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

[Rechan]

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

Given the weakening of Alignment, and how it's completely taken out of the Rules, I don't see that as a balancing factor.

Besides. You're better off using a conjurer as a trap detector. Zombies require 25gp a pop. Summoned critters require a spell slot.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Besides. You're better off using a conjurer as a trap detector. Zombies require 25gp a pop. Summoned critters require a spell slot.

This brings to mind one of the reasons that I think is responsible for summoning not being well covered in the first PHB.

Namely, I don't think summoning in 4E should be a simple thing of "use a spell slot to get a random weak creature to help you". This was fine enough in earlier versions of D&D, but in recent time, this no longer works as well.

The reason? Anime and videogames. Popular videogames like the Final Fantasy series, and popular Anime like Naruto have consistently portrayed a very different, and much more interesting, idea of summoning. In these games and anime, summoning is an extremely powerful and distinct ability, not just a normal subset of magic. Summoning always brings forth a unique (almost always intelligent) creature who has made a pact with the summoner, and is powerful enough to change the entire battle. Either the summoned creature uses an attack stronger than what a human mage can unleash, or it sticks around and is a powerful ally for a large part of the battle.

Overall, the anime/videogame approach to summoning is a lot more popular and interesting. 4E should do summoning that way, but doing it right will take a bit of energy and space that wouldn't fit in the PHB1, so I am glad summoning is not appearing right away.

 

[Rechan]

Overall, the anime/videogame approach to summoning is a lot more popular and interesting. 4E should do summoning that way, but doing it right will take a bit of energy and space that wouldn't fit in the PHB1, so I am glad summoning is not appearing right away.

I don't disagree.

But honestly, one thing I wish was more reasonable/capable is the Planar Ally method of summoning.

You summon a creature, and you make a deal with it, and it sticks around. The problem with Planar Ally is that it costs a crap load and doesn't have a good return.

 

[Lackhand]

This brings to mind one of the reasons that I think is responsible for summoning not being well covered in the first PHB.

Namely, I don't think summoning in 4E should be a simple thing of "use a spell slot to get a random weak creature to help you". This was fine enough in earlier versions of D&D, but in recent time, this no longer works as well.

The reason? Anime and videogames. Popular videogames like the Final Fantasy series, and popular Anime like Naruto have consistently portrayed a very different, and much more interesting, idea of summoning. In these games and anime, summoning is an extremely powerful and distinct ability, not just a normal subset of magic. Summoning always brings forth a unique (almost always intelligent) creature who has made a pact with the summoner, and is powerful enough to change the entire battle. Either the summoned creature uses an attack stronger than what a human mage can unleash, or it sticks around and is a powerful ally for a large part of the battle.

Overall, the anime/videogame approach to summoning is a lot more popular and interesting. 4E should do summoning that way, but doing it right will take a bit of energy and space that wouldn't fit in the PHB1, so I am glad summoning is not appearing right away.

Pretty sure that's not just Anime and Videogames.
Pretty sure it's also the source material for summoning, period. Well, sorta: Source for summoning usually has the summonee being a tutor or a servant, and combat uses are secondary, but for each summoned imp and succubus, there are totally bound demon kings and genies.

I think the real breakthrough is realizing that it's okay to give various spellcasters different types of resources (and you can *definitely* blame the advances we've had in game design on videogames).

It's fine for a Ritual to summon a demon to be different from a Spell to create a fireball.

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

I can't argue with delaying it in order to get it right. That's understandable. I guess as a DM with a long running world that has transcended D&D versions over the years (and even rule systems from time to time) I am bothered by the delay because winging this much stuff is a bit of a problem. Hopefully 4e contains these options sooner rather than later. Well this will only matter if I choose 4e as my ruleset of choice...we'll see.

My real gripe would be eliminating nearly entirely a wizard's ability to use necromancy, illusion, enchantment, etc. IMO a sensible system would be for the wizard in the PHB1 to be referred to as a battlemage while at the same time allowing enchanters, illusionists, necromancers and others to be different flavors of wizard and not completely different classes with very different assumptions. This way the wizards can be differentiated while at the same time allowing for magical specialities.

Weird....seems like the old schools of magic thing doesn't it. Looking back I think the old schools of magic are looking better and better. They certainly had an in game logic to them.

Maybe the right way to go would be to leave those options open, while making school specialization more restrictive, maybe more drastic than the choice of the Psion's discipline. That way, a wizard could choose to be a necromancer, but he will be lame at blasting foes. The current 4e wizard could be an Evoker (heavy blasting and lame necromancy/enchantment/illusion) ore it could be built into talent trees, where the options are available, but you can't excel UNLESS you specialize dramatically. Something like the force powers from SAGA, you have many options, but you have to unlock them with feats and talents, and makes the decisions harder (wich means, that it is balanced)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

R&C explicitly says conjuration/summoning will be back for arcane casters. I'd rather have a Beguiler-style Conjurer than make the Wizard into such a good Swiss Army Knife that he makes the specialists pointless.

 

[Rechan]

R&C explicitly says conjuration/summoning will be back for arcane casters. I'd rather have a Beguiler-style Conjurer than make the Wizard into such a good Swiss Army Knife that he makes the specialists pointless.

Agreed. Though honestly, one thing I kind've wished is that the spells weren't carrying all the weight for the specialty classes.

I'll use the Beguiler. They get a few neat abilities (Free Still and Silent), and the cloaked casting sure. But for the most part? They're just an illusionist with a rogue's skills. Which is fine.

But I also wish that they had more unique class abilities. Neat little tricks and surprises. Not to make them Powarful, but to offer variety and versatility and thematic approach. The Dread Necro is a good example, as they slowly turn into a lich (and once they are a lich, all those class abilities are now redundant). But an unrelated ability that lets them use Diplomacy and Intimidate on intelligent undead (or Charm undead), or see the Living, etc, would be a nice quirk.

I'm trying to think of a good example. This I am just pulling out of my butt (so don't criticize it on matters of balance): a transmuter-focused class with an ability that lets them take a piece of a magical beast, and for a short period, 'absorb' that power so he can use it. So if they just killed a troll, he could bottle some troll blood and then "absorb" the regeneration power for an encounter, so that he has a limited form of regeneration.

It's not a spell, but a unique quirk of the class that drives the thematic feel as very appropriate, and it lets you do things that you don't even need to bother your spells over.

 

[Hussar]

I can't argue with delaying it in order to get it right. That's understandable. I guess as a DM with a long running world that has transcended D&D versions over the years (and even rule systems from time to time) I am bothered by the delay because winging this much stuff is a bit of a problem. Hopefully 4e contains these options sooner rather than later. Well this will only matter if I choose 4e as my ruleset of choice...we'll see.

Well, I'm not really sure how angry you can be about this reasonably.

They've flat out stated that this edition will NOT be backward compatible. Or, rather, that if you want to keep your edition spanning campaign, you're in for a truckload of work. This isn't a secret. This has been specifically stated more than once.

So, yeah, you can be bummed that the newest edition isn't supporting your current campaign, but, you shouldn't be surprised when specific changes hurt your current campaign.

The reason? Anime and videogames. Popular videogames like the Final Fantasy series, and popular Anime like Naruto have consistently portrayed a very different, and much more interesting, idea of summoning. In these games and anime, summoning is an extremely powerful and distinct ability, not just a normal subset of magic. Summoning always brings forth a unique (almost always intelligent) creature who has made a pact with the summoner, and is powerful enough to change the entire battle. Either the summoned creature uses an attack stronger than what a human mage can unleash, or it sticks around and is a powerful ally for a large part of the battle.

TwinB - I know you said anime in a positive way, but, I'm very sure this goes farther back than anime. Heck, Aladin does exactly this. Moorcock as well. 3e summoning is wonky. The lower level summonings don't scale at all, making them entirely redundant at even a couple of levels higher. And, really, they're pretty bland and flavourless.

I've played conjurers and, to me, the best one of the bunch, in terms of being interesting, was the one who could summon pseudonatural creatures. At least the beasties looked cool.

What I can see is that you might get a conjurer who can do a per encounter summoning for small stuff and per day for the big stuff. Seems like a good split with the rituals.

 

[Rechan]

TwinB - I know you said anime in a positive way, but, I'm very sure this goes farther back than anime. Heck, Aladin does exactly this. Moorcock as well. 3e summoning is wonky. The lower level summonings don't scale at all, making them entirely redundant at even a couple of levels higher. And, really, they're pretty bland and flavourless.

I've played conjurers and, to me, the best one of the bunch, in terms of being interesting, was the one who could summon pseudonatural creatures. At least the beasties looked cool.

What I can see is that you might get a conjurer who can do a per encounter summoning for small stuff and per day for the big stuff. Seems like a good split with the rituals.

This might sound silly. But the best way I've heard of handling a summoner (outside of cohorts/companions/planar allies) is:

Describe all of your spells as tied to outsiders.

Invisibility? A spirit of air cloaks you in its presence. But it is a pacifist, so if you attack while under its protection, it leaves you.
Fireball? A little kamikaze fire imp is brought into the world and charges your foes.
Touch spell? A stingy outsider crawls onto the back of your hand, and when you reach out ot touch your foe, they attack, and the effect comes from them.

Putting spells in your book is just learning the names of these creatures and making bargains with them for future usage.

Yes, this sort've hurts the game in a metagame perspective (What is the alignment of these outsiders? Can they cross over a Circle of Protection? Why can't they be rebuked? Why aren't they making attack rolls?) But I think it adds a nice flavor of Summoner to an every-day wizard.

 

[Spatula]

Some kind of return to the specialists as their own class is welcome. While the 1e illusionist was rather crappy compared to the magic-user, playing an illusionist was a distinct experience. 2e & 3e made specialist wizards very bland - one extra spell slot for the chosen school, and some barred schools (while at the same time making the 1e illusionist-only spells available to all who could cast illusions). Not very interesting at all, really.

On the other hand, not having any of these different magic-user options available to start isn't cool, especially for established campaign worlds that have established illusionists, enchanters, etc. (this also makes me wonder how 4e Eberron is going to handle kalashtar / the Inspired without any published psionics rules). Instead we have space reserved for "new" concepts like the warlock, while the established character types are shoved off to some nebulous later date.