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

[The Little Raven]

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).

Are you also going to argue that the Warpriest is not a Cleric, the Knight and Slayer are not Fighters, and the Thief is not a Rogue, despite the facts saying the opposite?

 

[Mercurius]

Maybe I take a drastically different DMing approach, but why do you need to know how enchanter mages work? Why can't that simply be up to the player and you trust that he is running his character by the book?

I will occasionally not allow a race or class but purely for "fluff" reasons. For example, dragonborn and tiefling - I told my players that they don't exist in the world and that unless they really really want to play one, they are not playable options (if they do really want to play one, I will work with it and say they came from a far-off land, another plane, etc).

But I won't disallow a character because of mechanics, as long as they are by-the-book. Now if a player managed to make a "broken" character that was noticeably over-powered, that would be another thing, but 4E is so balanced that I haven't had to worry about that so far. Once or twice something has stuck out like a sore thumb and then we researched it and found the player was doing something wrong.

So I wouldn't worry about, but that's based upon my approach to DMing. I mean it is similar to not looking at the dice rolls of players - if they really want to cheat, that is up to them, but it only potentially hinders their own experience and unless their rolls start seeming too good all of the time, I'm not going to intervene or question them.

 

[Aegeri]

That's pretty snarky.

No it's not, it's just a statement of fact and this is really how terribly weak the argument you are making is! Wizards have their own class features that Mages don't get and vice versa. Yet in the end you are changing one thing (implement mastery) for another (School of magic features).

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

Incidentally, before continuing my argument can you justify why a Wand Wizard will take the SAME powers as a Orb Wizard? Because a wand wizard is very accurate but can't make effects last like an orb wizard. So a wand wizard is exceptional at getting a power to stick to a creature with their accuracy boost, but they aren't going to be that interested (or overly interested) in save ends effects compared to an orb wizard. Ironically this situation is very apt in comparison to your so called "different" enchanter mage vs. orbizard. The difference is you claim that the Wand/Orb wizard is the same yet the Enchanter/Orb is different.

But okay, let's ask how is this any different to a staff wizard vs. a orb using wizard? It isn't even like many mage builds will be that different from wizards either. A pyromancer and a genasi blaster staff wizard will both want scorching burst. Incidentally, this already disproves your entire argument about Wizards/Mages - they can do the same task because many of their features are pretty similar. It's really - again - what class features you want. Wizards and Mages have great class features, but they aren't exceptionally above/below the other. All of them are great choices for a wide variety of builds and concepts.

Any wizard loves hypnotism and beguiling strands - because they are both wizards they can take any of these powers. I completely cannot understand or grasp what you are trying to argue here, because all of the mage at-wills are equally attractive to wizards. For that matter, certain older powers for the the wizard initially are equally attractive to a mage. So let me alter your argument using your own words to prove how your point doesn't have any actual coherent logic to it:

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

The Staff wizard will be pushing foes around with close burst powers (due to better HP and defenses) in order to set up PC area effects.

So why is it that a mage is exceptional to the ordinary wizard? The mage chooses a school and plays a certain way. The wizard chooses an implement and plays a certain way. You compare an orbizard to a mage to claim they are different, without even considering when you compare a tome/wand/staff wizard to the orbizard they are all going to function differently as well. They are still all going to feel like a wizard though, regardless of implement/school. Incidentally a staff wizard who focuses on close burst powers gets a lot of use out of thunderwave or beguiling strands himself, just as much as the enchanter wizard can.

Neither is better than the other and once again they have the same access to the same powers and options.

I'm sorry but you need a much better argument than this to convince me a mage is genuinely different to a wizard. Because all of the wizard builds can play really differently. To me a school is no more significant an impact in play than each of the already existing choices wizards already get for different implements. Some schools play very nicely with certain powers in exactly the same way certain implements also play very nicely with certain powers. What exactly is the big difference you are claiming here?

Of course, I will concede the argument on one condition. If you claim that the staff wizard is a different class to the orb wizard due to how different their playstyle/power choices will be, then I can see your point.

Edit: The entire irony with this argument is the most common complaint you will see about the mage is that they aren't distinctive enough from wizards! I've read numerous people complain that schools do not change how a mage plays enough to make them feel really different to a wizard. This is the first time I think I've heard anyone claim they are entirely different!

Are you also going to argue that the Warpriest is not a Cleric, the Knight and Slayer are not Fighters, and the Thief is not a Rogue, despite the facts saying the opposite?

To be perfectly fair now, he would have a solid argument about the Knight/Slayer. They lack at-wills, they have exclusive powers/features that the fighter genuinely cannot replicate and the slayer is a straight dedicated striker with no inherent defender mechanics. The Knight is just whacky with its aura, stances and similar to accomplish its defender role in a different manner to the typical fighter. You can genuinely notice a difference in play between a standard fighter, a knight and a slayer. This is really due to the fact the Knight/Slayer are going to do the same thing ever round, all session for the rest of their career. While the original standard fighter has vastly more options available to him.

The thing here is that various implement mastery/mage schools will play and feel different from one another (for many reasons). In play however, a mage and wizard feel fundamentally identical with schools happily substituting out the wizards implement feature pretty seamlessly. Magic missile is a nice bonus but then again so is free ritual casting! But due to having all the same feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, themes, at-wills, encounters, dailies and similar available the mage doesn't really cry out "I AM TOTALLY DISTINCT AS A CLASS". This is to many a great disappointment with the mage it is worth noting, especially with how whacky the Knight/Slayer actually really are to their parent classes.

 

[KarinsDad]

The difference is you claim that the Wand/Orb wizard is the same yet the Enchanter/Orb is different.

Can you quote where I said that?

 

[Aegeri]

Can you quote where I said that?

If that isn't what you are saying, then I think you've just assassinated your own argument for me - thank you for supporting and proving my entire point. My argument is that the Orb wizard isn't the same as the Staff, which isn't the same as the Wand, which isn't the same as the Tome, which isn't the same as the Enchanter, which isn't the same as the Illusionist and such forth. At the exact same time, all of these builds are still wizards, they have the same access to the same powers, the same feats and ultimately have the same overall goal on the table.

The point is the Wizard/Mage are fundamentally similar to one another. You can alter how a Wizard/Mage plays by taking different features - making your argument about an Orb Wizard vs. an Enchanter mage absolutely invalid. Because the same argument you've made can equally apply to different implement wizards.

Hence why you don't really have a strong argument - certainly one that is supported by direct play experience, as I have a mage in one game and a wizard in the other right now. With the exception of the mage getting magic missile for free, I honestly wouldn't be able to separate them in terms of "Is this guy clearly not a wizard?" Unless your argument is that an Orb Wizard and a Staff Wizard are not the same class then your argument doesn't work. The difference between those two builds is as dramatic as the difference between a Staff Wizard and Enchanter Mage, or the Orb Wizard and Enchanter Mage.

Once again though the indisputable point is that they are both Wizards, with the Mage being a subclass of the Wizard.

 

[KarinsDad]

Are you also going to argue that the Warpriest is not a Cleric, the Knight and Slayer are not Fighters, and the Thief is not a Rogue, despite the facts saying the opposite?

Slayers are not Fighters. They are not even the same role. Are you going to argue that they are extremely similar? Where does Slayer stickiness come in? A Slayer is closer to a melee Ranger than a Fighter.

Knights are similar to Fighters. They are sticky. They defend. They are also similar to other defenders to some extent.

Thieves and Rogues? Not too much different except that Thieves gain Combat Advantage nearly every single round. They are actually better Rogues than Rogues.


Mages? Not extremely similar to Wizards. They use a subset of the same powers and feats, but they are also more versatile with the extra At Will Magic Missile for free (in play, MM is fairly devastating when used against a nearly dead foe or a fleeing foe because it always hits). The game is about action economy and the best way to improve action economy is to kill or incapacitate a foe. Automatically killing a foe (i.e. when the player pays attention to how many attacks / how many hit points bloodied the foe and how much more it has been hit) is better than rolling the dice and missing.

Magic Missile is also anti-swing. Combats can be swingy when the dice go cold, but Magic Missile (especially augmented by feats like Arcane Reserve and/or items like Gauntlets of Blood) can be used round in and round out to minimize a string of bad dice rolls. One cannot have bad to hit rolls with Magic Missile and one cannot have bad damage rolls with Magic Missile.

Getting MM for free is more potent than some people are willing to admit. It effectively gives the Mage an extra At Will power. There's a reason why Human is one of the better races (check any WotC optimization board, human for nearly all classes is blue, even with the limitation of boosting only a single ability score) and although free MM is not quite that strong, it is still extremely useful and nice. There are multiple times to use it in nearly every encounter.

 

[Aegeri]

And yet, every human in my games is taking heroic effort. Also Mages are extremely similar to Wizards. Simply writing off the fact they share 90% of the entire class, except for ritual caster, magic missile and their core class feature (that honestly, is the main thing that distinguishes them and is pretty equivalent in general to implement mastery in overall effect) isn't a convincing argument whatsoever.

Also, Magic Missile is only useful in that role when your DM actually tells you the creature is almost dead (which I do coincidentally). It is very useful in its incredibly limited niche, but it is not so defining that it makes the mage substantially better (or different) than the wizard. You forget that it does very low damage so you have to be 100% sure that enemy is truly chronically damaged. If you don't do enough, then you waste your action for middling damage and accomplish nothing. Also bear in mind that same Wizard can be human and pick MM as a third at will anyway (not that it's a good use of the third at-will, especially with how many great choices wizards have). Especially when in a party with said mage, you have an executioner assassin who doesn't even need to waste an action killing a chronically wounded monster (as death strike simply flatly kills a creature if it drops below a certain point).

Edit: My point here is despite theorycraft, the mage doesn't really do a lot to be a different to the wizard in actual play. This is because they inherently share all the same powers. All that decides what powers you take is what implement you use if you're a wizard and what school you are as a mage. That is honestly not a big difference because if we called the mage "Wizard" and made schools a choice contrasted with implement mastery we would have the exact same thing. If you don't think an Orb Wizard is a different class to a Staff Wizard, then neither is the Orb Wizard a truly different class to the Enchanter Mage (they are both wizards).

 

[The Little Raven]

Slayers are not Fighters. They are not even the same role.

Slayers are not Defenders, true.

That doesn't mean they aren't Fighters. It says so on the box. They can take Fighter powers, Fighter Paragon Paths, Fighter Epic Destinies, and Fighter feats. Sure, they can't take things that require specific class features, but those options aren't available to other builds of the class, either. They cannot take Fighter multiclass feats, since they are already Fighters. They have stances that mimic PHB Fighter at-will powers. They have the same weapon proficiencies, armor proficiencies, number of trained skills and a nearly identical skill list on top of being the same power source. They are the heavily armored damage-dealing non-defender Fighters that people have been asking for ever since the focus on roles was revealed.

They use a subset of the same powers and feats, but they are also more versatile with the extra At Will Magic Missile for free (in play, MM is fairly devastating when used against a nearly dead foe or a fleeing foe because it always hits).

Mages can take any Wizard power in the entire game. That's not a subset, that's the whole enchilada. They can't take all the wizard feats, but then again, neither can any other type of Wizard.

This is sillier than the "4th Edition isn't D&D" argument.

 

[ourchair]

Color me mean, but the way I've responded to players who either a) play real smart, b) use 'overpowered' material or c) have pitch perfect teamwork is to make my monsters fight nastier.

Seriously.

4th Edition is already extremely forgiving without the 'plain better' options provided by later books, but that doesn't mean DMs have to resort to banning content (though it should be something they have the choice of doing) or being underhanded and mean.

We already have meaner conditions, increased damage values in recent monster books, while Dark Sun and Tomb of Horrors show that the designers are willing to put sharper teeth in their encounters (and by extension raising the baseline difficulty of what makes a 4E challenge).

Use fantastic terrain to the advantage of your monsters. Have no qualms about picking on the leader, and make sure the strikers and defenders get debuffed like hell.

They pull out a close blast daily, you pull out an area burst ongoing. They send one of your monsters running, you send one of their strikers to the morgue!

 

[Aulirophile]

Magic Missile is also anti-swing. Combats can be swingy when the dice go cold, but Magic Missile (especially augmented by feats like Arcane Reserve and/or items like Gauntlets of Blood) c

Neither of those work with the new MM. Both apply to damage rolls; MM doesn't have a damage roll. This is true for 99% of all damage enhancing options. No damage roll, no bonus. MM has very marginal utility.