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

[Lurks-no-More]

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.

Agreed; this is what I expect and hope to see with 4e.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't want to see the "I can do everything" magi of previous editions. I do want a variety of specialized caster classes.

So, no, I don't think adding a Magic-User class is the way to go. I think adding Illusionist, Necromancer, Enchanter, and Summoner classes is the way to go.

 

[malraux]

I don't want to see the "I can do everything" magi of previous editions. I do want a variety of specialized caster classes.

So, no, I don't think adding a Magic-User class is the way to go. I think adding Illusionist, Necromancer, Enchanter, and Summoner classes is the way to go.

What might make an interesting class eventually would be a magic user class that is able to multiclass freely within the wizard, illusionist, etc classes.

 

[Nebulous]

I did not make this implicitly clear from my original post, but i would also like to see spell descriptions that are more interesting than the default Powers list that all classes have now. They are certainly brief and functional, but i don't think many people will say they're FUN to read.

And that is something i really did enjoy about spell descriptions in the past, they were fun to read and mull over.

A dedicated illusionist, necromancer, geomancer, etc. would be a welcome addition to the game if they could enhance the options instead of just reskinning the same old "energy damage" "immobilize" "daze" "Push/Pull/Slide", etc.

 

[yesnomu]

I did not make this implicitly clear from my original post, but i would also like to see spell descriptions that are more interesting than the default Powers list that all classes have now. They are certainly brief and functional, but i don't think many people will say they're FUN to read.

And that is something i really did enjoy about spell descriptions in the past, they were fun to read and mull over.

A dedicated illusionist, necromancer, geomancer, etc. would be a welcome addition to the game if they could enhance the options instead of just reskinning the same old "energy damage" "immobilize" "daze" "Push/Pull/Slide", etc.

Neither of these things are going to happen, for pretty clear reasons.

• The power block will be kept because it is compact, informative, and generally perfectly clear. (Problem children like Rain of Blows need a couple of extra lines to be spelled out explicitly, but not much more) I'm sorry if it's not flavorful enough for you, but it's also way easier to figure out what the power does than it was for the old text block spells.
• New status effects are almost certainly not going to happen, either because the statuses people want are generally permanent things, or because they can be accomplished by combining the current status effects.
  • Ability damage? Permanent (for an encounter, at least which is all that matters for a monster), requires changes to multiple stats and skills all over the character sheet (no thanks), and can be replaced by taking an attack or skill penalty/being weakened/losing surges. Finally, requires a divine character to fix. No way that's happening again.
  • Level drain/negative levels? See above.
  • Any variety of instant death/petrification? Renders hit point damage moot, which renders strikers moot. Don't bet on many, at least. What ones exist will give the monster multiple saves, like the way monster petrification works now.

Basically, statuses have to be able to be saved against, and they can't require much math besides addition and subtraction. That limits the 3.5 craziness you can bring in.

 

[Eric Tolle]

How about a magic user that gets no at-will, encounter or daily powers, but lots and lots and lots of rituals? We could even say they can perform rituals at 1/10th the component price.

The OP would be cool with that, because this is all about making spellcasters that are more evocative and interesting, right? Its not simply whining because the spellcasters no longer dominates the game, right?

 

[Nebulous]

The OP would be cool with that, because this is all about making spellcasters that are more evocative and interesting, right? Its not simply whining because the spellcasters no longer dominates the game, right?

Correct, i don't want spellcasters to dominate the game and become gods. I just want their magic to be more evocative and interesting, but i am not sure how to do that in the 4e ruleset, and it honestly might not be possible without major retooling, so much so that you might as well play another game.

Still, 4e does a lot of things i do like, hence my interest in the possibility.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Correct, i don't want spellcasters to dominate the game and become gods. I just want their magic to be more evocative and interesting, but i am not sure how to do that in the 4e ruleset, and it honestly might not be possible without major retooling, so much so that you might as well play another game.

Still, 4e does a lot of things i do like, hence my interest in the possibility.

Define... no describe evocative and interesting. Was Phantasmal Killer interesting? How about Finger of Death? How do you feel about the 4E "Bigby's Hand/Grasp" spells?
Or was it the incredible flexibility?

---

Flesh to Stone (Daily - Arcane, Implement, Transmutation)
Standard Action - Ranged 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Int vs Fort
Hit:
1d10+INT points of damage and the target is slowed and takes ongoing damage 10 and gains Resist 5 (all) (save ends). If the first save fails, the target is stunned, takes ongoing damage 15 and gains Resist 10 (all) (save ends). If the first save fails the target turns permanently into stone (gaining Resist 15 and temporary hit points equal to its bloodied value). The target also turns into stone if the damage from this spell would reduce its hit points to 0 or less. If it its hit points are reduced to 0 again, it is dead.
Sustain Minor: Repeat the attack against the target.
Special: If the target is turned into stone, only a Remove Affliction ritual can remove all conditions (except hit point damage) caused by this spell.

(Note: The ongoing damage and Resistance is "calibrated" so that the creature always takes 5 points of ongoing damage effectively. That's intentional. The idea of giving a small benefit as part of the spell is in a way an "anti-leader" function - ignore that target, it will soon be petrified and you won't deal any damage anyway...)

 

[Nebulous]

Define... no describe evocative and interesting. Was Phantasmal Killer interesting? How about Finger of Death? How do you feel about the 4E "Bigby's Hand/Grasp" spells?
Or was it the incredible flexibility?

I wish i had some books in front of me to supply examples. The Flesh to Stone example you provided is a pretty good one, it has a lot of functions that differ from all the other spells.

What prompted me to start the thread was the Presper's Moonbow spell that i was reading in the Spell Compendium. It could only be cast at night under the open sky (severely limiting its use, yes) but it had an element of randomness to it. Swirling motes of energy circle you can that can be directed at a single or multiple targets over multiple rounds, and it might have done something else too, i can't recall. But it was just a "cool" spell to read and wasn't relegated to pure game mechanics.

I guess i do like some unnecessary fluff in my spell descriptions, which is definitely not 4e's design goal.