New Design: Wizards...

[Hussar]

Just to put my two cents worth here, but what the OP has sounds very very lame. Sure it might work for a very high magic campaign setting but what about low magic campaign settings. They exist as well and in fact that is typically how I run my game. 3.5e makes allowances for low magic settings. It looks like 4e does not.

If you allow core casters in your game, you do not have a low magic setting. Full stop. You can limit magic items all you like, but, if core casters exist, then nearly every encounter you run will feature magic.

3e supports low magic play about as well as any other edition. That is to say, not terribly well at all.

Back on topic - I like the flavour of this. I hope that it replaces the spell component rules that nearly no one uses anyway.

 

[Zaukrie]

I like this. I've liked most of the 3rd party products that tried to make staffs more important, and grow with wizards, so I think I'm predisposed to this.

 

[F4NBOY]

I got to agree on this point... in one hand they say "less dependent" and yet they tie a classes features to items which will have a magical bonus.

I think there is no dependency.
It's not the real magic items dependency, where characters need an average amount of wealth in magic items to be good enough to face the challenges.
Wizards wont' be more dependent on those Implements more than fighters will be on magic weapons in 4E. If wizards and fighters don't have their magic items, they are still good enough to face challanges appropriate to their level, but if they got them, they have an edge in the encounter.

"For instance, a wizard can cast the wand spell cinder storm even if he doesn’t own, has lost, or is not holding a magic wand. However, holding the associated implement grants a benefit to the wizard’s attack that is just like the benefit the warrior gains when attacking an enemy with a magic sword."

 

[F4NBOY]

Back on topic - I like the flavour of this. I hope that it replaces the spell component rules that nearly no one uses anyway.

I think we can deduce that spell components are gone, since staffs are two handed weapons and the wizard won't have any free hand to handle any spell components.

I DO hope they keep spell components, but turn them into spell caralysts, just like those in Arcana Evolved. They are spell components that have a GP cost, and if you use them while casting a spell, they modify the spell, adding more damage, +1 caster level, etc etc.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I think we can deduce that spell components are gone, since staffs are two handed weapons and the wizard won't have any free hand to handle any spell components.

I'm perfectly fine with spell components being tossed over the side of the bridge with cement overshoes.

Brad

 

[sidonunspa]

I think there is no dependency.
It's not the real magic items dependency, where characters need an average amount of wealth in magic items to be good enough to face the challenges.
Wizards wont' be more dependent on those Implements more than fighters will be on magic weapons in 4E. If wizards and fighters don't have their magic items, they are still good enough to face challanges appropriate to their level, but if they got them, they have an edge in the encounter.

"For instance, a wizard can cast the wand spell cinder storm even if he doesn’t own, has lost, or is not holding a magic wand. However, holding the associated implement grants a benefit to the wizard’s attack that is just like the benefit the warrior gains when attacking an enemy with a magic sword."

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.

 

[GreatLemur]

Why? Just off the top of my head, I can see two very easy ways, and one more complicated way, to do it.

1) Change the forms. Instead of wants, use daggers. Instead of orbs, use amulets. Instead of staves, use the wizard's familiar.

2) Eliminate them. Wizards suffer no penalties for not using the items, and gain no benefits for using the items. Done.

3) Change the forms, as with #1, but also change the sorts of spells to which they apply. This one requires more work, but it's still certainly possible.

Even if #3 is too much work, the first two are easily applied to almost any setting with about 30 seconds' work.

Oh, hell yes. I like the idea of arcane focus items in general (especially since this looks like the end of the bat guano pouch), and even if the specific flavor of orb, staff, tome, and wand is a little bit too traditional for me, I do not expect this stuff will be at all difficult to houserule to my satisfaction. Personally, I like the idea of letting a Wizard's player define his or her tools (just a little bit Mage: The Ascension-style).

So yeah, on the whole, I'd call this a positive change.

 

[Driddle]

Experience tells me that I'm not going to be satisfied with the way the game designers justify which spells are linked to which implements. Zapping with a wand makes sense, but then where are they going to draw the line at how powerful you can zap with a staff?

The limitations don't, from what I can tell, apply to power levels of effects, but their implementations. Look specifically at the staff and wand descriptions: the staff refers to powers that come "from the wizard, like cones of flame or bolts of lightning," while the wand's offensive capabilities are described as being long-range effects. So, if you need to toast those guys that are about to get in your face, the staff is the tool to use, while dropping a little flaming surprise on that pack of goblins 100 yards away is the province of the wand.

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.

 

[Patlin]

The only one I don't like is the tome. It seems weird to me to have a wizard hold a book out and get power out of it, or read it in combat.

I've got a miniature (probably from Reaper) in which a character is doing just that. While the mini in question is more of a cleric than a mage imo, I think its nice to have spellbooks have a more active role.

 

[breschau]

Damn. 176 posts in just under 12 hours. We meed lives people. (Yes, that's a joke.)

Quickdraw. When I read the bit about having to hold the implement to gain the benefit, the first thing I thought of was a climbing harness style set of straps and cords to dangle the implements from. Even if you got disarmed, they'd just swing around you a bit instead of falling to the ground. You could just reach back and touch the implement and kaza, you get the bonus.

Or there's the orb topped staff, or the tome with the wand bookmark.