Which implementation of wizards' implements do you prefer?

[Lurks-no-More]

I honestly don't know why everyone gets so hung up on the "They said less magic items! But look! A magic item!"

Less does not equal zero, and the addition of a new magic item does not mean that the "less magic items" promise is being disregarded. You can't draw that conclusion without knowing what happened to the dozens of pre existing magic items from 3.5.

In fact, I don't think they have actually said "less magic items", but rather "less reliance on magic items".

Anyway, I liked tomes, but the newer version doesn't bother me. We know too little to make any definitive decisions yet, anyway! (And the fluff names don't bother me in the least. Such stuff is the easiest possible thing to change for your own campaign.)

 

[Felon]

I thought one of the 4E memes was to reduce dependency on Magic Items? Now here we discover that a Mage can barely function without these 3 (or 4) items.

Can you reference the section of either block of text which indicated to you that wizards will "barely function" without these items? Because I only see the article saying that they will act as minor aids.

Wands and staves used to be how spellcasters got around the narrow vancian limit on spells per day. In 4e, they'll need to serve another function, and focusing magical energy seems much more appropriate to me than being some disposable 50-charge shotgun.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Neither. Neither implementation of wizard's implements gives enough information to tell much about how it will be implemented in the finished rules. Wizards will need to carry stuff to be at maximum effectiveness in their discipline. Some wizards might belong to groups that give themselves names. That's what we know as of now.

 

[AffableVagrant]

Here's how I feel about the new implementation...

 

[Kaffis]

The first version appealed to me more. I like the idea of tomes, even if I felt that the categories assigned to them seemed a bit goofy.

The imposition of "traditions" as a middle-man layer between categories of spells and the implements feels mechanically clumsy in what should be a flavor-light mechanic. Directly (if loosely) associate all spells with an implement, and leave it for the setting to conjure flavor to surround them. It's also much easier to break the associations down than it is to build them up -- you can convert the original to traditions (by further breaking down the spell categories to match your traditions) with less disruption than you can the reverse (by letting the traditions absorb the categories they don't currently hold sway over).

Also, the first version feels flexible. Maybe I can carry around more than one implement, and I can choose my implement based on not only my character's personality and proclivities, but also on the current situation. The second one, seems like it will lock my character into one tradition, essentially placing a bunch of these exciting, iconic implements off-limits to me.

The first version got me excited about wizards. The second version makes me go "meh, I guess that's interesting, and at least not spell components or charged items."

 

[Howndawg]

My guess is that traditions are to wizards llike gods are to clerics. The PH will give a few examples but if you don't like them, you can make up your own.

As for tools, Bruce mentioned that orbs, staves, and wands are simply the most well known. I'd lay odds that tomes and possibly others will make an appearance in a later book.

What I'm most curious about is whether the differences between tools are simply fluff or whether there are actually and definite concrete rule differences between them? For example, what if the tools are what are used for wizard strikes? And what if say while INT would be used for actual spellcasting, different ability scores would be used for different tools while performing a wizard strike? Say WIS for orbs, STR for staves, DEX for wands, and CHA for tomes? In other words, different tools encourage different builds.

Howndawg

 

[Felon]

I don't mind the idea of traditions, but I do wish they'd sound a little more like something I'd read about Ars Magica than a kung-fu flick. In particular, I would drop references to monsters (like "golden wyvern"), and stick to words that have a heavy arcane implication ("iron sigil" works for me, because a sigil is a wizardly concept, not a martial one).

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

*snip a picture too wide for the screen*

Didn't you post this already--wrecking the screen width--in another thread?

 

[AffableVagrant]

Didn't you post this already--wrecking the screen width--in another thread?

I posted them both around the same time yesterday. I just read that other comment about screen width about 45 seconds ago or so. You'll have to excuse me, I'm just now learning that this is some taboo. :\ Won't happen again.

The image was applicable to both threads, so I figured "why not?". Also, my resolution is high enough, I don't have this problem with the image spilling over at 1280x1024.

 

[jasin]

Why are we assuming that Tomes are gone in their entirety, instead of assuming that all wizards use Tomes in addition to focusing on Wand, Staff, or Orb?

I'm not! Even though I voted for the original article, the lack of Tome is one thing I prefer in the new one, since to me it implied just what you said: that all wizards use books just like in previous editions, but they also use one or more of wand, staff and orb, depending on what they want to be doing.