Wizards still cast Enchantment, Illusions, Necromancy

[Bishmon]

Well yes, anyone who wants the 4E wizard to be the wizard that masters all forms of magic will be highly disappointed.

I don't think many people want a wizard that masters all forms of magic. I think a lot of people want a wizard that is able to master any of the different forms of magic. There's a notable difference there.

I just don't think that hearing that wizards will have a smattering of classic non-blasty stuff will make a lot of the concerned people think of the new wizard as much more than a glorified blaster.

 

[The Little Raven]

I just don't think that hearing that wizards will have a smattering of classic non-blasty stuff will make a lot of the concerned people think of the new wizard as much more than a glorified blaster.

Some of those people will hold that opinion until D&D returns to the design philosophy of "Wizard uber alles!"

 

[Bishmon]

It falls short of 3e's Wizard because 3e's Wizard was "Anything you can do I can do better, I can do anything better than you (except necromancy)."

Who's the 'you' in "Anything you can do I can do better..."?

 

[The Little Raven]

Who's the 'you' in "Anything you can do I can do better..."?

Everybody but the cleric, since healing is the one thing that wizards explicitly cannot do, and necromancy is something the cleric is better at.

 

[Traycor]

I don't think many people want a wizard that masters all forms of magic. I think a lot of people want a wizard that is able to master any of the different forms of magic. There's a notable difference there.

I would argue that in 3E, there actually was no difference between those two distinctions. A specialist could cast more of their speciality, but that was it. There was nothing else that made them any better in their chosen magical focus.

Thus, a generalist 3E wizo was really just as much a master of illusions as a an Illusionist (assuming access to the same spells).

lastly, I would say that if people don't want a wizard that can do everything, then this is better represented by seperate classes that are truely different instead of just giving every option under the sun to "wizards".

 

[Bishmon]

Some of those people will hold that opinion until D&D returns to the design philosophy of "Wizard uber alles!"

This really adds nothing positive. Instead of engaging in a real discussion, you're bringing inflammatory statements. That's not gonna help anything.

 

[Rechan]

I don't think many people want a wizard that masters all forms of magic. I think a lot of people want a wizard that is able to master any of the different forms of magic. There's a notable difference there.

That's fine. When he masters another form of magic, he just takes another class. Just like if you want to master archery you become a ranger, if you want to master melee you become a fighter.

Your Illusionist and Enchanter can call him a wizard. Just because he's taken the Illusionist or Enchanter class doesn't make him not a wizard. The classes are little more than packages of abilities.

 

[Bishmon]

Everybody but the cleric, since healing is the one thing that wizards explicitly cannot do, and necromancy is something the cleric is better at.

So the argument is that it was bad for a wizard, whose only notable ability was his ability with magic, was better at magic than other classes that didn't have a similarily narrow focus? A wizard being able to be a better enchanter than a bard was bad, despite the wizard only focusing on magic and the bard being a jack-of-all-trades? A wizard being better at summoning than a cleric was bad despite the wizard only focusing on magic and the cleric getting more HP, better weapon and armor training, and the ability to turn undead?

I don't get that.

Plus, I don't see how that's going to change. When an illusionist class is released, it's a safe bet he'll be better at illusions than other classes. Same thing with summoners, enchanters, etc. So all that's been done to fix this "problem" is chop the wizard class up into a number of seperate classes.

 

[Bishmon]

That's fine. When he masters another form of magic, he just takes another class.

Then what's the point? Why change the legacy of one of the iconic classes if the change is this ultimately ineffectual, you know?

I can understand the desire to give illusionists specific illusion abilities, but it seems like a paragon path would be perfect for this. Leave the wizard as it is, having great potential with all sorts of great magic, maybe even have a semi-specialization option. Then once level 11 rolls around the wizard has a great understanding of the workings of magic, he can really go crazy with it and take a paragon path to become a master illusionist or master summoner or whatever.

This is what 3E essentially did with wizard specialization and prestige classes, and I'm not sure many would rank it in their "top 50 things to change for 4E" lists.

 

[Traycor]

So all that's been done to fix this "problem" is chop the wizard class up into a number of seperate classes.

Exactly. The power that a wizard has had in magic basically covers just about everything. That class had so much power that they could outshine the fighter, rogue, etc... One class should not be able to overwhelm everything in the game and cover all abilities except healing. It was just too much for one class.

Chopping the wizard into lots of classes fixes this problem quite nicely. You balance each of those seperate classes, which fixes their problems of too many abilties. You also have the ability to then make an Illusionist truely unique from a regular wizard, or a Necromancer truely unique from a regular wizard.