Dave Noonan Responds about Wizard Implements

[Victim]

We saw plenty of new domains though.

 

[Wormwood]

We saw plenty of new domains though.

Yet we never got a "Complete Book of Domains", did we?

Will Wizards sprinkle new Traditions into future releases? Sure they will. I'm confident that the new Eberron and Forgotten Realms books will have setting-specific Traditions, for example. New "Arcane" themed books will probably have a chapter on Traditions as well.

But will we see even ONE book like the "Complete Book of Traditions"?

I'll bet we won't.

 

[Jer]

But will we see even ONE book like the "Complete Book of Traditions"?

I'll bet we won't.

I'll take that bet. I'll bet we will. It'll probably be the book that uses the name "Tome of Magic" in the 4e cycle of the game. And I'll bet it fills the niche that the Spell Compendium filled in 3e.

And I don't see why this is a bad thing at all - in fact, the more I'm hearing the more I'm liking.

EDIT: Also, I'm not sure that "domains" are the right analogy here. In fact, the whole thing sounds a lot like a wizardly version of the 9 disciplines from the Book of 9 Swords, and I suspect that it'll be somewhat more like that.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

We saw plenty of new domains though.

In which case my "fluff" concern (from the other thread) holds.

If you create a new Domain and call it Celerity or Spider or Community, I can make an educated guess from the name what sorts of spells will be grouped under that new domain.

Now I tell you that I have a new wizard Tradition called Order of the Golden Wyvern. Where are you?

So I assume that "Tradition" is not analogous to "Domain."

It may in fact be the case (and I hope so) that "Tradition" is analogous to "Deity"-- ergo "Wizard of the Golden Wyvern, who uses the Wand, and casts Fire and Poison spells" is analogous to "Cleric of Pelor, who uses the Morningstar, and casts Healing and Light spells."

But then we are back to wondering why we would need a book of new Traditions and Implements, because if the analogy holds, that is merely an offering of New Deities and Their Favored Weapons.

 

[Masquerade]

I would much rather see new traditions introduced than new wizard PrCs, and many of the current wizard PrCs could probably be reimagined as traditions in the new edition.

I'm liking the idea of traditions more and more.

 

[Jer]

But then we are back to wondering why we would need a book of new Traditions and Implements, because if the analogy holds, that is merely an offering of New Deities and Their Favored Weapons.

Deities and Demigods?

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

It may in fact be the case (and I hope so) that "Tradition" is analogous to "Deity"-- ergo "Wizard of the Golden Wyvern, who uses the Wand, and casts Fire and Poison spells" is analogous to "Cleric of Pelor, who uses the Morningstar, and casts Healing and Light spells."

My guess, based on nothing more than pure speculation, is that Traditions will be have similarities to 3E domains and 2E spheres, possibly in the form of something like talent trees or prestige classes.

One of 3E's design geniuses, whether intended or not, was that Feats and Prestige Classes lent themselves so well to being kit-bashed that they practically powered the 3E supplements all by themselves, going into territory where only magic items and spells used to go. Traditions may fill one of those roles in 4E.

 

[Sir Brennen]

But then we are back to wondering why we would need a book of new Traditions and Implements, because if the analogy holds, that is merely an offering of New Deities and Their Favored Weapons.

"we might crank out some new implements and disciplines/traditions" doesn't imply, in my mind, a whole book of such things. Yes, such a product would be the height of boring. But we might see them as a few pages in 4e's PHB2, or as a small part of the new FR setting. Just like magic items, spells, feats and even domains (gasp!) have been small parts of supplements in the past.

And the argument about the fluff names not being indicative still doesn't hold; don't like them, change them. Or, as we now know it's possible, make up your own!

And here's another point - the traditions may be analogous to Domains. But what if all your 3E assumptions about how domains work have been thrown out the window for the new edition?

Personally, I think Traditions and Domains will be mechanically distinct enough that one isn't a mere relabeling of the other for a different class.

 

[Mouseferatu]

There is a reason that we did not see endless splatbooks full of new Deities, piecing together the Domains in endless combinations: because the underlying design was already very nearly 100% efficient, and so there was nothing to be added by additional "fluff" design-- the players would have seen right through that.

The very fact that a Book of Traditions and Implements is even possible indicates that the design is either not analogous, or not as efficient. The core rules should have an efficiency that leaves nothing to further design like that.

Wulf, you know that I really respect you, so I hope you'll take this in the spirit it's offered.

I think you're looking for the worst-case scenario here, and then assuming that's the way it's going to go.

Yes, it's true there weren't endless splatbooks of nothing but deities and domains. But, there were plenty of new deities, and new domains, sprinkled throughout the books. So while the design of new deities and domains on one's own was easy, clearly there was also still room--and even demand--for the designers to do some of that work themselves.

Why, then, assume that the new implements and traditions to which Dave refers are going to occupy a book of their own? Honestly, I'd be stunned were that the case. I expect to see them treated much like feats and PrCs were: That is, in any book where it's appropriate, you'll probably find a handful of them.

Just like gods, or domains, or PrCs, or feats, or damn near everything else in 3E. In 3E, it would have been possible to fill a book with just new deities and domains. (In the "brief write-up sense, not the Deities and Demigods sense.) Just as it's almost certainly going to be possible to fill a book with implements and traditions. The fact that it's possible doesn't make the original basis poor design, nor does it mean WotC's actually going to do it. I think the latter is just as likely in 4E as the former was in 3E.

Honestly? I think most of the concern some people are expressing over this are definitely making mountains out of teacups, or tempests in molehills, or however one wants to phrase it. Much ado about, if not nothing, than very little.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Honestly? I think most of the concern some people are expressing over this are definitely making mountains out of teacups, or tempests in molehills, or however one wants to phrase it. Much ado about, if not nothing, than very little.

Snipped a lot, all good points though.

EDIT: Suffice to say, I hope that Traditions are analogous to Deities, not to Domains.