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

[Gloombunny]

I'd be more worried about this if the beguiler and dread necromancer weren't so freakin' cool. Better casting of the same spells the generalist wizard gets is boring. Exclusive access to spells is better, but still not that cool. But making them into distinct classes in their own right opens the door to flavorful abilities beyond spell selection. Stuff like the beguiler's sneak-casting, or the dread necromancer's gradual transformation into a lich. It also means that their abilities and spell selection can be organized around an interesting theme rather than sticking tightly to an arbitrarily-defined school of magic. Like how the beguiler uses both illusion and enchantment spells, plus some additional stuff along the lines of glitterdust and undetectable alignment, because he's not just an illusion guy, but a more general trickery-and-deception mage.

Yeah, if this means they're going to expand on what they started to do with beguiler and dread necro, I'm all kinds of pleased about it.

 

[wedgeski]

I would love a specialist Illusionist with real bite. In both play and DM'ing, I don't think I've ever been quite fair to what should be a powerful and evocative class.

 

[Khaalis]

I've been saying for a while now that I expected to see something along the line of the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer making a return in post-core 4E. With the new class structure and talent trees, it makes a lot more sense that such "flavorful" schools get unique classes of their own. What it really comes down to is the question: "Can a concept such as an Illusionist or Necromancer support various talent trees?" If the answer is "yes", then it deserves a class of its own, even if it is as a Prestige Class. Otherwise, the wizard's list of talent trees would grow far too unwieldy and imbalanced against other classes.

 

[Aloïsius]

WotC is down for maintenance....


Anyway, let's the wild speculation begin :

Abjurer : arcane leader
Enchanter : arcane controler
Conjurer : arcane defender
Necromancer : arcane leader
Illusionist : arcane controler
Evoker : arcane striker
Enchanter : arcane controler.

 

[Branduil]

Maybe the 4e Bard will be retooled as an Illusionist.

 

[Perun]

Oooo! I like this! Although I never played in the game that used illusionists (I got in the game after the release of 2e, and although at the time we used a mix of 1e and 2e material, illusionist wasn't in -- we didn't have the 1e PHB), I always liked the idea of separate magical "traditions" (not in the sense the 4e will use the term, but you know what I mean).

I'm currently reading a book by Janny Wurts, The Curse of Mistwraith (the first book in The Wars of Light and Shadow cycle), and it has the sorcerers of the Fellowship of Seven on one side and the Koriani Enchantresses on the other (I know similar themes on the differing approach to magic can be found in a number of fantasy literature works, it's just that I'm currently reading this one ) -- and the enchantresses are using crystal "implements".

Based on the current schools of magic, I'd like to see the illusionist, necromancer, and diviner as separate classes. Illusionists and necromancers have already been covered on this thread, but diviners, IMO, have the potential of being done better as separate class than a wizard "specialist" (I assume the wizards will have some options of "specialisation" in one of the fields of magic, similar to the 3(.5) specialists, but nowhere close to beguilers or dread necromancers). Seers and prophets would fit very nicely in such diviner class.

I'm apparently among the few who aren't really interested in the separate summoner class. I feel the base wizard fills that role perfectly in 3e (there are also some nice summoner feats in PGtF and either FCI or FCII).

IMO, base wizards should excel in Abjuration, Evocation, Conjuration and Transmutation, with a decent bit of Enchantment thrown in, and a smattering of Illusion and Necromancy. But that's just me

Regards.

 

[Tharen the Damned]

Separate Classes for Illusionist and Necormancer might be a good idea. As I do not know the mechanics, I can not comment on it.

But I fear that specialised Base Classes will be the Prestige Classes of 4th edition. We Do not know this yet, but with a proposed PHB every year we will get a lot of new Classes.
I don't know if I like this.
I hope for highly customizable Base Classes in PHB1.
I rather customize the Wizard into a Necromancer than have another Base Class.

 

[AllisterH]

I'm ambivalent about this.

On the one hand, I don't want to see a class for every type of magic user but then, on the other hand, the Dread Necromancer and the Beguiler were hellacool and more importantly, BALANCED.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I'm ambivalent about this.

On the one hand, I don't want to see a class for every type of magic user but then, on the other hand, the Dread Necromancer and the Beguiler were hellacool and more importantly, BALANCED.

Exactly the same here. It's a bunch of base classes, and I don't really like it, especially because I can see appropriate talent trees.

But then, the Dread Necro and the Beguiler (and to a certain extent the Warmage) were great versions of these 'specialist wizards' and I liked them very much, design-wise as fun-wise.

I'm torn between both options.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Remathilis]

Count me in as hopeful and impressed.

I think the distinction between these "illusionist" and "necromancer" classes will be the same as that between beguiler/dread necro and standard wizard. The wizard has the staple spells (charm, invisibility, animate dead) but the really cool "specialist" spells (super invisibility, make thrall, create uber undead) should be left to the specialist classes.

That said, I think the only other class that needs a specialization is conjurer. A specialist abjurer class treads closely to cleric, an evoker is close to a typical mage, as is a diviner. And transmuters, don't get me started (the B.A. in Liberal Arts of the D&D magic world)