D&D 4E The Magic-User: a 4e alternate class

This is something i've been thinking about. In general i like 4e as a DM, the combat flows smoothly and everyone has something to, albeit much of what the classes do over time is just the same thing reskinned.

But the way magic works now...

I don't really like it. It can still be fun, yes, but in the name of balance spellcasters have been tampered with to the point that they're nearly like everyone else. Evocative spell descriptions are gone to match all the martial powers. Many classic spells have been removed, some for the better, some for the worse. Looking back over my 2e Wizard Compendiums, the ones with about 1000 spells, i was so glad to see Presper's Moonbow, a spell that can only be cast under the open sky at night and has a myriad of interesting effects that can happen.

So I've been wanting to see a 4e book devoted solely to a new class: the Magic-User, balanced for 4e in whatever way necessary, and including their own unique spell list. Basically, this would be an alternate magic system devoted to one class.

Does abuse exist for such a class? Possibly. Maybe exploitable loopholes in spells like in past editions? Maybe. But playing a spellcaster to me has always been the greatest challenge in D&D. Spells should be complex and really make you think, or at the very least wrap you up in the fiction of the spell description itself.

This thread isn't meant to start any edition war hate, i was just wondering if other people, either those who like 4e or despise 4e, might be interested in a spell system hearkening back to earlier editions, but somehow playable in the 4e combat scheme.

Could be interesting, but as a DDI article.

They could do Fighting-man, Magic-user and Cleric in Old Skool, but balanced for 4e. The fighting-man should just get level inceasring damaging at-wills, something like the barbarian.

I think the real problem with a M-U is the inherent flexibility in the older versions. I suspect eventually we'll see a different arcane class for each of the classic wizard types, but never a single class that covers them all.

In terms of spell coolness, I'd rather that stay within the realm of ritual magic, rather than make it a feature of a single class.

I voted "No way...just play older D&D." It is pretty much my stock answer for anyone who is dissatisfied with 4th Edition, and would like less of X and more of Y.

CleverNickName said:

I voted "No way...just play older D&D." It is pretty much my stock answer for anyone who is dissatisfied with 4th Edition, and would like less of X and more of Y.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. I hadn't played D&D in forever, but got interested again last fall when I heard that 4E was coming out. I bought it, read it, decided to house rule a few things and finally realized what I really wanted was 1E or 2E - so that's what I'm playing now, heh.

Nah. Its not needed. Any major change to magic would throw off 4E balance. Better to leave alternate magic to systems where it fits better.

I voted "it depends." I didn't vote Yes because I don't think that D&D needs an alternate spellcasting system. I would be interested in seeing one though, as long as it's properly balanced, and doesn't have the lingering balance and utiiity issues of older editions' spellcasting.

I would personally love a magic-user within the 4e framework. I do not mind the power system, but I would absolutely love a spellcaster who does not only have spells that deal damage (aside from utility powers, obviously). Basically a wizard with more attack spells that impose harsher conditions but deals no damage.

Jack99 said:

I would personally love a magic-user within the 4e framework. I do not mind the power system, but I would absolutely love a spellcaster who does not only have spells that deal damage (aside from utility powers, obviously). Basically a wizard with more attack spells that impose harsher conditions but deals no damage.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see that as well - a wizard where's "control" not realized mainly through area damage, but through interesting effects and some quirky stuff - for the wizard, 4E should have embraced the clarification of conditions and the added tactical element of forced movement and barriers. A wizard that raises walls, sends enemies hurling, hypnotizes his enemies, all with just minimal damage is much more my idea of "control" and being a "wizard".

Lord Tirian said:

I'd like to see that as well - a wizard where's "control" not realized mainly through area damage, but through interesting effects and some quirky stuff - for the wizard, 4E should have embraced the clarification of conditions and the added tactical element of forced movement and barriers. A wizard that raises walls, sends enemies hurling, hypnotizes his enemies, all with just minimal damage is much more my idea of "control" and being a "wizard".

Click to expand...

I would very much like to see this as well.