Creating a generalist "Mage" class?

[Morrus]

I was just pondering this idea. All the current arcane classes are specialists, and future arcane classes look like they will be, too. The summoner will summon, the wizard does battlefield area effect and control stuff, the illusionist will undoubtedly illuse, and so on.

The traditional D&D wizard (which I'm calling "mage" here to differentiate it from the 4E wizard) was a generalist. Access to everything, but not as focussed in a specialty area.

So how could we make a "mage"? Give him access to all arcane powers? At what cost? Allow him to choose any Arcane Encounter as a Daily? And any Arcane At-Will as an Encounter? Give him access to Rituals as Dailies? But then, where does he get his At-Wills from, and how does he get access to existing Arcane Dailies?

Dunno. Just musing at present. I like the idea as a concept, though. Lots more flexibility sacrficed for maybe a little raw power and focus.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Personally, I think that creating a new class for every aspect of magic is/will be a failing of 4E. The system already provides a system for different builds of characters within a single class, so why make a new class if the only difference is going to be the spells that are accessible?

I say make new builds under the wizard class(and sorcerer and warlock, since they are actually different than a wizard) and eventually there will be enough variety available that a generalist build will emerge naturally.

 

[Fede]

I say make new builds under the wizard class(and sorcerer and warlock, since they are actually different than a wizard) and eventually there will be enough variety available that a generalist build will emerge naturally.

Bolded by me for emphasis. That's the reason for making a different class for each aspect of magic. Each one is going to be significantly different from each other.
By making making a brand new class instead of a new build, the new one can be given features that make it "stand out" from the rest of other arcane classes.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Bolded by me for emphasis. That's the reason for making a different class for each aspect of magic. Each one is going to be significantly different from each other.
By making making a brand new class instead of a new build, the new one can be given features that make it "stand out" from the rest of other arcane classes.

But that only holds true if there is such features are warranted. I could see a necromancer requiring a separate class, as they never really worked quite right within the wizard framework in the past. Evokers, on the other hand, really don't need anything that the wizard class doesn't already provide.

I really think that with the way classes work on builds, we shouldn't be asking if we can make a new class but rather if we should make one. If you make a new class every time you can find an excuse to you are going to end up with a whole lot of watered down classes that don't work well with each other. On the other hand, if you make builds for the same class you will end up with a greater overall range of choices because you don't have to go full evoker if you don't want to. You can take some illusion as well. Enough of that and you will have your generalist mage.

I think classes should be reserved by archtypes that are inherently different. Warlocks don't cast spells in the same way that wizards do. They make pacts. Sorcerers may cast spells in a similar fashion to wizards, but they claim a much different source(internal vs external). Necromancers don't necessarily even need to cast spells, other than to buff up creations made with rituals The main thing they had going for them in 3E was their assortment of save or die spells that they will definitely not be getting back in 4E.

 

[DreamChaser]

I think classes should be reserved by archtypes that are inherently different. Warlocks don't cast spells in the same way that wizards do. They make pacts. Sorcerers may cast spells in a similar fashion to wizards, but they claim a much different source(internal vs external). Necromancers don't necessarily even need to cast spells, other than to buff up creations made with rituals The main thing they had going for them in 3E was their assortment of save or die spells that they will definitely not be getting back in 4E.

The core issue in my mind with this is that wizard is not AN archetype in the same way thief or ranger or paladin is an archetype. The D&D concept of wizard has evolved over the years to include conceptual information from dozens of cultures and myths, which have created a concept that if you include it all (as 2nd and 3rd eds did) you end up with a single class that is impossible to balance with the others.

Now if the same treatment were applied to martial and divine power, we could get closer...what if fighter, warlord, and ranger were all one class...just different builds? Heck, since illusionist is going to be Shadow source, we don't even have to lock into a single source. Add Warden and Barbarian, paladin and swordmage. (note...i don't actually think this is a good idea).

I may be alone in this, but I think that Wizards made the right call in breaking up the wizard into different concepts.

On topic, the first step to making a cross-concept "mage" idea is to ensure that they don't outstrip the other classes...which means they need to be a little bit worse at every role that they are snagging from another. If they have undead, they can't do it as well as the necro. If they blow stuff up, they can't as well as the wizard. If they manipulate minds, they can't do it as well as psion.

DC

 

[Morrus]

That's all very lovely and everything, guys, but anyone got any thoughts on the actual question in the original post?

I'm more than happy to discuss the reasons for specific classes in another thread, but for this thread I'd be grateful if those with thoughts on how to accomplish the aim suggested could offer them. Thanks!

On topic, the first step to making a cross-concept "mage" idea is to ensure that they don't outstrip the other classes...which means they need to be a little bit worse at every role that they are snagging from another. If they have undead, they can't do it as well as the necro. If they blow stuff up, they can't as well as the wizard. If they manipulate minds, they can't do it as well as psion.

Thanks for addressing my question!

I agree. It needs a cost - versatility in exchange for focused power. It's a question of how to mechnically portray that in a rules format.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've been giving some serious consideration to the possibility of, when PHB2 appears, just allowing wizards to expand their list of spells to encompass the spells of the new 'arcane' classes.

The fact that the current wizard doesn't have any whizzy class abilities would then somewhat offset the ability to draw from wizard (controller), sorcerer (striker), swordmage (defender) or bard (leader) lists.

Thus the mage becomes an arcane tabula rasa - there are no class abilities as such (except uses wizard implements and gets cantrips), but they can mix and match spells between any of the roles. Uses Int for attack in all cases.

Any given mage wouldn't be as good at any particular role as the main class (which gets all its powers from that role and has supporting class features to boot) but can helpfully fill in a little for any of the roles, depending upon the desired configuration.

I think that would probably work OK.

Cheers

 

[Nymrohd]

Hmm, well if there is an arcane archetype ED in Arcane power similar to the martial archetype class, then you will have your mage I guess. Personally I don't see why we cannot make a mage within the parameters of the wizard class by just giving him more powers. Unlike every other class all of a wizard's spells are Int attacks, none use a secondary score, nor is any more effective if you have a specific mastery. Combine that with Expanded Spellbook, and a wizard can potentially know a lot of spells from all kinds of different arcanist archetypes.

 

[Morrus]

I've been giving some serious consideration to the possibility of, when PHB2 appears, just allowing wizards to expand their list of spells to encompass the spells of the new 'arcane' classes.

The fact that the current wizard doesn't have any whizzy class abilities would then somewhat offset the ability to draw from wizard (controller), sorcerer (striker), swordmage (defender) or bard (leader) lists.

Thus the mage becomes an arcane tabula rasa - there are no class abilities as such (except uses wizard implements and gets cantrips), but they can mix and match spells between any of the roles. Uses Int for attack in all cases.

Any given mage wouldn't be as good at any particular role as the main class (which gets all its powers from that role and has supporting class features to boot) but can helpfully fill in a little for any of the roles, depending upon the desired configuration.

I think that would probably work OK.

Cheers

That's pretty much my thought - but I think he'd still need to pay something extra in eschange for all that versatility. Giving the current (balanced?) Wizard access to a bunch of other classes' powers empowers him, so he's gotta lose something somewhere.

I did consider writing a supplement called "I want my Vancian magic back!" which was pretty much a translation of the 3.5 wizard to 4E, complete with the whole memorization subsystem, and every 3.5 spell translated in 4E terms, but it seemed too complicated to do in terms of balance.

 

[keterys]

You could swap out Spellbook or Cantrips for the ability to draw on the other lists. Or require that you use space in the spellbook, instead of other utility and daily powers...