More about wizards by kunadam

[Rechan]

My point is NOT that wizards are more powerful in overall game balance (the average over 4-5 encounters should be the same), but I like that wizards have a focus on their daily powers, while the fighters probably focus more on their at will abilities - this will give the classes a different way of tactics. Otherwise, the wizard would be a fighter in all but name.

My thinking is that it's weaker because it's an area affect ability the wizard can do all day long. And, well, that's more potent than a fighter swinging his sword against one enemy.

 

[NexH]

Im either very enthusiastic about the mentioned features or expectantly neutral, so I can hazard to guess that I'm going to like 4th Edition very much.

Spells are divided among at will (lesser power than a fighter’s melee attack), per encounter, per day (the really powerful stuffs, these are the most powerful abilities in the game) and rituals.

Good.

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

This has the potential to be very interesting.

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

In my opinion, a significant improvement both mechanically and in flavour.

Necromancy was nerfed mostly by removing save or die effects.

I like that the removal of "save or die" effects will lead to more balanced (with less randomness in their outcome) combats. I don't believe that a conclusion can be made yet about the effectiveness of necromancy without them.

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

Surely enchanters will be viable, but their focus and feel will be different from that of psions.
On another note, I'm very impressed that they are planning ahead this kind of things. Overall, I like a lot how they are designing classes, monsters, and etcetera so that they have a clearly defined role and feel.

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.

While I prefer, for many reasons, "beatable" gods over their current status, I hope that greater gods will remain well beyond the reach of most 30 level parties.

 

[frankthedm]

Now I like the way 4E is going, BUT, the following text kinda does sound like doubletalk...

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

Anyody else reading the way i am.

 

[Klaus]

Now I like the way 4E is going, BUT, the following text kinda does sound like doubletalk...
Anyody else reading the way i am.

I think there's a typo in there.

Here's what I think it should read:

Their focus is now more an evoker than anything else. They blast enemies while remaining in the back.

Meaning the wizard is the blaster type. Subtle magic will go to other classes (such as Enchantment powers being the province of psionics).

 

[Voss]

My thinking is that it's weaker because it's an area affect ability the wizard can do all day long. And, well, that's more potent than a fighter swinging his sword against one enemy.

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.

Second, it depends on a real comparison between those abilities. If the fighter averages 10 points with his weapon, and the wizard has an AoE that does 5 points to 2 critters, it isn't really more potent. In fact, the fighter option would be better, since he'll drop his opponent twice as fast, and will therefor have fewer attacks coming at him later. All purely hypothetical, of course, we really have to see what these abilities look like.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Meaning the wizard is the blaster type. Subtle magic will go to other classes (such as Enchantment powers being the province of psionics).

If that's true... and that's their idea of controller... then there will be major teeth-gnashing from me.

Because the warlock (as a striker) should have the blast-'em-up shtick. And wizards are... more subtle in their approach, at least for me.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Smerg]

I don't think enchantment should be nerfed for psi.
Psionics is a different way of delivering magic effects.
I think it would be cool to see an enchanter and a psion fight over the will of a crowd.
Don't get that if all the best stuff is psi.

Remember to drop the 3e mindset.

3e and previous editions had magic using Vancian style casting. Psi was different to magic because it was a spell point/power point system.

With the end of Vancian system and the movment to a unified slot system with riders; do you think that the Spell Point/Power Point system will still be in 4e?

My guess is that Psi, Arcane, and Divine will look remarkably similar when stacked up against each other with some differances in areas of effect, access to certain powers, and which domain belongs to whom.

I do not see a seperate power point system returning for psi in 4e if all of the other three power sources are going to be a slot based system.

 

[DarthDiablo]

I really like the idea of implements. Except the effing' wand... I loathe the wand. Yeah, I know it's a bit juvenile, but it's just too 'harry' for me. Fireballum mortum! *ZAAAAAP*, nix the wand, gief tome plz!

I really hope warlock will be able to summon stuff, if it's gone from wizards.. Even though it's extremely time consuming (with multiple critters all rolling attacks, grapples, saves, aoos and so forth), I *really* loved playing a character specialized in summoning stuff (Giant crocodile, I choose you!).

Rituals sounds cool.

As far as enchantment going out, I dunno.. I think think that the wizardly stunningly beautiful enchantress ('All shall love me and despair!') is a fairly 'iconic' role, a shame to see it go.

I really hope they take a big hint from mindscape and once they publish psions, finally do the psionic combat stuff right

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.

I hope they will make some magic-specific classes like the Illusionist, Necromancer Enchanter, or Summoner. These are iconic mages that appear in a variety of fantasy stories. I think they can make an enchantress type once the Psi rules come out. Just modify the Psion a bit and change the power source from Psi to Arcane. Of course all of this will remain to be seen but I'm, optimistic.

Overall I like the changes to wizards. I liked the specialty schools when 2E came out, but for 3E/3.5 it wasn't the same. Especially with PrC's like Dread Necromancer/True Necromancer etc. That really made a Necromancy Specialist look weak. With 4E they can just make a whole new base class and give them cool abilities which could be unique to that class. Thus the Necromancer could do things at will or per encounter that the wizard might only be able to do once per day (or not at all!), like control or create lesser undead (maybe a bad idea for balance, but just throwing something out there), or resistances to negative energy, ability damage or whatever they come up with for 4E. This would still give the wizard some versitility, but would make him pale in that specific area compared to the new base class specialist.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Exactly, Smerg. I'd rather see similar mechanics for completely different end effects and types of magic by class than completely different mechanics to do pretty much the same thing as another class.

 

[DarthDiablo]

While I prefer, for many reasons, "beatable" gods over their current status, I hope that greater gods will remain well beyond the reach of most 30 level parties.

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