Artist's Interpration of the 4ed Wizard

[Dhavaer]

Well, not so much 'artist's' interpretation, but what I think it might end up looking like (and how I hope it might end up looking like).

Basically, a combination of the Warlock, the Binder and the Wizard. Wizards will get three types of magical abilities: Invocations, Spells and Workings.

Invocations come in two types: activated and always-on. Activated invocations are usable 1/round, and normally take a Standard or Full Round action to activate. Most of them are single target offensive abilities, but some utility abilites are invocations. Examples of these are eldritch blast and prestidigitation. Always-on invocations are buffs and almost always personal, although some provide benefits to allies within a small radius from you. Examples are endure elements and see invisibility.

Spells are usable 1/5 rounds, and normally take a Full Round Action or 1 Round to cast. Spells are mostly multiple target buffs or debuffs, multiple target offensive or single-target removal abilities, although many utility abilities also fall into this category. Many spells are multiple use: they can have one of several differing effects at the option of the caster. An example is temporal manipulation: at lower levels it gives a haste or slow effect to a single target, at mid levels it gives a haste or slow effect to multiple targets, and at high levels it produces both effects; the wizard hastes their allies while slowing their enemies.

Workings are usable 1/hour at most, although most cannot be used this often. They take at least 1 Round to cast. Workings are mostly utility spells, but some very powerful combat spells fall into this category. Workings are distinguished by having disadvantages such as expensive components, negative status effects or backlash damage. Examples of workings are scrying and obliterate, a high level working that inflicts are large amount of many types of damage, but drains the cast utterly, preventing them from using magical abilities or several days after casting.

As in previous editions, Wizards have both prepared abilities and a spellbook. However, the spellbook is not required to refresh abilities already prepared. The spellbook is used when the Wizard wishes to change prepared abilities, a process requiring hours of rest and study.

[Behold_the_Void]

If such is the case, then what is the Warlock going to be like?

[Dhavaer]

If such is the case, then what is the Warlock going to be like?

I wouldn't have a clue.

[Xefas]

Personally, I think it looks like the Warlock is going to assimilate the Binder, since they've alluded to making pacts with things.

The Wizard looks to have devoured the Truenamer and whatever the shadow-casters were called. Obviously the fluff would be different, but the mechanics would be similar. Truenaming, for instance, is infinite, but requires increasingly high checks and is weak.

[Suzuro]

Is it just me, or does this make Wizards even more powerful? I mean, the major drawback of a wizard is the fact that they can run out of spells during the day, with this, though, they never run out, and can constantly use their most powerful abilities.


-Suzuro

[Dhavaer]

Is it just me, or does this make Wizards even more powerful? I mean, the major drawback of a wizard is the fact that they can run out of spells during the day, with this, though, they never run out, and can constantly use their most powerful abilities.


-Suzuro

They can't constantly use their most powerful abilities. They can use, in a long fight, two spells. Workings mostly aren't combat related, and things like obliterate aren't what you'd want to use every fight.

[Fuzzy_Juan]

hmm...since it seems like WoW is a big inspiration...perhaps warlock will be something akin to that...plenty of debuffs, necromancy spells, lifestealing, demonic pacts and summons...oooh....infernal familiars...talents that allow you to upgrade your familiar to something more powerful...fun.

could be fun...more limited than the mage, but plenty of wierd effects that noone else can do...and a happy fun demon pet.

[UserClone]

...The Wizard looks to have devoured the Truenamer and whatever the shadow-casters were called...

Ironically, the Shadowcaster.

[Lyinginbedmon]

I'm still of the opinion that the "6-shot revolver mage" problem was eliminated the second that Reserve feats were published. The only change necessary would be to make some Reserve feats Core material and add them to the list of Wizard bonus feats. Then they can blame poor character creation if a Wizard runs out of spells in a dungeon crawl, not the game itself.

[Swooper]

Sounds pretty interesting. Do you have any idea what the limits of their ability selection will be? Just the capacity of their spellbook and their funds, or will there be a hard cap on the number of spells/invocations/workings they can know per level? Also, do you know anything about how they will be ordered into power-levels? Because I heard a rumour (on a developer's blog sometime) about 25 levels of spells.

Finally, what's your source for this information? The new book, Races and Classes? Or some post over on wizards.com?

[Morty]

Blech. With every new thing I hear, 4ed wizards look worse. They removed Vancian spellcasting, gave them "foci" they're dependent on and it looks like wizards will be relegated to the role of fireball tossers. Also, I heard metnions of wizard's "powers". Given that they use the word "powers" when referring to warriors' abilities, it doesn't sound promising.

[jameswilliamogle]

Personally, I think it looks like the Warlock is going to assimilate the Binder, since they've alluded to making pacts with things.

And the Incarnum-classes. They're pretty mechanically different, but the flavor is so close. Might as well, neh?

I think you are probably right about Wizards absorbing Truenamers. Honestly, Truenamers barely work in current games. Might as well, ya know? I think they also might get some of the Archivist Dark Knowledge type abilities. WotC already started putting similar abilities into feats in CChamp, for example.

I hope they get rid of the golden cow of alignment. It just doesn't feel right.

[psychoticbarber]

Blech. With every new thing I hear, 4ed wizards look worse. They removed Vancian spellcasting, gave them "foci" they're dependent on and it looks like wizards will be relegated to the role of fireball tossers. Also, I heard metnions of wizard's "powers". Given that they use the word "powers" when referring to warriors' abilities, it doesn't sound promising.

They've said that they mean "powers" to be "whatever funky things the character class can do". Warriors are still going to hit things, spellcasters are still going to cast spells.

[Citizen Joe]

I think they might be combining most of the magic using classes. So a wizard may have fewer 'spells' but would get a 'zappy' power ( probably using a focus, like a wand) that is similar to the warlock's eldritch blast.

There was talk about fighters being more specialized in their weapons. So I could see wizards favouring one aspect or the other. So maybe forego more prepared spell ability for better 'Blastiness' or making pacts with entities to gain other powers. I think that might be a bit WoW ish... where you have 3 different paths for each class. You could be moderately good at all three, but if you want to be really good you have to specialize. <sarcasm>Woohoo... yea, let's make DND just like WoW!</sarcasm>

[Lady Tialait]

I really dread 4e

I've seen problems for a long time in 3e WotC I mean..ToB, Reserve Feats, Warlock (I really don't like them), and other such All the time i'm powerful stuff. I hate it. I can't help myself.

I like a Draining effect on your day's Resorces. And if as a DM i want the party to only be at half capasity and they are all Warlocks and ToB classes. The I'm SOL always as powerful as they are at the start of the day.

4e erks me..okay?

[Morty]

They've said that they mean "powers" to be "whatever funky things the character class can do". Warriors are still going to hit things, spellcasters are still going to cast spells.

It's not what I mean. What I mean is, it looks like wizard's spells will be gained just like fighter's new ways to hit stuff- which means that wizards lose thieir variety and versatility that was the point of this class.
And I really, really, don't understand what's so dreadful about wizards running out of spells.

[bingo_bob]

I think my only problem with this is the fact that the Warlock is apparently stealing the Binder's stuff. I just can't imagine that flavor of the Binder showing through if that's the case, and it's too good to just abandon. (Loss of PrCs is regrettable, too).

I don't have a problem with the changes to the Wizard. It doesn't seem like the changes will be bringing the class's power level below that of the other classes.

True, resource management is somewhat gone, now, but not too badly. Wizards and Clerics aren't too much weaker with half their spells gone than with full power. Their power level only really changes when they're dredging spells from the bottom of the barrel, and honestly, how often does that happen? True, you can put them in circumstances that involve that, but you can only do that so often.

[Lord Tataraus]

I personally like the lack of resource management. That's one reason I liked ToB and why I like Warlock and Binder (amongst a few others). Why should the wizard not be able to use his magic consistently? Sure, everyone needs rest, but not to make magic, just for fatigue. With this you can actually have sieges and battles that last for weeks and never stop.

[Ranthog]

Actually in the games I've been in even at 13th+ level I've had to dredge the bottom of the barrel for characters because as a wizard I have some utility spell and other things. Like real life, we've often had time constraints on our goals at times when it makes sense in characterly. Not to mention it provides the choice between wasting spells and getting through something or risking total defeat early on.

[Lady Tialait]

resource management is to me what seperates low level chartiors from high level charitors. A level 20 charitor can go for a LONG LONG time and still have nukes. a low level charitor has to much more careful with the big guns. If all you use is big guns (as in ToB and such) you will be more likly to be a one trick pony.

then again when I first saw the sorc..i was urked at the amount of magic. And None of the Gods of my world give anything but healing spells to clerics...

so...erm....there is alot of things I don't allow. and if i keep that stick up my butt (yes...yes I am a Druid/Paladin) then 4e isn't looking playable.

[Xefas]

Everything

You're a psychopath, if you don't mind me saying.

Anyway, I'm interested to see how they change around the encounters/day formula, if everyone is going to be getting a few consistent abilities. Which reminds me, have they said anything about Challenge Rating? Keeping it? Changing it? Anything?

[Lyinginbedmon]

Ah yes, "encounter/day" I'd forgotten about that idea.

HORRIBLE IDEA! The last thing I need is a spellcaster character who can use fireball or disintegrate effects without fail every encounter.

[kamikasei]

resource management is to me what seperates low level chartiors from high level charitors. A level 20 charitor can go for a LONG LONG time and still have nukes. a low level charitor has to much more careful with the big guns. If all you use is big guns (as in ToB and such) you will be more likly to be a one trick pony.

That sounds... very strange.

If all a class had was one powerful ability that it could use every round of every day, then yeah, it'd be a one-trick pony. If it has several abilities it can use as the situation demands without fear of running out before the next combat, how does that make it a one-trick pony? I mean, a Fighter can attack, attempt to grapple, bull rush, trip etc., all day; and to the extent you'd call a Fighter a one-trick pony it's because he has to focus on one particular action with feats, items etc. to make it effective.

Seriously, if your mental model of a thing (ToB makes classes one-trick ponies!) doesn't match the experience of people using it (ToB gives you varied and interesting combat!), it might indicate you should revise the model.

It sounds as though you see ToB, warlocks, etc as giving classes highly powerful things they can do all day, on par with limited spells. This isn't so. Because they can do them all day, they're toned down considerably. A warlock's eldritch blast, for example, is only about as much damage as a sneak attack, which a rogue can do about as often.

I should also point out that, while a 20th-level caster can do much more than a 1st-level one, he's still expected to face as many encounters in a day. Those extra spells are supposed to go to day-long and/or pre-combat buffs, removing and countering higher-level effects that require magic and therefore don't crop up at low levels, and being used a) more quickly once you have the option to Quicken spells and b) over longer, more drawn-out combats. And in any case, both casters are going to want to rest and recover once they're past a certain point.

Ah yes, "encounter/day" I'd forgotten about that idea.

Xefas said "the encounter/day formula", as in "the party should face four encounters of their level in a day's adventuring". This is distinct from the concept of per-encounter and per-day abilities.

HORRIBLE IDEA! The last thing I need is a spellcaster character who can use fireball or disintegrate effects without fail every encounter.

Perhaps such effect will be per-day, while the new version of eldritch blast will be per-round and something else - on par with a team buff or status effect, perhaps - will occupy the per-encounter slot.

Which reminds me, have they said anything about Challenge Rating? Keeping it? Changing it? Anything?

Well, they have talked about how they're going to have monsters balanced for use against parties of a given level, with most being used one-monster-per-party, while others are intended to be sent as mobs of cannon fodder and others taking on half or all the party on their own. This all implies that a given monster must still have a "This creature is intended for 13th-level parties, aggressor discretion is advised" label.

[Lady Tialait]

ToB turns has the ability to give you some Semi-Magical stuff to your Martial charitor. that alone urks me. but it makes it so you can do it again and again in the same Battle, and that once an encounter stuff makes you think 'hey it's gone he won't do it again' but it happens. again, and again, and again, Recovery is a real problem. I think in 4e as far as I can see. Fireball will the just the same.
that disturbs me greatly. Afterall, Like i said. I don't like the Sorce for it's Large amounts of Spells per Day. and I simply won't allow them.

ToB is like a Sorc..add the Crack. me no likey

[kamikasei]

ToB turns has the ability to give you some Semi-Magical stuff to your Martial charitor.

For the most part it's not very magical at all. This has been done to death on these forums, but look: I'm playing a ToB character now, a Warblade, and I planned out maneuver selections before I started play. I went almost entirely Diamond Mind / Iron Heart, two strong disciplines, and I picked what seemed to me good, solid abilities that would make me an effective fighter and complement one another well while covering weaknesses. Pretty much every single one is: "You swing your sword, ..." generally resulting in dealing extra damage or attacking extra targets. One of them involves chucking your weapon at a foe and having it return to your hand, and I'm considering dropping that because it would look silly.

Crusaders can have supernatural abilities, just like a Paladin does. Swordsages can have supernatural abilities, just like a Monk/Shadowdancer/Ninja... does.

that alone urks me. but it makes it so you can do it again and again in the same Battle, and that once an encounter stuff makes you think 'hey it's gone he won't do it again' but it happens. again, and again, and again,

I'm sorry, but who's the "you" here? The DM? If the DM can't keep in mind that an ability is per-encounter and not per-day, that's a lapse that's surely indicative of larger problems.

Seriously: if a Fighter can Power Attack every turn or Trip every second one, why shouldn't a Warblade use Sapphire Nightmare Blade or Steel Wind every other round (the most frequently that he could)?

ToB is like a Sorc..add the Crack. me no likey

It's more like a Sorceror... who is actually a Fighter with a varied selection of moves... none of which are anywhere near as powerful as a spell of the same level.

[Lord Tataraus]

ToB turns has the ability to give you some Semi-Magical stuff to your Martial charitor. that alone urks me. but it makes it so you can do it again and again in the same Battle, and that once an encounter stuff makes you think 'hey it's gone he won't do it again' but it happens. again, and again, and again, Recovery is a real problem. I think in 4e as far as I can see. Fireball will the just the same.
that disturbs me greatly. Afterall, Like i said. I don't like the Sorce for it's Large amounts of Spells per Day. and I simply won't allow them.

ToB is like a Sorc..add the Crack. me no likey

The semi-magical stuff you speak of is limited to one class, and it doesn't have to do that. And you can always change the flavor. Teleport through shadows? I have the training to dash through shadows so as to not be seen and thereby ignore AoOs! Deal fire damage with my weapon? I coat my weapons in a flammable substance and light it, but I have to prepare it so I only do it once an encounter or I have to waste time during the encounter. The recovery mechanic makes lots of sense to me. I'm a warrior who knows a number of fancy maneuvers, I'm going to use them as much as I can because it is an advantage. However, I need to step back every once in a while to reevaluate the situation (regaining the maneuvers).

I highly doubt Fireball or any spell is going to be exactly the same. per encounter and at will spells are going to be weaker, but just as useful because you can use them without fear of losing them. Someone who has devoted their life to magic better be able to do a lot with it, not just cast a few spells a day, its too artificial.

I think your problem is that you're looking purely at the crunch and not the fluff and realism.

[Morty]

Someone who has devoted their life to magic better be able to do a lot with it, not just cast a few spells a day, its too artificial.

Why? Why it is too artifical? Seriously, what's so wrong about wizard not chunking spells around like candy?

I think your problem is that you're looking purely at the crunch and not the fluff and realism.

It doesn't matter, as there's nothing wrong fluff-wise or realism-wise with wizards having limited spells/day.

[mostlyharmful]

It seems a pretty good attepmt to solve the two biggest problems of using the wizard (aside from the power ratios which would need in game testing before I can comment)

1. Nova - with time lags on castings of more powerful stuff the sudden blasting of quickened spells, immediate spells, pamiliar loaned spells, etc... this is the one at the heart of much of the wizards overbearing tendancies, to be able to spend spell slots to get more actions into a round in essence. Having to wait 5 rounds before firing off anouther spell of mid to high level would curtail that immensely

2. Burn-Out - beyound the low levels the only thing that really stops magic empowered groups is running low on slots, it's not very interesting and it can make pacing hard, not to mention that anytime the group isn't on a tight schedule the casters will take a break after every major spell burn and be able to nova the next one

So, here's hoping the new version puts the Mage back into a team dynamic instead of being either overpowered or burned-out which seems almost the binary state of 3.5 Arcarnists.

[Lady Tialait]

Seriously: if a Fighter can Power Attack every turn or Trip every second one, why shouldn't a Warblade use Sapphire Nightmare Blade or Steel Wind every other round (the most frequently that he could)?

Yes, but Power Attack requires you loose attack bonus and both of those cast one of the feats. SwordSages get soo much with their stances and Manuvers it's just gets stupid

I have playtested the ToB classes, and as my campaigns were the fighters were able to take down spellcasters before it's introduction, this just made it worse, this is reminding me of when 2e came out with the skills and options book and I saw a single fighter take down 90% of the underdark without being able to be stoped.

to make a long story short I don't like ToB and anyone playing in my games will not be playing one of them anytime soon.

i'm sorry if you like the flavor I can't stand it and 4e is looking to make everyone into Goku and such.

[Lord Tataraus]

Why? Why it is too artifical? Seriously, what's so wrong about wizard not chunking spells around like candy?

Not so much at the high levels, but at the low and medium levels. To truly participate in battles they need to cast spells every round, or every other round at least. You just can't keep that up in the longer battles and they become useless after awhile and need to rest. A wizard should be able to use magic like a fighter swings a sword, almost constantly because its what he is trained to do. The whole remember a spell and you can cast it once is just too artificial to me. Sure they've explained that "its the nature of magic". I just don't like it.

It doesn't matter, as there's nothing wrong fluff-wise or realism-wise with wizards having limited spells/day.

As I said above, the whole forgetting a spell after one casting and memorizing the same spell multiple times? That is just stupid.
[hr]

Yes, but Power Attack requires you loose attack bonus and both of those cast one of the feats. SwordSages get soo much with their stances and Manuvers it's just gets stupid

Firstly, you can trip without a feat. And you can trip very well without a feat if you know what you're doing. Swordsages get a larger variety, but less uses than any of the other classes in ToB. And though their stances are good, its just not enough. Swordsages are meant to be more effects, not damage and that's what happens, a Barb still out damages all the ToB classes.

I have playtested the ToB classes, and as my campaigns were the fighters were able to take down spellcasters before it's introduction, this just made it worse, this is reminding me of when 2e came out with the skills and options book and I saw a single fighter take down 90% of the underdark without being able to be stoped.

The problem with fighters is that they are boring, one-trick ponies. The ToB classes actually can do multiple things, though not as well as the fighter's single ability.If a fighter is facing stuff that he is built to fight, he'll win all the time, but that's all he can do. You can't surprise a fighter with something vastly different and expect him to be useful. With ToB classes, they can take variety, but don't spec against a single type of enemy to pwn.