New Design: Wizards...

[helium3]

My beef is that they strike me as fighting schools out of wuxia films or monk organizations. Oh, no. Maybe "the wizard killed the monk and took his stuff."

I'm not entirely familiar with what I'm referencing, but the almost total (there is some enchantment related stuff) emphasis on damage dealing spells makes me think of the Red Mages from Final Fantasy XI, or the Corruptors from City of Villains. Dunno what the blasting class is called in City of Heroes and WoW.

Anyhow, maybe they're just revealing a small subset of wizard related flavor or this is something more along the lines of a prestige/advanced class. Maybe this is how wizard's specialize now?

 

[Fobok]

Dunno what the blasting class is called in City of Heroes and WoW

In City of Heroes it's, fittingly, Blaster. In WoW the Mage is probably what you're referring to, though they can do a lot more than just blast.

 

[Thundershield]

Well, seeing how Illusion, Necromancy, and Transmutation appear very little here, I think we're not seeing any kind of final version yet. This might very well simply be the first of many traditions, as they all seem to be some sort of battle-mages (or evokers), except maybe for the Serpent Eye wizards (which are more like the Beguiler).

No, Necromancy and the other schools are too popular to leave out. Wizards aren't, after all, just warmages in robes instead of armor. They do more than fling explosions and ice lances about, so let's just wait and see.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I really don't like the revised article. In the original article, the implements seemed to enhance the purpose and the flavor of the magic. The wizard lunges his staff forward, sending out a bolt of electricity destroying everything in its path. Another wizard focuses the power of his orb and projects a spell to entangle a large group of foes. Yet another wizard invokes the ancient lore in his tome to summon forth a remarkable beast of power.

In other words, in my opinion the implements made sense with the magic they were being used for and therefore they added to the flavor of the magic.

But in the revised article, the implements just seem so arbitrary. The orb can be used for defense and spells of force and thunder? Why? Because it's the tradition of the Iron Sigil? What if I don't have, or want, the Iron Sigil tradition in my game? Sure, I can rename it, but what if I don't have a tradition that combines defense with force and thunder? What if I don't have a tradition that combines frost and acid?

In my opinion, it's like they've put the cart before the horse. My impression of the original system was that it allowed individual spellcasters to make their own choices in regards to their suite of spells and then allow them to use implements that would logically enhance those choices. Under that system, magic organizations and traditions may or may not exist depending on a number of factors.

But with the revised system, it's like they're working backwards. They're starting with those organizations, and then forcing individual spellcasters to decide on their spells based on those organizations and using implements that have seemingly no connection to those spells other than tradition. Organizations and traditions should be the result of a strong, flexible magic system, not attempting to be the underlying cause of one. To me, that's bad design.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't game-breaking or anything. I imagine I'll be able to willfully ignore most of it. But there will always be the thought that the implements now seem to be completely arbitrary (why can a wand channel frost and force but not fire or thunder?) and that they could have been a lot better; in fact, for a few days they were better, in my opinion.

I agree, you sum up my preference for the first article's mechanics.

As for the flavour, it's not just that you might not like the sound of Golden Wyvern, or that you may replace it with your own college of magic, but on the face of it, can you say what kind of magic that represents without looking it up? No. If you use Illusion or Divination, etc, it's pretty clear what sort of effect you're trying to create. Evocation and Conjuration are trickier, admittedly, but there are probably better generic names. If they alter the existing schools, fine, but don't flavour them at the cost of clarity.

 

[F4NBOY]

The Hidden Flame is clearly inspired in the Secret Fire, so the wuxia/anime lovers/haters conspirators will have to buy that one!

 

[Snapdragyn]

...on the face of it, can you say what kind of magic that represents without looking it up? No.

(in relation to Golden Wyvern tradition)

Exactly what I like about it! Make magic back into a realm of mystery, instead of pseudo-science. Give me "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor" over 'I am a servant of Evocation, wielder of the +3 Staff of um... Evocationiness' any day.

 

[Geoff Watson]

Personally, I prefer the older article.

"Four types of focus, picking two" seems better than "three types, pick one".

I don't have any problem with Tome-wielding wizards. While they might be rarer than staff-wielders I can think of a few examples.

The magic divisions in the first article seem more reasonable than the second article (acid & cold together but separate from other blast spells?).

I don't like the specific organization names in the second one, since it seems that they are going to be rules differences rather than just background.

Geoff.

 

[helium3]

Well, seeing how Illusion, Necromancy, and Transmutation appear very little here, I think we're not seeing any kind of final version yet. This might very well simply be the first of many traditions, as they all seem to be some sort of battle-mages (or evokers), except maybe for the Serpent Eye wizards (which are more like the Beguiler).

No, Necromancy and the other schools are too popular to leave out. Wizards aren't, after all, just warmages in robes instead of armor. They do more than fling explosions and ice lances about, so let's just wait and see.

Someone in one of the threads here wondered whether Warlocks might pick up Necromancy and Negative Energy in general.

I agree that it's too early to tell, but why the major focus on blasting spells in that case? Was that just the easiest thing to describe?

 

[breschau]

(in relation to Golden Wyvern tradition)

Exactly what I like about it! Make magic back into a realm of mystery, instead of pseudo-science. Give me "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor" over 'I am a servant of Evocation, wielder of the +3 Staff of um... Evocationiness' any day.

I completely agree about the flavor text. I just prefer that to be the job of the DM and players at the table rather than the core books, which are supposed to be setting neutral. You can't create organizations and still claim setting neutrality.

 

[Nikosandros]

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.

3e's changes were far more extreme than I expect 4e's to be, and I'm pretty happy with how 3e turned out. For me, it's definitely D&D. I expect 4e will be the exact same way.

Well, I'm not fretting about the changes, I'm actually happy about them, because I'm looking forward to a new game... I still have 3.5 and I can play whenever I like. I also still have AD&D and I play it quite often...

That said 3e was a radical change. Its themes are similar to AD&D, but it's really a different game. I feel that the changes in 4e will be even more radical.