I've managed to avoid Essentials, until now...

[Neonchameleon]

The differences between a Mage and a Wizard are ... minor. Probably less than between a Weapon Talent Fighter and a Brawler Fighter. Just take care round the level 2 charm spell they get as a utility option (which can, of course be taken by any wizard) and read the text before allowing or banning it.

As for Beguiling Strands, remember that it's fixed damage so doesn't scale. It's really effective at low level. At first level, Int Modifier damage is over half your damage for most spells. But because it's not a roll, you don't get implement bonusses/staff of ruin/dual implement spellcaster/the works. So at higher levels it's a nice minion-killer and it's always good to be able to throw someone across the room, but that's it.

 

[knifie_sp00nie]

Why do people keep ignoring one of the fundamental ideas behind 4e class design? Character classes are siloed so you don't need the book or really even need to know what the class does. All the rules are on the sheet/cards and everything works on a set of basic assumptions. If there's any rules question have the guy with the subscription show you the compendium entry. There's no need to be a control freak any more (except story reasons).

If you trust the player's ability to execute 4e rules competently, just drop the character in. No one will notice. Don't make a big deal about "special OMG essentials feats". The essentials character is just that and the previous characters stay the same. You really shouldn't notice any difference. The worst a modifier could vary is by one or two, which is within design parameters.

 

[SlyDoubt]

Unless you're a group of people who don't know each other outside D&D I don't see what the problem is. The guy has a DDI subscription so can't he just show you the rules for the Mage online? Aside from that the book is cheap if you buy it online.

If you're not friends outside of the game I can understand making sure everything is as well balanced as possible. You don't want anyone playing a character that ends up considerably more powerful than the rest of the group.

Maybe I'm just privileged to DM friends on and off for 10ish years now but 'balance' has never been in issue for us. People make characters they enjoy and we play.

I'm of the line of thought that if it's well thought out and it would make the player happy/get more excited about the game then the DM should support it. As long as it doesn't completely break the flavor or rules of the game as you've defined it already you should try and fit it in. What REALLY is the harm? Other than possibly spending $15 to buy the book.

 

[MrMyth]

He doesn't have the books, just powercards and he's a subscriber.

The new character builder, among its (few) actual benefits, tends to give slightly more detail on the feats and features of the character. And anything you really have questions about, he should be able to look up in the Compendium.

I'd say let him run it. It shouldn't be too far afield from a standard wizard. As long as he shows you what he has and looks up anything you have questions about, it shouldn't be problematic to include in the game.

And, honestly? If the character proves an issue in the game, you can always deal with it later. If it ends up dominating every encounter (figuratively or literally) and the other players are upset... then talk to the player then, ask if he'd mind changing to a new character, figure out a cool way for the current character to go out in a bang, and move on from there.

I don't think there is any need for you to buy the books, but I'd say let him play what he wants, provided he can give you the full details for the character. And if it becomes a problem, simply deal with it then.

 

[Aegeri]

the only major changes are a) free never-miss magic missile and b) ridiculously good at-wills.

Wizards can take those at-wills as well, so there isn't really any difference at all.

 

[KarinsDad]

Wizards can take those at-wills as well, so there isn't really any difference at all.

Wizards cannot get those at wills if the Essentials books are not allowed. They can't get spells like Suggestion without the Essentials books either. Or two encounter or utility powers per level in a spell book.

And, Wizards cannot get the +2 pull/push/slide of an Enchanter or any of the other higher level Enchanter class features.

If there weren't significant differences, there would have been no reason to print the new Essentials classes.

A mage is not a wizard, he just happens to be able to pick spells from the same pool (assuming a given game allows both Essentials and 4E). Their class features though are quite a bit different.

 

[Aegeri]

Wizards cannot get those at wills if the Essentials books are not allowed.

That really isn't my problem. By the rules, Wizards can take any of the mage at-wills. So claiming mages have better at-wills is just ridiculous and can be utterly ignored.

Or two encounter or utility powers per level in a spell book.

This is such a common error it really frustrates me, but Wizards have always been able to add 2 utility powers per level to your spellbook. The difference between the mage and wizard is the mage can add an encounter power.

And, Wizards cannot get the +2 pull/push/slide of an Enchanter or any of the other higher level Enchanter class features.

Neither can the enchanter get ritual caster for free or orb/wand/tome/staff implement mastery. I really don't see what point you're trying to make here, but it isn't very coherent or good.

If there weren't significant differences

I have a pyromancer in one of my games and a wizard in the other: You don't notice the difference when they aren't using class features. They are basically the same.

Really. They are. They can take all the same powers and will play very similarly to one another. A Mage will feel about as different as a Wand vs. Orbizard Wizard (as an example).

A mage is not a wizard

They play identically. I'm not even being sarcastic, they're basically fundamentally very similar to one another. A tome wizard doesn't feel the same as a staff wizard as an enchanter mage as a wand wizard and such forth - but in play they have the exact same niche. That's where class features make them feel different, but in the end because all of them share the same power structure it's very similar.

If you can play a Wizard, you can play a mage just as easily and anyone who says otherwise is just completely wrong.

Their class features though are quite a bit different.

They get magic missile for free, which really is more of a minor boost than anything else and they have 3 mastery features. One of which is minor, another is a small increase to a skill and one that is a little bit more advanced. Overall though, their class features are not so significant that it changes them from feeling entirely different from a wizard. The only true difference is their spell book is *slightly* better - but still not massively so.

Honestly, after running a game now with a pyromancer and a wizard side by side for two months, there is no obvious difference in feel.

 

[KarinsDad]

Neither can the enchanter get ritual caster for free or orb/wand/tome/staff implement mastery. I really don't see what point you're trying to make here, but it isn't very coherent or good.

That's pretty snarky.

Really. They are. They can take all the same powers and will play very similarly to one another. A Mage will feel about as different as a Wand vs. Orbizard Wizard (as an example).

Err, no. They can take the same powers, but typically they won't.

The Orbizard will be locking down a single foe and gaining action economy (and hence control) that way.

The Enchanter Mage will be pushing foes around in order to set up PC area effects, or having foes attack each other.

Yup. They can both have the Sleep spell, but one can really use it effectively and the other cannot.

They can both have the Charm of Misplaced Wrath, but one has more utility and will hit more often with it and the other won't.

If a player of each decides to maximize the effectiveness of their PCs (which nearly all players do to some extent), then the two PCs will typically have few of the same spells and will tend to be very different power-wise and feat-wise.

And because they will have different class features and typically different powers and feats, they will fulfill their roles in different ways and feel different. Just like a Druid fulfills the controller role and feels different than a Wizard does.

It's the nature of the design beast and to assume that players will build Orb Wizards (or any other type of Wizard) nearly identical to Mages is unsound.

If you can play a Wizard, you can play a mage just as easily and anyone who says otherwise is just completely wrong.

If you can play a Wizard, you can play a Fighter just as easily. Nobody was saying anything about how easy or difficult it is to play a Wizard vs. a Mage, so why did you bring it up as if they did?

 

[the Jester]

A mage is not a wizard, he just happens to be able to pick spells from the same pool (assuming a given game allows both Essentials and 4E).

Yes he is. That's why "Mage" appears under "Wizard" in the book.

 

[Mapache]

It's the nature of the design beast and to assume that players will build Orb Wizards (or any other type of Wizard) nearly identical to Mages is unsound.

Mages and Wizards are very similar and play very similar. There is more difference between a PHB melee ranger and a PHB archery ranger than between a typical Wizard and a typical Mage. I'd say there's probably more difference between a Battlerager Fighter and a Tempest Fighter than between Wizards and Mages. There is more overlap in which powers and which feats are useful to which builds for Wizards and Mages than for the builds of the other classes I just mentioned. Mage is the Essentials class that is least different from its base class.