New Design: Wizards...

[alaric]

How bizarre, they didn't just make a small edit, they completely rewrote the article. Now we get:

The orb is favored by the Iron Sigil and Serpent Eye traditions. Serpent Eye cabalists use orbs to focus powers of enchantment, beguiling, and ensnaring. The mages of the Iron Sigil, on the other hand, employ orbs to guard themselves with potent defenses when invoking spells of thunder or force.

The staff is best suited to the disciplines of the Hidden Flame and the Golden Wyvern. Servants of the Hidden Flame wield fierce powers of fire and radiance through their staves. Golden Wyvern initiates are battle-mages who use their staves to shape and sculpt the spells they cast.

The wand is a perennial favorite for wizards who favor accurate, damaging attacks. Emerald Frost adepts use wands to help channel powers of cold and deadly acidic magic, while Stormwalker theurges channel spells of lightning and force through their wands.

 

[kerbarian]

I could see it if the tome is used for longer casting time spells, such as full round spells or longer ritual type spells.

I agree, tomes would work well for anything where the wizard is taking his time casting the spell. What I really can't see is a wizard running, dodging, and weaving in combat while holding a tome open in one hand and reading from it as part of casting a spell. Wands and staves are just fine for that kind of thing, and orbs could be, too, if they're small enough or mounted on handles (like Diablo 2 orbs). I just can't picture a tome as an in-combat casting aid, though. Or rather, I can picture it, but the picture is implausible and a bit silly.

You could always say that the tomes are magically easy to grip and hold themselves open to the correct page automatically, but that's just pasting over the problem with "It's magic!", and I can't think of any books that work like that in fiction.

 

[WayneLigon]

Because I am desperately trying to find something... ANYTHING... about 4e that I can like.

Hmm. If you haven't seen anything at all you like yet, 4E is probably not for you. There are probably more radical things coming when they start to make the really substantive previews in a few months. You might want to look at http://www.dragonsfoot.org

 

[Cadfan]

You're right, the article changed.

Tome went away. The division between Orb, Wand, and Staff have been altered. Flavor names have replaced the mechanical divisions used before.

The combination language went away.

 

[Mercule]

How bizarre, they didn't just make a small edit, they completely rewrote the article. Now we get:

With nothing to replace the Tome. Well, I imagine that indicates they're listening to the "Tome, WTF?" comments, which I'm happy about.

Now, I just need to figure out what I think of their flavor text for the colleges. Not so hip on those particular names, but that's an extremely easy change.

 

[Wormwood]

How bizarre, they didn't just make a small edit, they completely rewrote the article. Now we get:

Should names like Hidden Flame and Iron Sigil be in the core rules? I would normally expect that sort of 'fluff' to be campaign-specific.

I'm not complaining---in fact I think they're kinda cool---I'm just curious.

 

[Grog]

How bizarre, they didn't just make a small edit, they completely rewrote the article. Now we get:

Boy, I really don't like those discipline names. They sound way too kung-fu/Exalted-ish for my tastes.

 

[Irda Ranger]

The article seems to have been changed the Tome is gone...

We now have:

Orb: enchantment, beguiling, and ensnaring, defenses when invoking spells of thunder or force.

Wand: accurate, damaging attacks, powers of cold and deadly acidic magic, lightning and force

Staff: fierce powers of fire and radiance, shape and sculpt the spells they cast.

"Wizards are rarely without at least one of these tools"

And no note of the change either. That's really weird. I hope they explain that, rather than pretend it never happened. Even a "whoops - Bruce had last week's rules doc" would suffice, but I am very curious.

I think it's better now, though. I like tomes, and will always have my wizards doing research in musty libraries and such, but I was not digging "the Tome" as a '+X' implement. What happens if you lose half the pages? It goes from +4 to +2? It's just weird. Am orb, staff or wand are either broken or whole, not half-way.

There are plenty of good implements it could be replaced with: Familiar, Amulet and Pouch-o-stuff jump to mind.

 

[Celebrim]

It's ironic to see people fretting about these changes and saying "It's too different, it's not D&D!" To them I would ask: do you consider 3e to be D&D? Because that exact same complaint was made hundreds of times on this site in 1999 and 2000, as we waited for 3e to launch.

So, you are saying that if anyone has ever made an argument badly, or if anyone has ever claimed something in a different situation wrongly, that those claims are now forever tainted so that in a totally different situation its sufficient to point out that people have been wrong before?

3e's changes were far more extreme than I expect 4e's to be

I'm struggling to grasp how people can believe that they can kill alot of supposedly obselete 'sacred cows' that have been with D&D since the beginning, and yet also simultaneously believe that the changes are actually rather small. It seems to me that on the one hand, alot of people here want the new system to be revolutionary and completely different, and at the same time they want to believe that its going to be the same.

I didn't feel like 3e's changes were extreme (1e + mechanics familiar from the Fallout RPG). I do feel like 4e's changes are 'extreme'.

I can even make that point in a way which is 'friendly' to the optimistic 4e viewpoint. The problems that 4e claims it's addressing are not unique to 3e, but rather are often the result of 3e being so similar to 1e. Whether its actually addressing them or making new problems is the question, but I can't see how you can pretend that the changes envisioned for 4e aren't the most radical in the games history. Isn't that openly the stance of the designers?

 

[Mercule]

Should names like Hidden Flame and Iron Sigil be in the core rules? I would normally expect that sort of 'fluff' to be campaign-specific.

I'm not complaining---in fact I think they're kinda cool---I'm just curious.

I'm quite happy with it, so long as they don't make a big attempt to define it all. The one-off mentions of Vecna, Kas, Dahlver Nal, etc. were some of the best bits in the 1E DMG, and what I think really gives it its enduring appeal. If they feel obligated to give us a two paragraph write up of each college, though, they've blown it, IMO.

That said, I really agree with Grog:

Boy, I really don't like those discipline names. They sound way too kung-fu/Exalted-ish for my tastes.