D&D 4E 4e Wizards - No More Necromancers, Enchanters, Summoners???
- Thread starter Wyrmshadows
- Start date
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
They've explicitly said in a blog post that they're working on an Illusionist class.sirwmholder said:
I struggled with the necromancer for a long while when I had an idea for a campaign once that heavily involved necromancy. Mechanically and thematically. I was trying to decide between an arcane villain and a divine villain. The more I looked at it, the less an arcane necromancer made sense.
That said, I think I would prefer to see a divine-powered Necromancer class as opposed to an arcane-powered one. Not necessarily as a priest of the undead, just that the pure necromancer has a divine power source. Let him work like a "wizard" in some respects, with research and the flavor of his spells, perhaps... maybe seeking out the lore of unnameable, forgotten gods or cults instead of being a worshiper of a "current" god. Cthulhu-style "divine." Something "Other." Something that really brings on feelings of dread and creepiness.
In essence, fold the current arcane and the divine necromancers together under the divine power source. Not exactly a priest, not exactly a wizard, but somewhere in between. Make the base necromancer a ritualist and/or cultist of sorts, allowing for people to add more flavor one way or the other.
In D&D, there are gods across the 'alignment' spectrum with portfolios or domains. There are gods of life and there are gods of death, for instance. Most divine energy comes either in the form of "Positive Energy" which is the power of healing and creation, and "Negative Energy" which is the power of death, unlife, and 'oblivion'-style destruction or degeneration. By channeling positive energy, undead things can be turned, and by channeling negative energy, undead things can be commanded.
In short, life is "holy" and unlife is "unholy" but both are the province of divine Powers. But then, you've got arcane necromancers. Which suits some fiction, but really sticks out like a sore thumb in terms of both D&D game mechanics and the default cosmology.
I always saw wizards as people who wake up in the morning trying to decide how they were going to alter their little corner of reality, or which elemental forces to start tossing around.
The loss of necromancy for wizards doesn't really bother me. It was something that I never felt worked out very well.
Charming and mind-affecting, I can understand why they nixed that to try to beef up the psion's forte. And I can't say I won't be glad that the Charm Person at 1st level monkey wrench will be gone. But I'm more ambivalent about that than anything.
An Illusionist class sounds like fun. It's such a big thing that I'm glad it will be getting its own class. Being able to replicate anything, in terms of perception at least, really deserves more attention under a rules system than one small corner of an already powerful class.
So, I'm glad for the Illusionist, overjoyed at the necromancy thing (and praying they get it "right" when they do bring it in), and ambivalent about the beguiler.
Mechanically, many of these powers - necromancy, summoning, charming, and other stuff - just didn't get as much attention as it deserved to work properly in the grand scheme of things. I consider each getting its own class as a good thing in general.
I also think we need to see how the class training feats and the multiclassing rules will work before signaling the death of the "old school" D&D wizard. It might be possible to replicate a wizard generalist using them that incorporates all the "lost" arts.
That said, I think I would prefer to see a divine-powered Necromancer class as opposed to an arcane-powered one. Not necessarily as a priest of the undead, just that the pure necromancer has a divine power source. Let him work like a "wizard" in some respects, with research and the flavor of his spells, perhaps... maybe seeking out the lore of unnameable, forgotten gods or cults instead of being a worshiper of a "current" god. Cthulhu-style "divine." Something "Other." Something that really brings on feelings of dread and creepiness.
In essence, fold the current arcane and the divine necromancers together under the divine power source. Not exactly a priest, not exactly a wizard, but somewhere in between. Make the base necromancer a ritualist and/or cultist of sorts, allowing for people to add more flavor one way or the other.
In D&D, there are gods across the 'alignment' spectrum with portfolios or domains. There are gods of life and there are gods of death, for instance. Most divine energy comes either in the form of "Positive Energy" which is the power of healing and creation, and "Negative Energy" which is the power of death, unlife, and 'oblivion'-style destruction or degeneration. By channeling positive energy, undead things can be turned, and by channeling negative energy, undead things can be commanded.
In short, life is "holy" and unlife is "unholy" but both are the province of divine Powers. But then, you've got arcane necromancers. Which suits some fiction, but really sticks out like a sore thumb in terms of both D&D game mechanics and the default cosmology.
I always saw wizards as people who wake up in the morning trying to decide how they were going to alter their little corner of reality, or which elemental forces to start tossing around.
The loss of necromancy for wizards doesn't really bother me. It was something that I never felt worked out very well.
Charming and mind-affecting, I can understand why they nixed that to try to beef up the psion's forte. And I can't say I won't be glad that the Charm Person at 1st level monkey wrench will be gone. But I'm more ambivalent about that than anything.
An Illusionist class sounds like fun. It's such a big thing that I'm glad it will be getting its own class. Being able to replicate anything, in terms of perception at least, really deserves more attention under a rules system than one small corner of an already powerful class.
So, I'm glad for the Illusionist, overjoyed at the necromancy thing (and praying they get it "right" when they do bring it in), and ambivalent about the beguiler.
Mechanically, many of these powers - necromancy, summoning, charming, and other stuff - just didn't get as much attention as it deserved to work properly in the grand scheme of things. I consider each getting its own class as a good thing in general.
I also think we need to see how the class training feats and the multiclassing rules will work before signaling the death of the "old school" D&D wizard. It might be possible to replicate a wizard generalist using them that incorporates all the "lost" arts.
Last edited:
Doug McCrae
Legend
Summoning demons is archetypal but not the D&D quick combat version. I don't see any need for the quick summoner in any of the PHBs though it could easily be a monster special power. Although combat summoners have a history in D&D it's not, imo, a noble one, adding nothing to the game but bookkeeping.Ahnehnois said:
Pets, familiars and animal companions are a different matter. I've always liked them and feel they definitely add character to a PC.
The traditional slow style of summoning may well be a ritual in PHB1.
ZappoHisbane
First Post
Remathilis said:
QFT, with a cherry on top.
WarlockLord
First Post
I have stated on these boards that I do not like this. At all. As has been previously stated, most fantasy mages can do all of this stuff. Honestly, for 4e I was hoping for the generic classes of Unearthed Arcana.
Boom magic is boring. Sure, once in a while a big explosion is cool, but fear, death, phantasms, spiederwebs, summoning demons, and mind control is a more interesting suite. The specialists, as has been stated earlier, should have class abilities that allow them to do this better.
Example: Bob the Wizard can cast animate dead. Joe the Necromancer can too, but, because he's a necromancer, his undead have +4 strength, +2 hp per hit die, and +2 to their natural armor.
Our only hope: wizard/warlock/necromancer/psion/illusionist/summoners. If we can get the multiclassing system to work...get ready for some serious MAD. But that's OK. Anyone aspiring to learn mastery of the essential forces of the universe better have some extreme potential.
Boom magic is boring. Sure, once in a while a big explosion is cool, but fear, death, phantasms, spiederwebs, summoning demons, and mind control is a more interesting suite. The specialists, as has been stated earlier, should have class abilities that allow them to do this better.
Example: Bob the Wizard can cast animate dead. Joe the Necromancer can too, but, because he's a necromancer, his undead have +4 strength, +2 hp per hit die, and +2 to their natural armor.
Our only hope: wizard/warlock/necromancer/psion/illusionist/summoners. If we can get the multiclassing system to work...get ready for some serious MAD. But that's OK. Anyone aspiring to learn mastery of the essential forces of the universe better have some extreme potential.
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.
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.
Remathilis said:
Remathilis for the win. I honestly believe this explanation is close to what 4e wizards will be. It's far past time to cull the Swiss-Army Win Button from the game, and change specialists from Generalists+ to someone whose spell list is actually limited by theme.
Kesh
First Post
satori01 said:
#1: They're still involved in play-testing, so they don't want to make hard statements of "this is how X works" when it could be tweaked soon.
#2: Marketing. They're wanting to build up hype as it gets closer to release, not give us all the rules 6 months before the books are for sale.
Like most folks, I expect we'll get bigger & more in-depth previews after Winter Fantasy.
Similar Threads
