D&D 4E Some thoughts on 4e magic from a designer


log in or register to remove this ad

Interesting...

I could go either way on this. I love the notion of illusion- and necromancy-specific casters, and I have no problem with the best/most complex of the illusion and necromantic spells being reserved for them.

If...

The base casters get enough illusion/necromancy that, even in a campaign that doesn't use the specialists, you can still have a reasonable illusionist/necromancer presence. If that's possible, way to go. If they've cut back too much on the illusion/necromancy spells to which core characters have access, I'll be disappointed.

I'll have to vote "Leaning toward positive, but concerned" on this one.
 

Interesting.

It also seems to imply that specialist wizards are no longer subsets of the Wizard class, but will be written as classes of their own.

...which, if done right, I could actually agree with. It would go a long way towards eliminating the hateful lack of flavor that specialists had.

In fact, one thing I both like...and am wary of...in all these 4e announcements is that they seem to be all for adding a lot of fluffy flavor to classes that sorely lacked them before. Whether or not that's good or bad really depends on the specifics.

Meep. :)
 

I think it makes sense actually...

If you spend your life focused on one thing you should be better at it then someone who dabbled in it, plus a few other things.
 

Personally, I'd prefer Illusionist to be a specialist option for the Wizard. It wouldn't be hard to build the Wizard in such a way that an Illusionist specialization was flavorful and interesting. It wasn't in 3e, but its been done before with other classes. A Warblade who specializes in Tiger Claw and wields two Kukris is flavorful and interesting in a different way than a Warblade who specializes in Stone Dragon and wields a maul. It wouldn't be that hard to do something similar for the Wizard.
 


Yeah, was thinking initiate feat merged with the wizards orders, an extra sub-set of spells that I will be really good at. Add a wand and I am really good with said sub-set of spells. :)
 

Cadfan said:
Personally, I'd prefer Illusionist to be a specialist option for the Wizard. It wouldn't be hard to build the Wizard in such a way that an Illusionist specialization was flavorful and interesting. It wasn't in 3e, but its been done before with other classes. A Warblade who specializes in Tiger Claw and wields two Kukris is flavorful and interesting in a different way than a Warblade who specializes in Stone Dragon and wields a maul. It wouldn't be that hard to do something similar for the Wizard.

True, true...it could be done. But making them separate classes opens up some options too. Illusionists could have class abilities that wizards don't, for example... Again, it's too soon to say if this is going to work, or if it's the best option...but it has potential, I think.
 

BTW, anyone think it's a coincidence that the two types of magic suggested to get possible specialist classes--illusion and necromancy--are two of the three types of magic (the other being conjuration) that are widely thought to be the most disruptive and hardest to adjudicate in play?

Because I don't. I think this, if carried to its logical conclusion, could very well be a way for the designers to spend more time working out the odd mechanical kinks of illusions and summoned/animated creatures, without delaying the release of the initial core rules.

Which, again, I'm okay with--if the core casters still get enough of these toys to be worthwhile.
 


Remove ads

Top