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

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Well, that was why they had shadow magic/shades/etc. in 1E. (They were an odd choice to keep around in 2E and 3E, though.) I imagine the 4E illusionist will have the ability to pull semi-real effects from the Feywild or somewhere to deal with those immune to their tricks.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

The problem with wishing for seperate classes for the necromancer, conjuror etc, is it's yet MORE classes in the game and thus....more hassles for the DM etc. :/

Paragon paths make much more sense! After establishing basic "wizardry", they follow their own path.
That I could go for

 

[Rechan]

The problem with wishing for seperate classes for the necromancer, conjuror etc, is it's yet MORE classes in the game and thus....more hassles for the DM etc. :/

Why is it more a hassle?

Presenting paragon paths is just as much a hassle because the DM still has to check them.

 

[Vael]

I like the idea of a pokemon-esque conjurer or WoW warlock in 4e, ie, a class that derives its power from its pets/familiars/summons. Attempts to do so in 3.5 were unbalanced, the Druid's Animal companion at low levels was superior to the fighter, arcane familiars are xp sinks, and summoning spells weren't quite up to snuff. Ideally, it'd be a base class, I wasn't a fan of Bonded Summoners and other familiar based prestige classes.

But such a class is distinct enough that it shouldn't just be a wizard. I like the idea of specialists being dramatically different from generalist mages.

 

[Rechan]

I like the idea of a pokemon-esque conjurer or WoW warlock in 4e, ie, a class that derives its power from its pets/familiars/summons.

I think this is the alternative to the "Summoning = Big Stuff" route of conjuration.

I personally like what you describe. My mental image is just a summoner who has extra-planar body guards, and then a few tricks up his sleeve.

 

[sirwmholder]

Given what we have been shown thus far... not very much... I feel it's a bit premature to say WotC is changing the idea of Wizard from being a Generalist to an Evoker. Please here me out... we have our own ideas about what makes a wizard a wizard... though I agree a Wizard should be able to cast spells that were formally known as "Evocation, Conjuration, Illusion and Necromatic spells"... and I believe they will... through talents.

The idea of class stacking is a 3.x invention... I do not think WotC will be releasing a new "Necromancer" or "Illusionist" class... but I can see them having alternate talent trees that allow your wizard to go further in say Necromancy that a wizard straight out of the PHB. Those talents will allow you to control undead, drain the life from your victim, and reduce their shattered soul to currency... though it doesn't change the fact that you are still first and foremost a Wizard.

The PHB probably has the Generalist and Evoker talent trees done. You can dabble in each or stick with one... as more talent trees are released you can change the flavor of your Wizard without the mess of adding a new class.

Well that's how I see it,
William Holder

 

[Remathilis]

I think the wizard will remain a generalist, but not in the way 3e's was.

In 3e a wizard had access to ALL magic that was labeled arcane. So a wizard could learn the best from each school with no problems at all, and often did. He's switch from dominate monster to horrid wilting to moment of prescience to magic missile to haste to phantasmal killer without a rhyme or reason, other than those were arguably some of the best spells in their respective schools.

The side effect of this was those signature effects came at high level, or at high cost. To balance summoning against fireball, you had to weaken summoning. To make dominate not overpower haste, dominate had to be much higher level. In essence, spells always had to balance against the "best" of their other respective schools.

Now, imagine that there is not just one arcane "I can do everything class" but a true generalist. He gets some of the best signature abilities from each class, but not ALL of them. So he might be able to raise undead, but not with as much variety as a Necromancer. He might have some summoning magic, but a conjurer will summon stronger stuff eariler. He can charm the guard, but the Enchanter/Psion can dominate him and then erase his mind.

That will open up room for such classes to a.) have a niche and b.) not bump up against the wizard who can do the same role effectively. The necromancer class might be able to raise an undead army easier than the wizard, but he's not going to have access to as many cool buffs or charms that allow the wizard to be versatile. That summoner's monster horde rocks, but he has little in the way of directly damaging his foes. The Enchanter might dominate his enemies, but cannot teleport his allies very far.

This leaves the wizard in the role of true generalist (with a slight edge in damage magic) but opens up room for summoners, necromancers, illusionists, enchanters, shapechangers, and swordmages who have unique spells and spell lists that balance against the wizard by being stronger in some areas but weaker in others.

(It also allows the classes themselves to become more versatile with talents and skills and such)

 

[phoenixgod2000]

I am of two minds on this. I don't like the trimming down of wizards and the shuffling off of important wizard archtypes till who knows how long down the line.

But on the other hand, as long as these specialist classess are essentially still wizards with a different focus and not some hybrid class like the beguiler I will probably forgive them. I think that you could do a lot with specialist classes who function like wizards but have different tools.

Examples:

Illusionist tools could include Shadowcloaks and harlequin masks. Conjuriors might have small pentacles, anthames, and braziers. Necromancers might have skull masks, bone rods, and cloaks of withered flesh.

It would be easy to create some overlap between the different wizard classes by having a feat that gives you access to a tool from a different school and the appropriate talent trees and spells.

 

[Lackhand]

But on the other hand, as long as these specialist classess are essentially still wizards with a different focus and not some hybrid class like the beguiler I will probably forgive them. I think that you could do a lot with specialist classes who function like wizards but have different tools.

(only somewhat rhetorical) what does it take to still essentially be a wizard?
I'd be perfectly content if, as you suggest later wizard-like classes used different implements. But it doesn't do to get too tied to any one concept or one way that All Magic Should Work.

Maybe some schools of magic don't need any implements. Maybe some schools use material components exclusively. Maybe some have environmental requirements instead of implements.

Basically, I suspect that 4th edition classes are fairly different beasts from 3rd edition classes, and as long as wizards and the specialists that-will-follow have some sort of spiritual kinship, I'll be happy

 

[Ahnehnois]

I liked the dread necromancer/beguiler/warmage trend; the idea that a caster has a specific purpose rather than being able to do anything he wants. I'm sure they'll do all the stuff eventually, but I rather like the idea that only necromancers can do necromancy.

Summoning is so complex and full of headaches that I wouldn't miss it at all, and I've never seen anyone actually play a summoner or an enchanter. These things are archetypes, but I see no problem with putting them off until they can come up with ways of making them work (more restricted summoning lists, perhaps?).

Maybe in a few more editions they'll have this magic things all down and no one will complain about it.

Then again, maybe not.