Wizards now more of a speciality magician

[Cadfan]

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?

Because

1) Under the current game design, a character's class determines what skills he can access, and even more importantly it is the most important determinant of how many skills that class can access. If you want to make swashbucklers have more skills per level than a mounted knight, you have to have two classes.

2) Classes provide an important balancing mechanism for preventing combo from breaking the power curve. If Power A is appropriate for level 4, and Power B is appropriate for level 5, but Powers A and B combined are broken at level 5, you have to have some way to stop a player from having both at level 5. Classes do this automatically by giving Power A to one class, and Power B to a different one. A new way would have to be invented to fix this problem.

3) Part of archetype driven design is what characters cannot do. If the archetype of the swashbuckler is that he's a fast talker, but you give all the same fast talking abilities to the barbarian, you've screwed up the swashbuckler archetype.

4) The most general answer to the "why can't that just be a feat?" question for 3.x, and now the "why can't that just be a talent tree?" question from 4e, is that if you make something a talent tree, you're stopping the player from picking something else. This can harm the versatility of the system more than it helps. If the 3e ninja were transformed into a feat chain for rogues, it might work on a certain level, but then a ninja character would have a bunch of rogue abilities they didn't want, and few feats to spend to customize themselves in any other way than by becoming a ninja. This is sort of the opposite of point 2.

 

[TheArcane]

I just really really don't understand why there have to be separate Illusionist or Necromancer classes. A much simpler solution would be having some specialization mechanic similar to 3E and making it obligatory, but still keep only one Wizard class. This post pretty much confirms several fears I had - one, that the Wizards focus will shift heavily to combat (originally thought so because of the addition of at will / per-encounter abilities), two, that classes are the new prestige classes and we're going to get a whole bunch of them (originally thought so when the swordmage was mentioned of a class that will be featured in future products, and when the concept of power sources was introduced). I'd hate to see the game get to the proximity of 20 base classes, but I can already see it happening...

 

[brehobit]

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.

I'm actually working on that in my limited spare time.

 

[Chocobot]

20? You're worried about 20 classes? We'll probably see that by the end of 2008. What you should be worrying about is a game with 100 base classes.

 

[The Little Raven]

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?

Why should one class have more stuff than every other class in the game?

 

[Celebrim]

Why should one class have more stuff than every other class in the game?

Are we complaining about clerics, or about wizards?

Because we certainly wouldn't list Wizard if we were complaining about one class getting more stuff than any other class in the game. They are fragile, suck at melee, can't protect themselves, and can't heal themselves. Compare with Cleric or Druid.

IMO, the problem with Wizards is solely the same problem as with all the other full progression spellcasting classes. At high levels, the combination of a large number of spell slots and big game breaking spell abilities means that thier power level begins to race away from the other classes. It's not that the Wizard is more flexible than fighters or rogues that is a problem; it's that the fighter or rogue never get anything with the raw power of spells like teleport, freedom of action, mindblank, baneful polymorph, hold monster, wall of force, disjunction, wish, etc.

 

[Blacksmithking]

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.

We may end up with Guild Wars or WoW-style arcanists in 4e, such as the necromancer, mesmer, and elementist. I prefer this approach to the swiss-army-mage in 3.5e. I'm just hoping that each variant arcanist will have a sufficiently broad archetype or role, so that it can accomodate various specialties. I should be able to put two arcanists (two necromancers or elementalists or whatnot) in a party without them appearing exactly alike.

 

[Just Another User]

"beng a wizard mean blasting enemies with magical energies" - a 4d! designer which name escapes me now.

I thought that was just a figure of speech but apperently he meant it very literaly.

 

[Rechan]

I'm happy about this.

It seems to me that 3E's "Generalist" wizard can do everything. "I'll memorize knock and fly and Leonard's little house and summoning monsters, all in one day."

A Generalist means that "You CAN do everything but not as good." Giving the Wizard reduced capacity in some areas (You have invisibility, but the Illusionist can beat the pants off your invisibility) is right.

The Wizard has to give up SOMETHING. If he wants Knock, then either he's going to have to have other sneak-style spells and less Obvious effects like blasting power, or he's going to be Very Obvious, such as the wizard shouting "THOU UNBAR MY PASSAGE" and the door is sundered/warped beyond recognition.
entire focus.

I for one welcome our Illusionist/Necromancer friends. And I hope we get a conjurer, with the ability that resembles the mechanics for Astral Constructs (a template of stats with a list of added abilities). And the summoner can use a "Lesser Planar Ally" type ability to get an outsider cohort that represents a "Deal".

However, I am curious what ROLE the Illusionist and Necromancer fall into.

 

[akaddk]

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?

At low levels of play, they certainly don't. But, turn your question around, why should every Fighter have to wield the same sword and select his abilities from the same narrow pool? Why should I need a separate class to have rogues, rangers, or bards? Why of all the features of a fighter that you could choose to tone down would you target the classes flexibility? Why not target the raw power of thier high level attacks, for example?

Rinse, repeat, put any other class in there. Wizards had too much flexibility and power. If you disagree, try playing another class next to a wizard in a 20th-level game.