More about wizards by kunadam

[JoelF]

There's some things I like from this preview, and lots I don't. My biggest concern though is that with some of the scope of magic (necromancy, enchantment, etc.) not being part of wizards anymore, but being reserved for future classes, it seems that 4E will be seriously incomplete at the outset. Mabye by 2010 they'll have all the rules for magic that the current PH has - which is 2 years too late in my opinion.

 

[an_idol_mind]

...it seems that 4E will be seriously incomplete at the outset.

Incomplete might not be the best word (or it might be, depending on whether you want to put a negative spin on it), but 4th edition is definitely showing a different marketing strategy than previous editions. In previous versions, we got the core rules in three books, and then options added on later as holes in the game showed up or as the designers thought of something cool. 4th edition seems to be less designed as 3 core books and a bunch of optional add-ons and more as an entire product line, possibly thought out years in advance. Certain elements that had always been core D&D are being pushed into later products to emphasize that fact. That's probably a good marketing strategy for WotC, and it will be very good for people who like lots of splat books, since the long-term planning for those supplements will help to avoid the power creep that came along with previous editions. For those people who prefer a core only/core plus a select few supplements approach, though, it looks like they'll be left wanting with 4th edition if they want all the options of the previous editions in a small set of core books.

 

[grimslade]

I would say that incomplete is a good word. I like the glimpses I am seeing out of 4E so far, but the lack of enchanters and necromancers makes me a sad panda.

 

[WayneLigon]

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

I guess Harry Potter is the new anime/WoW?

I'll be interested to hear what exactly they mean by 'rituals'. Traditionally in most games that's meant a significant investment in time and money. The out-of-combat time will be important to me; 10 minutes, 1 hour, 1 day.. each of those will have a significant impact on planning. How much will it cost? 100 gp isn't that significant after a short time. 5000 gp in perfect diamonds is a significant show-stopper even at high levels.

 

[sidonunspa]

I would say that incomplete is a good word. I like the glimpses I am seeing out of 4E so far, but the lack of enchanters and necromancers makes me a sad panda.

I join you in your sadness...

 

[TerraDave]

Gods: there is a difference between challenge and slay, and a difference between slay and destroy (at least in the "D&D world" or for that matter, the "world of gods"). Challenge is ok...

 

[Traycor]

"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.

Woot! Happiness! And all that jazz

 

[Corinth]

In combat, we have a wizard that operates much like the Mage class does in World of Warcraft: one or more readily accessible, but not overwhelming, standard ranged attacks that may have varying secondary effects (at-will abilities, akin to WOW Mage Frostbolts, Fireballs and Arcane Missiles) along with defensive effects (akin to WOW Mage's various Armor spells--Frost, Mage, Molten); a series of combat-applicable spells that are potent enough to either require a Cooldown period before regaining access to them or a lengthy casting time (per-encounter abilities, akin to WOW Mage's Frost Nova, Cone of Cold, Arcane Blast, Polymorph, Presence of Mind, etc.); an array of very potent effects that can be combat-applicable but require long casting times, long Cooldown periods, or both as well as non-combat spells with significant utility (per-day abilities or rituals, akin to WOW Mage Teleportation/Portal spells, Pyroblast, Remove Curse, Amplify/Dampen Magic, etc.)

It's not, of course, a one-to-one correlation. It's not even a direct recreation of the WOW Mage; all it does is feel very similiar to the MMORPG's version of the wizard class as current presented for D&D 4.0, and thus invite comparison accordingly. I expect to see the final version of the D&D 4.0 Wizard to be significantly more flexible in what this class can and can't do, vis-a-vis the WOW Mage, but remain easier for younger people to understand and master due to that same similarity. I remain ambivalent about it all, and reserve final judgement for when the 4.0 PHB hits the store shelves.

 

[Danzauker]

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.

Well, never tried to set a SPEAR against a CHARGE?

In various forms the mechanic has been around through more than one edition.

In real world, "fighters" have been choosing their weapons in regards to the opponent they were going to face and/or the situation.

Pikes were used to bring down and kill heavy armored knights, where using slashing weapons were ineffective, lances were developed for mounted combat, and so on...

 

[Danzauker]

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.

Which not susplrisingly match the four suits of European playing cards: staff, sword, cup and coins (the four suits' origins are deeply rooted in esoteric traditions)...

Now, THAT makes some interesting fluff for me, and something that could actually be of good use in my campaign instead of the old schools of magic (that I am going to miss, I admit...).