New Design: Wizards...

[Garnfellow]

The draft article suggested a very radical mechanical break from past editions. Since we really can't put these changes into any useful context, I was happy to put this info into a "need to wait and see" category. It could all turn out great or horrible, but the glimpse we got at least had some promise.

The "revised" article, though, had plenty of flavor text that could be judged without knowing the larger context, and my strong response: blaugh.

And blaugh again. Wizards got more than a little too much of their implied setting into the mechanics for my taste.

I sure hope that exerpt's not a harbinger of things to come -- it's really the first time I've seriously thought that maybe 4e wouldn't be for me.

 

[Yergi]

You mean like how people in That Cold Place Up There are likely more interested in Cold-based evocation, People Over There are more interested in Necromancy, and People In That Place That's Full Of Intrigue are more interested in illusion/enchantment and Pacifist Area Over Yonder are inclined towards Defensive magics?

That's one way you could spin it, but I was more thinking like this:
A Master Mage immigrates into a town and after settling in accepts a small number of apprentices. He trains these apprentices in his style of magic known as "The Hidden Flame". After the apprentices come of age, they must travel outside their village and see the world to expand their knowledge of magic, as the world is only a veneer of structure supported by magic (to paraphrase a sentence from the article) in their travels they have various adventures and add to their understanding of magic, perhaps learning techniques that are very different than the Hidden Flame technique learned by their old master. At the end of their travels they immigrate into a different village just as their master did before them, except now their magical style is vastly different, and it has a new name, perhaps "The Surging Fire" or somesuch, and the cycle repeats again...

 

[Drammattex]

Love the first one. It felt more generic. Loved the tome.

Not so much on the second one. Though I haven't seen the rules, it gives me the heebie jeebies.

 

[TheArcane]

Just read the updated article.
Sounds to me like there will be three talent trees, one for each implement, and probably a fourth generic one.
Also, if the flavor is as integrated into the PHB as it is into the article, it will be quite a lot of work to fit a wizard into a homebrew campaign, more than the generic 3E wizard. Then again, could be just fluff for the preview.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I don't get all of the hang-up about the names. Don't like it? Change it.

No, don't do it in the first place.

It gives us a label for the (school? tree?) that's less awkward than 'Spell Set 1', 'Spell Set 2', or whatever.

"Spell Set 1" is deliberately non-evocative and a strawman. Tell me what set of spells belongs to the Golden Wyvern and I guarantee I can come up with a more descriptive name, without all the setting baggage.

What does Golden Wyvern even mean, in the context of the rules? Somebody up there in Design is setting down a formula for what it means, and he's passing this functional description off to the other teams, so that they all know what Golden Wyvern means.

Give me that functional description.

At any rate, in the context of a rulebook, I don't think you can argue that Weapon Finesse "doesn't work" and "Strike of the Cobra" does work.

Quite frankly, this fluff is just jargon masquerading in thigh-high boots and puffy shirts. The rules are already an obstacle to learners. Dressing up the jargon with descriptive puffery is not a solution.

We don't know if there will be any more detail than what is shown - e.g. history, notable figures of the school, locations of colleges; personally I wouldn't object to some bare minimum here (like a one-sentence mention of a wizard for each school, something like '<famous wizard> of <school> was best known for <notable event>' or '<school>'s <famous wizard> once remarked <witticism>').

I hazard a guess that most DMs would not appreciate this.

Seriously, if this is all it takes to convince someone to abandon 4e, I'd have to question if they were ever going to play it in the first place.

Who said anything abandoning 4e? Quite the opposite, I want it to kick all kinds of ass, because I intend to switch over as soon as possible.

 

[frankthedm]

[IMaGel]http://resources.wizards.com/Magic/Cards/2U/en-us/Card616.jpg[/IMaGel] Hey, now wizards will depend on gear? One more point for the whoever said 4E will make the wizard more like the fighter.

Not that i mind wizards using wands, staves and orbs like a fighter uses weapons, shields and armor. I do think making them tools of the wizards trade is better than having them just be spell-batteries and pricey oddball magic items.

I would like to see an Icy Manipulater and other M:tG items in 4E.

 

[Cadfan]

What does Golden Wyvern even mean, in the context of the rules? Somebody up there in Design is setting down a formula for what it means, and he's passing this functional description off to the other teams, so that they all know what Golden Wyvern means.

Give me that functional description.

I'm sure they will.

You know, in the rulebook.

Right now they're releasing teasers. Because that's what you do 5 months before the release date.

 

[Snapdragyn]

Also, if the flavor is as integrated into the PHB as it is into the article, it will be quite a lot of work to fit a wizard into a homebrew campaign, more than the generic 3E wizard.

How? Changing 'Serpent's Eye' to 'Mesmerite' or 'Royal Order of That Wizardy Kingdom' or 'Deity's Veil' is hard?

*boggle*

"Spell Set 1" is deliberately non-evocative and a strawman.

Yes, it was deliberately non-evocative, since the evocative name we were given seemed objectionable in some way I've yet to comprehend.

Tell me what set of spells belongs to the Golden Wyvern and I guarantee I can come up with a more descriptive name, without all the setting baggage.

A more descriptive name would also be more proscriptive, limiting the ability to include setting-specific homebrew spells if they don't meet specific criteria. An evocative (but empty of specific meaning) name doesn't have that problem. Of course there will be specific spells linked to that name in the PHB1, but if there is no formula - just a list of spells - then homebrew spells can more easily go wherever the DM wishs.

 

[Baumi]

What I find interesting is a sentence in the changed last paragraph:
"But if he does have a magic staff, it aids the accuracy of his attack, and his mastery of the Hidden Flame technique allows him to deal more damage with the spell."

So the Wand/Staff/Orb add in the accuracy and the tecnique (Talent-Tree?) inceases the damage...

 

[Yergi]

What I find interesting is a sentence in the changed last paragraph:
"But if he does have a magic staff, it aids the accuracy of his attack, and his mastery of the Hidden Flame technique allows him to deal more damage with the spell."

So the Wand/Staff/Orb add in the accuracy and the tecnique (Talent-Tree?) inceases the damage...

I noticed that as well. I like it, as long as knowledge of the technique gives you more than just extra damage. I don't mind if that's one or two talents in the tree (assuming it is a talent tree), but I'd hope for some other goodies in there other than +2 dmg on Hidden Flame spells or somesuch.