New Design: Wizards...

[Mouseferatu]

BTW, I do want to reiterate that I'm not a fan of most of the tradition names offered so far. And while I see the need for such names, I'd have preferred something slightly more generic.

So my argument isn't that these are "teh awesome." Only that I see the need for them, and they don't bother me at all, since names are amongst the most easily changed features, and even these names have inspired ideas for colleges/organizations in my mind.

 

[Loincloth of Armour]

From article:

Likewise, while wizard traditions are associated with a particular implement, a wizard need not possess or hold a given implement to use a power belonging to that tradition.

Could be similar (to use 3.5 terms) to when a fighter attempts to fight with or without a weapon.

With:

Fighter: "I attack the ogre! My BAB is +3, my strength +3, and weapon focus gives me a total of +7 on the roll."

Wizard: "I cast Prod in an Uncomfortable Location on the ogre. My [insert 4ed game mechanics here] gives me +5 on the roll."

Versus Without:

Fighter: "I attack the ogre! My BAB is +3, my strength +3. Since I'm using my fist instead of my sword, I don't get my weapon focus... oh, and another -4 for not being proficient with unarmed strikes. +2 on the die."

Wizard: "I cast Prod in an Uncomfortable Location on the ogre. My [insert 4ed game mechanics here] gives me +5 on the roll, but since I don't have my wand it works out to only +1."



It highly suggests there are other effects possible when you use your items, but you can cast the spells without them. Just harder.

So while you might be able to charm a low-level gate warden without naught but a word and the waggling of your fingers, (just like a skilled fighter could beat the warden up with his fists), if you want to affect the strong and the powerful, you have to make sure you have the right tools for the right job.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I'm sure you could. But we're not talking about just spell write-ups. We're talking about references to entire schools/traditions/talent-trees/whatever-you-want-to-call-them of magic. I suppose one could write about those without coming up with some kind of name for them, but I think it'd be awkward at best.

I'm not sure if I like the fluff. I don't want to spend serious time filing the serial numbers off fluff that doesn't need to be there. Its not that the fluff is bad, by itself, but I've got my own schools of magic in my homebrew, with their own names and such. We'll see how that goes - its clear that 4E is going to have some setting specific info - after all, they created a Story team, and there's got to be a reason for that.

 

[bgardner]

Change explanation

Bart Carrol's blog
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=911366

It was a draft that was suppose to be changed before it was released and the original was incorrect.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Maybe there's something wrong with me (is that even a maybe?), but to be strictly honest, I really like the sound of the schools of Magic, and I honestly think it will improve the D&D wizard, and it's nice to have a bit more flavour to the Wizard by default.

For specific settings I suspect you could rename or entirely replace the schools.

Only thing that confuses me a bit is that apparently both the Iron Sigil and the Stormwalker Theurges are both into Thunder/lightning and Force magic. Probably want to sort that one out before release.

 

[Korgoth]

Actually liked the first article, hate the "new article".

 

[Zaukrie]

That was weird. I like the idea of paths and schools, but I'm not sure how much the schools should be inbedded in the rules. This is one I'll have to look at.

three implements is better than four, I think.

 

[Rechan]

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

Is everything too Oriental for you people?

How about Gandalf the Gray? Is that too kung fu? Because it's 'Name the Word'. Because I thought in most fantasy settings, wizards don't just walk around calling themselves wizards, they say "I am the Eldrich Soothsayer of the Blackened Rim" or some other grand phrasing.

Let's just call the schools "Blowing stuff up" "Hiding stuff" "Making Stuff Appear out of No Where" "Death stuff" and "Changing Stuff into Other Stuff". There, flavorless, and not too kung fu for you.

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

I'm sure you could. But we're not talking about just spell write-ups. We're talking about references to entire schools/traditions/talent-trees/whatever-you-want-to-call-them of magic. I suppose one could write about those without coming up with some kind of name for them, but I think it'd be awkward at best.

Yes, except there's a bit of a difference between a talent-tree (which could be interpreted as being disciplines within the wizardly arts) and what we have on that article, which specifically mentions Wizards of the <whatever>. Now, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but this implies a number of colleges, societies, cabals or guilds which organise and regulate magic (like the Traditions of M:tA). I argue that, in a Points of Light setting, wizards should be usually loners, teaching their craft in a one-on-one master/apprentice relationship. And removing that organisation is harder than just changing their names around... :\

 

[Pazu]

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

"I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor." Quick, identify the source!