New Design: Wizards...

Moon-Lancer said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Wow, I'm thoroughly neutral on this one.

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

AllisterH said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Tharen the Damned said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simia Saturnalia said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will wizards need quickdraw?

Thaumaturge.

AllisterH said:

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

Anyone want to help me out here?

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

I gather this idea is what they'll do.