New Design: Wizards...

[Mort]

It is where spells are penned down by the wizard. It shouldn't give any more insight in casting magic than what the wizard already knows!

But that's just it - Bel the fledgling necromancer finds the Tome of Ozymandias, the greatest necromancer of his generation, with all of its dark spells and insights into the world beyond. You think Bel isn't going to learn a thing or two he didn't already know, or get more out of this book than his own tome?

I am really trying to wrap my head around this but as much as I try to put it in terms what Dungeons and Dragons is I just cannot do it. Spellbooks are where wizards pen down their spells to reference them when they need to rememorize their spells, to replenish their power. They don't have any modfiers to them. They just are.

There are many, many mythological and fictional references to books brimming with power and the people trying to find and use them - seems like a good change to me.

 

[F4NBOY]

It is silly to create new +X items, when one of your design goals is to make magic items less important in 4e.

I think the game will be less focused on magic items because character won't need them anymore to be able to face balanced encounters. Just getting rid of magic items wouldn't achieve that, as putting some more won't prevent that.

I like magic items and I believe most D&D players do. We don't need less magic items, we need them to be uneeded.
If character have them great, even more fun; but if they don't, they can still make their stuff and handle themselves pretty well.
The contrary(3e) sucks IMO: If characters have magic items, thank god(DM) because they are suppposed to have them otherwise they are dead meat; but if they don't have them they are dead meat.

 

[Simplicity]

I love it, but I'd prefer some tweaks. Haven't read the whole thread yet, but the biggest problem I see with this is the surreptitious caster. Suppose you want someone of the "enchanter" archetype.

Victim: "You'll never get me to agree!"

Villain: "I'm going to charm you now... hang on while I whip this out."

Victim: "AAaaaaaa!"

Villain: "No, not that. This. It's a book. A TOME."

Victim: "Oh, alright. Wait... you're going to charm me?"

Villain: "Yes, see? It's right here in Chapter 3. You do what I say."

Victim: "Wait, I'm not going to let you pull out a giant TOME so you can charm me. Urrrggg... yes... I do what you say."

It'd be nice to have a focus that is a little more concealable (for DMs really). A ring, perhaps? An amulet. Something that doesn't announce: "Kill me, I'm the wizard".

 

[Patlin]

Opening the tome, the wizard began his incantations. The power encased in the mystic volume responded to his words, each rune glowing as he evoked its power. With the magical volume in hand, the wizard could channel his power through it like a lense, making his spell more powerfull, more precise...

D&D Scrolls have always had magical energ stored within them. If a scroll can be enchanted for a single use, surely a book can be enchanted with a continuing benefit.

 

[Greg K]

So what happens when someone wants to multiclass into a wizard then? Do you throw away the flavour text in those circumstances, or require someone multiclassing into a wizard to go off and spend some time with an accomplished master or what?

I already do this or require a feat that grants cantrips before multiclassing into wizard. However, a wizard PC can serve as the means to learn the feat granting the cantrip.

 

[Patlin]

It'd be nice to have a focus that is a little more concealable (for DMs really). A ring, perhaps? An amulet. Something that doesn't announce: "Kill me, I'm the wizard".

Unless your NPC is so powerfull he disdains the normal crutches of lesser wizards... BWAHAHA! I like the idea that these items are helpfull but not required.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

It is where spells are penned down by the wizard. It shouldn't give any more insight in casting magic than what the wizard already knows! I am really trying to wrap my head around this but as much as I try to put it in terms what Dungeons and Dragons is I just cannot do it. Spellbooks are where wizards pen down their spells to reference them when they need to rememorize their spells, to replenish their power. They don't have any modfiers to them. They just are.

But you see, tome doesn't have to be the spellbook. It's not where you store your spells; it's a tool to cast those spells. Try to think it like this... you learn your spells from somewhere - your tutor, perhaps, or by finding obscure books in moldy old libraries, or by deducing them from first principles in your arcane laboratory. So, you know those spells, and can cast them.

But some of those spells include long and elaborate chants, or exacting geometrical patterns, which channel the magic into the intended form. So... you can go adventuring with your trusty staff and wand, relying on your knowledge and memory to get it done right. And since you're a capable wizard (you know the spell), you can do it.

If you took your tome with you, where you have the painstakingly drawn and perfectly illustrated diagrams of the spell, you don't have to rely on your memory or worry about your hand shaking when you draw the signs in the air; you can trace them from the tome as you chant. Thus, your spell works better.

Edit: Ooh, a real-life example! I can do calculus with just pen and paper, but if I have a reference book at hand, I'm going to check the formulas from there, and get better results.

 

[Rechan]

"If what's written in a book gives me +2 to spell X, then why do I have to keep carrying the book around to get that +2 after I've read it?"

Why is it in 3.x that I am more alert when my familiar is within five feet of me? Because my connection to the familiar is stronger when it is within arm's reach.

The mere writing of spells onto the pages of a book infuses that book with power. Every page has a little saturation. The same way that a summoning circle has sigils/words written in the floor, thus making it a conduit of magic, so too are the Words a channel for that magic.

Let me put it another way.

Knowledge is power the same way that a rock sitting at the top of a hill is power. I take that knowledge and I do something with it, I take that rock and I push it down the hill. Knowledge is powerful because of how it is applied. However, that potential knowledge still is very powerful in and of itself, because it is latent, stored, ready to use.

 

[breschau]

Plain +x magic items that enhance a character's already existing abilities rock. It means it's your character doing all the work, just with a little magic help. It's all you, not your magic items.

Convoluted magic items that grant entirely new abilities are lame. That's the Christmas tree effect 4e is supposed to be trying to get away from. With these, it's not about your character at all, just which abilities you gain from your magic items.

Thank you WotC for 4th Edition.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Wow. Someone fed this thread extra growth hormones.

Just to throw out a few things...

1) People worried about being surreptitious should remember that wizards can do all their magic without the appropriate focus. It's not quite as potent, but it's still effective.

2) I don't think we'll be seeing wizards juggling all for implements. While I have no solid facts to back this up, the implication of the phrasing suggests, as others have said, that wizards are only going to use one or two of the four objects at a given time. I expect that, just like fighters will choose at least some maneuvers based on one specific weapon, that wizards will choose strikes/power words/spells based on one or two foci. Not that they'll be unable to cast others, but I strongly suspect the rules will encourage some degree of specialization.

3) Speaking only for myself, now... To me, this does feel like D&D; the fact that it's new is irrelevant. Anything that inspires the same sense of wonder D&D does (or did) inspire, and that is thematically appropriate to the D&D style of fantasy setting, is D&D AFAIAC.