Wizards now more of a speciality magician

[Celebrim]

From a post by Rich Baker:

"3. Every class gets cool "non-attack" power choices as well as attack power choices. Wizards will still be able to cast spells such as Disguise Self, Jump, or Levitate. It's true that we'd like to "narrow" wizards a bit, and save (for example) some illusion spells for an honest-to-gosh Illusionist class down the road, or necromancy spells for a Necromancer. But wizards will still "splash" at least a few of the iconic powers in these themes of magic. For example, wizards still have Invisibility available to them. But when the Illusionist class comes around, he'll have better Invisibility options."

- emphasis added

Apparantly, the new 'Wizard' class is much closer to a specialist Evoker/Transmuter than previous versions of the core magic-user class. I take it from the description that the most cannonical Illusionist (minor and major illusion?) and Necromancy spells (animate dead?) will likely not be part of the PHB, and that it will not be possible to play a core Wizard as either an Illusionist or Necromancer (though you could splash spells like 'Disguise Self'). Further, it won't even initially be possible to play an Illusionist or Necromancer out of the box since these are classes which are likely to be added latter (and very likely with thier own spell lists and power sources).

I think I saw this coming at least in part as at will and per encounter resources strongly favor non-abusable concrete effects like damage dealing (see the Warlock), and the only way to weaken a wizard while giving them more spells 'per day' was to strongly clamp down on thier flexibility. Sadly, I thought this would come from much smaller numbers of known spells, as opposed to greatly reduced spell lists. I think this is pretty much the straw that broke the camels back for me. It sounds like they are making 2nd edition BD&D, and while there is something to be said for that I think I'll stick with the less streamlined, more complicated options. My hopes for 4e were for much more flexible core class options with less inherent fluff, not much more narrow classes with more.

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

It seems to me they're restoring a lot of the 1e Illusionist spells which were encamped by the 2e Mage. To use a current expression, "the Illusionist mugged the Wizard and took back his stuff"...

Regardless, it's inevitable that the versatility of the Wizard be pared down a bit. As things stand now, after third level or so, you don't really need a Rogue -- Knock, Invisibility, Spider Climb, Comprehend Languages, and Find Traps (a Cleric spell, but still) and you have all your bases covered. Why should they be able to have the proverbial kitchen sink, anyway?

 

[vectner]

I'm psyched about getting illusionist back, and now we can have "real" necromancers too! I just hope they don't wait until PH3 for this goodness.

 

[FourthBear]

We'll obviously have to wait and see what 4e reveals for the Wizard class, not only in the original PH, but in later supplements. I do think that if it does occur that Wizards are narrowed in scope, it should be simple enough to house-rule by making the abilities later revealed for the Illusionist/Necromancer/Whatever class available to Wizards.

I should also say that I can completely understand the motivation for narrowing of the Wizard class. Right now they not only squat on a heck of a lot of conceptual space, but they always seem greedy to claim more and more with further spell releases. If you were to ask someone what their conception of what Wizardly magic can do and the answer is "pretty much anything". That doesn't leave too much for the others classes to stake out.

 

[Nikosandros]

I'm glad that they are going that route... one of the change that was more annoying for me in 2nd Edition was the removal of illusionists as a full fledged class. I believe that different kinds of mages can be appropriately modeled with different classes.

 

[Mallus]

I sincerely hope that's what the 4e designers are doing.

Core wizard's spell lists are absurdly broad, in terms of the types of effects they can produce, for a game system supposedly concerned with 'balance' and 'niche protection'. More rigidly 'themed' casters, with less decisive but more plentiful spells/abilities along a more narrow range of effect are just what the D&D magic system needs.

 

[Celebrim]

It seems to me they're restoring a lot of the 1e Illusionist spells which were encamped by the 2e Mage. To use a current expression, "the Illusionist mugged the Wizard and took back his stuff"...

I like 1st edition as much as the next guy, but even I will admit that certain 2nd edition innovations where superior and worth retaining.

Regardless, it's inevitable that the versatility of the Wizard be pared down a bit.

Well, no it isn't inevitable. I'm willing to bet that at alot of tables it just won't happen. It won't happen at mine. If I do any rebalancing of the Wizard on my own, it will be toning down the depth of thier power - not thier flexibility. Their flexibility is what makes them fun to play IMO. I'm not attracted to thier power to make things go 'boom' and don't think that needs enhancing.

And even it is was inevitable, it is not inevitable that it happen in this way. Once again, just because something is broken and the designers have an approach for fixing it, doesn't mean that that approach is necessarily a good one or even necessarily better than leaving it broken. The house rule forums are filled with designs where the designer had a vague notion that he'd prefer things to be different in some fashion, but didn't have a clear, strong idea for how to accomplish that.

As things stand now, after third level or so, you don't really need a Rogue -- Knock, Invisibility, Spider Climb, Comprehend Languages, and Find Traps (a Cleric spell, but still) and you have all your bases covered.

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. Second, rogue is an extremely powerful class at low levels of play, with an abundance of skills, fair combat options and strong defensive abilities. I don't think your hypothetical wizard is going to overshadow a rogue, and when ultimately a wizard does start to overshadow a rogue at 9th level and beyond, it's going to be for different reasons than 'spider climb' or 'invisibility'.

Why should they be able to have the proverbial kitchen sink, anyway?

At low levels of play, they certainly don't. But, turn your question around, why should every Wizard have to wear the same hat and select his abilities from the same narrow pool? Why should I need a separate class to have necromancers, illusionists, or conjurers? Why of all the features of a wizard that you could choose to tone down would you target the classes flexibility? Why not target the raw power of thier high level spells, for example?

 

[fuindordm]

Well, the defining point of a wizard has changed throughout the editions. I think flexibility became their hallmark only when the sorcerer took over the role of "specialist blaster".

Personally, I think magic looks and feels better when it *can't* do everything. Any effect that pops into the wizard's head can be made into a spell? No, thank you. I'm sure he'll have plenty of versatility regardless.

 

[fuindordm]

I sincerely hope that's what the 4e designers are doing.

Core wizard's spell lists are absurdly broad, in terms of the types of effects they can produce, for a game system supposedly concerned with 'balance' and 'niche protection'. More rigidly 'themed' casters, with less decisive but more plentiful spells/abilities along a more narrow range of effect are just what the D&D magic system needs.

Indeed, one of the nice things about Arcana Unearthed was that Monte avoided spells that violated the principle of niche protection.

 

[Cadfan]

*shrugs

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.

I suppose if they don't do that, then specialist base classes are fine. A base Necromancer class is certainly going to be more necromancish (new word!) than a wizard who focuses on necromancy spells, which has its appeal.

A necromancer or illusionist base class may very well be a wizard who happens to focus in one area, and who as a result is different enough that making a new class for him is easier than making him a customization option on the main wizard class. I'm fine with that. Illusion and necromancy in particular have their own design problems that might be best served by a new class. Illusion is lacking in damage abilities, and has a certain affinity for roguish skill user types. Necromancy usually results in pets, which have their own balancing problems that might be best served by separation from the main wizard.

Maybe in my campaign "Necromancer" will just be a name for a type of wizard. Bam, problem solved.