[4e] Illusionist?

[Jeff the Green]

My friend recently invited me to join her 4e campaign. I've only ever played 3.5e, but I said I'd at least take a look at the books. So I did, and I think I'm falling on the anti-4e side. The simplified system is nice, but everything seems to be about damage. Is there any way to build an illusionist/beguiler/enchanter/any mage that's not a blaster? I've only got access to the PHB and MM right now, but I can use anything I can get my hands on.

[cupkeyk]

Illusionist wizards are in Arcane Power. They have Int primary, Cha secondary. It specializes in the orb but you will actually want tome of readiness to juggle your illusory wall to become an encounter. There are also great utility powers tha have no combat use but allows you to alter a person's memories at level 2!

So the quick answer is yes for Illusion.

Charm is a bard thing now but wizards don't really fall far behind.

[Thajocoth]

My friend recently invited me to join her 4e campaign. I've only ever played 3.5e, but I said I'd at least take a look at the books. So I did, and I think I'm falling on the anti-4e side. The simplified system is nice, but everything seems to be about damage. Is there any way to build an illusionist/beguiler/enchanter/any mage that's not a blaster? I've only got access to the PHB and MM right now, but I can use anything I can get my hands on.

Arcane Power gives lots of illusion spells to the Wizard class.

EDIT: Ninja'd!

I'm not familiar enough with 3.5 to know what a Beguiler or Enchanter does. Wizards are fairly versatile though. Wizards are a "Controller", meaning that their main focus is not on damage (Strikers do this), helping/healing allies (Leaders do this) or preventing the rest of the party from being attacked (Defenders do this), though there's a very small amount of these things. (Just a touch.) Controllers are for wide damage (blasts & bursts to hit a lot more enemies), status effects (slow, daze, dominate, ect...), summoning and repositioning enemies into tactically bad positions.

The other Arcane classes are:
Swordmage - Defender
Bard - Leader
Artificer - Leader
Sorcerer - Striker
Warlock - Striker

However, all the Arcane classes get a little bit of Controllery goodness mixed in. The roles listed are merely their primary roles.

[kieza]

A lot of later books (Arcane Power in particular) have illusion, summoning, etc. in them. Be advised that powers are still largely aimed at combat; illusion powers are things that, for example, draw creatures towards a selected square, or cause them to treat terrain as difficult or dangerous, etc. A few utility powers do other things; I believe that some allow you to disguise yourself, create images of creatures to accompany you, etc. There are also a few rituals (noncombat magic) that create permanent/programmed images.

Enchantment, on the other hand, is largely the schtick of the Psion (released this spring in PHB III) in 4e. There are a few enchantment-style abilities for other classes (the Warlock has a few) but not many, and mostly at higher levels.

[Swordgleam]

Most people new to 4e who want to play an arcanist have this issue. The key is this: attacks do damage. That's why they're attacks. All the fun fluff magic stuff has been moved to Rituals. You no longer have to trade between cool spells and damage-y spells, because they're separated.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Most people new to 4e who want to play an arcanist have this issue. The key is this: attacks do damage. That's why they're attacks. All the fun fluff magic stuff has been moved to Rituals. You no longer have to trade between cool spells and damage-y spells, because they're separated.I haven't played much 4e for over a year. Have they actually made rituals worthwhile since then?

[cupkeyk]

Visions of Avarice, Illusory Wall, Sleep, and many many sky blue control attack spells deal no damage. But the ones that do deal damage are slightly better because they can be widened, you decrease the damage and increase the burst.

Rituals are worthwhile for those who can cast them for free. Bards with Song of sustenance. Vistani pathfinder beastmaster rangers with beast growth. So on so forth. If you have to pay for it, the ritual isn't worth the hassle. High Elf Mages with access to a fey crossing (fairly easy at level 24), can cast non-creation rituals at an eighth of the cost, so that is also another one.

[Swordgleam]

I haven't played much 4e for over a year. Have they actually made rituals worthwhile since then?

There's some cool bard ones in PHB2. Some third party supplements have rituals - specifically Azagar's Book of Rituals from Goodman Games. I own a copy and I can personally guarantee that at least eight of the rituals (the eight I wrote) are totally awesome and will make your game exponentially better, prevent cancer, and whiten your teeth while you sleep.

[Thajocoth]

I haven't played much 4e for over a year. Have they actually made rituals worthwhile since then?

Rituals are worthwhile later in the game. I'm in an epic tier campaign right now, and we cast a lot of rituals. In early paragon, we didn't cast any because it wasn't useful.

[Swordgleam]

Rituals are worthwhile later in the game. I'm in an epic tier campaign right now, and we cast a lot of rituals. In early paragon, we didn't cast any because it wasn't useful.

I was in a mid-paragon one shot where we cast a ton of rituals. We figured out that the wizard had the highest dex in the party, and so whenever there was an obstacle or a need for stealth he'd cast tenser's floating disc and the the rest of us would sit on it while he did all the balancing/sneaking/whatever. It was great. We also had a cleric and a warlock who'd taken ritual casting, so between the three of us we had a ton of rituals.

[Hzurr]

Just to re-iterate what some people have said, the 4E mindset is very different from the 3.5E mindset, especially for casters. Your powers will always be things that are designed to be used in combat (with the exception of some utility powers). All the awesome non-combat stuff is in rituals, which have varying degrees of usefulness.

Because of the cost factor, you'll rarely use rituals of your level, but you can get a lot of milage out of the low-level ones. As a DM, I didn't see rituals come up very often in our game, but from time to time my players would suprise me and pull one out (usually to get around a plot element that I thought would be clever). I mean, there you are, giving players a few scraps of paper that has just enough information on it to point them in the direction of the next quest, and then they bust out the "Make Whole" ritual so they can read the paper in it's entirety, and I have to make up 3 paragraphs of information on the spot.

Stupid PCs....


But in general, I recommend playing 4E before you cast judgement. It definately plays better than it reads. Also, just remember that while the combat rules are very tight and streamlined, the role-play aspect of it is still 100% on the players. If the players treat it like a board game or an MMO, that's what it will become. If players treat it like an RPG, that's what it will become.

[Kurald Galain]

Is there any way to build an illusionist/beguiler/enchanter/any mage that's not a blaster? I've only got access to the PHB and MM right now, but I can use anything I can get my hands on.
Your best bet is Dragon magazine. It has a few things like an illusory creature as a level-2 encounter power.


I haven't played much 4e for over a year. Have they actually made rituals worthwhile since then?
They haven't changed anything about rituals, so unless you already found them worthwhile with the PHB, you're unlikely to feel different now. Generally, the most useful rituals (or least useless, depending on your POV) tend to come from the PHB1, e.g. Tenser's, Raise Dead, and Portals.

[mobdrazhar]

I've found that players in my game use rituals a fair bit actually. especially since they have picked up Tenser's Floating Disc, Enchant Magic Item and Brew Potion. Since they are at a low level and i'm not allowing them to purchase magic items in town just yet (and a limited supply of Pot of Healing) they have found it very useful. And spells like Tensers aliviates the over encumberance on the party.

[NMBLNG]

The simplified system is nice, but everything seems to be about damage. Is there any way to build an illusionist/beguiler/enchanter/any mage that's not a blaster?

I can safely say that if you're playing a wizard as a blaster, you're doing it wrong. Wizards are controllers, which means that their entire purpose in an encounter is to give the DM a headache. Putting monsters to sleep, blocking line of sight with stinking clouds, Plugging up a narrow corridor with flaming sphere, etc.

So if you want a non-blaster mage, first look at the wizard. A warlock may also fit into this category. Warlocks are considered one of the lower-damaging Strikers. However, they have a lot of abilities that make life miserable for their opponents.

[Zaq]

I can safely say that if you're playing a wizard as a blaster, you're doing it wrong. Wizards are controllers, which means that their entire purpose in an encounter is to give the DM a headache. Putting monsters to sleep, blocking line of sight with stinking clouds, Plugging up a narrow corridor with flaming sphere, etc.

So if you want a non-blaster mage, first look at the wizard. A warlock may also fit into this category. Warlocks are considered one of the lower-damaging Strikers. However, they have a lot of abilities that make life miserable for their opponents.

While this has mostly been fixed, in the early game I get the impression that WotC equated "controller" with "AoE damage dealer," which the Wizard can do (not well, but). The advent of classes like the Sorcerer (who really IS an AoE damage dealer and admits it up front) and the (very, very) slow release of new powers has alleviated this somewhat, but it's totally possible to read through the PHB and get the impression that a Wizard is intended to do AoE damage, which counts as "control."

[NMBLNG]

@Zaq: Ok, I'll give you that. I have to admit that I have more experience with Arcane Power etc.

Wasn't the wizard the only PHB 1 controller? I can see how they would want to test the water with controllers first.

@OP: Maybe look up some char-op stuff on Wizards that don't focus on damage. The orb lockdown build may be a good place to start to get ideas.

[Swordgleam]

But in general, I recommend playing 4E before you cast judgement. It definately plays better than it reads. Also, just remember that while the combat rules are very tight and streamlined, the role-play aspect of it is still 100% on the players. If the players treat it like a board game or an MMO, that's what it will become. If players treat it like an RPG, that's what it will become.

This is probably the best 4e-related paragraph I have ever read.

I'm a huge 4e fan. I publish content for 4e. But when I first read the rules, I went, "Are you kidding me? This is stupid, that other thing is stupid, these are stupid... this entire thing is stupid." Then I played it, and loved it.

I hear people say, "It's a board game" and get confused because my group can go entire sessions without combat. What are these people doing? But if that's all they can see to do with 4e, that's all that will happen in their game.

We should save your paragraph and just post it to the start of every edition war thread.

[LibraryOgre]

But in general, I recommend playing 4E before you cast judgement. It definately plays better than it reads. Also, just remember that while the combat rules are very tight and streamlined, the role-play aspect of it is still 100% on the players. If the players treat it like a board game or an MMO, that's what it will become. If players treat it like an RPG, that's what it will become.

I have to agree with Dream Masher, here. If you take a look at his sig, you'll see I don't consider it D&D... still don't. Will argue that point in the fullness of nerd-rage wherever it comes up, from comic book store to Denny's parking lot to middle of the library I work at. And I will win, because I as stubborn as a terrier on your good sock.

However, it is a good game. The mechanics are generally solid, aside from some Murphy's rules. You can play it as "HeroQuest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeroQuest) Advanced" (indeed, we used HeroQuest miniatures and such until Dream Masher got a nice white board and started making OotS-style paper miniatures)... or you can play it as an RPG. It's really up to your group, and the stories you tell with it.

[AtopTheMountain]

But in general, I recommend playing 4E before you cast judgement. It definately plays better than it reads. Also, just remember that while the combat rules are very tight and streamlined, the role-play aspect of it is still 100% on the players. If the players treat it like a board game or an MMO, that's what it will become. If players treat it like an RPG, that's what it will become.

This makes me happy. I want to sig this. May I, please? :smallbiggrin:

[Katana_Geldar]

What's also good about rituals is that people can assist you do them. The only thing is they tend to take longer than a round.

[Kurald Galain]

I can safely say that if you're playing a wizard as a blaster, you're doing it wrong. Wizards are controllers, which means that their entire purpose in an encounter is to give the DM a headache.
While this is certainly the case, I should point out that it is viable to play a wizard as a primary damage-dealer, and that as of the most recent errata, a wizard can equal a sorcerer in this.

This is basically done by using Genasi Empowerment, Draconic Spellcaster, or Tiefling pyromancer, then using Dual Implement Spellcaster to dual-wield a Subtle Staff and a Staff of Ruin with Spellshard. However, as a damage-dealer, you're contending with the strikers; whereas as a debuffer, you're standing on your own.



Wasn't the wizard the only PHB 1 controller? I can see how they would want to test the water with controllers first.
Yes. On the one hand, the role of "controller" is still rather nebulously defined. On the other hand, the wizard has ended up being one of the most powerful classes in the game.


What's also good about rituals is that people can assist you do them. The only thing is they tend to take longer than a round.
Tend to? I'd say that without exception they take a hundred rounds or more to cast (barring one specific level-30 power).

[Yuki Akuma]

I have to agree with Dream Masher, here. If you take a look at his sig, you'll see I don't consider it D&D... still don't...

It says "Dungeons and Dragons" right there on the cover, dude. And is published by the owners of the IP.

Yeah, totally not D&D. :smallsigh:

[Sir Homeslice]

Subtle Staff

Subtle does not work that way.

[Gruffard]

Assuming you get get either Arcane power or Players Handbook II, I would recommend the Illusionist path for the Wizard, or the Bard for the character that uses the 3.x equivalent of schools of enchant and illusions to bug and annoy the enemy and otherwise supporting the rest of the party.

As other peeps mentioned above, the few things people miss in 4E who played 3.x is the separation of attack style spells from utility and rituals. The fun spells you want will be there. The other you may or may not like when you play is even if you have more experienced 4E players in your group who optimize their build with you, you can still reasonably perform near their level since a lot of the stacking and power/feat chaining is removed. making your feats more fluffy and less necessary to stay powerful.

Hope you enjoy your first 4E game. G'luck.

[Kurald Galain]

Subtle does not work that way.

It is nevertheless a common trick on CharOp. Please tell me why you think it doesn't work?

[electricbee]

As a side note, be willing to reflavor things to suit as well. Sleep could just as easily be a minor illusion that forces the eneimes to interact with it until they save.

Also be creative in your descriptions, and if you use the illusions against the same opponent round after round, describe what you create, how it reacts to the enemy etc.

And if you want to play an enchanter type ... got telepathy pathed psion.

[Swordgleam]

It is nevertheless a common trick on CharOp. Please tell me why you think it doesn't work?

I believe he's referring not to the item but to the adjective.

[Kurald Galain]

I believe he's referring not to the item but to the adjective.

"Some have said there is no subtlety to destruction. You know what? They're dead." -Jaya Ballard, task mage

[Gruffard]

"Some have said there is no subtlety to destruction. You know what? They're dead." -Jaya Ballard, task mage

LOL, nice, but yea I agree with the subtlety not technically being correct.

[Hzurr]

This makes me happy. I want to sig this. May I, please? :smallbiggrin:

Yes, but I expect tithes. :smallsmile:

[LibraryOgre]

It says "Dungeons and Dragons" right there on the cover, dude. And is published by the owners of the IP.

Yeah, totally not D&D. :smallsigh:

Just because I change my name to Obi-Wan Kenobi doesn't make me Obi-Wan Kenobi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obi-Wan_Kenobi)... it makes me a dude named Obi-Wan Kenobi.

WotC has the legal right to name their game Dungeons and Dragons if they like. But it's still D&DINO.

[Salbazier]

Just because I change my name to Obi-Wan Kenobi doesn't make me Obi-Wan Kenobi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obi-Wan_Kenobi)... it makes me a dude named Obi-Wan Kenobi.

WotC has the legal right to name their game Dungeons and Dragons if they like. But it's still D&DINO.

Question: who have the right to decide the definition of D&D?

People have different expectation of D&D and can create their own definition for it. But, unless you have the authority, you cannot claim your definition is the right one. Wotc has the legal authority to define their own product. A community concensus may do so, but there's a lot of people out there who accept 4E as D&D, if only becuse it is named so and they didn't care much to debate it.

[Sir Homeslice]

It is nevertheless a common trick on CharOp. Please tell me why you think it doesn't work?

Because weapons do not work that way, that's why. Only way it would work was if you had it in your main-hand, which would leave the Staff of Ruin in your off-hand, making that one pretty much worthless.

[Kurald Galain]

Because weapons do not work that way, that's why. Only way it would work was if you had it in your main-hand, which would leave the Staff of Ruin in your off-hand, making that one pretty much worthless.
The property of an item also works when you wield it in your off-hand, unless the property specifies otherwise. Staff of Ruin was errata'ed from "bonus to damage" to "bonus to damage with this staff", and Subtle Staff was not. So the former doesn't work as off-hand, but the latter does.

[LibraryOgre]

Question: who have the right to decide the definition of D&D?

People have different expectation of D&D and can create their own definition for it. But, unless you have the authority, you cannot claim your definition is the right one. Wotc has the legal authority to define their own product. A community concensus may do so, but there's a lot of people out there who accept 4E as D&D, if only becuse it is named so and they didn't care much to debate it.

I am. Therefore, I have a right to define it.

It is not D&D for a variety of reasons; there is a lack of early fragility of characters (Hzurr's quote of me saying that if a house cat can't kill a 1st level wizard is a reflection of that), a large number of different mechanics (complete redefinition of saves, abandonment of hit dice and Vancian magic, adoption of powers as default mechanic, etc.), a proliferation of magic items, especially slotted magic items, and other stylistic changes that bring it away from being D&D.

[Gruffard]

I am. Therefore, I have a right to define it.

It is not D&D for a variety of reasons; there is a lack of early fragility of characters (Hzurr's quote of me saying that if a house cat can't kill a 1st level wizard is a reflection of that), a large number of different mechanics (complete redefinition of saves, abandonment of hit dice and Vancian magic, adoption of powers as default mechanic, etc.), a proliferation of magic items, especially slotted magic items, and other stylistic changes that bring it away from being D&D.

3.x has slotted items. Check the Magic Item Compendium.
2E to 3E changed the mechanics alot too. Non-weapon profs became skills, etc. That happens cause of an edition change.

To prevent this from becoming a hug flame fest. 4E is closer to 1st and 2nd then 3rd is. so if anything 3rd is the oddity.

[LibraryOgre]

3.x has slotted items. Check the Magic Item Compendium.

And so did AD&D and oD&D; I noted their proliferation, not their existence.


2E to 3E changed the mechanics alot too. Non-weapon profs became skills, etc. That happens cause of an edition change.

There were a number of changes from 2e to 3e, of course; however, much of the essential character of the mechanics remained the same... HD, the concepts behind saving throws (even if the categories of saving throws were redefined), Vancian casting as a default, etc.


To prevent this from becoming a hug flame fest. 4E is closer to 1st and 2nd then 3rd is. so if anything 3rd is the oddity.

I disagree. While it keeps some things similar at a world level (i.e. the general rarity of classed characters amongst the greater populace), mechanically 3e is far closer.

[Kurald Galain]

4E is closer to 1st and 2nd then 3rd is. so if anything 3rd is the oddity.
There are numerous fundamental differences between 4E on the one hand, 1E/2E on the other. All marketing hype to the side, there are very few if any similarities between the two, other than the name.

Things that 1E/2E consider design features that 4E strongly avoids are e.g. gridless and mini-less gameplay; random encounters with random treasure; having different susbystems for different tasks; not having a rule for many semi-common situations and instead relying on DM fiat; in-character moral codes that have rule-technical consequences if violated; and having the DM spring permanently detrimental and/or lethal surprises on your character.

[Salbazier]

I am. Therefore, I have a right to define it.


Do not want a flamefest just curious. What kind of authority and from where?

[Swordgleam]

"Some have said there is no subtlety to destruction. You know what? They're dead." -Jaya Ballard, task mage

Anything Jaya or the Keldons say is something I'd be proud to have on a t-shirt.

Everyone else: can we all just add 'to me?' ie, "4e is not D&D to me" or "4e is D&D to me." Because that's not a debate, whereas is/is not is a debate, and one that will never end.

[LibraryOgre]

Do not want a flamefest just curious. What kind of authority and from where?

Why on Earth do I need authority?

[Myatar_Panwar]

It really doesn't matter that Mark Hall has a strange relationship with the brand name. Like, in any context. Especially considering that he has already stated that he will argue the "topic" to the end and always win. Its the ultimate flame bait.

[Salbazier]

Just saying something I always had in mind. Really, that was the first time (and maybe the last, since I usually don't care) I comment on edition war. I'll let the dead rest now. :smallwink:

[Telok]

For a 4e wizard who is trying to be an illusionist you have two routes.

First is to take a bunch of illusion powers (read MM2 pg.217 on immunities).

Second is to take whatever powers sound good and call them illusions. 4e encourages "refluffing". I've played a steam powered warforged warlock with powers called Zippy Crotch Rockets, Frozen Snot Blast, and Clockwork Robo-Poo Bombs. Your Rp is so divorced from your mechanics now that the above warforged was affected by inhaled poisons and itching powder, because the rules said so.

Also, as a controller you have to maximize your to-hit bonus. The general 4e rule is that if you aren't hitting then you aren't having an effect. For you this means a minimum 18+ starting Int, implement expertise, and the improved implement feat.

Personally I find playing 4e to be like playing Talisman with more movement and less PvP. I'm with Hall on this, it isn't the D&D I've been playing for the past 20 years. It's got the name, but it isn't the game.