More about wizards by kunadam

[Rechan]

Not necessarily. For one thing, the only at will ability we've seen from a wizard is that staff strike thing, which while it hit multiple wolves at one point, required the wizard to essentially be in melee. Traditionally, that isn't a good place for a wizard to be.

Pretty sure that the arcane strike is going to be a cone that originates from the wizard's staff. That's my guess.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

As far as the implements go, I'm sure there will be feats/rules that allow you to use your Staff to do wand/orb tricks or vice-versa. I'm thinking the designers may have been influnced by Potter's wand & Gandalf's staff for the whole implement thing. The crystal ball (orb) is also a popular theme. After all they did say wizards could still cast these spells, but they are just weaker without the implements, which I like because it gives more reason for the wizard to carry a staff than it's a simple weapon and he doesn't want to multi-class of use a feat for a better one.

Also, as I pointed out in a wizard-related thread some time ago, it appears as though the wizard's "wizard strike" will be conditioned by the implement used. The staff allowed the wizard in the playtest to move opponents around with her strike. Perhaps if you have a wand you do the same damage but add a different "special effect," a confusion effect, perhaps. Or you set the enemy on fire. Or whatever.

I hope they will make some magic-specific classes like the Illusionist, Necromancer Enchanter, or Summoner.

I think we have been promised at least some of these already. Illusionists are apparently in the design queue.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I wouldn't be sad if Grease left -- it's a little too slapstick, IMO.

...says the guy whose avatar is getting hit in the face with a fish.

 

[Rechan]

Also, as I pointed out in a wizard-related thread some time ago, it appears as though the wizard's "wizard strike" will be conditioned by the implement used. The staff allowed the wizard in the playtest to move opponents around with her strike. Perhaps if you have a wand you do the same damage but add a different "special effect," a confusion effect, perhaps. Or you set the enemy on fire. Or whatever.

That would make me squee with joy.

 

[Li Shenron]

(comments before reading the other replies)

Wizard
We know the wizard. Their focus is not more an evoker than anything else. They blast enemies while remaining in the back.

Sounds restrictive, but as long as it's their "focus" and not the only thing they can do, this can be fine.

Rituals cover magic item creation, and non-combat spell (divinations are prime examples).

This is interesting indeed. I love spells with long casting time. I NEVER house ruled Identify to be quicker than it was in 3.0 (I actually think that 4e will have an immediate way to identify magic items, but this is just an example). It's nice also if magic item creation is defined in a more interesting way than before, but I'm worried it will be shortened to 1 day.

Schools are dead, long live the implements: the orb, the staff and the wand (with others, such as the dagger, possible in later supplement). Staffs are for rays and cones, wands for long distance control, while orb stands for blasts, terrain control, and retributive and perception based effects.

No major problem with schools gone. At least, it means that one of the thing that bothered me (forbidden schools for specialists) are gone as well.

The implements, I don't like... because I do like having orbs and staffs and wands, but not the idea that they are shoehorned to a narrow set of effects.

Divinations, long range teleport, restorative effects (the cleric’s remove disease for example) are rituals.

This sounds great. At least rituals are probably impossible to run in combat. Now the big question is... can you cast a ritual anytime during a day, or does it require MORE days? I suspect the latter option would be unpopular, but it may help to lessen the problems with teleportation and strong divinations, and why not even resurrections!

Evocation and illusion is there and now they are the focus of wizardry.

Fine, as long as "focus" doesn't become "the only thing they can do decently enough".

Necromancy was nerfed mostly by removing save or die effects.

I like save-or-die. However I use necromancy typically for evil NPCs, and I'm not a fan of having it used by good PCs. My guess is that it will be largely more supported in later products, which makes it more for NPCs.

Transmutation was a haphazard pile of powers (according to them), and some part remains, other do not.

Yeah, we know they're talking about shapechanging. Not having polymorph in a game which is a lot about magic, is a big thumb down for me. I swear I prefer to have problematic rules for it rather than not have rules at all! There are hundreds of way to properly house rule polymorph for those DMs who are not satisfied, but bringing it back into the game will be much harder.

Echantment is nerfed to be saved for other classes (others they state that it will be the psi).

That idea I do not like. There is no need for a separate class, and I'm a fan of the idea of playing core only. I am also a fan of few classes with lots of options (fighters that can be tanks, swashbuckler or archers) rather than many narrow classes. They might have in mind a Necromancer, Beguiler etc.

Wizards spell failure due to armor is gone (hurray!). Picking the right feats wizards can go around in heavy armor.

3rd party books had many ways of doing this via feats. I like the option of a wizard to wear armor. Of course, it must not be a no-brainer advantage...

Feats don’t have class as a prerequisite. Race, level or skill training might be needed, but no class. You can steer your character wherever you want.

Basically same as before.

There are class training feats (Fighter training, Wizard training, Warlock training, etc.) that gives some power of that class to someone not in that class.

Ok, this is the new multiclassing rules. Interesting take. Generally speaking, I don't care much for multiclassing, so I'm neither excited nor disappointed. Let's see what the consequences will be.

Power progression
There is 2 or so pages on tiers of power (heroic, paragon and epic). The important part is the paragon paths and epic destinies. They replace prestige classes. They are additional power/abilities, that you can choose once you hit 11th or 21st level. They are very much like prestige classes and battle captain, mystic theurge, weapon master, prince of knaves and cavalier are mentioned.

Sounds ok.

Epic destiny gives few but very powerful ability. Also it describes how you exit the world (seem like at level 30 you retire). You can become a demigod for example.
Epic level game is much about slaying gods and clearing the Nine Hell (I made the last up). In the cleric section they muse about gods being redesigned, and one of their goals is, that they can be challenged by epic level characters. I cannot say that I like it.

I like the idea of having an end for the game, so that at some point you just have to stop.

I don't like PCs to challenge the gods, but of course no one is going to force me to use those 25th level gods they will write up They will only be avatars for me even in the best case.

 

[NexH]

If you don't want PC's to fight your Gods make the Dieties stronger, or non-accessable, like Ebberon's pantheon.

I shall explain my position:

If I have read it correctly, the text seems to mention that a possible path of advancement for 30th level PCs is to become demigods. That seems to imply that an average 30th level PC has about the same power level as a standard demigod, or less. But it seems to me that 4-6 demigods shouldn't be too hard for a greater god to defeat.
Also, on a more gamist and perhaps absurd perspective, I want there to be the possibility of adventures beyond level 30; but if you can defeat greater gods at level 30, ¿how many meaningful adversaries could remain to fight?

To clarify and summarize: I am not opposed to epic level PCs slaying deities, I just believe that the strongest tier of divine beings should remain virtually beyond their reach.

 

[Imp]

Fighting gods is fun and all, but the power curve is supposed to be much shallower for 4e characters, right? I mean, top-level 3e characters are basically demigods, and I can see them fighting deities (because I'm happy to ignore the epic rules), but my understanding was that a 30th-level 4e character would be somewhat less powerful, relative to his environment, than a 20th-level 3e hero. Not having multiple wishes at their disposal, so and so forth from there.

I mean, it sounds like a lot of fun, I just hope they can finesse that.

 

[GlassJaw]

Hmm, more 4E stuff I don't like the sounds of. Not a fan of removing the schools and it sounds like the wizard is getting more focused overall.

On top of that, the implements sound unbelievably LAME! Sheesh, the devs have been reading Harry Potter too much. Ugh.

 

[frankthedm]

On top of that, the implements sound unbelievably LAME! Sheesh, the devs have been reading Harry Potter too much. Ugh.

Wizard minis have been holding wands, staves, books, orbs and other implements from long before Rowling began typing.

 

[Aldarc]

Hmm, more 4E stuff I don't like the sounds of. Not a fan of removing the schools and it sounds like the wizard is getting more focused overall.

On top of that, the implements sound unbelievably LAME! Sheesh, the devs have been reading Harry Potter too much. Ugh.

Or Lord of the Rings and Le Morte d'Arthur or any fantasy with wizards and their iconic tools of the trade.