Wizards now more of a speciality magician

[apoptosis]

I will note that in my mind the problem isn't what *magic* can do. It's what *wizards* can do. Right now, wizards have pretty much "darn near everything and anything" under their class description umbrella. Even in terms of melee and missle combat, they've often been given plenty of spells that let them compete in that arena (if briefly). And the perennial problems with wizard spells tramping all over the rogue's niche are frequently noted. If they were to announce that (for example) rogues could gain the ability to magically turn invisible or pick locks from a distance, that would be just fine. It reinforces their already marked out niches. The issue comes from our bookish wizard having a "spell for every occasion".

I do understand that viewpoint, it is just very alien to what I want out of a fantasy RPG.

We completely differ. If rouges can turn invisible and unlock doors from a distance then they are just wizards with bad makeup.

If niche protection and balance are what is being strived for I would put drawbacks maybe to using magic but not limit what wizards can accomplish with it.

This is where I really differ from many (if not most) people. Generally speaking niche protection is less important to me than the game being able to recreate the aesthetics of my fantasy world, which for me includes Wizards being able to unlock doors magically.

 

[apoptosis]

I think knock is the dumbest, stupidest, most divorced from physicality spell ever. I hate knock.

I am sorry, but I don't understand this.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I am sorry, but I don't understand this.

I have a tendency to be incoherent.

How does knock work?

It opens locks of any construction and makeup, no mater how complex with no damage.

Wookies come from Kasshykk.

Lucas used Ewoks cut in half on Endor.

IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!

Look at the monkey!

Look at the silly monkey!

 

[apoptosis]

I have a tendency to be incoherent.

How does knock work?

It opens locks of any construction and makeup, no mater how complex with no damage.

Wookies come from Kasshykk.

Lucas used Ewoks cut in half on Endor.

IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!

Look at the monkey!

Look at the silly monkey!

Sadly i think i understood most of that and that scares me

 

[Aloïsius]

For example, wizards still have Invisibility available to them. But when the Illusionist class comes around, he'll have better Invisibility options."

So they are adding OPTIONS to the specialist. Of course, people cry and say "the sky is falling, wizards are narrowed to be just evokers".

I seriously doubt there won't be some animate dead in the PHB... However, it's perfectly possible that you will have better variants of this spell in PHB2. The generic "animate dead" may have a limited duration (a fun rule I can imagine : the zombi you create is short-lived, he lost 1d6 hit points every other round) , while the enhanced one will be instantaneous, per exemple.

 

[Celebrim]

I seriously doubt there won't be some animate dead in the PHB... However, it's perfectly possible that you will have better variants of this spell in PHB2. The generic "animate dead" may have a limited duration (a fun rule I can imagine : the zombi you create is short-lived, he lost 1d6 hit points every other round) , while the enhanced one will be instantaneous, per exemple.

I already have 'ambulatory dead' (requires concentration) and 'reanimate corpses' (short duration) on my homebrew spell list for those 'I need a low level necromancer' situations.

 

[Nyaricus]

I have a tendency to be incoherent.

How does knock work?

It opens locks of any construction and makeup, no mater how complex with no damage.

Wookies come from Kasshykk.

Lucas used Ewoks cut in half on Endor.

IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!

Look at the monkey!

Look at the silly monkey!

That was the craziest, most incoherent post I've seen all week Like, that was really crazy, lol

 

[med stud]

I think you are drawing far too wide conclusions from the quoted text. Just because they add necromancers and illusionists doesn't mean that there will be no illusionist or necromancy spells in PHB I. Wizards may be less flexible but I really doubt that they will be inflexible.

As an aside about knock: IMG I made knock so that it violently blows out a lock instead of just opening it. That means that a wizard can get by a lock but it won't be quite. Not that it's a really big deal IMO, memorizing knock instead of, for example, glitterdust can make a wizard a lot less powerful in combat.

I also hope that they will do away with the wizard domination at high levels. I think it's one of the more stupid design elements to make a class that is weaker than everyone at low levels and stronger than everyone at high levels.

 

[Celebrim]

I think you are drawing far too wide conclusions from the quoted text.

Really?

Just because they add necromancers and illusionists doesn't mean that there will be no illusionist or necromancy spells in PHB I.

Did I draw that conclusion?

Wizards may be less flexible but I really doubt that they will be inflexible.

Did I draw that conclusion?

I draw the conclusion that I read Rich Baker more closely and charitably than you read me.

I also hope that they will do away with the wizard domination at high levels.

Me too, but I'm not convinced that this is the way to go about it.

 

[Terraism]

I never liked the wizard that could do everything. I'm glad he'll have to specialize.

Personally, I would have preferred that the specialization take place through some mechanic like the one used in Book of Nine Swords. That system ensured that, although the same Warblade class could use a wide variety of schools of combat, he had to specialize in just one or two. Applied to wizards, this would mean that while the Wizard class could access all different types of arcane magic, any individual wizard would only be able to obtain high level abilities in one or two.

This here, I wholeheartedly support. I did read Rich's post with a sinking feeling in my gut, though, because it's giving me horrible spinning visions of dozens of narrowly-defined base classes, whereas I'm fonder of something like UA's generic three-class system. Yeah, I know that D&D is a class-based system, but I tend to prefer them to be broad brushes so that there's a lot of room for differences within the class. Ah, well. Shouldn't be too hard to take the good stuff from the specialty classes and pass it back to the core ones.