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

[frankthedm]

Also, this means the wizard isn't the "a spell for every stiuation" guy anymore, that can replace almost all skills and quite a few class features with a quick spell. Nor the "game-shanging spellslinger", that with almost every new spell level changed the complete game experience with access to scry (as we know, now a ritual) or teleport or some other wazoo.

These abilities where in addition to immense firepower mind you.

His problematic abilities couldn't be fixed, because the problem was never their execution, but their inherent nature. They could only be handled in three ways:

1) Accepting that the wizard is just far more influential and flexible than other classes, because he is the frikkin wizard. Which is fine for literature, but not exactly for a game.

2) Significantly reducing the wizards firepower and say he's an "arcane toolbox". Which means he still is problematic, not so fun to play, but at least theoretically balanced.

3) Relegate the problematic abilities to DM control and off screen activities and removing them from the guaranteed capabilities of the wizard. Which in D&D has been slinging fireballs for a very long time.

IMO, the only way they couldn't choose 3) is by saying "But wizards are the masters of the arcane arts!". Which is fine for fantasy literature, but not for a game that is suposed to include other archetypes.

This sums it up pretty well.

NPC's aren't constrained to classes now in 4e. You can easily create these NPCs by giving them some appropriate powers. The powers don't even need to be spells in the PHB. They can just be per encounter or per day abilities the NPC has. All this change really means is that players can't pick these classes yet.

Oh, I suspect those most disappointed by 4th edition magic changes are spell caster favoring players who WANT every BBEG ability to be a spell they can get a hold of. Gone are the Days when a DM has to justify a plot device by making it a spell, then waste valuable prep time by trying to figure out limitations so it does not damage the campaign once PCs get a hold of it. Now the system is far more encouraging to the “The NPC did it, it’s done, He’s dead, here’s your XP” style of roadblocking PCs trying to abilties that only work as cool BBEG tricks.

 

[DonTadow]

Can't say I"m happy with this move now, but if its like i think, i will be in the long run. I see trees for all these speciality wizards, which I'm ok with. Right now its going to make for a cookie cutter mage.

Short term mess for long term solutions.

 

[frankthedm]

Can't say I"m happy with this move now, but if its like i think, i will be in the long run. I see trees for all these speciality wizards, which I'm ok with. Right now its going to make for a cookie cutter mage.

Wizards will in all likelihood be just as "cookie cutter" as the other classes.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Maybe it would help to think of the "Magic User " (old skool) as the generic caster class, and the wizard is the evoker/illusionist version of the magic user

To be honest, I'll be pretty pleased to see a workable blaster mage again, since in 3e I've rarely seen an effective blaster mage. As someone else mentioned, hit points have scaled so much more rapidly while blasting damage hasn't scaled at all!

In 3e the most effective blaster I've seen was a druid. Burn some incense of meditation to get all your spells maximised and load up with call lightning, Flame Strike and Call Lightning Storm.

After summoning a quick air elemental or two to provide the necessary whirlwind support my 13th level druid did a whole bunch of 78pt flame strikes, then did a 50pt lightning bolt to a target each round for about 10 rounds (just one spell!) and still had his 30 point lighting bolts handy as backup.

Wizards have no core method of maximising *all* their spells like that, let alone for the relatively cheap price.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

skills

In my opinion, the wizard should be balanced in the same way that know-it-all scientists are often balanced in literature: by being terribly bad at things involving physical prowess, while his companions are good at these things.

And his spell list should be tweaked so that he pays a higher price than now if he circumvents these restrictions by magic.

The problem is, D&D 3.5 doesn't do this at all. For one thing, skills work off INT, which means that the wizard has a ton of skill points relative to a fighter.

I think that skills should be divided into categories, and classes should get different skill points in different categories.

lets say these are the categories:

1) knowledge and magic
2) perception
3) athletics
4) stealth
5) deception and diplomacy

For example, the rogue should get a ton of skill points in all categories.
The fighter should get a lot of points in athletics and perception
the wizard should get a lot of points in knowledge and magic
the cleric should get points in one or two areas depending on their god

Furthermore, skill points are no longer influenced by any stat.

Now, you introduce hazards into adventure design that require perception and athletics tests IN COMBAT. The wizard , who is intentionally excluded by the game design from being good at these things, has to use his magic to overcome them. But the spells that accomplish these things (expeditious retreat, spider climb, levitate and fly , for example) should require the expenditure of significantly greater resources than they do for the wizard of 3E. Either they are higher level, or they require the sacrifice of other per-day abilities, or whatever 4E design dictates.

To satisfy those that want their wizards to be sneaky or whatever you can have feat/talent chains that opens up other skill areas to the wizard. But it should be costly.

Ken

 

[frankthedm]

In 3e the most effective blaster I've seen was a druid. Burn some incense of meditation to get all your spells maximised and load up with call lightning, Flame Strike and Call Lightning Storm.

I knew I was forgetting something in those CoDzilla discusions! Thanks for the last peice of that very broken puzzle.

 

[StarFyre]

my solution to this type of thing ....

is what we do now.

right now players find spells in some older material (or I find it) and would like to incorporate it, even if it hasn't been officially converted to D20.

I just read it, and decide if it should be in the same level as prior, one level higher or lower.

Example being Summon Nature Elemental, a 7th level cleric spell from Ruins of Zhentil Keep I believe. Nature Elemental to me, SHOULD be the most powerful druidic spell...seeing how I see it as a true epic nature creature; and i think should be more powerful than the elementals in the epic level handbook in that sense, however, epic rules i don't like that much.

For me, Summon Nature Elemental has become a ritual, created by elves at the time of Netheril, so that druids or elven high mages can summon them thru a long process.

This ritual, I will add to the epic tier for the druid, once the druid is written up for 4E.

The point of this long winded message; you an always spend some time, and put spells back into a associated level; maybe changing them a bit to fit into the new ruleset.

It's still a game where freedom allows us to change whatever we want.

Sanjay

 

[Traycor]

If WOTC doesn't allow wizards to be more than stupid blasters, I foresee a lot of folk giving WOTC stuff a "heave ho" and looking for other companies ot produce more friendly OGL books with arcane stuf. Sigh

It is fairly obvious from the limited info released (most notably rituals) that wizards are going to be much more than blasters.

What seems to be confusing folks is the defined combat role that wizards now have... which is Area of Effect damage and moving opponents on the battlefield.

Illusionists will have a different combat role, and thus require different balance and class abilities. Conjurers will have a different combat role, and will once again require different balance and class abilities.

In 3E, an illusionist was still basically a blaster, except with 'perks'. No spellcaster was truly limited in their role unless they made the conscious choice to limit themself. Personally, I like 4E's method better. In literature, magic users usually have limitations on what types of effects they can create and how they work. Only classic D&D novels have ever allowed wizards to just do anything and everything with their magic power. 4E will now create different types of magic users that wield their powers in different ways, each with their own unique strengths and limitations. That's FAR more logical, interesting, and balanced.

 

[hojas]

Wizard needs Necromancy.......badly!

*sorry for the gauntlet reference, it happens sometimes

 

[frankthedm]

What seems to be confusing folks is the defined combat role that wizards now have... which is Area of Effect damage and moving opponents on the battlefield.

They are not all confusing it, some don't like that the wizard class is being made quantifiable. There is going to be a LOT less hosing of the DM preparation work and some people don't like that.

Wizard needs Necromancy.......badly!

*sorry for the gauntlet reference, it happens sometimes

Sorry, without alignment to curb it, PCs wizards have far less reasons not to use zombies as trap detectors.