Which implementation of wizards' implements do you prefer?

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Insufficient data, but I definitely think tomes should stay -- they are alomst as inonic as wands and staves, and more so than orbs. And the martial-arts style names are just goofy -- they should be left for a DM to define as part of a campaign setting, not written in core rules (of course we don't know if those names are part of the core rules, or just flavored examples).

 

[Korgoth]

I voted "original" because I liked the tomes and HATE the stupid tradition names.

 

[Cadfan]

I like everything about the revised version except

1: The Tome went away. I like the Tome. My girlfriend likes the Tome. Keep the Tome.
2: The original had a suggestion that wizards had two of the implements, and not more. The new version doesn't have that. I like specialization over having all the implements.

 

[AffableVagrant]

I don't like the martial-arts-school names -- give me the original.

I agree. The kung-fu style names take away from the generic nature of the PHB. It just seems like a setting is being forced with them.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

I think the idea is an interesting one, though I think that it should be a bit more customizable for wizards (and, if this how wizards are, I have to wonder what sorcerers & warlocks will be like).

I could see one practitioner prefer a wand, while another prefers a staff, and yet another an orb, but all could be really adept at force magic. Perhaps another uses a tome, another uses an amulet, another a fetish bag, etc.

Then again, I could see war-oriented wizards using a spear instead of a staff (sorta-kinda like a dual-purpose wizard's staff/polearm), or a sword. Heck, I could see a wizard using a cane or a club as the channeling item. However, I also see staff and wand more or less fitting in the same category--a sceptre of arcane power, if you will.

 

[Atlatl Jones]

I don't know which I like better, mechanically. I liked the original's idea of using different tools for different types of magic. However, books being a casting tool didn't quite sit well with me, becuase I find the image of a wizard waving his book at an enemy a bit silly. Though I suppose it could be cool of the tomes are smaller, and can be brandished like exorcists brandish the bible in the movies.

I hate the cheezy tradition names. They're way too intrusive and specific for the core rules, and the names themselves sound like they were created by a "random cheesy fantasy name generator." They're the first thing about 4e that I dislike, and I dislike them a lot. If they replace the traditional specialist wizard names - necromancers, enchanters, evokers, etc - I'm going to be miffed.

 

[Felon]

I don't know which I like better, mechanically. Books being a casting tool didn't quite sit well with me, becuase I find the image of a wizard waving his book at an enemy a bit silly.

Really? I thought it was a pretty cool. Dr. Strange would do that now and again with stuff like the Book of the Vishanti. Of course, it's even better if the book floating in the air in front of the mage, pages flipping of their own accord.

The tradition names are very hit-and-miss. "Golden Wyvern" sounds really awful.

 

[Felon]

Does a generalist Wizard still exist?

If, as we are to believe, skills are to have a place of prominence in 4e, then the generalist can't be an easy path to take, because that's the guy who has knock, invisibility, fly, and all those other utility spells that eclipse the utility of skills.

 

[cthulhu_duck]

I read 'golden wyvern' and immediately start to think of gold wizards (Warhammer Fantasy).

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I dig the idea, dislike the names.

I dig the idea a LOT more than I dislike the names, though. Here's hopin' they're just examples, never to be seen again.