The Shadow
Hero
That's part of the thing with this update. It's got a lot of potential as an idea, but it's VERY vague as to what it exactly means.
Hey, looky there! Something we can all agree on!
That's part of the thing with this update. It's got a lot of potential as an idea, but it's VERY vague as to what it exactly means.
I think the core mechanic of using a spell book and preparing some spells should be retained by the Wizard regardless of power distribution mechanisms. The spells a Wizard prepares at the beginning of the day are the spells he casts.
I am with ZombieRoboNinja here, in that I took the same assumption from the L&L article, and (as I've said upthread) am of the view that most complaints about Vancian casting are not generally complaints about slots, but rather complaints about preparation/memorisation.My assumption from the L&L article was that non-preparation would be an option as well.
I would be extremely surprised if they included variant magic systems for wizards, and they all required memorisation. Memorisation has been the most contentious feature of D&D magic from the beginning, with any number of variant rules if Dragon, White Dwarf etc to get rid of it and/or work around it.If I have a spell-point wizard and she still memorizes her spells, she's choosing a specific group of spells to be her "spell list" for the day.
<snip>
But (hypoethetically) part of playing the wizard as a scholar and an academic is the idea that they are the most effective when they can prepare for the trouble they're going to get into
<snip>
In my mind, memorization (and thus preparation) is a key part of playing a wizard
The connection between flavour and mechanics in 4e is mediated by keywords - both literal power keywords, but other keywords too.If fluff can be changed without changing the mechanics, the fence is there. 4e is often (rather rightly, IMO) credited with being one of the editions in which the re-skinning is the easiest, BECAUSE of the tenuous connection between fluff and mechanics.
In 4e, you can't have a Fireball freeze things unless you change the keyword from [fire] to [cold]. You can't have a Fireball not set things on fire unless you change the keyword from [fire] to untyped damage (or, perhaps, change the target from "creatures" to "enemies" in burst - though that might depend whether or not your enemy is standing on a bookshelf or an oil-soaked pyre at the time).If fluff cannot be changed without changing the mechanics, the fence is gone.
This may be true of your own play of 4e. I don't see any basis for generalising it. When I look at posts on this board from 4e players and GMs, I certainly don't see any general view that action resolution in 4e cannot leverage the shared fiction. I mean, the whole of skill challenge resolution, and page 42, presupposes the exact opposite of that!So it pretty clearly has the fence as a general rule. I'm sure there's some specific exceptions.
I like it. Keep the variant systems out of the PHB
Personally, what I really like about Vancian magic is the "gotta catch 'em all" aspect of discrete spells-as-treasure. I hope that's considered a core aspect of the Wizard class.
Meh, don't like. The defining characteristic of wizards, sorcerers, psions, and so on is their casting mechanic. A wizard who casts like a sorcerer is a sorcerer with slightly altered fluff. I also think that mechanics should support the fluff, which is lost in this approach.
Meh, don't like. The defining characteristic of wizards, sorcerers, psions, and so on is their casting mechanic. A wizard who casts like a sorcerer is a sorcerer with slightly altered fluff. I also think that mechanics should support the fluff, which is lost in this approach.
I would be extremely surprised if they included variant magic systems for wizards, and they all required memorisation. Memorisation has been the most contentious feature of D&D magic from the beginning, with any number of variant rules if Dragon, White Dwarf etc to get rid of it and/or work around it.
3E introduced two work arounds: the sorcerer class (which, mechanically, can be played as bookish as you like with either no changes, or very minor ones); and the empty spell slot rule.
If D&Dnext is going to have modular magic, it would utterly gobsmack me for it to be less versatile in this respect than 3E.
pemerton said:The connection between flavour and mechanics in 4e is mediated by keywords - both literal power keywords, but other keywords too.
You can't reskin a red dragon as a rabbit, not even a vicious one: it is too big (Large or bigger), and it does a range of attacks, including area attacks, with [fire] damage.
You can't reskin Icy Terrain as an explosion of little marbles: little marble might knock people prone and create difficult terrain, but they wouldn't do [cold] damage.
pemerton said:In 4e, you can't have a Fireball freeze things unless you change the keyword from [fire] to [cold]. You can't have a Fireball not set things on fire unless you change the keyword from [fire] to untyped damage (or, perhaps, change the target from "creatures" to "enemies" in burst - though that might depend whether or not your enemy is standing on a bookshelf or an oil-soaked pyre at the time).
I mean, I've been frustrated while playing a pyromancer in 4e by this exact problem.
Me: "I wanna set that bush on fire."
DM: "You're going to need a match."
Me: "I conjure flame at a wave of my hand...can't I set the bush on fire like that?"
DM: "Of course not, your abilities are for goblinmurder, not for turning my world into ash!"
Me: ""
DM: "It'd be WILDLY unbalanced to let you burn stuff. The fighter can't do that."
Me: "I...guess."
You can't set things on fire with Fireball anyway. Remember Chris Perkins's ruling of how drow darkfire can't affect a door because "It's not a creature?" The function of the power is to deal damage and you cannot use it independently of that because it is primarily a mechanical construct (unless your DM is super nice).
I mean, I've been frustrated while playing a pyromancer in 4e by this exact problem.
Me: "I wanna set that bush on fire."
DM: "You're going to need a match."
Me: "I conjure flame at a wave of my hand...can't I set the bush on fire like that?"
DM: "Of course not, your abilities are for goblinmurder, not for turning my world into ash!"
Me: ""
DM: "It'd be WILDLY unbalanced to let you burn stuff. The fighter can't do that."
Me: "I...guess."