Which implementation of wizards' implements do you prefer?
- Thread starter Olthynn
- Start date
Dark Psion
First Post
Neither
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.
When I think back to all the Magic Users, Mages and Wizards I have played thru 3 editions of the D&D, none were the iconic staff weidling, wand waving wizards with long white beards.
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.
When I think back to all the Magic Users, Mages and Wizards I have played thru 3 editions of the D&D, none were the iconic staff weidling, wand waving wizards with long white beards.
SPECTRE666
Adventurer
You dont need the implements to be effective. They are just icing on the cake. Me I liked the Revised article. Although I belive that the original article had more crunch to it. I could be wrong though. THIS IS NOT GYGAXIAN DND. They really are getting rid of alot of sacred cows. Them kids with their new toys. Well back in my time, you get the point.Dark Psion said:
Blackthorne
First Post
I voted "neither" because this Staff/Wand/Orb thingy is by far the worst thing I´ve read about 4E so far. Next thing you know, female sorcerers are required to use flying brooms.
Masquerade
First Post
This is true, but I imagine there will still be something called a "+X longsword" in the game, and if a fighter can grab that sword and suddenly become X more effective, I have no problem with a wizard being able to pick up something called a "+X wand" and become equally more effective.Dark Psion said:
If a DM wants to run a game with low magic item prevalence, she can simply take away the +X longsword and the +X wand, leaving the fighter and wizard on an even playing field. In 3.X, taking away magic items seems to hurt the fighter more than the wizard.
GoodKingJayIII
First Post
They, um... revised the article?!
Weird.
Edit: now that I've gotten over the shock of this odd change, I think I still prefer the original article. I like my PHB story and setting to be more generic because I usually have my own ideas on what should be called what, etc.
Weird.
Edit: now that I've gotten over the shock of this odd change, I think I still prefer the original article. I like my PHB story and setting to be more generic because I usually have my own ideas on what should be called what, etc.
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.
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.
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
So, uh ...
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?
And, seriously, the anime / wuxia comments are going too far. I don't want to belittle anyone's intelligence, but come on: how is "The Order of the Golden Wyvern" any different from "The Purple Dragon Knights"?
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?
And, seriously, the anime / wuxia comments are going too far. I don't want to belittle anyone's intelligence, but come on: how is "The Order of the Golden Wyvern" any different from "The Purple Dragon Knights"?
I don't think that wands and such need be magic items ins the sense of a + X longsword. I imagine that a generic wand will be the equivalent of a generic sword in that it won't have a bonus but will allow the wizard to utilise his basic class features in much the same way as a fighter needs a sword to do the same. Why should the fighter depend on basic equipment to fill his role when a wizard does not? A + X wand will fill the same niche as a + X sword.
On the topic of the thread, I voted for the original article. I think that tomes will still have a role, most likely the same as in the current edition, with the wizard refering to his spell book when preparing his daily allotment of spells. Even the per-encounter abilities can be studied frmo a book each morning, they just arn't forgotten for the day when used. We know that the wizard will retain some per-day abilities as well, and these are even more likely to require a spell book.
I don't like the suggested magic paths on both a flavour level (if schools of magic are going to have overblown names then I'd like to invent them myself without the need to retcon) and on the implied thematic pairings of certain energy types with certain other 'schools' of magic. On first glance it appears that different 'evocation' effects will be split and share an afinity with different effects from current schools. This may impose arbitrary flavour on a game which I'd prefer to de without. It also makes creating home grown magic 'schools' difficult if I have to unpick the old ones first.
On the topic of the thread, I voted for the original article. I think that tomes will still have a role, most likely the same as in the current edition, with the wizard refering to his spell book when preparing his daily allotment of spells. Even the per-encounter abilities can be studied frmo a book each morning, they just arn't forgotten for the day when used. We know that the wizard will retain some per-day abilities as well, and these are even more likely to require a spell book.
I don't like the suggested magic paths on both a flavour level (if schools of magic are going to have overblown names then I'd like to invent them myself without the need to retcon) and on the implied thematic pairings of certain energy types with certain other 'schools' of magic. On first glance it appears that different 'evocation' effects will be split and share an afinity with different effects from current schools. This may impose arbitrary flavour on a game which I'd prefer to de without. It also makes creating home grown magic 'schools' difficult if I have to unpick the old ones first.
Similar Threads
