New Design: Wizards...

[F4NBOY]

But if we look at 3e... if you don't have the +X on your sword at level Y then you start to get your butt kicked by encounters of your equal level.

It’s like playing a fighter with no magic items at 14th level, you will get your butt handed to you more often than not.

Exactly
But we are talking about 4E. That won't happen in 4E.
In 3E that was true, and was called magic items depedency, or christmas tree effects.

They said 4E will be less focused on magic items, so I believe that won't happen anymore, a level 10 character will be able to face a level 10 encounter even if he has no magic items.
Magic items won't be an element of the equation to see if an encounter is balanced or not.

Just because wizards can now use Implements to make their spells more powerfull doesn't mean they are dependent on Implements. They won't need them to face challenges appropriate to their levels, just like fighter won't need magic weapons to handle themselves in any combat.

 

[F4NBOY]

The WotC justification is going to be wonky.

If the justification happens to be just Game Balance, I'll be fully satisfied.

 

[sidonunspa]

Exactly
But we are talking about 4E. That won't happen in 4E.
In 3E that was true, and was called magic items depedency, or christmas tree effects.

They said 4E will be less focused on magic items, so I believe that won't happen anymore, a level 10 character will be able to face a level 10 encounter even if he has no magic items.
Magic items won't be an element of the equation to see if an encounter is balanced or not.

Just because wizards can now use Implements to make their spells more powerfull doesn't mean they are dependent on Implements. They won't need them to face challenges appropriate to their levels, just like fighter won't need magic weapons to handle themselves in any combat.

So if players have magic items they will cake walk an equal level encounter?

Now if characters have too much magic they are gods, in 4e if characters are equal to their level w/o any magic items, they become much more with even a small amount of magic.

 

[Baby Samurai]

They said 4E will be less focused on magic items, so I believe that won't happen anymore, a level 10 character will be able to face a level 10 encounter even if he has no magic items.

Yep, just like I'm sure AC (or Ref defence etc) will scale with level, because as it is now, a 20th level naked fighter with a 16 Dex has an AC of 13, and so does a 1st level naked fighter with a 16 Dex…lame and unrealistic.

 

[Baby Samurai]

So if players have magic items they will cake walk an equal level encounter?

Why does everything have to get so extreme with you people?

 

[wgreen]

Seems like it's an iffy descriptive difference. No insult intended to your interpretive ability, S, because I probably couldn't come up with an alternative description that would be any better. And that's my point -- why link THIS spell with a wand and THAT spell with a staff? The WotC justification is going to be wonky.

Huh? It sounds like it's all about where the point of origin of the spell's effect is. A cone of fire's point of origin is the tip of your staff. A lightning bolt's point of origin is the tip of your staff. A flamestrike's point of origin is...somewhere up in the heavens, over there. See the difference?

-Will

 

[F4NBOY]

Yep, just like I'm sure AC (or Ref defence etc) will scale with level, because as it is now, a 20th level naked fighter with a 16 Dex has an AC of 13, and so does a 1st level naked fighter with a 16 Dex…lame and unrealistic.

There is a BIG difference between a fighter needing a Full Plate Mail +5 to be able to face an encounter, and a fighter needing a Full Plate Mail to handle himself in combat.

Your idea already exists in SWSE. Level 10 charatcers don't need armour anymore. But that's Star Wars. Using lots of armor IS very D&Dish, and they know better then us how to keep that in the game.
I don't think they will be so stupid to create a mechanic that simply turn one of the aspects of the game, Armour, completelly useless.

 

[Stormtalon]

Seems like it's an iffy descriptive difference. No insult intended to your interpretive ability, S, because I probably couldn't come up with an alternative description that would be any better. And that's my point -- why link THIS spell with a wand and THAT spell with a staff? The WotC justification is going to be wonky.

Well, let's try it this way then -- look at Cone of Cold, the classic big blast of frost coming right from the wizard. Try some flavor with the staff: wizard grasps the staff firmly, lowers the business end and points it in the general direction of his foes, braces himself a bit and speaks the words that complete the spell. A huge rush of frigid air blasts from the tip of the staff and overwhelms everything in front of him.

Now, try that with a wand; the imagery of unleashing something nasty, expansive and point blank simply doesn't go well with it at all. On the flipside, you don't see the little pea-sized fleck of flame that's the signature of a Fireball en-route to its target being spit out of the tip of a staff, but it fits a quick, precise movement of a wand perfectly.

 

[Pygon]

I'm fairly certain that a party of characters will function optimally with the expected amount of magic items for a given level, and that is how Wizards will be balancing the encounter levels. A party lacking magic will have a tougher time, but I'm guessing will have a better chance to survive than a 3e party without magic.

So I don't think a 10th level party without any magic items will have an easy time, nor will a 10th level party with balanced magic items just glide through it.

 

[AllisterH]

Why does everything have to get so extreme with you people?

Not that extreme I hope

If a foci "improves" a spell by 10-20%, then I would consider it a non-essential especially if there is a drawback to having a foci. For example, if you have a wand in hand, and the rules state that you can't cast a non-wand spell at all, this would provide a dilemna. "do I want a 10-20% increase of power in my cinder storm or do I want to keep my options open and be able to cast my favourite staff-spell".

Hell, if the rules state that only those who take the ORB and WAND talent tree can use orbs and WANDS effectively, that might be enough of a balance given that a player gives up selecting a potentially "better" talent tree.

The more I think about it, the more I'm curious to see. Even though I asked the original question, I am open to WOTC's "ideas".

Although I must admit, I'm kind of surprised to see such strong approval for this idea even among those currently ambivalent or against 4E. I guess a lot of us really wanted wizards to feel more like wizards than they currentl are.