Wizards now more of a speciality magician

[med stud]

To Celebrim: I reacted mainly at this part of your post:

Sadly, I thought this would come from much smaller numbers of known spells, as opposed to greatly reduced spell lists.

You said greatly reduced spell lists where the quoted text said some spells will be exclusive to illusionists and necromancers and wizards will be made a bit narrower.

The problem, as you noted, is that I exaggerated your points the same way that I percieve that you exaggerated his points. Communication can be hard sometimes .

So I try it again (hopefully) without putting words in your mouth:

From the information given there is no reason to believe that wizards will have many fewer spells to chose from. They may have taken out a couple of spells like knock etc but left the majority.

 

[Cadfan]

Remember that the warlock's schtique of being able to blast every round is something that the wizard can do too in 4e.

I'd be surprised if the warlock's schtick weren't revised a bit. There were a lot of classes in 3e that boiled down to "Its a wizard, but with a different mechanic so you don't have to deal with Vancian magic as much." Once wizards stopped using vancian magic and nothing but, those other classes are pointless. Consider the sorceror. Other than being a wizard who doesn't have to obey the rules of vancian magic, he's nothing. So once you change the wizard, he implodes. If you want him back, you have to rewrite him.

Warlocks have a few other schticks besides continual spellcasting. Mixing Essence and Shape invocations to customize a generic attack is one thing. They also have a distinct flavor to look to for inspiration, unlike the poor sorceror. So I'm betting on a significant revision.

 

[Branduil]

Finally the Wizard will "suffer" from the same restrictions as everyone else.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

I'd rather see Wizard subclasses handled through Talent trees, instead of new classes.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'd rather see Wizard subclasses handled through Talent trees, instead of new classes.

I would too, but WotC has to have something to put into PHBII, PHBIII, etc.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I'd rather see Wizard subclasses handled through Talent trees, instead of new classes.

This is how I'd like to see all "subclasses" handled. There should be a Warrior, Wizard, and Rogue class and then feat and talent selection would create the Rangers, Paladins, Bards, Illusionists, Clerics, Druids, Assassins, etc.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is how I'd like to see all "subclasses" handled. There should be a Warrior, Wizard, and Rogue class and then feat and talent selection would create the Rangers, Paladins, Bards, Illusionists, Clerics, Druids, Assassins, etc.

Ahhh nostalgia. I remember when people suggested this on the old boards back before 3E. Sadly, I believe they're about as likely to do this now, as they were then.

 

[Felon]

Leaving aside the fact that to make your point you had to stretch past the breaking point, yes, you can play a quite roguish wizard if you invest most of your spell slot in stealth/intrusion/divination effects. I consider that a good thing.

Not me. The problem is that isn't a great investment on the wizard's part to become the rogue-trumper for a day. Skill point assignments are static, while spell selections are dynamic. It's the rogue who makes the heavy investment, while the mage fields whatever position he desires on a given day.

When Mike Mearls was designing Iron Heroes, he had this table of all the various skills and how easily most of them were trumped by very low level spells (I wish I could find it now). This might have been acceptable--even desirable--at one point in time because wizards has such few spells per day. When they cast a spell, it was one of their few moments to shine. The rogue could go back to being the sneaky guy long after invisibility had been used up. But that's a design that's being dropped. Casters will be doing what they do pretty routinely.

 

[Azgulor]

Actually, for me if spellcasters have a narrower focus that's a plus. The uber-generalist always bothered me. I much prefer variances in magic approaches. These can be utilized with great effect for races/cultures, setting, and story, etc.

Now finding a balance where one isn't a superman while another is substandard is a whole different issue.

 

[Celebrim]

No, it means appalled, because I don't see Warlock and Swordmage as "wizard variants".

When they killed the sacred cow of Vancian magic, almost all the other published arcane classes were turned into wizard variants in a stroke. Sorcerer? His schtik was he didn't have to choose his daily spells ahead of time. Now, with Vancian magic probably 80% gone or more, for the most part neither does the Wizard. Warlock? His schtik was he had an unlimited number of 'spells per day'. Now the wizard has at will blast abilities as well. The mechanical variation between arcane classes decreases enormously when they all have 'at will', 'per encounter', and 'daily' resources. This is the real reason for adding flavor like 'Wizardly Implements'. You need to add in that sort of flavor to get some mechanical distinctiveness, because otherwise the classes are nothing more than very minor variations.

Nothing prevents a 4e Wizard from taking the Warlocks blast shaping or enhancing abilities as well. You could easily turn that into a talent tree.

Whee! Let's turn the question around yet again. Why should every Fighter have to wear the same hat and select his abilities from the same narrow pool?

The Fighter's schtick is combat feats. That's only as narrow of a pool as you want it to be. I have feat trees for strong fighters (Power Attack) and agile fighters (Dodge), hardy fighters (Tough as Leather), smart fighters (Expert Tactician), canny fighters (Combat Intuition), and charismatic fighters (You can't do that to my friend!, At last we meet!). I have feats for different sorts of weapons (Wall of Wood, Point Black Shot, Power Slam), and different sorts of fight styles (Ride by Attack, Close Quarters Combat, Improved Clinch, Distance Keeping). I have feats for fighters that give simple bonuses (Weapon Focus) and others that break the rules (Second Wind, Roll with the Punches, Lust for Battle, Hand is Mightier than the Sword, etc.).

Why should I need a separate class to have Rangers, Paladins, Barbarians, Samurai, Knights or Swashbucklers?

That's a good question. Why should you need separate classes? I'd never introduce samurai, knight, or swashbuckler as a class. That's just a fighter with a particular schtick or not even that maybe. It could be no more than flavor. If your fighter base class can't handle minor variations like that, something is wrong with it. And as for Rangers, Paladins, and Barbarians, those are pretty shabby base classes for a different reason - they are all to narrow and setting specific. Why can't I go into a rage if I'm a fanatical temple gaurd of a lawful organization, if I part of an elite body gaurd to the dwarven high king? Why must the only fanatic be a chaotic wilderness dweller? Why must the only champion of an ethical principle be lawful good? Why must every huntsman also gain druidic spells?