			
		

> Where is it stated that the implements are NEEDED to cast the spell? The only previews I have seen *including the Dragon article about wizards* made them out to applying bonuses to the spells.



This is my understanding of it as well. They are not necessary, but they provide bonuses to certain types of spells. It is like a fighter needing a different type of weapon for different occasions or bonuses.


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 2, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> It's one thing if need an implement to use magic at all or an implement boosts your magic power...




Our man in Hungary is rather vague in his wording on this subject. Everything _else _we've seen so far indicates that implements simply *enhance* the casting of certain types of spells. 

So what is your point again?


----------



## Michele Carter (Dec 2, 2007)

Well, I know better than to poke the bear(s), but I've been working on magic items all day and I'm punchy: 

"Staffs are for rays and cones, wands for long distance control, while orb stands for blasts, terrain control, and retributive and perception based effects."

This was true at the time it was written, and as with a few other small details, it's changed since then. Spells are not based on the implements you use to cast them. Wizards still choose a primary implement (and that choice is a meaningful one), but you can cast any spell through any implement with equal effectiveness.


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 2, 2007)

WotC_Miko said:
			
		

> Spells are not based on the implements you use to cast them. Wizards still choose a primary implement (and that choice is a meaningful one), but you can cast any spell through any implement with equal effectiveness.




Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## Rechan (Dec 2, 2007)

Raduin711 said:
			
		

> I expect to see classes that fill the spaces that the old specialist wizards used to fill.  Not just Illusionists, but Necromancers, Enchanters, Transmuters, Conjurors, Diviners, and so on with their own spells.  That is an exciting idea to me.



I seem to recall that a magic supplement will be coming out in fall 2008. 

I expect the Swordmage to come out then. The Necromancer will most likely be in that book - I don't expect WotC to lag behind in putting that out there. 

And honestly, a class focusing on Transmutation would make me utterly _ecstatic_.


----------



## Clavis (Dec 2, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> It's one thing if need an implement to use magic at all or an implement boosts your magic power but did you ever see Harry or Gandalf have to switch implements to cast different spells?  It just stinks of trying to emulate the fighter's golf bag of weapon for the wizard.




Thing is, that's exactly what "real-world" western ceremonial magic assumes. In books like the Greater Key of Solomon, the operator is using so many different implements he requires assistants! "Modern" occultists tend to pare down the formal implement list to four: a wand (or staff), a dagger (and/or sword), a cup, and a pantacle (inscribed disk), and each one is used for a different kind of operation. So, wizards having multiple implements and using a slave or henchman to hold them has a very firm historical/mythical foundation.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 3, 2007)

> Why do I need a staff if I want to cast Cone of Cold or Ray of Enfeeblement? It's just random design. It's arbitrary.



For one thing, I think the designers for 4e have been reading _The Dresden Files_. 

In _The Dresden Files_, wizards can cast spells, sure. But having _foci_ like a staff or other item allows them to channel magic through it to compensate for what they don't have. The main character has a lot of _raw power_, but very little precision - a fire spell without his foci ends up looking like a bomb blast. Bad if you're an ally or a bystander. So he uses a rod to funnel his magic into a single beam, which is much easier to aim than a huge torrent of flame. 

Wizards craft their own foci; some use rings and bracelets, others use gloves, chains, daggers, etc. 

In the same vein, I anticipate that we'll see a plethora of other Implements, and it isn't beyond the scope to just mix and match. While I understand why cones come from the staff (it's a brute instrument like a shot gun) and long range manipulation comes from the wand (it's the magical equivalent of a surgeon's scalpel), mixing the two can make sense, or switching them out for other items that make more sense to the wizard in question. And so you can have some variation (to avoid the inevitable "Look, he's got an orb - he's a wizard! Kill him!")


----------



## A'koss (Dec 3, 2007)

WotC_Miko said:
			
		

> This was true at the time it was written, and as with a few other small details, it's changed since then. Spells are not based on the implements you use to cast them. Wizards still choose a primary implement (and that choice is a meaningful one), but you can cast any spell through any implement with equal effectiveness.



Thanks for touching on this Miko! I wasn't so keen on the idea of implement juggling wizards. This is definitely better.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 3, 2007)

> This was true at the time it was written, and as with a few other small details, it's changed since then. Spells are not based on the implements you use to cast them. Wizards still choose a primary implement (and that choice is a meaningful one), *but you can cast any spell through any implement with equal effectiveness.*



Emphasis mine.

I'm really curious how implements differ if you can use the same one to do anything with equal effectiveness.


----------



## Zurai (Dec 3, 2007)

Stat bonuses. Additional spells on the spell list (if spell lists still exist). Altering how frequently you can cast certain spells. Adding options to certain spells. Etc.

Most likely, though, it's a slight mis-statement, which should instead read "wizards can use any instrument to cast any spell with reasonable effectiveness" or something similar.


----------



## Smerg (Dec 3, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Emphasis mine.
> 
> I'm really curious how implements differ if you can use the same one to do anything with equal effectiveness.




I like the idea that there will still be a Primary Implement and this will be a 'meaningful' choice for the mage.

It is nice to not look around a group of mages and see them as carbon copies of yourself to beg/borrow/spells from.


----------



## Gloombunny (Dec 3, 2007)

What I'd hope for is that each wizard chooses a tool, and then she uses _only_ that tool, but the choice influences which spells she's best at.  So a wand wizard would get bonuses to wand-related spells when she has her wand, but when she wants to cast an orb spell she'd have to make do without the bonus, and wouldn't even have the option of pulling out an orb to get the bonus.


----------



## WarlockLord (Dec 3, 2007)

So now male wizards have even more excuses for bad pick-up lines featuring wands and staves.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 3, 2007)

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> So now male wizards have even more excuses for bad pick-up lines featuring wands and staves.



"Nice Orbs, ma'am."

"Whenever I take them out, I find I have complete control of the battlefield."


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Dec 3, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> "Nice Orbs, ma'am."
> 
> "Whenever I take them out, I find I have complete control of the battlefield."


----------



## Smerg (Dec 3, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> "Nice Orbs, ma'am."
> 
> "Whenever I take them out, I find I have complete control of the battlefield."




So how long will it take a player in a campaign to name their Iron Sigil Dwarf mage 'Iron Orbs'?


The opposite effect will though happen on the counter pick-up lines.

'Isn't your wand a bit small for a wizards?'


----------



## Gloombunny (Dec 3, 2007)

I prefer a man with a staff, not a wand.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Dec 3, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> I prefer a man with a staff, not a wand.



"It's not the size of your implement, but what you do with it!" - Retort of a wand-wielding wizard.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 3, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> I prefer a man with a staff, not a wand.



Staves are simple brute force. Wands? Now those require finesse.


----------



## JoelF (Dec 3, 2007)

There's some things I like from this preview, and lots I don't.  My biggest concern though is that with some of the scope of magic (necromancy, enchantment, etc.) not being part of wizards anymore, but being reserved for future classes, it seems that 4E will be seriously incomplete at the outset.  Mabye by 2010 they'll have all the rules for magic that the current PH has - which is 2 years too late in my opinion.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Dec 3, 2007)

JoelF said:
			
		

> ...it seems that 4E will be seriously incomplete at the outset.




Incomplete might not be the best word (or it might be, depending on whether you want to put a negative spin on it), but 4th edition is definitely showing a different marketing strategy than previous editions. In previous versions, we got the core rules in three books, and then options added on later as holes in the game showed up or as the designers thought of something cool. 4th edition seems to be less designed as 3 core books and a bunch of optional add-ons and more as an entire product line, possibly thought out years in advance. Certain elements that had always been core D&D are being pushed into later products to emphasize that fact. That's probably a good marketing strategy for WotC, and it will be very good for people who like lots of splat books, since the long-term planning for those supplements will help to avoid the power creep that came along with previous editions. For those people who prefer a core only/core plus a select few supplements approach, though, it looks like they'll be left wanting with 4th edition if they want all the options of the previous editions in a small set of core books.


----------



## grimslade (Dec 3, 2007)

I would say that incomplete is a good word. I like the glimpses I am seeing out of 4E so far, but the lack of enchanters and necromancers makes me a sad panda.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 3, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> On top of that, the implements sound unbelievably LAME!  Sheesh, the devs have been reading Harry Potter too much.  Ugh.




I guess Harry Potter is the new anime/WoW?

I'll be interested to hear what exactly they mean by 'rituals'. Traditionally in most games that's meant a significant investment in time and money. The out-of-combat time will be important to me; 10 minutes, 1 hour, 1 day.. each of those will have a significant impact on planning. How much will it cost? 100 gp isn't that significant after a short time. 5000 gp in perfect diamonds is a significant show-stopper even at high levels.


----------



## sidonunspa (Dec 3, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> I would say that incomplete is a good word. I like the glimpses I am seeing out of 4E so far, but the lack of enchanters and necromancers makes me a sad panda.




I join you in your sadness...


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 3, 2007)

*Gods:* there is a difference between challenge and slay, and a difference between slay and destroy (at least in the "D&D world" or for that matter, the "world of gods"). Challenge is ok...


----------



## Traycor (Dec 3, 2007)

WotC_Miko said:
			
		

> "Staffs are for rays and cones, wands for long distance control, while orb stands for blasts, terrain control, and retributive and perception based effects."
> 
> This was true at the time it was written, and as with a few other small details, it's changed since then. Spells are not based on the implements you use to cast them. Wizards still choose a primary implement (and that choice is a meaningful one), but you can cast any spell through any implement with equal effectiveness.



Woot! Happiness! And all that jazz


----------



## Corinth (Dec 3, 2007)

In combat, we have a wizard that operates much like the Mage class does in _World of Warcraft_: one or more readily accessible, but not overwhelming, standard ranged attacks that may have varying secondary effects (at-will abilities, akin to WOW Mage Frostbolts, Fireballs and Arcane Missiles) along with defensive effects (akin to WOW Mage's various Armor spells--Frost, Mage, Molten); a series of combat-applicable spells that are potent enough to either require a Cooldown period before regaining access to them or a lengthy casting time (per-encounter abilities, akin to WOW Mage's Frost Nova, Cone of Cold, Arcane Blast, Polymorph, Presence of Mind, etc.); an array of very potent effects that can be combat-applicable but require long casting times, long Cooldown periods, or both as well as non-combat spells with significant utility (per-day abilities or rituals, akin to WOW Mage Teleportation/Portal spells, Pyroblast, Remove Curse, Amplify/Dampen Magic, etc.)

It's not, of course, a one-to-one correlation.  It's not even a direct recreation of the WOW Mage; all it does is feel very similiar to the MMORPG's version of the wizard class as current presented for D&D 4.0, and thus invite comparison accordingly.  I expect to see the final version of the D&D 4.0 Wizard to be significantly more flexible in what this class can and can't do, vis-a-vis the WOW Mage, but remain easier for younger people to understand and master due to that same similarity.  I remain ambivalent about it all, and reserve final judgement for when the 4.0 PHB hits the store shelves.


----------



## Danzauker (Dec 3, 2007)

Aldarc said:
			
		

> This is my understanding of it as well. They are not necessary, but they provide bonuses to certain types of spells. It is like a fighter needing a different type of weapon for different occasions or bonuses.




Well, never tried to set a SPEAR against a CHARGE?

In various forms the mechanic has been around through more than one edition.

In real world, "fighters" have been choosing their weapons in regards to the opponent they were going to face and/or the situation.

Pikes were used to bring down and kill heavy armored knights, where using slashing weapons were ineffective, lances were developed for mounted combat, and so on...


----------



## Danzauker (Dec 3, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Thing is, that's exactly what "real-world" western ceremonial magic assumes. In books like the Greater Key of Solomon, the operator is using so many different implements he requires assistants! "Modern" occultists tend to pare down the formal implement list to four: a wand (or staff), a dagger (and/or sword), a cup, and a pantacle (inscribed disk), and each one is used for a different kind of operation. So, wizards having multiple implements and using a slave or henchman to hold them has a very firm historical/mythical foundation.




Which not susplrisingly match the four suits of European playing cards: staff, sword, cup and coins (the four suits' origins are deeply rooted in esoteric traditions)...

Now, THAT makes some interesting fluff for me, and something that could actually be of good use in my campaign instead of the old schools of magic (that I am going to miss, I admit...).


----------



## Stogoe (Dec 4, 2007)

I'm certain wizards will still have the staples - Wall of stone, Hold Person, Fly, charm, spiderclimb, etc.  But perhaps they won't get Dominate Monster, Shapechange, Gate, Create Greater Undead, Greater Shadow Evocation, PAO, Mass Invisibility, and the like - these will be relegated to the specialist classes.


----------



## helium3 (Dec 4, 2007)

an_idol_mind said:
			
		

> That's probably a good marketing strategy for WotC, and it will be very good for people who like lots of splat books, since the long-term planning for those supplements will help to avoid the power creep that came along with previous editions.




It's a good strategy for helping to ensure strong sales through a longer portion of the editions life-span, but it's not directly good "marketing." Good marketing would be WotC figuring out to convince current players of the game that this change in the base assumption of what "core" means is a good thing for them in the long run.

Needless to say, their marketing on this point (or a lot of the 4E changes to the system for that matter) hasn't been all that good up to this point. Not everyone is willing to accept that a new concept is 'cool' just because the developers say so. Hopefully they'll be able to start making better arguments when they're able to start releasing larger details.


----------



## Clavis (Dec 4, 2007)

Danzauker said:
			
		

> Which not susplrisingly match the four suits of European playing cards: staff, sword, cup and coins (the four suits' origins are deeply rooted in esoteric traditions)...
> 
> Now, THAT makes some interesting fluff for me, and something that could actually be of good use in my campaign instead of the old schools of magic (that I am going to miss, I admit...).




For game purposes, I might match the implements up this way:

Wand/Staff: summoning, fire & light-based spells

Dagger/Sword: casting magic circles and Protection From Evil, offensive magic, mind-magic, air & electricity-based spells

Cup: divinations, healing, water and ice-based spells

Pantacle/Disk: buffing spells, defensive spells, earth and plant-based spells.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 4, 2007)

Danzauker said:
			
		

> *Well, never tried to set a SPEAR against a CHARGE?*
> 
> In various forms the mechanic has been around through more than one edition.
> 
> ...



Okay...how does go against what I said? I was just explaining the basic idea that they were now incorporating for wizards that was already in place for fighters.


----------



## JoelF (Dec 4, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> It's a good strategy for helping to ensure strong sales through a longer portion of the editions life-span, but it's not directly good "marketing." Good marketing would be WotC figuring out to convince current players of the game that this change in the base assumption of what "core" means is a good thing for them in the long run.
> 
> Needless to say, their marketing on this point (or a lot of the 4E changes to the system for that matter) hasn't been all that good up to this point. Not everyone is willing to accept that a new concept is 'cool' just because the developers say so. Hopefully they'll be able to start making better arguments when they're able to start releasing larger details.




I'm feeling like they're stealing their marketing from Magic the Gathering and other collectible games.  Buy the starter set, but buy the expansions if you want all the rules.  The problem isn't that wizards don't have the variety of spells that they used to (well, that's a problem, but not the big one), but that the DM can't create the necromancer, enchanter, bard, druid, or whatever else isn't there anymore.  At least not until they buy the PHII a year later (assuming they want to wait a year for a necromancer).  One of the things that was great about 3rd edition when it came out is that it added stuff into core (barbarian, assassin, etc.), but 4th seems to be removing stuff from core, and it just seems limiting after having even just the basic core of 3rd edition.


----------



## Gloombunny (Dec 4, 2007)

JoelF said:
			
		

> There's some things I like from this preview, and lots I don't.  My biggest concern though is that with some of the scope of magic (necromancy, enchantment, etc.) not being part of wizards anymore, but being reserved for future classes, it seems that 4E will be seriously incomplete at the outset.  Mabye by 2010 they'll have all the rules for magic that the current PH has - which is 2 years too late in my opinion.



Incomplete is a matter of perspective.  In my eyes 4e will be far more complete-in-three-books than 3e, because it'll have warlocks right there in the first book, and maybe even wizards I can enjoy playing.  (I hate spell memorization.)  To me that's far more important than bards or gnomes or _dominate person_.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 4, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I'll be interested to hear what exactly they mean by 'rituals'. Traditionally in most games that's meant a significant investment in time and money. The out-of-combat time will be important to me; 10 minutes, 1 hour, 1 day.. each of those will have a significant impact on planning. How much will it cost? 100 gp isn't that significant after a short time. 5000 gp in perfect diamonds is a significant show-stopper even at high levels.




I'm curious about this as well, though probably for a totally different reason.  Personally I never had a problem with divination, teleport etc, and I don't need them as rituals to stop them from breaking my campaign.  But assuming it is game breaking how does making teleport a ritual stop its game breaking power.  If it takes an hour to cast a long range teleport(other than being a really boring and lame visual to me) what does that solve.  So you just have to wait until Bob is in a place he likely wont move for an hour.  And poof you teleport in and whack him.  

Now it does seem to kill teleport as an escape spell, which isn't something I like.  I like easy contrived reasons why my BBEG escapes not hard ones.  And I'm never saying ah dang i totally would of had a TPK but dang it you teleported away when you were in over your head. 

now maybe rituals will have some kind of exhaustion factor, but again unless with teleport all the travelers are exhausted this doesn't seem to stop teleport hit squads.  All it means is your one man down and your assassination attempt.    

They may pull this off to me cool and great, but for me it just sounds boring.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 4, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Now it does seem to kill teleport as an escape spell, which isn't something I like.  I like easy contrived reasons why my BBEG escapes not hard ones.  And I'm never saying ah dang i totally would of had a TPK but dang it you teleported away when you were in over your head.



I'm pretty sure that short range teleportation will be there and easy to do. The Eladrin get a short range teleport by moving through the Feywild, for instance. 4e is supposed to emphasize combat mobility and moving around the battlefield, so I don't expect them to just rip out "Teleporting 30 feet".


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Dec 4, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that short range teleportation will be there and easy to do. The Eladrin get a short range teleport by moving through the Feywild, for instance. 4e is supposed to emphasize combat mobility and moving around the battlefield, so I don't expect them to just rip out "Teleporting 30 feet".



Yes but I believe he was talking about the standard long distance Teleport.  Call me unimpressed but I've never felt that Teleport or Raising the Dead were "game breaking." I liked them because they drove home the changes implicit in the powercurve between levels.  The game WASN'T supposed to play the same at high level as low level and that gave the steady increase in power a flavor I liked.  Restricting these things makes the game play more similarly at levels where it needs differentiation to show the players how far their characters have come and maintain interest.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 4, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that short range teleportation will be there and easy to do. The Eladrin get a short range teleport by moving through the Feywild, for instance. 4e is supposed to emphasize combat mobility and moving around the battlefield, so I don't expect them to just rip out "Teleporting 30 feet".




I don't really see 30' as much of an escape spell.  Thats more of a he kills me 2 seconds later spell.  

At the heroic level its cool it can create some dynamic chase scenes.  When you are are the dragon wrastlin levels it just doesn't seem to scream escape spell anymore.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 4, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Yes but I believe he was talking about the standard long distance Teleport.  Call me unimpressed but I've never felt that Teleport or Raising the Dead were "game breaking." I liked them because they drove home the changes implicit in the powercurve between levels.  The game WASN'T supposed to play the same at high level as low level and that gave the steady increase in power a flavor I liked.  Restricting these things makes the game play more similarly at levels where it needs differentiation to show the players how far their characters have come and maintain interest.




Exactly how i see it.


----------



## Voss (Dec 4, 2007)

Teleport to the other side of the secret door in the room.  They'll have to take time to find it, and then the chase is on.  

As for catching Bob when she's in one place for an hour.  Well, thats a challenge in and of itself.  You've got to do some groundwork and put some effort into the assassination attempt, rather than just pop in, grab the XP and go home.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 4, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> I don't really see 30' as much of an escape spell.  Thats more of a he kills me 2 seconds later spell.



Unless you teleport one floor down, or into the next room, etc.  



> Call me unimpressed but I've never felt that Teleport or Raising the Dead were "game breaking."



Teleport is just "Eh" to me because it cuts out travel. I like a little "You still have to get there." 

Raise dead is more an issue to me because I don't think it should be *at all* common. The God of the Dead isn't going to let you just waltz out of his clutches without trying to get his property back, et al. This is why I like the implication that you have to go _hunt down_ your dead buddy in the Shadowfell.


----------



## Li Shenron (Dec 4, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Teleport is just "Eh" to me because it cuts out travel. I like a little "You still have to get there."




I think that most of the problem is because we gamers think too much and read too little 

If you look at the PHB Teleport table, the spell requires at least to have a Description to give a chance of working. And then it says: "Description" is a place whose location and appearance the character knows through someone else’s description, perhaps even from a precise map. 

Maybe too many people assumes that the name of the place counts as a "Description". Uh, and location doesn't simply mean "somewhere far in the north". 

These spells are more controllable by the DM than many gamers think.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Dec 4, 2007)

I am a big fan of the idea of rituals meaning that some current combat spells are taken out of combat - and that long range teleports and easy access to raise dead (or improved versions thereof) are made less commonplace.

It's really starting to look as though characters, whilst having more power in some ways, are still going to have to work hard in other ways to earn their keep. An end to buff-scry-teleport is very welcome, as is "I wake up and cast all my daily buffing spells" biting the bullet.

The wand/orb/staff idea is also something I support - allowing Wizards to gain some more flavour and difference from one another, allowing magic items to be more of a key, giving me immediate ideas for villains (if the PC always uses a wand, bring a series of other wand-using wizards against him and make him prove himself!).

Not sure about having to wait for later books to use other classes with other powers, but depending on the SRD situation, that might not be too bad.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Dec 4, 2007)

JoelF said:
			
		

> I'm feeling like they're stealing their marketing from Magic the Gathering and other collectible games.  Buy the starter set, but buy the expansions if you want all the rules.  The problem isn't that wizards don't have the variety of spells that they used to (well, that's a problem, but not the big one), but that the DM can't create the necromancer, enchanter, bard, druid, or whatever else isn't there anymore.



How is this different from any other RPG that releases Splat books?  It's not like this is something new that sprung up with 4th ed.  In 3rd, there were numerous archtypes that were difficult to create effectively until we received the various expansions.


----------



## GreyWanderer (Dec 5, 2007)

*Implements/Tools*

Like everyone else, I have no clue what Wizards is up to beyond what I've read here and on their website.

In the Witches & Shaman supplement I wrote (shameless plug below) I introduced Tools, which grant benefits when used in spellcasting (such as a Shamans staff being their divine focus). Their chosen Tools allow them to ignore material components and are used as the focus of certain spells (such as _shillelagh_). I also have new spells that specifically enhance their chosen Tools.

The earliest drawings of Shaman show them using staff, and a Witches use of broom and athame  is well known. I like tying fluff & crunch together.

I suspect something similar awaits us in 4th Edition. Looking forward to it myself, even if they did steal my thunder (mine was posted the last week of June). :/

http://www.ukg-publishing.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=118


----------



## Danzauker (Dec 5, 2007)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Ugh! The death of magic schools is the first major 4E crimp in my exisitng homebrew. I had a zodiac-like set of demigods, each representing one of the schools. Back to the drawing board on that one...




I just noticed this! I did something like this, once!

Basically, schools were all associated with one alignment (except True Neutral) and one "patron deity". Starting from LG and going along the "Great Wheel" the schools were: Abjuration (LG), Divination (NG), Transmutation (CG), Illusion (CN), Necromancy (CE), Evocation (NE), Summoning (LE), Enchantment (LN).

I know the arrangment looks a bit arbitrary in some cases, but it was justified by fluff IMC. The system was developed for a magocracy where the cult of magic substituted divine magic and clerics, so there were lots of cultural and moral motivations 

All the Good schools were White Magic, the Evil were Black Magic, and the Neutral were Red Magic. A White Magic Wizard specialist had to choose it's "opposing" school as barred, and if he had to choose another it could not be another White School. The opposite was for Black Magic Wizard. Red Magic Wizards could choose any school.

Well, I liked that even if I used only shortly. I guess I can not import it easily in 4e.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 6, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Unless you teleport one floor down, or into the next room, etc.




I guess I run to many wilderness adventures where 1 floor down just means a world of pain.   

But yes, your point and others is solid.  As I mentioned I think it can add some dynamic chase scenes into the game, and I think it works well for the levels 1-10, but beyond the heroic tier I guess I expect more.  Once you are slaying dragons bamfing 20 miles doesn't seem like a big thing to me.


----------



## Zurai (Dec 6, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Unless you teleport one floor down, or into the next room, etc.




Man, you *clearly* never played the old Wizardry games! Blindly teleporting 1 floor down was asking for your entire party to be irretrievably teleported into a stone wall. I *hated* teleport traps in those games!


----------



## Rechan (Dec 6, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> I think that most of the problem is because we gamers think too much and read too little
> 
> If you look at the PHB Teleport table, the spell requires at least to have a Description to give a chance of working. And then it says: "Description" is a place whose location and appearance the character knows through someone else’s description, perhaps even from a precise map.
> 
> ...




I admit that I've never ran or been in a game at a level high enough for Teleport to be a factor. Wait, in one game the players did reach 9th level, but the illusionist didn't really do a lot of heavy lifting with his 5th level slots; it was reserved for metamagiced spells, and I believe Shadow Evocation.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 6, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> I guess I run to many wilderness adventures where 1 floor down just means a world of pain.
> 
> But yes, your point and others is solid.  As I mentioned I think it can add some dynamic chase scenes into the game, and I think it works well for the levels 1-10, but beyond the heroic tier I guess I expect more.  Once you are slaying dragons bamfing 20 miles doesn't seem like a big thing to me.




Well, this teleport ability is also in addition to new suggestions about adding more dynamic elements to your encounters in terms of terrain, so that 30' teleport that doesn't seem much is totally awesome when it puts you behind a ridge or a rock outcropping and the monster has no idea where the warlock he was just eating went to.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 6, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Well, this teleport ability is also in addition to new suggestions about adding more dynamic elements to your encounters in terms of terrain, so that 30' teleport that doesn't seem much is totally awesome when it puts you behind a ridge or a rock outcropping and the monster has no idea where the warlock he was just eating went to.



Or in a tree, for that matter.


----------

