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

[mr_outsidevoice]

Specialists and roles

Consider the four basic roles of a party

The Wizard is a Controller
I can see a Conjurer as a Controller or a Striker(Big ass beastie eats enemy commander)
Illusionist Could be a Controller or a Defender of sorts.
Necromancer could rock as a Leader for Undead.


And as mentioned Paragon Paths could be a good way to do some Specialties.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Well, I won't be buying into 4E for several reasons, so my opinion probably doesn't count too much.

But a general medieval-type fantasy game, where my high level wizard can't summon demons only using the base game book (=PHB in D&D's case), has for me already failed. This (together with somesort of enchanting) is a basic thing that a fantasy RPG must provide right from the begining.

Whether or not your high-level WIZARD can summon demons, your high-level WARLOCK is confirmed to have that ability. And since warlocks are the arcane spellcasters who get their power from making pacts with demons (or devils or other such creatures), they sound closer to the archetype you're reaching for anyway.

An unrelated point: even though enchantments have been trimmed from wizards and clerics "to make room for psionics," they've also mentioned a (presumably non-psionic) Enchanter class, and the Bard descriptions we've heard seem pretty enchantment-heavy too.

And finally, a general observation: It's funny to me that people pick out various "wizards" in literature as evidence for the wide range of abilities that should be "core" wizard spells. I mean, look at a prototypical martial character, Aragorn: the guy can shoot and track like a Ranger, command like a Warlord, fight like a Fighter, and gather information like a Rogue, but nobody seems to be arguing that all these abilities should be strengths of the Ranger class. If you really want to make a "generalist wizard" who can do everything magical in 4e, you can make a multiclass wizard/enchanter/necromancer/summoner, just like you'd have to multiclass all over the place for a martial character who can do everything martial.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Gotta disagree. 1e Illusionists rocked!

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.

Agreed completely.

Necromancer also deserves its own class. And if they take time and do it up right, fine by me.

But, if they're giving Wizards various per-encounter or at-will magic-based abilities, bang goes the built-in Vancian balance mechanism of only being able to cast magic a set number of times per day; so there has to be a drawback somewhere.

Lanefan

 

[Rechan]

But, if they're giving Wizards various per-encounter or at-will magic-based abilities, bang goes the built-in Vancian balance mechanism of only being able to cast magic a set number of times per day; so there has to be a drawback somewhere.

But the per-encounter and per-day abilities are setting the magic to a set number of times per day.

In a fight, a character can only use a per-encounter ability once.
A character can only use a per day ability once a day.

It's more like a lot of abilities (not just spells) are being regulated to Vanican style limits on the amount per day.

To put it another way, look at 3e. The Barbarian rages x times per day. The Druid wildshapes X times per day. The paladin smites X times per day. The cleric Turns x times per day.

If these were all made into per-encounter abilities, that still means that they can only do them so many times (once per encounter). Yes, the number of encounters can change, but they're still having to manage resources (Do I use my heal-ally smite this round? Bob the fighter just took a critical, but the rogue might go negative because he's moving in to sneak attack).

 

[Lanefan]

But the per-encounter and per-day abilities are setting the magic to a set number of times per day.

In a fight, a character can only use a per-encounter ability once.
A character can only use a per day ability once a day.

And at-will abilities anytime she likes. Though, otherwise, what you say is true.

It's more like a lot of abilities (not just spells) are being regulated to Vanican style limits on the amount per day.

To put it another way, look at 3e. The Barbarian rages x times per day. The Druid wildshapes X times per day. The paladin smites X times per day. The cleric Turns x times per day.

If these were all made into per-encounter abilities, that still means that they can only do them so many times (once per encounter). Yes, the number of encounters can change, but they're still having to manage resources (Do I use my heal-ally smite this round? Bob the fighter just took a critical, but the rogue might go negative because he's moving in to sneak attack).

The difference will be, I think, that there ends up being far more encounters per day than we're used to seeing in any previous edition, as the party can just keep going longer. Whether this is good or bad is not the point here; the point is that resource management becomes somewhat easier. (I might as well use my heal-ally smite this combat; I'll get another one anyway if we meet something else)

Side note: I've never got used to the per-day Clerical turning in 3e as opposed to at-will in 1e...

Lanefan

 

[Dormammu]

Another possibility that they might be doing is turning Illusion and Necromancy into Paragon Paths. So that they're accessable from 10th-20th level. So you have a wizard who turns down the dark path of Necromancy, instead of starting out at day 1 playing with undead.

You can put my vote down for this, at least as regards Necromancy. I feel like all archetypal Necromancer stories describe mages who turn to dark magic after having mastered the normal, "safe" arts. It should definitely be a Paragon or Epic path for Wizards. So much cooler that way.

Illusionists should ideally be a really cool core class. Being specialists of Wizards was always disappointing for a spell-user that was its own thing in 1E. I'd be thrilled if they could come up with a pure class version of Illusionist that warranted being a separate class. If that's too hard, then I guess a Paragon path would work.

 

[Gloombunny]

If these were all made into per-encounter abilities, that still means that they can only do them so many times (once per encounter). Yes, the number of encounters can change, but they're still having to manage resources (Do I use my heal-ally smite this round? Bob the fighter just took a critical, but the rogue might go negative because he's moving in to sneak attack).

Per-encounter is a different kind of resource management than per-day, though. With a per-encounter ability, you ask yourself "is now the best time during this fight to use this resource?" With a per-day ability, you have to consider whether it's worth using the resource at all during this fight - you can't afford to use a spell just because it would be really good during this fight, because using more resources than you really need to might leave you short-handed in the next fight. Accordingly, those resources could be made very powerful, because the need to conserve them for the biggest challenges kept the wizard from using them over and over to dominate all opposition. With most spells being per-encounter, they have to be toned down a bit, because the per-day-based spells were intentionally too strong to be balanced as abilities that can be used without hesitation.

 

[Gloombunny]

Illusionists should ideally be a really cool core class. Being specialists of Wizards was always disappointing for a spell-user that was its own thing in 1E. I'd be thrilled if they could come up with a pure class version of Illusionist that warranted being a separate class. If that's too hard, then I guess a Paragon path would work.

I hope they take the beguiler and improve on it. Possibly with talent trees or other customization options that make it more of an illusionist or an enchanter as the player desires. But I really liked how the beguiler had not only illusions, but a whole suite of magic based on trickery and deception, plus mundane skills to back them up.

 

[Plane Sailing]

a true wild mage (with random, sometimes bad stuff happening)

It does sound a little as if the Sorcerer may be moving in this direction (but not to the extent you would like, I guess)

 

[Rechan]

I hope they take the beguiler and improve on it. Possibly with talent trees or other customization options that make it more of an illusionist or an enchanter as the player desires. But I really liked how the beguiler had not only illusions, but a whole suite of magic based on trickery and deception, plus mundane skills to back them up.

Yeah. I'm playing a Beguiler right now. I haven't done a lot, but I am definitely digging the class.

Though I gotta tell you, I am terrified of fighting anything mindless, undead, or constructs. At 3rd level, my options in combat is pretty much Sleep or Color Spray, or get the hell out of the fight.

So if WotC make an illusionist or enchanter class, hopefully there will be something for them to do other than "sit on hands" when fighting something mindless.