D&D 4E 4e Wizards - No More Necromancers, Enchanters, Summoners???

[FireLance]

My real gripe would be eliminating nearly entirely a wizard's ability to use necromancy, illusion, enchantment, etc. IMO a sensible system would be for the wizard in the PHB1 to be referred to as a battlemage while at the same time allowing enchanters, illusionists, necromancers and others to be different flavors of wizard and not completely different classes with very different assumptions. This way the wizards can be differentiated while at the same time allowing for magical specialities.

Well, in previous editions, wizards were largely differentiated by their spells. Even without using the rules for specialist wizards, a wizard with mostly evocations in his spellbook was very different from one with mostly enchantments or one with mostly necromancy spells. The basic wizard class was thus very flexible in that respect.

I don't see that changing in 4e, especially if talent trees are implemented. You could get a necromancer using the basic 4e wizard class by adding several necromancy spells and one or two talent trees. Similarly for a conjurer, enchanter, or illusionist.

 

[Rechan]

As someone who's playing a Beguiler right now, let me tell you it feels a lot more like an Illusionist than a wizard who focuses on Illusion.

And looking at Necromancy in the PHB, it's just... sad. Even after all the splatbooks, the Cleric still does it better. Why? Because the Cleric, among other things, gets Animate dead at 5th level, and the Dread Necromancer, who does nothing but Necromancy, gets it at 8th.

As stated by others, A Wizard will be able to do most things, just not well. To paraphrase a great example:

Wizard: "I charm the guard so he will let us get inside."
Psion: "Screw that. I dominate him, make him unlock the door, read his mind to find out the general layout of the building, and then I shall wipe his memory of ever meeting us."
Wizard: ...

Another possibility that they might be doing is turning Illusion and Necromancy into Paragon Paths. So that they're accessable from 10th-20th level. So you have a wizard who turns down the dark path of Necromancy, instead of starting out at day 1 playing with undead.

Also, I believe that it was mentioned the Warlock had conjuration powers.

It's likely that stuff like Necromancy and Illusion is going to be in the Arcane book in 2008, the book we'll likely see the Swordmage in.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

You all make some good points. Can't really argue against them, not that this was my purpose in the first place. Only time will tell how this all plays out. Hopefully it will be something I can work with.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Steely Dan]

I like classes to be a little narrower and tighter in focus rather than having a swath of options and becoming a bit muddied.

So colour me happy…not Badd.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Hpefully no matter what WoTC decides to do, they will have a good, frequently updated, SRD that will allow 3rd party publishers to create supplements and materials that are fully compatible with all these kinds of changes. With all the changes brewing with 4e an underdone SRD will be less than worthless.

I can only hope.


Wyrmshadows

 

[Steely Dan]

I can only hope.

And hope is the best of things.

 

[Plane Sailing]

First off - I'm in the camp that likes the ideas of enchanters and dislikes the ideas of psions in the game, so moving the majority (not all, but apparently the majority) of stuff into psions seems like a bad thing for me.

However, the possible ray of light on the horizon is the (largely unknown) multiclassing mechanics. From other hints it seems as though multiclassing is handled via feats (?) to gain "class training" in other classes, in order to pick up significant ability in the additional class.

The mechanics are completely opaque at the moment, but it apparently makes it possible to have fighter-mages or ranger-clerics etc which 'work properly'.

So hopefully it would be possible to have a Wizard who takes Necromancer class training, or Enchanter (aka psion) class training at some point to enable the more generalist wizard you have in mind.

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

I too am very disappointed by this. It seems to me like 4e's answer to everything "problematic" is simply to remove it rather than fix it,

I remember seeing notes that wizards will focus on 'evocation and illusion'. If illusion isn't the most problematic spell area, I don't know what is! (OK, I know that polymorph is, but the open ended polymorph is disappearing anyway...)

Cheers

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

psion = mind mage = enchanter = psion (since the rule are so much changed I don't think the difference is so big anymore)

illusionist, necromancer, conjuror, enchanter ability will be downplayed in the wizard (they said that he will be able to do a little of all but not as well as an Illusionist/Necromancer...) add to this the new multiclassing rules and the paragon paths/epic destiny....

you will still have your immortal archmage able to do all he should do to be an immortal archmage

 

[morbiczer]

Well, I won't be buying into 4E for several reasons, so my opinion probably doesn't count too much.

But a general medieval-type fantasy game, where my high level wizard can't summon demons only using the base game book (=PHB in D&D's case), has for me already failed. This (together with somesort of enchanting) is a basic thing that a fantasy RPG must provide right from the begining.