PDA

View Full Version : Curious about some possible 4e wizard stuff?



Aerysil
2007-09-17, 12:19 AM
Thar ya be.

Wizards now have tools of the trade.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070917a

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-09-17, 12:23 AM
Wait, so does this mean that wizards will now use wizardly tools instead of spell components?

That's pretty cool. I mean, might as well ditch spell components rather wholesale. A lot of people ignore it.

Zincorium
2007-09-17, 12:25 AM
Yet another idea I was trying to fit into D&D that I find is in 4th edition.

Heck, this keeps up, everything I was gonna use is going to be core.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-09-17, 12:33 AM
Yet another idea I was trying to fit into D&D that I find is in 4th edition.

Heck, this keeps up, everything I was gonna use is going to be core.STEALTH TELEPATHIC PLAGIARISM'D!

But yeah, this sounds pretty solid. Making wizardly tools work so that wizards will actually use them is great, as is being able to work magic without them. A bit of eschewing materials, and a bit of using the right materials.

Nota Biene
2007-09-17, 12:34 AM
Ehh, I don't know. I love a wizard with a staff as much as the next guy, but really... If my wizard hails from a culture that doesn't hold with orbs and wands, he is not as effective a caster? Also, really, wands and staffs should be merged. Someone around here said "we should have one word for magic stick, and leave it to the player to decide whether they are dealing with a conductor's baton or a walking stick?

Also, has anyone noticed how all discussion of wizards seems to view them as blasters? What if I want to use my spells for control, or for "gasp" non combat applications, like setting my daughter up with a prince by wrecking his ship (cookie for the refrence.)

Yeah, so, I don't mean to derail the thread, but really- it seems like wizards are becoming more and more similiar to each other, down to the point where they all need to carry the same type of flavor-specific gear. Before you used to be able to play a caster based on a non-Western view of the wizard, which would not neccessarily be assosciated with "staffs, tomes, orbs, or wands." I just hope they provide some way to easily re-flavor the gear mechanic, or abolish it, so my Arabian Nights guy isn't stuck with a Gandalf staff.

Rant over.

Townopolis
2007-09-17, 12:37 AM
The tempest?

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-09-17, 12:41 AM
Just think of them like the new regents. Which would you rather carry around- a fancy walking stick, a glass orb, a fancy baton, and a mystical book, or a fanny pack filled with moss and dog crap?

Nota Biene
2007-09-17, 12:44 AM
The tempest?

Yes indeedy, cookie for you.

As for what would I rather carry around- I agree that material components as they are now are fairly bizarre, but in just about every game I've played in, we have just ignored them except for expensive ones which are there to be a balancing factor. I am just hoping we can still do that, if we want to, rather than having a "+6 wand" be an integrated part of the system which is thus difficult to get rid of.

All that aside, again, a staff can be cool. For some reason, magic wands never really appealed to me. I always associate them with pinkness and glitter, but maybe that's just me.

Fhaolan
2007-09-17, 12:47 AM
Fascinating. It really does sound like they're getting rid of the spell component pouch, and the spellbook, and putting orbs, tomes, staves, and whatnot in place instead. You'll probably be able to 'invest' these items with extra abilities as you go up levels.

But if they're destroyed or taken away, you'll be seriously affected. Maybe not quite as much as loosing your spellbook in previous editions, but still a serious drawback. Glasses for a nearsighted man, as such.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-09-17, 12:52 AM
Also, has anyone noticed how all discussion of wizards seems to view them as blasters? What if I want to use my spells for control, or for "gasp" non combat applications, like setting my daughter up with a prince by wrecking his ship (cookie for the refrence.) They were mentioned as altering space and time, enthralling the weak minded, turning invisible, walking through walls, accessing powers of terrain control and manipulation, creating detection and perception effects, flight, slowing and dazing foes, summoning, shapechanging, teleporting, and generating personal protections.

So if I may ask, what on earth are you talking about?
Yeah, so, I don't mean to derail the thread, but really- it seems like wizards are becoming more and more similiar to each other, down to the point where they all need to carry the same type of flavor-specific gear.Um... before they didn't need any gear except for a generic spell component pouch. This inherently makes them more different from each other -- do you carry rely on a staff, a tome, a combination? This is an improvement in the area you're talking about.

Nota Biene
2007-09-17, 01:00 AM
They were mentioned as altering space and time, enthralling the weak minded, turning invisible, walking through walls, accessing powers of terrain control and manipulation, creating detection and perception effects, flight, slowing and dazing foes, summoning, shapechanging, teleporting, and generating personal protections.

So if I may ask, what on earth are you talking about?

Were they? I did notice allusions to some of those things, but the preponderance of the narrative seemed to be on blasting. It's late where I am, maybe I just missed some stuff.

Um... before they didn't need any gear except for a generic spell component pouch. This inherently makes them more different from each other -- do you carry rely on a staff, a tome, a combination? This is an improvement in the area you're talking about.

Unless there is some reason not to carry all four- like great expense, I'll bet most people will end up carrying all four, and thus be identicle. Also, I guess I wasn't clear- before, when the rules didn't require you to carry anything, you could have a "wand-wizard" or an "amulet wizard" just by writing it on your character sheet and mentioning that that was how you cast your spells. Now, you will have to use one of the objects or nerf yourself to some extent. I suppose all wizards did/do rely on spellbooks, but for some reason, those seemed more generic to me.

Se la vie. If it makes for a fun, balanced system, you can always fiddle with the flavor.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-09-17, 01:00 AM
Ooh, I think you have a point there. If each item is necessary for particular realms of spells, then the player really has to choose which set he likes most to blow his cash on. A blaster mage would thus have a very expensive staff on hand, while a summoner would have a particularly fantastic tome. Depending on the build, you could theoretically eschew one or perhaps all but one of the wizard tools in favor of focusing your efforts on one realm of magic. That could be very cool.

EDIT: This is assuming, of course, that you can buy more and more powerful versions of these. Normally wizards focus on a particular aspect of their casting, and with magic items costing what they do in D&D... well, buying four moderately powerful magic items just isn't cost prohibitive if you're more inclined to a particular subset of casting.

tannish2
2007-09-17, 01:01 AM
damn, my sneaky rog/wiz disguised as a fighterthat im playing right now in 3E will be screwed... wait nvm elvencraft longbow counts as a staff, ill just add some shiny bits to the end...will still look pretty damn retarded though. wizards needing to look wizardy..... WTF

Merlin the Tuna
2007-09-17, 01:02 AM
Unless there is some reason not to carry all four- like great expense, I'll bet most people will end up carrying all four, and thus be identicle.I suspect these will be different talent trees, probably giving a bonus in the chosen field while still allowing use (albeit less extravagant) of the others. In that respect, it would be almost vaguely like 3.5 psionics.

tannish2
2007-09-17, 01:09 AM
oh if they make wizards any more item oriented than they already are someone will die(perhaps a ninja swarm?). and i dont mean in game. (though it is also possible)

Tellah
2007-09-17, 01:11 AM
Love it. Absolutely love it. This is just what arcane casting was missing, as far as I'm concerned.

Jack Mann
2007-09-17, 01:54 AM
I suspect they took some inspiration from the magister class from Arcana Unearthed/Evolved.

Krimm_Blackleaf
2007-09-17, 01:58 AM
Iiiinteresting...

kpenguin
2007-09-17, 02:05 AM
Hopefully, this will put wizard budget spending on par with other classes. A fighter without his magic weapons and armor has a greater power loss than a wizard without his wands and metamagic rods under current rules.

Glaivemaster
2007-09-17, 02:40 AM
@Nota Biene: If you want, it's easy to change the rules to say that instead of having an orb to focus your spells, you have an amulet. Then you can still be whatever type of Wizard you want.

I quite like this. Make things much easier for me if they don't need components any more for their spells, and captures the effect of a focus which I think Wizards should always have. I prefer it when Wizards have to focus their magic through something to make it work

I know one of my players will probably hate it though (the Wizard player, obviously). The way I see it, Wizards are going to have to specialise on one particular focus, even if they invest in them all, whereas sometimes it's nicer to have a more well-rounded person.

Well, we'll see what happens when 4E comes out

Beleriphon
2007-09-17, 02:41 AM
Hopefully, this will put wizard budget spending on par with other classes. A fighter without his magic weapons and armor has a greater power loss than a wizard without his wands and metamagic rods under current rules.

From the sounds of things having items makes your existing abilities better rather than unusable. Thus a wizard without a staff can still cast spells, although he may find it harder to do, or have it take longer. It would be the same as a fighter that has specialized using greatswords. Giving him a greataxe won't make him useless, but he does lose some of his effectiveness.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-17, 04:02 AM
It's a decent idea, and certainly better than all those silly spell components.

Of course this is nothing new - Mage: the Ascension has used it for years, and I believe they took it from Ars Magica.

I suspect that many DMs will not actually limit you to the "cliche four". If you want to use a skull as your focus instead of an orb, I'd say you take an object that is an orb for all crunch purposes, but fluffs as a skull, problem solved. Just like you can wield a main gauche (parrying dagger) that is for all crunch purposes a shield, but fluffs as a blade because it looks cool.

I do have the impression that 4E wizards will focus more on blasting. But then, blasting was powerful in the first two editions, and ineffective only in the third. So this is not really a bad thing. It's not like they're going to remove the entire seven schools that do not focus on blasting.

Fixer
2007-09-17, 06:11 AM
In a previous article they mentioned a wand +2 or something similar. Perhaps wizards will gain a bonus to their attack rolls with magic or bonus to the saves based on the enchantments their gear possesses. Also, these foci can be enchanted with other effects that can enhance spells (like feats do now, like Extend or Empower).

RTGoodman
2007-09-17, 06:49 AM
I suspect these will be different talent trees, probably giving a bonus in the chosen field while still allowing use (albeit less extravagant) of the others.

That's immediately what I thought of when I read the article. And I think I like it.

I mean, it's sort of like school specialization and Spell Focus rolled and multiplied. So it's an actual way to differentiate between wizards with various areas of expertise at high level.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-17, 07:39 AM
In a previous article they mentioned a wand +2 or something similar. Perhaps wizards will gain a bonus to their attack rolls with magic.

Hm, actually I wouldn't like it if spellcaster mechanics are too similar to fighter mechanics. It essentially makes an evoker a refluffed archer.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-09-17, 07:43 AM
In a previous article they mentioned a wand +2 or something similar. Perhaps wizards will gain a bonus to their attack rolls with magic or bonus to the saves based on the enchantments their gear possesses. Also, these foci can be enchanted with other effects that can enhance spells (like feats do now, like Extend or Empower).Apparently, in Star Wars: Saga Edition, all rolls are done by the attacker -- defenders have a static Fort/Reflex/Will save that the caster must roll over, rather than attackers hoping the defenders roll under the DC. It's slightly more uniform by having the attacker always roll the dice (and also means he's more likely to be prepared with his result when the turn gets passed around to him) and implies that a +6 wand would boost a spell's roll by 6 points.

So it wouldn't strictly be attack rolls, but rather pretty much all spells cast using the wand.

hewhosaysfish
2007-09-17, 07:48 AM
I suspect these will be different talent trees, probably giving a bonus in the chosen field while still allowing use (albeit less extravagant) of the others. In that respect, it would be almost vaguely like 3.5 psionics.


... Waaait a minute! Aren't 4th ed fighters going to go to learn a specific set of maneuvres depending on their choicce of weapon specialisation? Could we be looking at two instances of a single generalised mechanic?

hamlet
2007-09-17, 08:33 AM
The idea is interesting, but I can't help but wonder why the felt the need to have wizards be dependent on 4 items rather than just one?

For a long time through various versions of the game, it was the spell book (and components unless you ignored them which many did and do) that the wizard was dependent on. Now, it looks like they're taking a note from Monte Cook and picking up "a wizard needs his staff to use magic" line. But why do you need four? Can't you just have the staff? Or the tome?

Yes, I realize four items give variety, but it seems needlessly complicated at this point. You could probably use talent trees (or whatever the heck they're called) to have the wizard attune his staff or item to various sorts of spells. If he loses it, he has to spend time and effort to reattune a new staff.

Why do they insist on four?

Kurald Galain
2007-09-17, 09:02 AM
Why do they insist on four?

I think the previous poster is on the money. Four weapon chains for fighters, four symbolic chains for wizards. It's easy to make similar systems for clerics and thieves. Essentially it gives every class specialization options.

Hurlbut
2007-09-17, 09:02 AM
Why do they insist on four?
Variety. Plus they apparently are trying to retain an element of the specialist wizard of 3.5. From what I read, any of the items is important to the wizard as a magic weapon is important to a fighter, but like the fighter, the wizard isn't nerfed much if he lose his favored item.

hamlet
2007-09-17, 09:12 AM
I think the previous poster is on the money. Four weapon chains for fighters, four symbolic chains for wizards. It's easy to make similar systems for clerics and thieves. Essentially it gives every class specialization options.

Missed my point. I'm not objecting to four paths of specialization (feat or talent trees). I'm objecting to the requirement of four physical objects who's only purpose is to help the wizard live up to his potential. It's making the wizard more item dependent than before and much more than neccessary.

I'd rather see them dependent on one physical object, but have them invest more in that object and lose more if it is stolen. Just as if a fighter were to lose his favorite weapon that's he's invested so much in.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-17, 09:22 AM
Four has been the "magic number" for 4e.

I dunno. The more I hear about 4e, the less enthused I am. I'll still give it a chance, but I'm still just not looking forward to its release. As long as I don't have to use pseudo-Latin while my wizard uses his wand, I guess I'll be okay.

Still, I prefer "Wand of Fireballs" over "Wand +4"

Though on the same note, I prefer "Sword of Extreme Buttkicking" over "Sword +4."

Green Bean
2007-09-17, 09:38 AM
I'd rather see them dependent on one physical object, but have them invest more in that object and lose more if it is stolen. Just as if a fighter were to lose his favorite weapon that's he's invested so much in.

But it sounds like these new changes make it more like a fighter's favourite weapon. If a Fighter loses his ancestor's favourite +5 Flaming Burst Greatsword, he can grab a normal masterwork Greatsword so he can fight to get it back. A wizard losing his father's favourite +5 Staff of Whatever can pick up a lesser staff so he can get the more powerful staff back. As opposed to a 3.5 wizard whose spellbook is stolen; it's easier to fill a new spellbook than to go after the old one without being able to cast.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-09-17, 09:47 AM
If it makes for a fun, balanced system, you can always fiddle with the flavor.

Indeed, you can always rule that "instead of an orb, this gnomish wizard uses some weird multicolored goggles, and instead of a staff, he uses a large iron wrench with runes carved along its sides..."
or maybe a more "shamanistically inclined wizard" might use an amulet made of intrincately woven feathers instead of a staff...
or A brass lamp could be a conjuration focus needed in an Al-Qadim type of setting (cliché, I know)

Pokemaster
2007-09-17, 09:54 AM
Missed my point. I'm not objecting to four paths of specialization (feat or talent trees). I'm objecting to the requirement of four physical objects who's only purpose is to help the wizard live up to his potential. It's making the wizard more item dependent than before and much more than neccessary.

I'd rather see them dependent on one physical object, but have them invest more in that object and lose more if it is stolen. Just as if a fighter were to lose his favorite weapon that's he's invested so much in.

I imagine that it's mostly a flavour issue. I doubt it'd be gamebreaking to combine all four items into one, but personally, I think four has more potential for badass dramatic scenes.

Morty
2007-09-17, 10:04 AM
Ineresting. Though I honestly hope wizard won't be required to hold the item while casting a spell, as wizard holding a book in his hand in the middle of the battle would look kind of silly.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-17, 10:27 AM
I imagine that it's mostly a flavour issue. I doubt it'd be gamebreaking to combine all four items into one, but personally, I think four has more potential for badass dramatic scenes.

I agree. I like this idea a bunch and I have a suspicion with all the ToBish built into the class stuff for Melee that 4.e seems to be heading towards that most of the classes are going to be similarly item depenant. I am slightly more hopeful for the new edition now.


Ineresting. Though I honestly hope wizard won't be required to hold the item while casting a spell, as wizard holding a book in his hand in the middle of the battle would look kind of silly.

More silly than a wizard reading from a scroll in the middle of a battle?

Morty
2007-09-17, 10:34 AM
More silly than a wizard reading from a scroll in the middle of a battle?

Point. But since they're removing Vancian casting -damn them for that- scrolls are likely to get a boot as well.
But frankly, reading a scroll in the middle of the battle isn't all that silly -I've always pictured it as being the same thing as casting a memorized spell, it's just you trigger a spell from the scroll you're holding instead of your head. While wizard holding quite big book -"tome" implies that it won't be a pamphlet- while fighting something would look strange.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-17, 10:41 AM
Point. But since they're removing Vancian casting -damn them for that- scrolls are likely to get a boot as well.
But frankly, reading a scroll in the middle of the battle isn't all that silly -I've always pictured it as being the same thing as casting a memorized spell, it's just you trigger a spell from the scroll you're holding instead of your head. While wizard holding quite big book -"tome" implies that it won't be a pamphlet- while fighting something would look strange.

Ok. Matter of taste thing. I don't think a wizard chanting and holding open in one hand a large book would be all that out of place. Especially since, unless something has gone quite badly wrong, he will be standing well behind the melee types who are actually in the thick of it.

Morty
2007-09-17, 10:46 AM
Ok. Matter of taste thing. I don't think a wizard chanting and holding open in one hand a large book would be all that out of place. Especially since, unless something has gone quite badly wrong, he will be standing well behind the melee types who are actually in the thick of it.

Yeah, it looks like a matter of taste. I personally prefer to picture wizards casting combat spells quickly and with a one or two words instead of chanting. But it's not only the matter of being "out of place" but rather the fact that book is preety vunerable, and you don't always have the comfort of hiding behind your meatshield.

my_evil_twin
2007-09-17, 11:46 AM
I'm glad, mostly. My main fear, as others have suggested, is that a wizard will now need a tome, a staff, an orb, a wand, a special belt with holsters for all four, and the Quick Draw feat in order to be effective. I think it is likely that at least some people at WotC are smarter than that.

IMO the most perverse thing about magic in 3rd ed. is this idea of wands and staves as seldom used, expendable spell-holders. Almost always casting weaker spells than the wizard could cast empty-handed, at that. Meanwhile, a wizard's staff is generally a cheap bludgeoning instrument that never sees action.

It sounds like the wizard will invest the preponderance of his training in one focus and possibly (I hope) a good deal of his personality.

Rex Blunder
2007-09-17, 11:55 AM
Wands, check... staffs, check... I notice they're ditching rods, which, in my opinion, had the least going for them in terms of non-dnd flavor.

Sounds like this might also involve a removal of the 3rd-and-earlier wands and staffs -- so we won't be able to replace a cleric with a wand of cure light wounds anymore. Which is fine mechanics wise, but wands have the advantage that they aren't always going on and on about Pelor.

Peregrine
2007-09-17, 12:19 PM
Yet another idea I was trying to fit into D&D that I find is in 4th edition.

Heck, this keeps up, everything I was gonna use is going to be core.

I know the feeling. I posted a bunch of ideas (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54086) shortly after I heard that 4e was announced, for fear of this. Justified fear, it seemed afterwards. And now this... I'm looking at a draft of mine, titled "New components idea", last edited 14 July, and feeling a cold shiver... :smallfrown:

StickMan
2007-09-17, 12:36 PM
Ineresting. Though I honestly hope wizard won't be required to hold the item while casting a spell, as wizard holding a book in his hand in the middle of the battle would look kind of silly.

That depends on the size of the book. Yea a full blown tome would look funny but if it was like a smaller book, perhaps one with shorter versions of the spells, then it would not look so bad.

Now for the example that I loathe to reveal, if you have ever seen Ben 10 then you may have seen Ben's cousin Gwen who picked up a spell book at some point. The book is small, can fit in her pocket and she carries it with one hand. She has to read out of the book to cast spells, if this is due to her lack of knowlege of the spell or part of the shows magic system I don't know. If wizards have something like that I think it would be fine.

TSGames
2007-09-17, 12:47 PM
There's not enough information presented in the article to allow me to form an opinion yet. Until I see exactly how it's implemented I can't gage how it affects the balance of the classes, the flow of gameplay, or the wizard as a viable class. The article has caught my attention without telling me anything, it did its job quite well.

ChrisMcDee
2007-09-17, 01:25 PM
Though on the same note, I prefer "Sword of Extreme Buttkicking" over "Sword +4."
That a whole other topic that I'd be very vocal in :smallwink:

Indon
2007-09-17, 01:32 PM
I'm glad, mostly. My main fear, as others have suggested, is that a wizard will now need a tome, a staff, an orb, a wand, a special belt with holsters for all four, and the Quick Draw feat in order to be effective. I think it is likely that at least some people at WotC are smarter than that.


Even in 3'rd ed rules, I don't think that'd be particularly hindering. You can drop an implement as a free action, and then all you need are some idiot cords tied up to the items to keep them at least attached to your belt if you need to run away.

If they really are nixing vancian magic, then you might not even need a free hand; if that's the case, then you can hold two implements at once and it's easy.

Rex Blunder
2007-09-17, 01:56 PM
Nixing vancian casting doesn't necessarily mean nixing somatic components. Making mysterious passes with your hands is a very wizardly thing to do.

I can't even tell whether these spellcasting focii are instead of, or in addition to, other material components.

Pokemaster
2007-09-17, 01:57 PM
So it looks like they replaced the article, cut out the tome and threw in a bunch of useless fluff instead of the semi-crunch that actually described what the foci do.

Marketing and Previews: 4th Edition's Greatest Failures

EDIT: I imagine that most Wizards will specialize in one focus, or use each focus in completely different circumstances, so I don't think switching around during combat would be too much of a problem.

my_evil_twin
2007-09-17, 02:09 PM
Even in 3'rd ed rules, I don't think that'd be particularly hindering. You can drop an implement as a free action, and then all you need are some idiot cords tied up to the items to keep them at least attached to your belt if you need to run away.

If they really are nixing vancian magic, then you might not even need a free hand; if that's the case, then you can hold two implements at once and it's easy.My problem with that isn't that it would be hard. It's that it would be ridiculous.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-17, 02:18 PM
My problem with that isn't that it would be hard. It's that it would be ridiculous.

Why? Invisible text to allow a one word post.

Aerlock
2007-09-17, 02:33 PM
Ineresting. Though I honestly hope wizard won't be required to hold the item while casting a spell, as wizard holding a book in his hand in the middle of the battle would look kind of silly.

I don't think it would be too bad. I kinda have a mental picture of the end of the first Mummy movie where the brother is reading out of that golden book (Book of Amun-Ra?) to try and counter the Mummies control of the soldier mummies/zombies. He's not combat competent and to cast the spell he's gotta make sure he dodges his opponents while keeping hold of the book and reading it at the same time. That is how I picture a wizard using these focus items. Obviously an experienced wizard wouldn't be as comedically incompetent as he was but I see the wizard having to behave very similarly.

Aerlock

my_evil_twin
2007-09-17, 03:11 PM
Why?The image I get is that of a master of arcane power wandering around the woods with a big stick, a little stick, a dictionary and a basketball hanging from his belt.

I'm not sure I can explain it in concrete terms. It's the image of a wizard whipping out a different one of these things for each spell he casts (or just carrying them all around) that strikes me as absurd, awkward, and unheroic. It's a sillier image than the wand bandoliers you get on some 3.5 characters.

With any luck this will be a moot point anyway.

Indon
2007-09-17, 03:20 PM
The image I get is that of a master of arcane power wandering around the woods with a big stick, a little stick, a dictionary and a basketball hanging from his belt.

You mean like a Quarterstaff, Metamagic Rod, Spellbook, and a Spell Component Pouch?

:P

Hurlbut
2007-09-17, 03:26 PM
I don't think it would be too bad. I kinda have a mental picture of the end of the second Mummy movie where the brother is reading out of that golden book (Book of Amun-Ra?) to try and counter the Mummies control of the soldier mummies/zombies. He's not combat competent and to cast the spell he's gotta make sure he dodges his opponents while keeping hold of the book and reading it at the same time. That is how I picture a wizard using these focus items. Obviously an experienced wizard wouldn't be as comedically incompetent as he was but I see the wizard having to behave very similarly.

AerlockFirst Mummy movie actually.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-17, 03:32 PM
Actually, in the imagery I see nothing lame at all. All four items listed are classics of the fantasy image of the wizard. It wouldn't take too much work to find examples in print of visual media of those.

If this is the direction we are to go, I too would like to see things go in a creative direction as well. Which would your Necromancer rather have: an orb or a shrunken head?

my_evil_twin
2007-09-17, 03:35 PM
You mean like a Quarterstaff, Metamagic Rod, Spellbook, and a Spell Component Pouch?

:PMore or less. And the bracers of armor +x, ring of protection +x, amulet of natural armor +x, headband of intellect +x, etc. etc. The one thing I really want to see go is the arsenal of uniform, flavorless magical trinkets that every character has to carry around. It makes magic very, well, mundane.

If you can tell a wizard by his implement, then cool. If everyone walks around with all four, uses them with the same proficiency, and can switch them at will, then the only reason to have four is to increase bookkeeping.


Actually, in the imagery I see nothing lame at all. All four items listed are classics of the fantasy image of the wizard. It wouldn't take too much work to find examples in print of visual media of those.

If this is the direction we are to go, I too would like to see things go in a creative direction as well. Which would your Necromancer rather have: an orb or a shrunken head?I agree. Each one is iconic and cool. It looks like WotC wants to make them important and flavorful. I hope that they succeed.

If something is necessary for survival, then everyone who survives will have one, and so it becomes commonplace. See above. If you want a thing to be special, then under no circumstances also make it necessary.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-17, 03:44 PM
That I can understand, Evil T. I'd hate for the game to develop that way. As the game develops, it seems more and more wizards are being funneled into looking the same. I want to see the ability to customize, and without feeling obligated to customize a certain way.

I'd hate for the game to become, in the long term, something like World of Warcraft where you can tell what class a person is by what they wear and where in general there's a small number of "acceptable builds", and anything else severely limits play.

Aerlock
2007-09-17, 03:53 PM
First Mummy movie actually.

D'oh! You're right. It's been a while since I've seen either. *scrolls back up to edit*

Aerlock

Kurald Galain
2007-09-17, 03:54 PM
The image I get is that of a master of arcane power wandering around the woods with a big stick, a little stick, a dictionary and a basketball hanging from his belt.

Well, yes. Using all four of them would seem rather silly (which is why I estimate that wizards will specialize in one of them). Then again, if you think about it, 3.5E characters do carry a ludicrous amount of magic items around, including half a dozen rocks buzzing around their heads. Have you ever seen that picture of Link (of Zelda fame) carrying all his quest items on his back/belt/wherever? That kind of silly.

Rex Blunder
2007-09-17, 04:05 PM
I think pressure towards a few "acceptable builds" is based on the size of the community you're in. In WoW, you're competing with every other WoW player, so to avoid being below average, you have to use one of the most effective builds. Similarly, if you're playing in Magic tournaments, you'll probably be using one of several standard effective deck types. If you're just playing Magic against your friend, you can probably use more off-the-wall and flavorful decks.

If you spend a lot of time on GiantITP forums (or, god help you, the wizards charop boards), you're choosing to compete in a larger community. In order to have a 3.5 character that is deemed "acceptable" by this community, you will have to play one of several builds that all look pretty "samey". You won't play a fighter; you will use TLN's Batman guide if you're a wizard, or you'll be a CoDzilla, or a warblade. Just as chess has a book of opening moves that good players know, every game has a set of the most effective strategies, and if you venture out of that set, you're giving yourself a disadvantage.

The advantage of D&D is that it's not a tournament game or a MMO or a character optimization message board. It's a cooperative game played by a handful of friends, with the difficulty adjusted by the DM to your effectiveness. By playing D&D, you're choosing to play in a small community, so you really don't have to optimize too much in order to be one of, say, the top 2 wizards in your party.

Indon
2007-09-17, 04:06 PM
If you can tell a wizard by his implement, then cool. If everyone walks around with all four, uses them with the same proficiency, and can switch them at will, then the only reason to have four is to increase bookkeeping.


It'll probably be like weapons.

Really, there isn't much reason right now for every fighter not to carry around a Longbow, Greatsword, Longsword and Tower Shield (spiked), have spiked armor, and have a Large Sap for dealing nonlethal damage. But they don't, because despite being better at some things than others, people prefer to specialize with one weapon rather than carry around the whole set.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-17, 04:06 PM
If you can tell a wizard by his implement, then cool. If everyone walks around with all four, uses them with the same proficiency, and can switch them at will, then the only reason to have four is to increase bookkeeping.


I think that's only if each Wand, Staff, Orb and Book are standard issue. Otherwise you can tell "Charion the Evoker" by his Red veined and glowing staff, even though he has a pouch around his waist with a mundane looking orb in it he needs on occasion but isn't particularly good with.

horseboy
2007-09-17, 04:12 PM
The image I get is that of a master of arcane power wandering around the woods with a big stick, a little stick, a dictionary and a basketball hanging from his belt.

I'm not sure I can explain it in concrete terms. It's the image of a wizard whipping out a different one of these things for each spell he casts (or just carrying them all around) that strikes me as absurd, awkward, and unheroic. It's a sillier image than the wand bandoliers you get on some 3.5 characters.

With any luck this will be a moot point anyway.
It reminds me of all those WFB wizard (http://us.games-workshop.com/games/warhammer/empire/painting/wizardgallery/fire.htm) minis, where they've got those huge books chained to their waist.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-17, 04:15 PM
I think pressure towards a few "acceptable builds" is based on the size of the community you're in. In WoW, you're competing with every other WoW player, so to avoid being below average, you have to use one of the most effective builds. Similarly, if you're playing in Magic tournaments, you'll probably be using one of several standard effective deck types. If you're just playing Magic against your friend, you can probably use more off-the-wall and flavorful decks.

If you spend a lot of time on GiantITP forums (or, god help you, the wizards charop boards), you're choosing to compete in a larger community. In order to have a 3.5 character that is deemed "acceptable" by this community, you will have to play one of several builds that all look pretty "samey". You won't play a fighter; you will use TLN's Batman guide if you're a wizard, or you'll be a CoDzilla, or a warblade. Just as chess has a book of opening moves that good players know, every game has a set of the most effective strategies, and if you venture out of that set, you're giving yourself a disadvantage.

The advantage of D&D is that it's not a tournament game or a MMO or a character optimization message board. It's a cooperative game played by a handful of friends, with the difficulty adjusted by the DM to your effectiveness. By playing D&D, you're choosing to play in a small community, so you really don't have to optimize too much in order to be one of, say, the top 2 wizards in your party.

Good point. My DnD is limited to tabletop. I typically don't play on forums. Most likely because I'm the guy trying to convince his DM to let him play the Goblin Rogue with max ranks in Profession: Pastry Chef.

Back to wizards, though, I admit my initial reaction is fear and revulsion, but that's more a knee-jerk reaction. In the end, it's a wait and see mode again.

Jasdoif
2007-09-17, 04:19 PM
If this is the direction we are to go, I too would like to see things go in a creative direction as well. Which would your Necromancer rather have: an orb or a shrunken head?Do your weapon attacks get an added poison effect while holding the shrunken head? Come to think of it, maybe that (or similar) is one of those defensive things you can get out of an orb (or mechanical equivalent)?

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-17, 04:24 PM
Hehe. Maybe! Cookies for the reference.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-17, 04:29 PM
[/LIST]
Most likely because I'm the guy trying to convince his DM to let him play the Goblin Rogue with max ranks in Profession: Pasty Chef.

Pasty chef eh? Naughty little goblin there... :smallwink:

Indon
2007-09-17, 04:31 PM
Hehe. Maybe! Cookies for the reference.

Gimme cookies, or I Bone Spirit spam you to death.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-17, 04:59 PM
[/LIST]

Pasty chef eh? Naughty little goblin there... :smallwink:

He has max ranks in Profession: PastRy Chef. Not max ranks in Spelling.

Orzel
2007-09-17, 05:41 PM
The article seems to have changed since this morning.

They telepathically ninja-ed me again. Wizards in my homebrew use +2 wands, staffs, and orbs (and tomes and gloves).

They changed the article but I think what they are doing is giving each wizard a group and a preferred item. With the loss of vancian magic and more static spell effect, the save system for spells tried to level might change. Before a 3rd level fire spell had a DC of 13 + INT mod before feats. Now burn face has a base save of 10 + INT mod and gets +3 if your a fire mage and +X if you are holding a +X wand.

But the major effect will be...
Fewer cheesy spell combos!

No more "Power buff" + "Battlefield no save lock" + "Save or suck" + "Self Repeating kill spell"

Because spells 1-3 have a low DC, attack bonus, and caster level because you have the implement and affiliation for spell 4.

Prepare to make your will saves, friends. It's ray dodging time!!

Skyserpent
2007-09-17, 06:07 PM
Yeah, the article did change... aw man, now we've got Book of Nine Swords style spell schools... I kinda liked the generic style of Evoker and Conjurer....

Kurald Galain
2007-09-17, 06:16 PM
WTH? They changed the friggin' article! What is this, put up some random junk on the web, gauge netizen reactions, and then post the real stuff?

I kind of liked the tomes. I kind of really don't like the Six Organizations with cheesy names. Note how at least three of the six are various kinds of evoker.

Actually I am liking 4E less and less with these previews.

Jarlax
2007-09-17, 06:25 PM
this is going to be an interesting development for sure, there are so many implications outside of the wizard through these new class elements.

obviously it looks like 3.5 staves and wands are gone which i cant say is a bad thing and is easy enough to houserule back in if the mood takes you.

now from some of the 4E battle reports we know wizards use these items in combat to channel their attacks and have to be held in place of a weapon, at the very least this is the case for a staff.

so does that mean these items can grow in power much like a weapon can in 3.5?


"Just as a warrior gains a benefit when attacking an enemy with a magic sword, so does a wizard benefit from using a magic orb, staff, or wand with his spellcasting."

to keep wizard expenses high will they now be able to buy. lets say a +1 burning staff, which would increase your spell DC by 1 and make all spells with the "Fire" descriptor (or in the new system all order of the hidden flame spells) deal additional damage, or perhaps make fire spells able to burn things like nonmagical fire can. because that would be cool.

Nota Biene
2007-09-17, 06:42 PM
Yeah, changing the article...

I don't know, this seems pretty unprofessional. Almost like they are toying with us.


We'll see what happens... But I'm a little suspicious.

my_evil_twin
2007-09-17, 06:48 PM
Where does WotC get the idea that we want elaborate, generic fluff spread over our core classes? Who are the people who appreciate this and where can I find them?

Serpent Eye cabalists? Stormwalker theurges? I will not force-feed my players fluff like that, and I will not begin a campaign by applying Rule 0 to the damned class names.

Orzel
2007-09-17, 06:50 PM
Wait a second!

WAIT A SECOND!

If 3.5 style wands/staffs are gone and implements aid casters cast spells they already know.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE UMD ROGUE AND CLW RANGEr/PALADIN HEALERS???!!!

Kaelik
2007-09-17, 07:03 PM
I'm still pissed that they have six schools. Called, Evoker, Evoker, Evoker, Evoker, Abjurer, and Enchanter.

What the Hell Happened to Battlefield Control? I liked it much better the first time.

I also second the pissed off ness of handing us organizations on the base classes. That's what PrCs where for, making sure I didn't have to deal with **** like this. (I've heard they are removing PrCs, so I guess that's why they decided to shove Organizations down our throat in the base classes.)

TheOOB
2007-09-17, 07:04 PM
I think the magic tools are a good idea overall, and assuming it's pulled off well it could be very interesting. To me, it seems a tool is the same to a wizard as a weapon is to a fighter, you can carry multiple different types, but you will most likely focus on one type of tool. It has already been mentioned that wizards will have to make some important choices about what abilities they have in 4e, instead of essentially having access to the entire spell list anytime they can rest for 8 hours like in 3.x, which means you are going to naturally want to pick an area of expertise, and stick with it, using the tool that works best with your choosen area. These tools are likely to be quite expensive, requiring an investment equal to or greater then a similarly leveled fighters weapon, which means a tool that provides a meaningful impact at any giving level will cost a significant amount of your resources, which puts a damper on carrying around a bunch of powerful tools (that and the fact that you only have two hands.)

What I gathered from the artical is that nothing stops you from casting spells without an appropriate tool (except perhaps the most powerful earth shattering ones, we shall see), but that a tool enhances your spell power. You don't need to be reading from your book to blast them, but the arcane energy that the tome is steeped with will make your incantations that much more effective, much like how having a magic sword makes a fighter much more effective.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-17, 07:58 PM
Well, considering final product isn't out for several months, still, it's not too surprising there's changes still happening while we watch.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-09-17, 08:13 PM
I think this is pretty good proof of a sort of proto-form for 4th Edition right now. It's possible that the page was rewritten like that all of a sudden in response to what comments they got about it. So, supporters and detractors of the new material alike, be sure to use that e-mail link they provide to give them your thoughts. They appear to be listening.

TheOOB
2007-09-17, 08:26 PM
I think pressure towards a few "acceptable builds" is based on the size of the community you're in. In WoW, you're competing with every other WoW player, so to avoid being below average, you have to use one of the most effective builds. Similarly, if you're playing in Magic tournaments, you'll probably be using one of several standard effective deck types. If you're just playing Magic against your friend, you can probably use more off-the-wall and flavorful decks.

If you spend a lot of time on GiantITP forums (or, god help you, the wizards charop boards), you're choosing to compete in a larger community. In order to have a 3.5 character that is deemed "acceptable" by this community, you will have to play one of several builds that all look pretty "samey". You won't play a fighter; you will use TLN's Batman guide if you're a wizard, or you'll be a CoDzilla, or a warblade. Just as chess has a book of opening moves that good players know, every game has a set of the most effective strategies, and if you venture out of that set, you're giving yourself a disadvantage.

The advantage of D&D is that it's not a tournament game or a MMO or a character optimization message board. It's a cooperative game played by a handful of friends, with the difficulty adjusted by the DM to your effectiveness. By playing D&D, you're choosing to play in a small community, so you really don't have to optimize too much in order to be one of, say, the top 2 wizards in your party.

You still, however, have an obligation to be useful to your party, and you most likely want to be at least close to as powerful as the other members of your party. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be powerful in D&D, you are playing heroes.

Snooder
2007-09-17, 09:32 PM
I'm still pissed that they have six schools. Called, Evoker, Evoker, Evoker, Evoker, Abjurer, and Enchanter.

What the Hell Happened to Battlefield Control? I liked it much better the first time.

I also second the pissed off ness of handing us organizations on the base classes. That's what PrCs where for, making sure I didn't have to deal with **** like this. (I've heard they are removing PrCs, so I guess that's why they decided to shove Organizations down our throat in the base classes.)


I have a feeling the schools are like the ToB schools. The fluff is entirely ignorable, what is important is that each spell belongs to a different school, just like you currently have Evocation, Illusion, Enchantment, e.t.c. Except that now, you get bonuses for using Evocation with staffs.

I wouldn't worry so much about the number of evocation spells mentioned. All of this is highly premature, and there is very little crunch mentioned in the article.

My take on the crunch is this: Wizards can cast all spells, but spells from their specialized schools get bonuses if the wizard is holding a magic implement of that school. Personally, I like the ideas presented. Balancing out the equipment costs for all classes is a good idea, and it looks like you will actually have MORE variation in casters. Instead of every wizard of level X casting fireball exactly the same, a Wizard with a staff casts it better than one with an orb.

Roderick_BR
2007-09-17, 09:57 PM
Hmm... The way they show it, apparently wizards may become a bit dependent of gear, like others characters. If their power levels are balanced with others classes, this may be a way to help to restrict them, like, a wizard without tools will be weaker than a same level wizard with tools, and, hopefully, it'll help balance encounters, so wizards can't solo missions like they do in 3.x.

And I hope they can manage to balance blasters and non-blasters, as everyone knows that is the reason most wizard builds are broken.

Btw, am I the only one that thought "Diablo 2" when reading that?

Jarlax
2007-09-17, 10:14 PM
ah, ok so this is how the tearing of the weave run of adventures will tie into the 4E Forgotten realms.

obviously with vactan casting gone and these new schools taking their place a similar format will appear in the new FR sourcebook. much like what happened to bards and Psions after the Time of Troubles the aftermath of the tearing of the weave will require mages to relearn the methods of creating spells.

this should affect current PCs and NPCs only temporarily since in the case of times of troubles these powers still existed only the method of invoking them had changed. in the case of Psionics most psions has their powers back in weeks and illithids with their community mind had them return in hours.

horseboy
2007-09-17, 11:24 PM
Kinda glad I can't see these articles that are pissing off everybody now.

Golthur
2007-09-17, 11:34 PM
Eech... "Stormwalker theurges", "Serpent Eye cabalists", "Golden Wyvern initiates"? :yuk:

I won't even be able to say that stuff to my players with a straight face - seems like they're embedding specific fluff even deeper into the rules than it was before.

Bad news for people like me who don't want to run "standard" D&D worlds. Hopefully, they'll correct it before final release.

TheOOB
2007-09-17, 11:34 PM
Just because most schools have an element associated with them does not mean they are blasting, for example, the desert wind style in ToB is the fire style, but it also houses some of the best movement powers available to a swordsage. WotC knows that wizards are not just blasters, they even call them controllers. They have said(paraphrased) that arcane castings will focus on controlling the battlefield, direct damage is one way of doing so, but they will have many other choices as well.

Whats stoping a wind school from having powers of movement, or a water school having powers of illusion, nothing thats what.

Bosh
2007-09-17, 11:47 PM
Hmmmmm, I liked the use of different items to focus spells on, works well with the wizard flavor. I don't know about these different orders of wizards, really rubs me the wrong way...

tannish2
2007-09-18, 02:06 AM
Where does WotC get the idea that we want elaborate, generic fluff spread over our core classes? Who are the people who appreciate this and where can I find them?

Serpent Eye cabalists? Stormwalker theurges? I will not force-feed my players fluff like that, and I will not begin a campaign by applying Rule 0 to the damned class names.

well, WOTC seems to have taken theirnamesake to a new level, they are now actual wizards and have opened up a portal to a paralel universe where people think this crap is good. THE EVIL CLONES ARE COMING! OMFG WERE ALL GOING TO DIE! IF YOU SEE SOMEONE WITH A GOATEE STAB THEM! UNLESS THEY NORMALLY DO, THEN STAB THEM IF THEY DONT OR HAVE A DOUBLE GOATEE!

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-18, 02:22 AM
Kinda glad I can't see these articles that are pissing off everybody now.
Have you tried the "printer friendly versions" of the articles? They might help you join in the rage.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-18, 05:19 AM
Wait a second!

WAIT A SECOND!

If 3.5 style wands/staffs are gone and implements aid casters cast spells they already know.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE UMD ROGUE AND CLW RANGEr/PALADIN HEALERS???!!!

Humm.... that is a very good question.

I'm not sad to see the CLW ranger/paladin's go. I always felt that the wand CLW was a little bit of an abuse of the rules and I don't allow it in my game.

However, the UMD rogue... that's a loss.

Morty
2007-09-18, 09:25 AM
What the...
I'm okay with dropping books as casting accesory, but names of these schools... yuck. First thing to be changed as soon as I see 4ed. And I wonder how they'll deal with that in setting books.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-18, 10:49 AM
What the...
I'm okay with dropping books as casting accesory, but names of these schools... yuck. First thing to be changed as soon as I see 4ed. And I wonder how they'll deal with that in setting books.

Yeah. Ick. I hope they don't tie those things in too closley to the crunch because I plan to toss them post haste.

tannish2
2007-09-18, 12:38 PM
well the printer friendly version is the same. and im a little pissed at wizards for making me make an account and sign in so that i can read a ****ing article, unless 4th edition is insanely good im not touching it with a 10 foot pole, attached to a 20 foot pole. with a remote on the end controlling a robot with a 10 foot pole with a remote on it controlling another robot with a 10 foot pole that would do the initial stuff if it is ever done, which i doubt it will be.

my_evil_twin
2007-09-18, 12:41 PM
What the...
I'm okay with dropping books as casting accesory, but names of these schools... yuck. First thing to be changed as soon as I see 4ed. And I wonder how they'll deal with that in setting books.Woah.

In my anger over the fluff, I didn't even notice that they had pulled the tome as an implement. I think it's pretty shabby of WotC to go back and change the essential content of the article. Considering that the non-fluff content of the original article came down to about eight sentences, cutting the content of two of them is a pretty major change to just slip in there.

As for the tome itself as an implement I've got mixed feelings. We've got the old-school Vancian wizard, who is a bookish nerd and has to keep all of his spells in a spellbook. I kind of like this type. Then we've got the sorcerer type, who just sort of have the power to do stuff. It sounds WotC had decided that after years of study, a wizard might be able to retain spells in his memory for more than one day, but a book is still helpful for the more complicated spells.

Going back and removing the tome says to me that at least one of four things happened:

-They decided to keep Vancian flavor, and wizards will again need a spellbook for all of their spells, in addition to their implements.

-They went with the sorcerer flavor, and wizards won't need books for anything anymore.

-They had their six schools picked out, and since four doesn't divide evenly into six, tome got the axe.

-They saw one post saying that reading in combat was stupid, and they scrapped the tome-based wizard idea because they have no faith in their own design decisions.

mostlyharmful
2007-09-18, 01:05 PM
The article also says that the three most common and easily recognized types of focus are wand, staff and orb. Which means if they are just flavour you can swap in the tome for the bookish nerd wizards and cut down the number of magic boom sticks to one. Personally I'd just as soon there be only one staff/wand/scepter/rod/poolcue type of fucus just for the look of the thing

Aerlock
2007-09-18, 01:37 PM
Does anyone have a link to a copy of the original article? I missed it and only see the one sans tomes.

TIA

Aerlock

Merlin the Tuna
2007-09-18, 01:48 PM
Does anyone have a link to a copy of the original article?This thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=925386) has it.

Duke Malagigi
2007-09-18, 02:17 PM
While I like the idea of wizards using wands and staves to cast spells I still want to keep the old material components such bat guano and amber beads (yes I want them to stay). I would probably allow wizards to load such material into a wand or staff for casting later. This, along with style, would be the main reason why wizard's staves tend to have open-mouthed dragon or other creatures heads carved into them. The standard material component can be replaced with such things as petroleum (for fireball) or a primitive acid battery (lightning bolt). Sorcerers should never need or use material components.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-18, 02:20 PM
Four schools is a better option anyway, if you do it right. Really, there are four things that spells do: create, destroy, discover, and alter. That's really about it. One could therefore get by on four schools: Creation, Destruction, Divination, and Alteration.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-18, 02:21 PM
Another article mentioned that wizards wouldn't run out of 'blastiness' but might run out of Mage Sword...

Seeing this article, I suspect it will work something like this:
Just like a fighter can use a sword to attack with, a wizard will be able to magically attack with a staff/orb/wand. So unlimited blastiness, but they can still cast spells. So all the utility stuff would be spells and all the blasty stuff will just be a skill wizards can invoke through their 'tool'

They have play tested this through the eldrich blast thing of warlocks. I also suspect the binder stuff was play testing some other effects.

I suspect clerics will get unlimited healing in a similar way, with their spells being actual buffs and other utility stuff.

Personally, I'd prefer that full casters get lumped together and eliminate the whole arcane/divine magic. But if they keep them separated, they should make a stronger distinction beyond a simple label.

I'd also like to dissuade class dips. So the power curve should look more exponential, rather than peaking at the front end.

tannish2
2007-09-18, 02:21 PM
well my favorite character is currently a rog/wiz who doesnt LOOK like a wizard... this would really **** him up.

but on top of that, fluffwise its just retarded, crunchwise "hey... so... can you think of any way to screw captured wizards over even more?" "no.... OH! lets make it so they need special items to be fully optimized like the other members of the party" "hey, while were at it lets make the easily breakable/stealable spellbook an even better target for a thief"

Jasdoif
2007-09-18, 02:30 PM
Really, there are four things that spells do: create, destroy, discover, and alter.That reminds me a lot of explore, expand, exploit, exterminate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4X). Though your order is more like expand, exterminate, explore, exploit....


"no.... OH! lets make it so they need special items to be fully optimized like the other members of the party" "hey, while were at it lets make the easily breakable/stealable spellbook an even better target for a thief"See, that's a great idea. Wizards in 3rd are weird when it comes to their main piece of equipment. They don't lose anything in the short-term if they lose their spellbooks, unlike a fighter who loses his sword...and they lose everything in the long-term if they lose their spellbooks, unlike a fighter who loses his sword.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-18, 02:32 PM
I thought they said someplace that 4.0 wasn't going to be compatible with earlier versions. So your rogue/wizard couldn't be ported over to get ****ed in the first place.

Wulfram
2007-09-18, 02:32 PM
Can I dual wield Orbs? If not, I might feel insufficiently freudian compared to the staff and wand users.

Should be fun sending those staff using "servants of the Hidden Flame" up against Balors on bridges in dwarven mines.

To quote Tolkien - "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass."

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-18, 02:36 PM
Four schools is a better option anyway, if you do it right. Really, there are four things that spells do: create, destroy, discover, and alter. That's really about it. One could therefore get by on four schools: Creation, Destruction, Divination, and Alteration.

Interesting that Creation gets its opposite placed in your list, but not the other two. One could add two more schools that way:

Creation -- Destruction
Discover -- Obscure
Alter -- Preserve

Thus, Creation, Destruction, Divination, Illusion, Alteration, Abjuration -- and of course combinations of those can be applied as well.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-18, 02:40 PM
Interesting that Creation gets its opposite placed in your list, but not the other two. One could add two more schools that way:

Creation -- Destruction
Discover -- Obscure
Alter -- Preserve

Thus, Creation, Destruction, Divination, Illusion, Alteration, Abjuration -- and of course combinations of those can be applied as well.
This has the added benefit of cardinal direction (plus up/down) and elemental types (plus positive/negative). So ley lines could be strung out to help/hinder as can certain elements.

From an elemental perspective:
Negative (destruction) - Positive (creation)
Fire (discover, illuminate) - water (Obscure, conceal)
Air (alter, everchanging winds) - Earth (preserve, stable unchanging)

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-18, 02:47 PM
This has the added benefit of cardinal direction (plus up/down) and elemental types (plus positive/negative). So ley lines could be strung out to help/hinder as can certain elements.

Even better, using that three-dimensional image of an x-y-z axis, each school could be applied to one of four neighbors to create varying effects. Only its direct opposite cannot combine with a given school.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-18, 02:48 PM
Even better, using that three-dimensional image of an x-y-z axis, each school could be applied to one of four neighbors to create varying effects. Only its direct opposite cannot combine with a given school.

I really, really hope you guys are joking...

Fax Celestis
2007-09-18, 02:48 PM
Interesting that Creation gets its opposite placed in your list, but not the other two. One could add two more schools that way:

Creation -- Destruction
Discover -- Obscure
Alter -- Preserve

Thus, Creation, Destruction, Divination, Illusion, Alteration, Abjuration -- and of course combinations of those can be applied as well.

Obscure would fall under Alteration (changing it so it's invisible), and Preserve would fall under Divination (predicting the future as to prevent it).

Jasdoif
2007-09-18, 02:50 PM
I really, really hope you guys are joking...You mean you don't like the Cube of Magic, and how the three Axes of the one Solid unite to form six Faces, twelve Edges, and eight Vertices? :smallwink:

Indon
2007-09-18, 02:52 PM
You mean you don't like the Cube of Magic, and how the three Axes of the one Solid unite to form six Faces, twelve Edges, and eight Vertices? :smallwink:

I have such an overwhelming urge to make this cosmology.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-18, 02:52 PM
Geometry and Magic: Together at last!

Indon
2007-09-18, 02:54 PM
The Faces are the schools. The Edges are subschools. The Vertices are types of Wizards; command of three Faces and the three Edges between them.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-18, 02:57 PM
Obscure would fall under Alteration (changing it so it's invisible), and Preserve would fall under Divination (predicting the future as to prevent it).

Actually, I would disagree. You could also state Obscure could go under Creation - Creating a false image. Preserve could fall under Alteration: changing the world to avoid harm. Or Divination could fall under Alteration: changing one's knowledge of a given object. Alteration could be Destruction: one destroys the old pattern in favor of new. So we can lump everything into Destruction! So Magic is all about Warhammer. Wait ...

Understand your points, and they are good, really. I suggest an alternate look. Everything has its opposite. Except gravitons. We haven't found anti-gravitons.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-18, 03:03 PM
You've got all sorts of specializations there. If you're looking at building a magic user you could start by knowing one 'face'... as you expand your knowledge you could learn the whole 'axis' or another 'face'. Learning an adjacent face grants access to edge magic, but not very deep unless you have the whole axis mastered. It's very complex and probably not suitable for beginners, but it provides a wonderful fluff.

Jasdoif
2007-09-18, 03:08 PM
I have such an overwhelming urge to make this cosmology.A cube is an excellent way to symbolize the interactions of three independent axes. I once envisioned a magic system with fire/ice, offensive/defensive and dispersed/focused as the axes. Never actually did anything with it though...don't think I finalized it either, for that matter; feels like it was a long time ago.

Indon
2007-09-18, 03:11 PM
A cube is an excellent way to symbolize the interactions of three independent axes. I once envisioned a magic system with fire/ice, offensive/defensive and dispersed/focused as the axes. Never actually did anything with it though...don't think I finalized it either, for that matter; feels like it was a long time ago.

Ooh, if one could think up four axes they could make a hypercube.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-18, 03:14 PM
A cube is an excellent way to symbolize the interactions of three independent axes. I once envisioned a magic system with fire/ice, offensive/defensive and dispersed/focused as the axes. Never actually did anything with it though...don't think I finalized it either, for that matter; feels like it was a long time ago.

We're quickly digressing from the original topic. It may be worth a different thread.

Oeryn
2007-09-18, 03:16 PM
Hey! You got your geometry in my magic!

You got your magic in my geometry!

Together, they taste... confusing as hell.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-18, 03:17 PM
Thinking about the directions, perhaps it should change to personal directions. So forward/back, left/right, above/below. The wizard could point in the direction of the ley line to draw on it's power. Given two hands he can point in two directions for appropriate combination spells.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-18, 03:18 PM
Mmmm... Choco-peanut-butterific!

So ... about them 4e wizards ...

I'm hoping the fluff will be optional, such as the deity fluff given in 3e Players Guide. There were religions listed, but it wasn't required for the players to use it, especially if they were playing a different world altogether.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-18, 03:19 PM
Ooh, if one could think up four axes they could make a hypercube.
That would require epic casting (and likely access to the far realm).

Merlin the Tuna
2007-09-18, 03:19 PM
While I like the idea of wizards using wands and staves to cast spells I still want to keep the old material components such bat guano and amber beads (yes I want them to stay).Bleh. If I may...


Material components are a joke. I'm not saying that they are metaphorically a joke in that they don't act as a consistent or adequate limiting factor to spellcasting, I mean that they are actually a joke. Material components are supposed to be "ha ha" funny. The fact that even after having this brought to your attention, you still aren't laughing, indicates that this is a failed attempt at humor. Most material components are based on technological gags, when you cast scrying you are literally supposed to grab yourself a "specially treated" mirror, some wire, and some lemons – which is to say that you make a TV set to watch your target on and then power it with an archaic battery. When you cast see invisibility you literally blow talc all over the place – which of course reveals invisible foes. Casting lightning bolt requires you to generate a static charge with an amber rod and some fur, tongues requires that you build a little Tower of Babel, and of course fireball requires that you whip up some actual gunpowder. Get it? You're making the effects MacGuyver style and then claiming that it's "magic" after the fact. Are you laughing yet?

Of course not, because that joke is incredibly lame and there's no way for it to hold your attention for several months of a continuous campaign.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-18, 03:27 PM
Thinking about the directions, perhaps it should change to personal directions. So forward/back, left/right, above/below. The wizard could point in the direction of the ley line to draw on it's power. Given two hands he can point in two directions for appropriate combination spells.

This is why mages never stand in-between two opposing mirrors, as this invokes two opposite directions which every mage knows can be disasterous.

Oeryn
2007-09-18, 03:34 PM
I'm hoping the fluff will be optional, such as the deity fluff given in 3e Players Guide. There were religions listed, but it wasn't required for the players to use it, especially if they were playing a different world altogether.

I really think "optional fluff" is the best possible scenario. Tell us what the rules are, and what the spells are. Then, let US make up the color of robes, or the various accouterments wizards need to make things happen. Save the fluff for the various campaign worlds. Some people like material components, others don't. Let people decide for themselves.

Mewtarthio
2007-09-18, 03:34 PM
And lets not forget the Blasphemous Cult of the Pyramid With a Pentagonal Base! These mysterious Blood Mages seek to unite five of the six schools into one vertex, giving them nigh-ultimate arcane mastery at the cost of the portion of their soul representing the base (so, say, a cultist who combines all the schools except Preserve would gradually become a force of entropy and decay).

AKA_Bait
2007-09-18, 03:38 PM
You've got all sorts of specializations there. If you're looking at building a magic user you could start by knowing one 'face'... as you expand your knowledge you could learn the whole 'axis' or another 'face'. Learning an adjacent face grants access to edge magic, but not very deep unless you have the whole axis mastered. It's very complex and probably not suitable for beginners, but it provides a wonderful fluff.

Ow ow ow ow ow...

I'm not a beginner and that is making my brain hurt.

I just want to throw fireballs at things and be invisible without having to deal without 3d geometrical magic interactions. Is that so much to ask? Is that so much to ask?! :smallwink:

mostlyharmful
2007-09-18, 03:40 PM
Ow ow ow ow ow...

I'm not a beginner and that is making my brain hurt.

I just want to throw fireballs at things and be invisible without having to deal without 3d geometrical magic interactions. Is that so much to ask? Is that so much to ask?! :smallwink:

apparantly:smallconfused:

Citizen Joe
2007-09-18, 03:44 PM
And lets not forget the Blasphemous Cult of the Pyramid With a Pentagonal Base! These mysterious Blood Mages seek to unite five of the six schools into one vertex, giving them nigh-ultimate arcane mastery at the cost of the portion of their soul representing the base (so, say, a cultist who combines all the schools except Preserve would gradually become a force of entropy and decay).

That is divine magic with it's five tenets of faith and opposing apotheosis.

Jasdoif
2007-09-18, 03:52 PM
I just want to throw fireballs at things and be invisible without having to deal without 3d geometrical magic interactions. Is that so much to ask? Is that so much to ask?! :smallwink:If your goals are as simple as that, being a practitioner of the simple Solid might suffice. :smallwink:

On the other hand, try dealing with the magic interactions without the visual reference of the Cube, see if that's an improvement :smallamused:

AKA_Bait
2007-09-18, 03:53 PM
I really think "optional fluff" is the best possible scenario. Tell us what the rules are, and what the spells are. Then, let US make up the color of robes, or the various accouterments wizards need to make things happen. Save the fluff for the various campaign worlds. Some people like material components, others don't. Let people decide for themselves.

I agree with this for the most part. So long as the spells are not mechanically designed to have the components mean something tangable to the characters I'm all for it. For example, in 3.5 some of the material components are pretty darn expensive, so those I feel need to be enforced as a matter of game balance but others I don't worry about. Basically, if it needs diamonds, you actually need to have them, if it needs bat poop, you don't.


If your goals are as simple as that, being a practitioner of the simple Solid might suffice. :smallwink:

On the other hand, try dealing with the magic interactions without the visual reference of the Cube, see if that's an improvement :smallamused:

Arg arg arg! :smallwink:

Frankly, that there were diffrent schools of magic and the way they were laid out never really cause me to lose much sleep. Sure, I wish some of the spells were in diffrent schools (like the cure spells and the orb spells) but it seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater to toss the whole (mostly functional) system on account of that.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-18, 03:54 PM
Ow ow ow ow ow...

I'm not a beginner and that is making my brain hurt.

I just want to throw fireballs at things and be invisible without having to deal without 3d geometrical magic interactions. Is that so much to ask? Is that so much to ask?! :smallwink:

"My wizard casts 'Plague of Polyhedra' on AKA_Bait's character"

Kyeudo
2007-09-18, 03:56 PM
I happen to think that Wizards in 4th edition will have both Spells and magic Tricks (for lack of a better term). Tricks will be things that they can do constantly and arn't nessasarily normal spell effects, and then they have their Spells, which do big one-shot effects.

Look at the school of the Golden Wyvern school. They are called battle mages, but no particular kind of spell is mentioned that they specialize in. I think a Golden Wyvern mage learns Tricks that he can use like Metamagic effects to apply to his Spells, where as a Serpent Eye mage might learn a tricks that allow him to use effects similar to low level spells, like being able to Daze an opponent every round.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-18, 03:57 PM
"My wizard casts 'Plague of Polyhedra' on AKA_Bait's character"

At this rate, in 4e I'm going to be playing a dwarf with a great big axe. :smallbiggrin:

Citizen Joe
2007-09-18, 04:07 PM
At this rate, in 4e I'm going to be playing a dwarf with a great big axe. :smallbiggrin:

Is that a single axis, double edged axe?:smallamused:

Mewtarthio
2007-09-18, 04:40 PM
Frankly, that there were diffrent schools of magic and the way they were laid out never really cause me to lose much sleep. Sure, I wish some of the spells were in diffrent schools (like the cure spells and the orb spells) but it seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater to toss the whole (mostly functional) system on account of that.

Sure, you could keep the baby when you throw out the bathwater, but then the fresh bathwater will just get dirty again when you put the baby back. Where's the logic in that?

Kurald Galain
2007-09-18, 05:22 PM
"My wizard casts 'Plague of Polyhedra' on AKA_Bait's character"

There's this ninth level spell called Dice Storm that lets you roll every die you have with you for total damage, ref save for half...

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-18, 05:48 PM
There's this ninth level spell called Dice Storm that lets you roll every die you have with you for total damage, ref save for half...

Reminds me of a joke my best friend and I had back in the day ...

DM: "Roll all the dice"
Player: *rolls everything he has*
DM: "You die."

Okay. It's not that great, but we were in junior high. Back then it was hilarious.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-18, 05:56 PM
Four schools is a better option anyway, if you do it right. Really, there are four things that spells do: create, destroy, discover, and alter. That's really about it. One could therefore get by on four schools: Creation, Destruction, Divination, and Alteration.
It's a stretch to fit transportation under any of those. Especially of the teleport variety. Putting it under alteration makes that a bit much of a catch-all.

Jasdoif
2007-09-18, 06:05 PM
It's a stretch to fit transportation under any of those. Especially of the teleport variety. Putting it under alteration makes that a bit much of a catch-all.Maybe teleport could be a universal spell. Or maybe it won't exist, but I have doubts of that actually coming together.

Minor aside, but didn't teleport used to be Transmutation anyway, before Conjuration became capable of doing most anything?

Aquillion
2007-09-18, 06:29 PM
Bleh. If I may...
To be fair, I can see some of those as making sense for certain mystical rules. Look at it as a holistic or sympathetic approach to magic--you use a pinch of talc or a tiny amount of makeshift gunpowder, then use some form of sympathetic magic to vastly amplify its effects. The items give your magic direction, saying what you want to happen, providing a channel that your power uses to produce the same effect on a supernatural scale.

I think that was the idea, anyway... although some of them, like the TV, are obviously jokes.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-18, 06:30 PM
Minor aside, but didn't teleport used to be Transmutation anyway, before Conjuration became capable of doing most anything?

I'm not near my 2e books, but I do believe that was the case, yes.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-09-18, 06:39 PM
To be fair, I can see some of those as making sense for certain mystical rules. Look at it as a holistic or sympathetic approach to magic--you use a pinch of talc or a tiny amount of makeshift gunpowder, then use some form of sympathetic magic to vastly amplify its effects. The items give your magic direction, saying what you want to happen, providing a channel that your power uses to produce the same effect on a supernatural scale.

I think that was the idea, anyway... although some of them, like the TV, are obviously jokes.Eh... they used to be even worse. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12240326&postcount=18) I'd be more than happy to put as much distance between the game and that kind of stuff as I can.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-18, 06:41 PM
Minor aside, but didn't teleport used to be Transmutation anyway, before Conjuration became capable of doing most anything?
It used to be transmutation. V made a joke about it.

It is conceivable to accomplish the results through various methods. It could be a combination of creation and alteration. Advanced versions may require a divining method to fix the distant point.

Charming may involve altering and obfuscating to change the minds of people.

Grug
2007-09-18, 07:00 PM
Heheh, I play humorous campaigns and I can just imagine some of the silly items that coud be used. Phonebook of Summoning, for instance, and Plunger of Water Blasting. Don't forget soccerball of Fire

Merlin the Tuna
2007-09-18, 07:36 PM
Good news from Dave Noonan. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13827987&postcount=2) Read it and un-weep.

Mewtarthio
2007-09-18, 07:37 PM
Eh... they used to be even worse. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12240326&postcount=18) I'd be more than happy to put as much distance between the game and that kind of stuff as I can.

:smalleek: ...Gary Gygax was crazy, wasn't he?


Good news from Dave Noonan. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13827987&postcount=2) Read it and un-weep.

:smallamused: Why do I get the mental image of some guy looking at the forums, screaming into his telephone "Re-organize all the spells into completely generic and non-organizational categories, STAT!", and then posting online, "Ha, ha, you're so silly! As if we'd do something that patently stupid!"

Fax Celestis
2007-09-18, 07:40 PM
:smalleek: ...Gary Gygax was crazy, wasn't he?

Genius usually is.

Townopolis
2007-09-18, 07:48 PM
Cube magic! Awesome! *yoinks*

as to the subject at hand, WTF Wizards? Screw that fluff and give me my magic tomes back. I for one want to read pseudolatin in a deep sonorous voice whenever I cast 'magic missile.'

Bad form, I say, very bad form. Wizards is going to lose points for that one.

[Edit] Read Noonan's response. Wizards can have some of their points back, but I'm still concerned at this point.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-09-18, 08:22 PM
:smalleek: ...Gary Gygax was crazy, wasn't he?To steal a line from the same thread... "Gary Gygax had the annoying habit of himself never quite seeming to take the game or its setting seriously, even when insisting that other people do so."

And while I have no idea if Gary had any connection to this product, it seems a fitting time for...http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/MerlintheTuna/Random%20Images/fez3.jpg

Townopolis
2007-09-18, 08:36 PM
O.o *brain explodes*

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-18, 11:24 PM
And while I have no idea if Gary had any connection to this product, it seems a fitting time for...

The wizard in that picture is my new hero.

I don't think Gygax would be behind this one, however. Role-Aids were a third party company, back before TSR started to put the kibosh on any third party supplements for DnD. I believe they were Avalon Hill, but I could remember wrong.

Actually, in the early 90's role-aids had some really awesome material back when TSR was putting out some mediocre stuff. It was about then that TSR started sending out cease and desist orders.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-19, 05:55 AM
Good news from Dave Noonan. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13827987&postcount=2) Read it and un-weep.

I note he isn't actually saying much, and the rest of the thread is conjecture.

leperkhaun
2007-09-19, 07:38 AM
nice, I think the first character i make in 4E will be harry potter.

Person_Man
2007-09-19, 09:49 AM
Good:

Base classes will have branches, similar to Star Wars Saga, Diablo, etc.
This will make class organization much easier. Instead of 175 base classes and 782 prestige classes, hopefully we can keep just 8 base classes covering the 4 primary party roles. Every time they have a new idea, WotC will have to fit it into the existing hierarchy (what niche does this class fill, how is it balanced against other branches within the same tree, how is it balanced against the other classes). This should make balance much easier as well.

Also, although this article doesn't confirm that they'll be killing spell components, I hope they do. You shouldn't have to spend gold or xp or carry around a bag of bat poop in order cast a spell. Spells should be scaled in such a way that they don't require spell components, and PCs shouldn't be burdened by massive bookkeeping if they want to use magic. Resource management works well as a concept in first person shooter games, but it shouldn't be a huge deal in D&D.


Bad:

Magic items will be an important part of the functioning of a base class. I'm a bit sad about this. I think the game should be balanced in such a way that you can play with 0 magic items. Then if a DM wants to add magic items on top of that, fine. But those of us who enjoy playing in low magic item worlds should be able to do so. The Wizard should not be "near sighted" if he doesn't have his magic stick, just like the Fighter shouldn't be screwed if he doesn't have his magic sword.

Zincorium
2007-09-19, 09:54 AM
Bad:

Magic items will be an important part of the functioning of a base class. I'm a bit sad about this. I think the game should be balanced in such a way that you can play with 0 magic items. Then if a DM wants to add magic items on top of that, fine. But those of us who enjoy playing in low magic item worlds should be able to do so. The Wizard should not be "near sighted" if he doesn't have his magic stick, just like the Fighter shouldn't be screwed if he doesn't have his magic sword.

Honestly, I didn't get that. It didn't seem to me that they were magical items as we're used to. Just highly personalized focuses. For an item to help out with magic does not require it to be magical, and that could be what they were going with.

The fighter shouldn't need a magical sword (and the designers have posted statements to that effect) either, but shouldn't they have a sword of some sort? Even a highly decorated and stylized sword, perhaps one they've invested a bit of themselves in?

If that isn't what they're going for, it's what I'm going to be houseruling towards.

Fixer
2007-09-19, 11:31 AM
:smalleek: ...Gary Gygax was crazy, wasn't he?
After some email conversations with Gary Gygax my observations were that he is... very passionate about whatever he happens to be working on at that particular moment. Seemed very nice, but not the kind of person who you want to get in the way of when he's 'on a roll'. Definitely a genius, just in a kinda scary way.


I am wondering if this will be looking a lot like the whole Box and Boost setup. You select a few skill boxes (something like: axe, sword, fire blast, feint, inspire, heal, etc.) and every level you can add one and/or more new boxes or boost the boxes you already have (like damage, range, and 'attack bonus').

hamlet
2007-09-19, 12:01 PM
After some email conversations with Gary Gygax my observations were that he is... very passionate about whatever he happens to be working on at that particular moment. Seemed very nice, but not the kind of person who you want to get in the way of when he's 'on a roll'. Definitely a genius, just in a kinda scary way.



Actually, that sense that you get is a bit real, but not the way you're portraying it. He has a strong "I am not Spock" reflex where he'd rather not be forever known for what he's done in the past. He'd like his current work recognized rather than being "The D&D guy" forever.

And to be honest, it's entirely understandable. His Legendary Journeys stuff is pretty good and it's a shame it doesn't get more press.

Aquillion
2007-09-19, 06:22 PM
Bad:

Magic items will be an important part of the functioning of a base class. I'm a bit sad about this. I think the game should be balanced in such a way that you can play with 0 magic items. Then if a DM wants to add magic items on top of that, fine. But those of us who enjoy playing in low magic item worlds should be able to do so. The Wizard should not be "near sighted" if he doesn't have his magic stick, just like the Fighter shouldn't be screwed if he doesn't have his magic sword.But the thing is, in the current edition, if you go low-magic-item then the fighter is screwed and the wizard isn't. Short of eliminating magical weapons and armor completely, or drastically nerfing them, I don't see how that could be avoided.

The only way to make magic-item-levels adjustable without harming game balance is to make all classes equally dependant on them. That means, inevitably, that wizards need to rely on them more... they should still be able to cast without them, of course, but they should be at the same disadvantage that a fighter is without his magic sword and armor, and that is, frankly, a really really big disadvantage. Somewhat shorter spell ranges isn't really that bad, comparatively, especially when so much adventuring happens in close quarters where nobody cares anyway.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-20, 12:46 AM
The only way to make magic-item-levels adjustable without harming game balance is to make all classes equally dependant on them. That means, inevitably, that wizards need to rely on them more... they should still be able to cast without them, of course, but they should be at the same disadvantage that a fighter is without his magic sword and armor, and that is, frankly, a really really big disadvantage. Somewhat shorter spell ranges isn't really that bad, comparatively, especially when so much adventuring happens in close quarters where nobody cares anyway.
The system could just as easily stop assuming Fighters will have their current quantities of magic items and design the game around players not having them.

Jack Mann
2007-09-20, 01:00 AM
Depends on how these items work. Do they need to be enhanced to work? A spellbook isn't magical, and nor is a spell component pouch, but both are necessary for a wizard to function properly. They are "magic items" in that they help him work magic, but they are not normally magical in the sense normally meant in D&D. A wizard's spellbook has no magic aura. If enhancing them just gives a nice boost (comparable to enhancing a fighter's sword, say), then that's not so bad.

Aquillion
2007-09-20, 01:35 AM
The system could just as easily stop assuming Fighters will have their current quantities of magic items and design the game around players not having them.Either way, from a standpoint of going for flexible magical item levels, wizards and fighters need to have the same standing in terms of item dependence, and that means either significantly reducing fighter's dependence, or significantly increasing the wizard's. The question of which way to go is just a matter of whether you want lots of magical items or not.

TheOOB
2007-09-20, 02:00 AM
Keep in mind that they mention this a wizard thing, other casters (perhaps even the sorcerer) may not use magical implements what so ever, one of a wizards advantages may be that they can use them to enhance their spells while others can't, which has the side effect of making them more specialized then other casters.

Jarlax
2007-09-20, 07:21 AM
with Dave Noonans comments in mind i think it is time to re-read the article in question with a new look.

since "traditions" (thats the names they had in the revised article, iron sigil, serpent eye, etc) are not groupings of spells like the ToB schools the first tradition i would draw your attention to is the Golden Wyvern initiates, it has no spells to it, only spell shaping and sculpting.

so these traditions are a form of spell boosting, i draw your attention to the last paragraph:


For instance, a wizard belonging to the Hidden Flame order can cast the fire spell cinder storm even if he doesn’t own, has lost, or is not holding a magic staff. But if he does have a magic staff, it aids the accuracy of his attack, and his mastery of the Hidden Flame technique allows him to deal more damage with the spell.

i think this can be read in one of two ways:

First is that implements can be used by all wizards, but their effects are different this article implies that staves increase accuracy in some way but it says this for wands too, so perhaps staves increase accuracy for melee touch spells and wands increase accuracy on ranged touch attacks.

or Second is that implements are part of your chosen tradition so they don't have any features themselves, but when held give you access to your powers, in this case a Hidden flame wizard. holding a staff can increase the accuracy of his spells and when holding a staff wizards can use something called his mastery of the hidden flame technique to increase spell damage.

i think the second option sounds about right, so now a caster is not defined by the spells you take but the spells and tradition you follow. saying that your a Hidden flame says your a wizard who likes fire based spells, while a Golden Wyrven likes spells with an AOE they can shape, however if somone disarms the Golden Wyrven he cant shape his AOE spells any more.