4e Wizard: Blaster Mage?

[JaxGaret]

So I've run a pair of 6th level PCs, a Cleric and a Wizard, through part of KotS, and here's what I've seen so far of them (Wizards, that is) in combat:

They rock the house.

They're also, basically, blaster mages. Very similar to a Warmage with a fair bit more versatility - kind of how 3e designers assumed people would want to build their Wizards, and why (through omission of balance consideration rather than intentional design) Batman Wizards became the feared campaign-altering forces that we all now know of.

Of course, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Blaster mages are a perfectly valid archetype that is fun to play, and, as far as I can tell, pretty effective in 4e.

But here's the thing: this is just the first release of classes. The 8 in the PHB are most likely just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the full assortment of classes that 4e will release over its years of maturation. We already know that Psions are going to be taking a lot of the mind-control aspects of Wizarddom, which is one aspect of the Batman Wizard's shtick.

My conceit here is that there are going to be several mages released, each with a part of what once was the Batman Wizard in 3e. No one class will have the overarching hyper-versatility of those builds, and for good reason. There will be the mind-controlling Psion, the summoning Druid, the illusionist Beguiler (possibly). If I am correct in my surmises here, there will be many classes that out-"wizard" the 4e Wizard.

The last thing that I would like to mention is that, as I stated before, the 4e Wizard seems to me to be closer overall to a Warmage or Sorcerer play-feel than a Wizard play-feel in terms of how the character plays - perhaps WotC was too quick to name these fellows Wizards instead of Warmages or the like; I know that many have mentioned how they see little connection between these Wizards and the Wizards of 3e.

So, all in all, this isn't a call to arms, or any sort of passionate declaration. I'm just curious as to what others think.

[AstralFire]

I felt that was obvious. My guess: Illusion and Enchantment are lesser-focused on in PHB 1 largely because they are nebulous and easily game-breaking if not handled carefully, and they needed time to work those things out. Likely intended for Psions and Bards.

[Aron Times]

4E wizards still get to play Batman because they get extra spells (twice the number of daily and utility spells known) and free rituals. Also, cantrips rock. Yes, they can't do everything the 3.5 wizard can, but they're still Batman.

[JaxGaret]

I felt that was obvious.

Okay.

My guess: Illusion and Enchantment are lesser-focused on in PHB 1 largely because they are nebulous and easily game-breaking if not handled carefully, and they needed time to work those things out.

I absolutely agree that that may have factored into it, particularly since they have to integrate the online system completely into the game, so there's not much room for error.

Likely intended for Psions and Bards.

I actually think that Bards will be more along the lines of an Arcane Leader. Or am I wrong - has there been concrete info released as to what the 4e Bard's role will be?

[Morandir Nailo]

I couldn't agree more; in fact, I've already said as much in another thread. It seems to me that this was WotC's way of down-powering the Wizard: just break it up into a number of classes, each representing a different aspect of what 3e Wizards could do. So you'll have an AoE specialist (Wizard), a Necromancer (necrotic power), a Conjurer (Sorcerer?), a Mentalist (Psion), an Illusionist (shadow power?), etc. With multiclassing you'll be able to combine elements of two aspects, but that's all.

All in all I think it's a good idea. I don't know how it is with others, but most of the people I know who played Arcane casters played them as blasters; if they went with a different focus it was for flavor rather than optimizing. Looking back I think WotC was moving things in this direction anyway, with classes like the Dread Necro, Beguiler, and Warmage.

Mor

[Cuddly]

Interesting analysis. Your dispassionate assessment was wonderfully refreshing. Thank you!

[Daracaex]

If anyone has heard of Szatany's Ultimate classes, I find it very interesting how similar they are to 4e classes: A few class abilities granted to every member of a class, then a great deal of choice in the rest, the idea of breaking wizards into parts. I've heard some people go so far as to praise his classes as what classes should be in 4e. Interesting how that turned out.

[JaxGaret]

If anyone has heard of Szatany's Ultimate classes,

Of course. There was huge love for those classes on the Wiz forums. Since my usual gaming group isn't always accepting of homebrew that they don't personally create, it wasn't really an option for me and I never really looked into them more than cursorily. They did seem fine creations.

I find it very interesting how similar they are to 4e classes: A few class abilities granted to every member of a class, then a great deal of choice in the rest, the idea of breaking wizards into parts. I've heard some people go so far as to praise his classes as what classes should be in 4e. Interesting how that turned out.

Indeed. Quite interesting. *strokes beard*

[Tempest Fennac]

Do you think that there will be a Wizard variant which would specialise in buffs and utility spells, or would those things be covered by the other types of spellcaster?

[JaxGaret]

Do you think that there will be a Wizard variant which would specialise in buffs and utility spells, or would those things be covered by the other types of spellcaster?

Hard to speculate on something like that, but it seems that buffing is a Leader role more than a Controller role.

There may be some type of Arcane Leader that does specialize in buffing and utility spells. I imagine the Bard would be a good candidate for that.

[Tempest Fennac]

Thanks (you're probably right about the roles being important here).

[Behold_the_Void]

I like that they're dividing it up, that seems like a good balancing factor. The promise of new classes with these different power sources filling the various archetypes sounds good, and requiring a highly-specialized class for each role of arcane power is both a great balancing factor and great thematic element - spellcasters have great power but must devote themselves to a rather specific set of talents.

[SamTheCleric]

Don't forget... one of the upcoming power sources is Shadow. That's where you're gonna see a lot of your Illusions, I bet. The Shadow Controller... whatever that may be.

[Morty]

In other words, if I want to play an arcane spellcaster who isn't walking heavy artillery, I have to wait for supplements and buy them, and then reflavor this psion/shadowcaster/whatever. Not cool.

[JaxGaret]

In other words, if I want to play an arcane spellcaster who isn't walking heavy artillery, I have to wait for supplements and buy them, and then reflavor this psion/shadowcaster/whatever. Not cool.

Considering that even with just the current 4 class roles and 3 power sources, you have 12 different combinations of role/sources, and the PHB only has 8 classes, obviously not every archetype is going to be filled out right away, let alone getting to different types of the same role/source (the PHB has one, the Rogue & Ranger).

Your opinion on the matter is that you think the 4e PHB Wizard should have been less of a blaster and more of another type of primary arcanist is just that, an opinion. It's not inherently "cool" or "not cool" for them to choose the classes they chose for the PHB or to go wait for a splatbook. It is what it is.

Of course, let it be said that I am not pooh-poohing your opinion, either. I understand why you feel that way, but I also feel like you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. They were only going to be able to fit 8 classes in the PHB, and they couldn't please everyone all at once.

[Scintillatus]

Really, I think it's a good thing, because people will no longer think "Bard? BAH, why sing at monsters when you can use Disintegrate?" or "Psion? BAH, why bother with the Psionics system when you can use Gate?"

We've got more room for a greater and more interesting variety of class/role/power source/build/tactics options, rather than a greater and more interesting variety of Wizard builds.

[Grug]

Hmm, if the new Wizard isn't Batman, what would be the appropriate analogy? James Bond, perhaps? Able to hold up in a fire fight and has some nifty gadgets. Voldemort? Macgyver?

[JaxGaret]

Hmm, if the new Wizard isn't Batman, what would be the appropriate analogy? James Bond, perhaps? Able to hold up in a fire fight and has some nifty gadgets. Voldemort? Macgyver?

You can call me .... Tim?

[Solo]

Nonsense.

Tim is an enchanter.

[JaxGaret]

Nonsense.

Tim is an enchanter.

Sure. The 4e Wizard is an "enchanter" too. They "enchant" the fire and the lightning and the lambs and the sloths and the carp and the anchovies and the orangutans and the breakfast cereals and the fruit bats, and rain them down upon thine enemies.

[FoE]

But Magic: The Gathering already uses Tim!

If the 3E wizard was Batman, how about the 4E wizard be "Robin?"

[InaVegt]

I actually think the 4E wizard as james bond would be quite apt.

Much fireworks, check.
Gadgetlike abilities, check.

The only thing he doesn't have is special, high powered, vehicles, but there exist two magic items which, combined with a wizard's powers, will be able to take care of that.

[JaxGaret]

James Bond seems like more of a Striker-type to me

But other than that, yeah, the 4e Wizard is totally James Bond. Always getting himself into crazy situations, and always picking out just the right explosive for the occasion.

[Uncle Festy]

Very nice commentary.
For those of you pooh-poohing the wizard's lack of non-blasty stuff:
The original intention of the wizard was to be a blaster.
If the wizard had anything non-blasty, it couldn't have blaster spells if they want to avoid batman.
No blaster spells defeats the wizard's original intent and removes the only controller in the PHB. Not good.

perhaps WotC was too quick to name these fellows Wizards instead of Warmages or the like; I know that many have mentioned how they see little connection between these Wizards and the Wizards of 3e.

No. Just no.
Not because I don't like the idea of a Warmage, but they already have a Warlock and a Warlord. Another "War"x is the last thing we need.
Anyhoo, that's my 2CP.

[JaxGaret]

No. Just no.
Not because I don't like the idea of a Warmage, but they already have a Warlock and a Warlord. Another "War"x is the last thing we need.
Anyhoo, that's my 2CP.

I would suggest Battle Mage, but that's already a Paragon Path.

Thaumaturge would work.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Jax: You mentioned how there are 12 combos out of four roles and three power sources.

I'd like to correct you. Classes don't work like that.

See, as far as I know, most classes seem to work with a primary role or trait (Example: Defender for Fighter's and Paladins), and they have another, secondary trait that defines HOW they approach the primary role (Striker for Fighters, Leader for Paladins). D'you think that's correct? It seems to work like that, but I could be wrong.

[Starbuck_II]

Jax: You mentioned how there are 12 combos out of four roles and three power sources.

I'd like to correct you. Classes don't work like that.

See, as far as I know, most classes seem to work with a primary role or trait (Example: Defender for Fighter's and Paladins), and they have another, secondary trait that defines HOW they approach the primary role (Striker for Fighters, Leader for Paladins). D'you think that's correct? It seems to work like that, but I could be wrong.

Actually, Fighters have a little of all roles. All classes do.

Fighter: Something like 3/5th Defender, 1/5 striker, 1/10 Leader, 1/10th controller.
You think he is a secondary striker because that is the second highest amount. But he can slightly do others.

[JaxGaret]

Jax: You mentioned how there are 12 combos out of four roles and three power sources.

I'd like to correct you. Classes don't work like that.

See, as far as I know, most classes seem to work with a primary role or trait (Example: Defender for Fighter's and Paladins), and they have another, secondary trait that defines HOW they approach the primary role (Striker for Fighters, Leader for Paladins). D'you think that's correct? It seems to work like that, but I could be wrong.

Sure. Every class has a "primary secondary" role (except for the Rogue, whose secondary role seems to be Skillmonkey rather than one of the four combat roles).

If you include that, you up the variations to 36 in 4e core, since every source/role combination now has been expanded to source/role/2ndrole.

If you feel like getting into such detail, feel free to do so

[TheOOB]

I personally love how the wizard is designed. They are a controller, and controllers are weak defensively but how powerful offensive abilities, giving them the ability to attack groups of enemies at once and inhibit foes. It just so happens that the wizards primary method of control is by dishing out large sums of damage through various elemental mediums, which, considering that it is at the moment the first and only controller out there, being damaged based is to be expected.

Not that wizards don't have lots of utility. A great many of their good attack spells have some secondary effect to damage (many of which are better then the damage in the first place), and between rituals, utility spells, and cantrips they can do much of the things you'd expect wizards to do, turn invisible, teleport short distances, change their appearance, and so on. They just can't do as much as before(though they do gain 10 wizard utility spells over their career) which frankly is good for game balance, it lets the other classes do things.

Do I wish there was another controller in the main book giving me other options? Yes. Will I be disappointed if there isn't different styled controllers in the future(though they will always do damage, ever class does damage)? Yes. Over all though, this is a great start.

[Sir_Dr_D]

I like the 4E wizard. It matches wizards of literature better then 3E ones do. Spell casters are usually portrayed as casting spells through an implement (Even Dorukan in OOTS carries around a staff that is deisgned to make him look powerfull.) Needing to prepare ever single spell ahead of time, makes them sound boring and dull. Just being able to do magic like (they do in 4E), makes them sound more exciting, and powerfull. It makes them seem more like Gandalf, and less like some book nerd.

In literature, wizards usually aren't seen as controlling people minds either. I am glad they left that out. Magic that can control minds has a darker nature too it, and is done by beings such as witches. Leaving those spells away from wizards also makes the Psion sound more fun to play.

In general I am glad that the wizard is more speciifc. More variety in spells likely will come out for them as time goes on. Other spells are just harder to bslance so they are being more cautious of them.