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

[Incenjucar]

If you want to get back all the 3E spellcasting versatility... just multiclass your spellcaster into different spellcaster types.

I see nothing wrong with a mage essentially being a specialist multiclasser.

 

[Hussar]

Some people have stated that at some point WOTC will do all of the magical archetypes, then at some point I might buy 4e.

It is a simple as that.

Why am I as a veteran player, with an established and active gaming group going to convert to a system that does not offer me something as simple as necromancy, or enchantment? I have the Beguiler in 3.5, the Dread Necromancer as well, why switch to a system that supports fewer archetypes?

For many that love playing the wizard the thrill is not having the biggest fireball it is finding the creative use for the unusual spell. The Dimensional Anchor that saves the day, and prevents the big bad from teleporting away.

I would love to have the designers talk about magic, give us firm details, address why the changes, and limiting of scope...explain the reasoning...I need to know. I assume some plan is in place, after all the designers love the game....they have to know that this is a huge disappointment to many....why are they not making the case?

To tell me that sometime down the road enchantment will be put back in, then sometime down the road I may buy. Thing is, sales are not always based off sometime down the road....so if 4e is expected to boost sales right away, and I and many others are waiting for sometime down the road....sometime down the road may never happen.

I am a satisfied 3.5 user, designers make the case of why the change was for the better, and give me a reason to switch now, instead of wait for latter, or never.

Let's face it, 4e will NOT have as many options as 3e at release. That's a completely unrealistic expectation. How long was it before the Beguiler was released? PHB 2 no? So, all of 3e and well into 3.5 before you got this gem. Dread Necromancer was in Complete Arcane IIRC. Again, 3 or 4 years after the release of 3e.

You simply will not have the breadth of choice in early days 4e that you had in later days 3e. You can't.

OTOH, is anyone in your group right now playing a Dread Necromancer or a Beguiler? If not, then, who cares? An option that's not being used may as well not exist.

 

[Rechan]

Dread Necromancer was in Complete Arcane IIRC. Again, 3 or 4 years after the release of 3e.

Heroes of Horror.

 

[vulcan_idic]

It seems that enchatment (charms, domination, etc.) are going to be relegated to psionics (sweet baby jeebus!!!) so as to give psionics a niche. So out is the sexy mage who uses her feminine wiles and a healthy dose of magic to dominate those around her. Out is the powerful mage who enthralls the will of a king so as to be the power behind the throne. So now both of these two are going to have to be psionicists?

Or a specialist Wizard known as an enchanter ("There are some who call me... Tim" - though come to think of it, he was far more an evoker!!) who happens to be either mechanically identical to a "psionicist" or some sort of variation (a Wizard with a Psi Training feat). After all...

JULIET
O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Wizard.

ROMEO
[Aside] Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?

JULIET
'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Psionicist.
What's Psionicist? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

ROMEO
I take thee at thy word:
Call me but love, and I'll be new baptized;
Henceforth I never will be Romeo.

JULIET
What man art thou that thus bescreen'd in night
So stumblest on my counsel?

ROMEO
By a name
I know not how to tell thee who I am:
My name, dear saint, is hateful to myself,
Because it is an enemy to thee;
Had I it written, I would tear the word.

JULIET
My ears have not yet drunk a hundred words
Of that tongue's utterance, yet I know the sound:
Art thou not Romeo and a Psionicist?

ROMEO
Neither, fair saint, if either thee dislike.

 

[Ahglock]

Let's face it, 4e will NOT have as many options as 3e at release. That's a completely unrealistic expectation. How long was it before the Beguiler was released? PHB 2 no? So, all of 3e and well into 3.5 before you got this gem. Dread Necromancer was in Complete Arcane IIRC. Again, 3 or 4 years after the release of 3e.

You simply will not have the breadth of choice in early days 4e that you had in later days 3e. You can't.

OTOH, is anyone in your group right now playing a Dread Necromancer or a Beguiler? If not, then, who cares? An option that's not being used may as well not exist.

I agree with what you are saying but to me it looks like 4e will have less options in its core 3 books than 3/3.5 did in its core 3. Sure it may be unrealistic to assume they should have the Dread Necromancer but wanting them to have necromancy isn't an unrealistic requirement.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yes, but so what?

"Wizard" as a class name, is a meta-game concept. Whether or not a "mage" or "wizard" can do a thing is largely irrelevant. The question is whether your character can do the thing, and the answer is "yes".

Given open multiclassing, and a reasonable expectation that spellcasters who do so won't stink, which class has a given ability does not matter much, as you can always choose to have the ability if you want it. Stop thinking about "I want to build a <member of particular class> who can do X", and start thinking about "I want to build a character who can do X" and the issue will likely cease to be an issue.

The levels in particular classes are building blocks. Build to fit the concept.

I think you're right, and that a major paradigm shift is in order here. As abhorrent as the notion is to some people, we must stop thinking of classes as being roles, jobs, or archetypes, and start thinking of them as lists of powers siloed together in convenient packages.

You want to be an enchanter, you take levels of psion and call yourself an enchanter. You want to be a necromancer who summons spirits to damage his enemies, you build a wizard or warlock and choose powers that suit your shtick, then staple your special effects on the top.

This actually suits me fine, since I like GURPS or HERO-type build-your-own character systems. This is just the way you do it with a class-based system: choose a main list of powers to start with and use feats to multiclass the character in the direction you like. Once there are more classes to work from, like necromancers, psions, and illusionists, there will be more options for customization, and more ways to realize a concept. The necromancer I mention could be built the way I describe above, or it could be an actual necromancer class with warlock and wizard powers added on, depending on how you want to do it.

This is based on a fairly optimistic expectation of how multiclassing will work, of course, but if they pull it off, it'll turn classes into a toolbox for character design rather than a set of predetermined roles that need to be modified or discarded.

Of course, given wizard implements and warlock pacts and other things of that sort, I have to wonder how free-form that toolbox will be.

 

[Ahglock]

I think you're right, and that a major paradigm shift is in order here. As abhorrent as the notion is to some people, we must stop thinking of classes as being roles, jobs, or archetypes, and start thinking of them as lists of powers siloed together in convenient packages.

You want to be an enchanter, you take levels of psion and call yourself an enchanter. You want to be a necromancer who summons spirits to damage his enemies, you build a wizard or warlock and choose powers that suit your shtick, then staple your special effects on the top.

This actually suits me fine, since I like GURPS or HERO-type build-your-own character systems. This is just the way you do it with a class-based system: choose a main list of powers to start with and use feats to multiclass the character in the direction you like. Once there are more classes to work from, like necromancers, psions, and illusionists, there will be more options for customization, and more ways to realize a concept. The necromancer I mention could be built the way I describe above, or it could be an actual necromancer class with warlock and wizard powers added on, depending on how you want to do it.

This is based on a fairly optimistic expectation of how multiclassing will work, of course, but if they pull it off, it'll turn classes into a toolbox for character design rather than a set of predetermined roles that need to be modified or discarded.

Of course, given wizard implements and warlock pacts and other things of that sort, I have to wonder how free-form that toolbox will be.

Yes but for many the wizard is the role/job etc that said Generic jack of all trades spell caster. They might not care if its called wizard, the handy man, or a magic user. But they want that role to exist and its not to clear on whether or not it will. It seems like eventually all the specialties may exist so you can multi class or whatever to develop any of those ideas but who knows if the plain jane mage will exist. Because the wizard sure as heck isn't looking like it to me.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yes but for many the wizard is the role/job etc that said Generic jack of all trades spell caster. They might not care if its called wizard, the handy man, or a magic user. But they want that role to exist and its not to clear on whether or not it will. It seems like eventually all the specialties may exist so you can multi class or whatever to develop any of those ideas but who knows if the plain jane mage will exist. Because the wizard sure as heck isn't looking like it to me.

To me, the wizard is indeed looking like a jack-of-all-trades, with a special focus on blasting. From what I've heard so far, he's got a little enchantment, a little summoning, a little transmutation, and generally a mixed bag of fairly unimpressive but wide-ranging abilities, supplementing his direct-damage and battlefield control shticks. The thing is, he's already playing second fiddle in those areas to the yet-unwritten specialists like the psion and the illusionist. Once they come in, they'll be numero uno at those sorts of tasks, while the wizard will be merely competent...which is better than being confined to blasting completely. I expect that these other classes will have minimal direct-damage and area control effects, to allow the wizard to excel there.

I kind of wish that these other classes were being presented as a more unified package, though. Have a group called "wizard," and have illusionists, psions (called enchanters), necromancers, et al. fall under that category. Call the basic wizard as presented an invoker, and you're good to go. If you want to be good at necromancy and illusions, you multiclass two wizard types. Otherwise, you have access to your "good" list of spells, and some not-so-good breadth spells. In fact, if they went this route, they could have a common list of B-list spells shared between these wizard classes, and each class could have its own set of A-list spells, plus unique class abilities to complement them, much in the way that discipline powers worked in the 3.5 psionics handbook.

 

[Ahglock]

To me, the wizard is indeed looking like a jack-of-all-trades, with a special focus on blasting. From what I've heard so far, he's got a little enchantment, a little summoning, a little transmutation, and generally a mixed bag of fairly unimpressive but wide-ranging abilities, supplementing his direct-damage and battlefield control shticks. The thing is, he's already playing second fiddle in those areas to the yet-unwritten specialists like the psion and the illusionist. Once they come in, they'll be numero uno at those sorts of tasks, while the wizard will be merely competent...which is better than being confined to blasting completely. I expect that these other classes will have minimal direct-damage and area control effects, to allow the wizard to excel there.

I kind of wish that these other classes were being presented as a more unified package, though. Have a group called "wizard," and have illusionists, psions (called enchanters), necromancers, et al. fall under that category. Call the basic wizard as presented an invoker, and you're good to go. If you want to be good at necromancy and illusions, you multiclass two wizard types. Otherwise, you have access to your "good" list of spells, and some not-so-good breadth spells. In fact, if they went this route, they could have a common list of B-list spells shared between these wizard classes, and each class could have its own set of A-list spells, plus unique class abilities to complement them, much in the way that discipline powers worked in the 3.5 psionics handbook.

I hope that is true, I just don't have very high hopes that it will be.

 

[Rechan]

According to R&C, Under Bard:

With the skill to fool enemies with illusionary magic and to influence them with emntal trickery, a bard can make his foes work against themselves.

And under enchantment in the "Are schools dead?"

Enchantment is still around, but expect future classes to emphasize it more than the classes in the First PHB.

The above were emphasized by me.

I don't think Psions are the only ones who get enchantment tricks.

And given that the emphasis for Bards was on being sages and loremasters and creative types, it sounds to me like they're social wizards. So just playing a bard, and calling yourself an Enchanter or Illusionist isn't really that hard.