4th Ed wizards: staff, wand and orb

[Belial_the_Leveler]

The 4th edition wizards will use staves, orbs and wands in a similar way to fighters using weapons. Is it a good thing that wizard power will be tied-to some extent at least-to items?

[Fixer]

It doesn't appear to be tied to the items. They are optional foci.

The presence of a focus allows the wizard to make normal 'attack' rolls against whatever defense attribute their target might have. Lack of a focus might impose a small penalty but does not prevent the attack. Enchanted foci improve the attack roll.

[J.Gellert]

To speak in 3.5 edition terms, sounds like they are improving the Save DCs.

Sounds like bad news for Gandalf, good news for Dumbledore (-type wizards).

[Belial_the_Leveler]

But both Gandalf and Dumbledore relied on foci (staff and wand respectively) to more or less the same extent.

It doesn't bode well for Merlin and Rand Al'Thor type wizards though.

[J.Gellert]

I had Glamdring in mind when I mentioned Gandalf - but right, Istari and their staves...

Maybe I should've said... hmm... Anime-type wizards?

[Wizzardman]

It doesn't appear to be tied to the items. They are optional foci.

The presence of a focus allows the wizard to make normal 'attack' rolls against whatever defense attribute their target might have. Lack of a focus might impose a small penalty but does not prevent the attack. Enchanted foci improve the attack roll.

In Dungeons and Dragons, "optional anything" that enhances abilities generally means "if you don't have these, you're gonna suck." Personally, I'm not really a big fan of this change. I'd rather stick with old-style wizard manipulation of the cosmos, without having to use a special gimmick to do it properly.

Wizards are also going to be placed in specific 'schools' of magical training. Not like evocation, or any of the basic schools of magic; more like 'stealthy-style mage guy', 'earth-based mage guy', that sort of thing. What do you guys think of this change?

[Thinker]

It appears to me that with every class having a focus in battle it may make it harder to multiclass, especially for gishes. If you need an orb for your wizard abilities and a sword for your fighter abilities it may be fairly ineffective at everything compared to a straight wizard (or wizard/PrC) or a straight fighter (or fighter/PrC). There may be feats or PrC's that alleviate this, I just wonder if they thought of it.

Also consider a Rogue/Ranger multiclass. If rogues need daggers and rangers need shortswords it could gimp it. I really hope they spot this and have a way of making multiclassing remain worthwhile.

[Thinker]

In Dungeons and Dragons, "optional anything" that enhances abilities generally means "if you don't have these, you're gonna suck." Personally, I'm not really a big fan of this change. I'd rather stick with old-style wizard manipulation of the cosmos, without having to use a special gimmick to do it properly.

Wizards are also going to be placed in specific 'schools' of magical training. Not like evocation, or any of the basic schools of magic; more like 'stealthy-style mage guy', 'earth-based mage guy', that sort of thing. What do you guys think of this change?

I kinda like the magical school training. It gives more variety, which is one thing I'm always in favor of.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

In my campaing setting, casters (and most classes really) are separated into Order, Chaos, Mind, Shadow and Elemental power sources and flavors. I thus support the flavor classification of wizards-I never really liked them as generalists.

[J.Gellert]

I'll like it if the stealthy-type mage-guy can use his Katana as his focus.

Harder to multiclass? That's not good, considering how they said in the Feats article that "Classes are going to be more important" and "Feats are mostly going to be adding tweaks to your class features". What if I want my wizard to play more like a fighter? I say go for more customization, not less.

Edit: But then we'll get more customization sooner or later, it'll just be over the course of the next 75 or so splatbooks

[Morty]

Magical school training may be good or bad, depends on how they make it. But I don't like narrowing wizard's capabilities down. And names of these schools suck.
But whatever. The removed Vancian casting for some elusive reason, so the wizards won't be as fun as those in 3.x anyway

[J.Gellert]

Also of note: I always preferred the "It's you, not your items" approach, yet now it appears the importance of items just went up a notch.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Magical school training may be good or bad, depends on how they make it. But I don't like narrowing wizard's capabilities down. And names of these schools suck.

Well, it's generally agreed that the reason wizards are so incredibly broken in 3.5 D&D is their incredible versatility (see: Batman comparisons). By narrowing the abilities of individual wizards, you take away some of that brokenness.

[J.Gellert]

Well, it's generally agreed that the reason wizards are so incredibly broken in 3.5 D&D is their incredible versatility (see: Batman comparisons). By narrowing the abilities of individual wizards, you take away some of that brokenness.

Of course, provided you view it as brokenness in the first place.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Yeah, because WotC was always consistent with its announcements. Reminds me of the "we don't have plans for a 4th edition" thingy some months back.

And yeah, one of the reasons I played spellcasters exclusively was the fact that they didn't need a magic sword/chain/bow/dwarf-on-a-stick to be useful. I don't really like this approach except for the hilarity. Now the Orc Shaman (wizard) will actually need his Dwarf-on-a-stick (staff) to cast his spells effectively, not merely for that +5 to awesome.

[illathid]

Actually I believe the reasoning behind this was to bring some parity between spellcasters and other classes. A fighter has to spend money not only on armor & general equipment, but on a weapon as well. Spellcasters as they are now only really have to worry about buying equipment.

Having foci means the wizard will have additional costs to consider, much like other classes.

[J.Gellert]

You mean except costly spell components, scrolls, and outrageous costs to write down 4 pages of text on your spellbook?

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Yeah, but supposedly they wanted to make magic items less needed for everyone, not more.

[tyckspoon]

Also of note: I always preferred the "It's you, not your items" approach, yet now it appears the importance of items just went up a notch.

It went up for wizards, certainly. Nobody has said the design intent is to let everybody function perfectly naked- the fighter still needs to carry a weapon and wear some armor, now the wizard has a similar item to worry about. The philosophy is make sure those basic items don't have to be the insanely magical artifacts that they are in 3.5; your powers are largely derived from your class, so as long as you have a sword/wand/axe/orb to use those powers with at all, you're good to fight. It shouldn't matter as much if you only have a +1 sword instead of a +5 sword of Everythingbane.

[Collin152]

So long as tatoos and rings count. I ain't gonna haul around some stick or bulky jewel to send my foes into a hoary netherworld for all eternity!

[Crow]

In Dungeons and Dragons, "optional anything" that enhances abilities generally means "if you don't have these, you're gonna suck." Personally, I'm not really a big fan of this change. I'd rather stick with old-style wizard manipulation of the cosmos, without having to use a special gimmick to do it properly.

Ding Ding Ding!

I hate this change. I mean hate it.

[Triaxx]

Nah multiclassing is easy, all you need is the Feat: Eight Arms to carry all the items to make each class work.

[Zeful]

Actually based on the wording of the article, you don't need anything at all to cast spells.

However, you will be able to cast certain spells more effectivally with the focus. And it can be safe to assume that with the roll back on magic items and external power sorces that the bonuses will be small and not generally related to spellcasting. Of the six examples two are bonuses to spell casting.


I've spoilered the relevant article.

Spoiler

Show

Magic saturates the world and all the extraordinary realms beyond the world, an intrinsic force present in literally all things. Magic transforms and alters the natural world, sometimes actively and with sudden effect, other times subtly and over long centuries.

This arcane energy source is difficult to understand and even tougher to master. Wizards do so through years of study, practice, and apprenticeship to accomplished masters.

Wizards wield arcane magic, and they recognize reality for what it is: a thin veneer of structure supported and energized by a force that is ultimately malleable, to those who know its secrets. Though research and study, wizards learn esoteric rituals that allow them to alter time and space, hurl balls of fire that incinerate massed foes, and wield spells like warriors brandish swords. They call upon lesser and greater spells to unleash raging torrents of cold, fire, or lightning, confuse and enthrall the weak-minded, or even turn invisible or walk through walls.

What sets wizards apart from others who wield arcane magic are wizards’ unique implements. Most people recognize the three most common tools associated with wizardcraft: the orb, staff, and wand.

Any wizard can use an implement to increase the effectiveness of his spells. 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. In addition, each implement focuses magic of a particular discipline or tradition more effectively than the wizard would be able to accomplish otherwise. As a result, wizards are rarely without at least one of these tools.

The orb is favored by the Iron Sigil and Serpent Eye traditions. Serpent Eye cabalists use orbs to focus powers of enchantment, beguiling, and ensnaring. The mages of the Iron Sigil, on the other hand, employ orbs to guard themselves with potent defenses when invoking spells of thunder or force.

The staff is best suited to the disciplines of the Hidden Flame and the Golden Wyvern. Servants of the Hidden Flame wield fierce powers of fire and radiance through their staves. Golden Wyvern initiates are battle-mages who use their staves to shape and sculpt the spells they cast.

The wand is a perennial favorite for wizards who favor accurate, damaging attacks. Emerald Frost adepts use wands to help channel powers of cold and deadly acidic magic, while Stormwalker theurges channel spells of lightning and force through their wands.

A wizard without an implement is like a slightly near-sighted man with glasses: The man can still see, but without his glasses, he can’t read the road sign across the way. Likewise, while wizard traditions are associated with a particular implement, a wizard need not possess or hold a given implement to use a power belonging to that tradition. 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.

[Collin152]

It could be that a focus gives a focused benefit, while detracting proportionally to other areas slightly. If this were the case, one without a focus (Or not currently using one) would have more balanced spells, while one using a focus would have a specialised spell.

[Crow]

It could be that a focus gives a focused benefit, while detracting proportionally to other areas slightly. If this were the case, one without a focus (Or not currently using one) would have more balanced spells, while one using a focus would have a specialised spell.

Fat chance...

Better chance it is "have this or suck at that"

[Shas aia Toriia]

Obviously the solution to this problem is for everybody to play F.A.T.A.L

[Collin152]

Fat chance...

Better chance it is "have this or suck at that"

Well then, at least we have a potential house-rule bandage pre-fabricated.

[OzymandiasVolt]

Hey, let's all complain loudly about something we don't really know the mechanics of since the details weren't actually provided, and the ones that were provided are part of a system we don't have many details about at all.

[averagejoe]

Hey, let's all complain loudly about something we don't really know the mechanics of since the details weren't actually provided, and the ones that were provided are part of a system we don't have many details about at all.

On that note, the article says that orbs are useful for beguiling/enchantment and the like. What's with that? The obvious use for the orb is divination. Doy!

[averagejoe]

Hey, let's all complain loudly about something we don't really know the mechanics of since the details weren't actually provided, and the ones that were provided are part of a system we don't have many details about at all.

On that note, the article says that orbs are useful for beguiling/enchantment and the like. What's with that? The obvious use for the orb is divination. Doy!