New Design: Wizards...

[Arthnek]

Yes I realize that wizards have used magic item / wands for a long time.

Yes I realize that wizards have had magic wands in literature for longer than Harry Potter although none of the wizards in the fantasy fiction i enjoy reading use anything as hokey as a magic wand. Wands seem so completely presto the stage magician I've never even used them in my games.

What makes this smack of Harry Potter is that the post implies that Wizards function more effectively with a wand or some other object than without one. Wizards leaning heavily on their wands is very much a Harry Potterism.

Having a wizard carry a magic wand as a simple magic item, a wand of magic missiles for example, seems to present a very different flavor from wizards leaning on these objects in order to cast spells effectively.

If the wizards can still cast just fine without them then great. Then it won't matter one bit when I toss the entire magic wand stuff out the window.

 

[Merlion]

Regardless of that, it does make precisely my point that the PHB says specifically that a cleric can choose any two domains, and this core rule has to be revisited if the intent is to patch over it.

(It makes my point so precisely, frankly, I can't fathom why he thought he was rebutting it.)

Because in some settings, like FR, the "just pick two domains" rule is overrulled. In the FR campaign setting it states that any divine spellcaster in that setting MUST have a patron deity to cast divine spells

 

[Merlion]

Until, of course, spells cast with the implements become the new "normal".

I dont think that will be possible for all spells. Not even if a wizard has several implements. And there will most likely be degrees.

My point is, some people think they will be required to cast spells as written. Nothing has indicated this. Just as how right now you can cast a spell without a Metamagic Rod, but its more powerful with it.

 

[Mouseferatu]

What makes this smack of Harry Potter is that the post implies that Wizards function more effectively with a wand or some other object than without one. Wizards leaning heavily on their wands is very much a Harry Potterism.

Not at all. There are huge numbers of fantasy systems, to say nothing of various real-world magic beliefs throughout history, in which a caster is far more effective with implements than without them. (Heck, in some, a caster is helpless without them.)

This is true even of Tolkien. While we're not given specifics (and while it's admittedly inconsistent), it's heavily implied in The Lord of the Rings that Gandalf is far more dangerous with his staff than without it.

Harry Potter may have focused more on wands specifically than on other tools, but the notion of wizards needing something akin to a wand or staff is about as old as the notion of magic itself.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Not at all. There are huge numbers of fantasy systems, to say nothing of various real-world magic beliefs throughout history, in which a caster is far more effective with implements than without them. (Heck, in some, a caster is helpless without them.)

This is true even of Tolkien. While we're not given specifics (and while it's admittedly inconsistent), it's heavily implied in The Lord of the Rings that Gandalf is far more dangerous with his staff than without it.

Harry Potter may have focused more on wands specifically than on other tools, but the notion of wizards needing something akin to a wand or staff is about as old as the notion of magic itself.

Quite right! Magical accoutrements have a long standing "source material" basis throughout many real-life and fictional fantasy magic systems.

 

[Merlion]

Not at all. There are huge numbers of fantasy systems, to say nothing of various real-world magic beliefs throughout history, in which a caster is far more effective with implements than without them. (Heck, in some, a caster is helpless without them.)

This is true even of Tolkien. While we're not given specifics (and while it's admittedly inconsistent), it's heavily implied in The Lord of the Rings that Gandalf is far more dangerous with his staff than without it.

Harry Potter may have focused more on wands specifically than on other tools, but the notion of wizards needing something akin to a wand or staff is about as old as the notion of magic itself.

And its important to remember that at this point, the implements are being presented as enhancements, not requirements like the Magister's Staff in AU.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Not at all. There are huge numbers of fantasy systems, to say nothing of various real-world magic beliefs throughout history, in which a caster is far more effective with implements than without them. (Heck, in some, a caster is helpless without them.)

The (A)D&D take of wands and staffs as "magical six-guns" doesn't really have much mythical or fictional background that I can recall.

I'm hoping the tools of wizardry will replace material components (another D&Dism) for most spells; expensive and elaborate stuff for rituals, summonings and earth-shaking Spells of Doom are fine, but carrying around a bag filled with miscellanceous bric-a-brac for spellcasting isn't interesting.

 

[Celebrim]

The (A)D&D take of wands and staffs as "magical six-guns" doesn't really have much mythical or fictional background that I can recall.

I'm not sure that you'd be able to tell.

Was the wizard using a wand all the time because he couldn't use magic at will without it, or was the wizard using the wand all the time even though he could use magic at will without it but not as effectively? Most fantasy texts aren't going to make explicit the difference between wand as spell battery for wizard's with limited spells per day, and wand as spell enhancer for wizard's with unlimited spells per day.

Either way, he still flicks the wand every round and something magical happens. Whether the magic stuff is coming from an infusion of power he put in the wand previously or power he's channelling through it currently is mostly semantics.

 

[Rechan]

What makes this smack of Harry Potter is that the post implies that Wizards function more effectively with a wand or some other object than without one. Wizards leaning heavily on their wands is very much a Harry Potterism.

I think you're just saying that because Harry Potter came before 4e. Yes, Potter did it, but it wasn't the first, nor the last, it's just the most recent that you're familiar with.

I could accuse the Staff wizard of ripping off The Dresden Files, but that's ludicrous because clearly he got it from someone else (and he's less popular so it likely isn't the direct source). But the implements are very strongly present in The Dresden Files.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I'm hoping the tools of wizardry will replace material components (another D&Dism) for most spells;

Material components are not a D&Dism. They are from the real-world tradition of sympathetic magic, filtered through depiction in the "Harold Shea" stories of Pratt & Camp ("The Roaring Trumpet," "The Mathematics of Magic," et al.).