Curious about some possible 4e wizard stuff?

[Aerysil]

Thar ya be.

Wizards now have tools of the trade.

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

[Viscount Einstrauss]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The tempest?

[Viscount Einstrauss]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Love it. Absolutely love it. This is just what arcane casting was missing, as far as I'm concerned.

[Jack Mann]

I suspect they took some inspiration from the magister class from Arcana Unearthed/Evolved.

[Krimm_Blackleaf]

Iiiinteresting...

[kpenguin]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.