More about wizards by kunadam

[Zurai]

Why do I need a staff if I want to cast Cone of Cold or Ray of Enfeeblement? It's just random design. It's arbitrary.

Yes, it is arbitrary. So is your decision that, despite all evidence to the contrary, that's how the wizard class will function in 4E.

 

[Aldarc]

Where is it stated that the implements are NEEDED to cast the spell? The only previews I have seen *including the Dragon article about wizards* made them out to applying bonuses to the spells.

This is my understanding of it as well. They are not necessary, but they provide bonuses to certain types of spells. It is like a fighter needing a different type of weapon for different occasions or bonuses.

 

[Wormwood]

It's one thing if need an implement to use magic at all or an implement boosts your magic power...

Our man in Hungary is rather vague in his wording on this subject. Everything else we've seen so far indicates that implements simply *enhance* the casting of certain types of spells.

So what is your point again?

 

[Michele Carter]

Well, I know better than to poke the bear(s), but I've been working on magic items all day and I'm punchy:

"Staffs are for rays and cones, wands for long distance control, while orb stands for blasts, terrain control, and retributive and perception based effects."

This was true at the time it was written, and as with a few other small details, it's changed since then. Spells are not based on the implements you use to cast them. Wizards still choose a primary implement (and that choice is a meaningful one), but you can cast any spell through any implement with equal effectiveness.

 

[Wormwood]

Spells are not based on the implements you use to cast them. Wizards still choose a primary implement (and that choice is a meaningful one), but you can cast any spell through any implement with equal effectiveness.

Thanks for the clarification!

 

[Rechan]

I expect to see classes that fill the spaces that the old specialist wizards used to fill. Not just Illusionists, but Necromancers, Enchanters, Transmuters, Conjurors, Diviners, and so on with their own spells. That is an exciting idea to me.

I seem to recall that a magic supplement will be coming out in fall 2008.

I expect the Swordmage to come out then. The Necromancer will most likely be in that book - I don't expect WotC to lag behind in putting that out there.

And honestly, a class focusing on Transmutation would make me utterly ecstatic.

 

[Clavis]

It's one thing if need an implement to use magic at all or an implement boosts your magic power but did you ever see Harry or Gandalf have to switch implements to cast different spells? It just stinks of trying to emulate the fighter's golf bag of weapon for the wizard.

Thing is, that's exactly what "real-world" western ceremonial magic assumes. In books like the Greater Key of Solomon, the operator is using so many different implements he requires assistants! "Modern" occultists tend to pare down the formal implement list to four: a wand (or staff), a dagger (and/or sword), a cup, and a pantacle (inscribed disk), and each one is used for a different kind of operation. So, wizards having multiple implements and using a slave or henchman to hold them has a very firm historical/mythical foundation.

 

[Rechan]

Why do I need a staff if I want to cast Cone of Cold or Ray of Enfeeblement? It's just random design. It's arbitrary.

For one thing, I think the designers for 4e have been reading The Dresden Files.

In The Dresden Files, wizards can cast spells, sure. But having foci like a staff or other item allows them to channel magic through it to compensate for what they don't have. The main character has a lot of raw power, but very little precision - a fire spell without his foci ends up looking like a bomb blast. Bad if you're an ally or a bystander. So he uses a rod to funnel his magic into a single beam, which is much easier to aim than a huge torrent of flame.

Wizards craft their own foci; some use rings and bracelets, others use gloves, chains, daggers, etc.

In the same vein, I anticipate that we'll see a plethora of other Implements, and it isn't beyond the scope to just mix and match. While I understand why cones come from the staff (it's a brute instrument like a shot gun) and long range manipulation comes from the wand (it's the magical equivalent of a surgeon's scalpel), mixing the two can make sense, or switching them out for other items that make more sense to the wizard in question. And so you can have some variation (to avoid the inevitable "Look, he's got an orb - he's a wizard! Kill him!")

 

[A'koss]

This was true at the time it was written, and as with a few other small details, it's changed since then. Spells are not based on the implements you use to cast them. Wizards still choose a primary implement (and that choice is a meaningful one), but you can cast any spell through any implement with equal effectiveness.

Thanks for touching on this Miko! I wasn't so keen on the idea of implement juggling wizards. This is definitely better.

 

[Rechan]

This was true at the time it was written, and as with a few other small details, it's changed since then. Spells are not based on the implements you use to cast them. Wizards still choose a primary implement (and that choice is a meaningful one), but you can cast any spell through any implement with equal effectiveness.

Emphasis mine.

I'm really curious how implements differ if you can use the same one to do anything with equal effectiveness.