New Design: Wizards...

[Raven Crowking]

I was envisioning my wizard pulling a Celestial Lion out of his hat.

Again!?! This trick never works!

 

[Lurks-no-More]

I wonder how strict the definitions will be. Can I cut down a sapling and call it a staff? Can I pick up a twig and call it a wand?

I'd expect that no, you can't, at least not without suitable feats / talents / whathaveyou.

 

[Mercule]

I was envisioning my wizard pulling a Celestial Lion out of his hat.

Hmm... Change "rod of wonder" to "hat of wonder" and you've got Presto.

Dunno why I never thought of that before. Or why your post took me there.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I hope that you are wrong. It would be nice to know that the developers are reading, and responding to, reactions to their previews.

Not necessarily. After all, while a few people were yelling loudly about tomes, the majority of the people responding to the thread didn't have a problem with them.

Further, any response to these previews is made in a vacuum. We don't know what else has been changed, so there's no way of judging how well what we're seeing fits into the larger picture.

Sure, Wizards should be paying attention, but making a major change like that--in so short a time span, based on the feedback of a few people in a couple of threads--is about the worst way I can think of to drive any last-minute changes.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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

I HATE the flavor/fluff. Golden Wyvern, Iron Sigil-- DROP ALL THAT CRAP.

Just give me solid, balanced rules. Do I have to have all this fluffetty-puffetty crap in my rulebooks?

I just got a shiver down my spine the likes of which I have not felt since Bo9S-- good rules completely overshadowed and undermined by, frankly, really "purple" fluff.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

*blink*

Okay, that's weird.

I don't think this was done because of people yelling about the tome. The changes to the article are too pervasive for that.

This reads to me more like someone accidentally posted an earlier (and no longer accurate) version of the article.

Almost certainly.

It doesn't seem likely that they'd complete a massive overhaul of a class role in an afternoon based on messageboard threads.

Brad

 

[F4NBOY]

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13814980&postcount=8

Hmm, well we do say it in the Design & Development column intro: "Keep in mind that the game is still in a state of flux, as refinements are made by our design and development staff."

Case in point -- take another look at the most recent Wizards and Wizard Implements article. A revised version has just been posted, with several changes to the original article posted Friday.

The version you see now is the version that should have originally gone live.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I HATE the flavor/fluff. Golden Wyvern, Iron Sigil-- DROP ALL THAT CRAP.

Just give me solid, balanced rules. Do I have to have all this fluffetty-puffetty crap in my rulebooks?

I just got a shiver down my spine the likes of which I have not felt since Bo9S-- good rules completely overshadowed and undermined by, frankly, really "purple" fluff.

Huh. I'm going to have to disagree with ya, Wulf. So long as it doesn't bleed over into the mechanics, and is thus relatively easy to change, I prefer any flavor (even if it's flavor of which I'm not fond) to a completely tasteless rulebook of nothing but mechanics.

Even bad flavor can be inspirational, and interesting to read. Pure mechanics are much less evocative. And I'm a big proponent of the notion that

1) Game books should be at least as inspirational as they are informative, and

2) Any rules that are too boring to read are not going to see use in play.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

*chuckle*

I love the irony of the article changing completely.

I'm sure that I look ridiculous over here with my, "The sacred cows are falling! The sacrew cows are falling!", but I hope we can maintain a good sense of humor about this, because from where I'm standing the, "I don't know anything about 4e, but I'm sure it is going to be awesome!!!!", crowd looks pretty funny juggling its expectations too.

"Any class, any level, just works... as soon as we work out the details."
"4e, we are going for 1e edition feel to the crunch with 3e edition feel to the fluff....or did I get that backwards?"
"4e, more streamlined, and lots more options too"
"4e, kills all your sacred cows but will still stay the same."
"4e, less dependence on magic items, plus lots of phat bling for the MMORPG crowd"
"4e, we are going to completely overhaul the game, and leave it perfectly balanced"
"4e, rigorously playtested and available 2nd quarter next year"
"4e, listening to all fan input with the same degree of attention that clouds flying overhead pay to you"
"4e, faster leveling for the 20% of the market that has demanded it."

Got to love it.

Heh... Well, while I am eagerly anticipating 4e, you pretty much nailed every one of my nagging concerns.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

It looks like they may be consolidating schools of magic from eight to six.

To me, it feels more like they are killing the concept of specialists as as adhering strictly to the categorical label of a spell (evocation, illusion, etc.), and rather inventing a new model of specialization based strictly on the effect of the spell. In older D&D we may have had a conjuration spell deal energy damage as well as an evocation spell dealing the same energy damage.

If this is the case and I am right, I for one welcome the death old-school D&D specialization and welcome the arrival of this new form of specialization based on an effects' outcome.