In 3.5, spells were divided into two sources: arcane and divine. A core wizard could learn to cast pretty much any arcane spell. Some classes, like a bard, had the same spells (perhaps with a small list to choose from) and some spells might be a higher or lower spell level. Still other classes had a slower progression; spells a wizard could cast at 7th might take another class their entire progression to achieve.
There are few ways, using this system, to differentiate one caster from another.
In 4E, I'm hearing some people say that wizards won't be as versatile because previous schools like enchantments, illusions and necromancy are being 'reserved' for other classes. What exactly does this mean? Wizards can't cast these spells?
One change I've heard of is giving powers per day, per encounter and per round (at will). I think this will allow an incredible amount of variety in the development of new types of spellcasters while allowing traditional mages to remain versatile.
I'm only guessing here (thinking of how I would do things) but let's take a spell like charm person. Let's say a wizard gets to cast that spell once per day. Eventually they will get to cast it once per encounter and then at some point near the end of their career at will.
Now let's say you want to make a new class, like a bard. The bard starts out casting this spell once per encounter.
Another class, like a necromancer, might have to wait until further in their career before they can even cast charm person on a per day basis. However, they can summon undead per round much sooner before a wizard, and a bard might never be able to do that.
This design philosophy doesn't just apply to traditional wizard spells. A monk, for example, might be able to do a stunning fist like effect per encounter sooner than a paladin ever would.
Has there been any real word on whether a wizard just won't ever be able to cast certain spells (traditional enchantments, for example)? I'm reading a lot of comments saying that wizards are turning into 'evocation only' casters, and I'm wondering where this is coming from.
"Invocation/Evocation Specialist"
But what exactly does that mean?
In 3.5, a specialist has to give up spells. They will never be able to cast a large number of spells using that spellcasting class.
In 4E, a wizard might be able to cast invocation/evocation spells per encounter or even per round, but they can still cast other types of spells per day right?
"Invocation/Evocation Specialist"But what exactly does that mean?
From what I interpret from the info I have read, the core Wizard will have something like Magic Missile as a "per Round ability (likely reduced in power)," Fireball as a "per Encounter ability," and Meteor Swarm as a "per Day ability."
From there, they will be able to memorize a smaller amount of spells, and those seem to be limited to a similar line of spells. Blast type.
Now... There is likely some variations available. I suspect the flavour of your per <whatever> abilities will be decided by the equivalent of Talent Trees, with the more powerful abilities available higher up in the tree. (Example: You can't learn Summon Monster 4, until you have learned Summon Monster 3, etc.)
But this is purely speculation on my part.
From there, they will be able to memorize a smaller amount of spells, and those seem to be limited to a similar line of spells. Blast type.
That's what I'm trying to figure out.
In WoW, warlocks cannot cast wizard spells and vice versa (not that the spells are that different, but whatever).
Does anyone know if that's been mentiond or not? I didn't see it in the R&C book, but it seems like people are assuming that.
However, like you said once per day you get Meteor Swarm as an example. Could you instead cast something else that's lower level but from a different 'school' (no school, but what was a school), like charm person?
The only "school" of spells that a wizard has lost much or all access to is Enchantment. Thats it. Every other grouping of spells is still there, though some spells have been removed (namely save-or-die effects and polymorph).
If they release a book with specialist wizard types, then they are still going to need to roll out the evoker because the new wizard is pretty much like the old one, just with less access to Enchantment effects.
To clarify, Illusion was not mentioned as one that they were "losing access" to, and neither was Necromancy. What was said was that Necromancy spells were being nerfed and that the penalties were going to be more concentrated.
I like the idea of wizards being able to keep casting spells, even if they arent super powerful (ie, "the at-will spells will be weaker than a fighter's strikes"), at least they can do something. At low-levels, when a wizard burned all of his 3-4 spells within the first few encounters, it was either time to rest, or time to pull out a weapon that the wizard could only actually land a hit with in the rarest of occasions.
And as has been said during a playtest creation of a wizard: “I’ll take magic missile and fireblast for my at-will powers. Oh! Burning hands for an encounter power, and, let’s see, sleep for my daily.”
Hey look, sleep is in the mix. Guess the wizard isnt losing ALL Enchantment spells.
My theory on how spellcasting will work is that you will browse your spellbook for x period of time (could be 15 minutes, could be an hour, could be more) and after that time of study, you fill your at-will, per-encounter, and per-day slots. The only spells that will function anywhere close to prior editions will be the per-day ones (since Wizards said that Vancian magic is mostly gone).
At any given time if you can catch a breather, you can browse your spellbook again and juggle your slots, except for the per-day stuff that you burned. This is like how martial adepts function in Book of Nine Swords, so thats my take on it, anyway.
Now, another design philosophy is to try and differentiate classes in more than just a name. The sorcerer will be able to cast spells that a wizard can, to a degree, but in a different way, and likely have different effects. One thing that was mentioned is that sorcerer magic will be more difficult for them to control, thematically, and that magic will linger around them whenever they cast.
Sounds much better than taking the name wizard, swapping it to sorcerer, stripping away what meager class features the wizard had, and calling it a day.
Using Talent trees I think will make things easier and better when it comes to making original content. Instead of having to build a class from the ground up, you can just add a Talent tree to it. They also make character builds more flexible, and reduce the overall number of classes. Instead of having the ranger and scout, you can have Talent trees that emphasize both character types, allowing you to move your character in one way or another.
You dont NEED to have the "spell-less ranger" variant, because you just dont use that Talent tree. You dont need to have the scout class, because you can just go down the Skirmisher Talent tree.
|
It seems to me that some spells are better suited to count as 'rites' or 'rituals' that are used out of combat.
Cure Light Wounds or Spiritual Weapon or Delay Poison are pretty much required as combat-castable spells, but Create Sustenance or Remove Disease or Lesser Restoration are perfectly suitable to require some minutes-long ritual effect after the round-by-round action has been resolved.
For Wizards, spells like Magic Missile would be necessary as 'fast-casting' spells, while something like Identify already takes a ridiculous amount of time to cast (in combat-round terms), and could be made a 'ritual' that the wizard wouldn't have to prepare or even think about, it's just something he's learned to do, and will be able to do 'out of combat.'
Using Talent trees I think will make things easier and better when it comes to making original content. Instead of having to build a class from the ground up, you can just add a Talent tree to it. They also make character builds more flexible, and reduce the overall number of classes. Instead of having the ranger and scout, you can have Talent trees that emphasize both character types, allowing you to move your character in one way or another.
You dont NEED to have the "spell-less ranger" variant, because you just dont use that Talent tree. You dont need to have the scout class, because you can just go down the Skirmisher Talent tree.
If this is the way they are trending, I'd be quite happy. They've, IMO, done a less-than-stellar job of making it sound like this is the route they are going, 'though.
Your description of how Talent Trees could be used is a heck of a lot more appealing than what I've seen from the development team at ENWorld (and happens to precisely fit what I'd like to see, less core classes and Prestige Classes built around one 'gimmick' (like Rage, or Improved Unarmed Strike) with *more* options for what sort of class abilities that the core 'Fighter' class can specialize into and what sort of roles that class can fill).
"Invocation/Evocation Specialist"But what exactly does that mean?From what I interpret from the info I have read, the core Wizard will have something like Magic Missile as a "per Round ability (likely reduced in power)," Fireball as a "per Encounter ability," and Meteor Swarm as a "per Day ability."
From there, they will be able to memorize a smaller amount of spells, and those seem to be limited to a similar line of spells. Blast type.
Now... There is likely some variations available. I suspect the flavour of your per <whatever> abilities will be decided by the equivalent of Talent Trees, with the more powerful abilities available higher up in the tree. (Example: You can't learn Summon Monster 4, until you have learned Summon Monster 3, etc.)
But this is purely speculation on my part.
Actually, summoning magic wont be in the initial release, but will make it in later.
Also, there is no reason to believe that wizards will have anymore reduced utility than they do now.
|
|
Also, there is no reason to believe that wizards will have anymore reduced utility than they do now.
Other than specific developer quotes indicating that wizards, and all other classes, will be specialized to occupy specific 'roles' in a party, and not be able to fill *any* role (damage dealer, battlefield controller, party support, etc), like the traditional 'jack-of-all-trades' generalist wizard in 2nd or 3rd edition.
That kinda suggests to me that the people designing the game believe that the wizard will be less generally useful and more tightly focused towards a specific party role.
It seems to me that some spells are better suited to count as 'rites' or 'rituals' that are used out of combat.
Cure Light Wounds or Spiritual Weapon or Delay Poison are pretty much required as combat-castable spells, but Create Sustenance or Remove Disease or Lesser Restoration are perfectly suitable to require some minutes-long ritual effect after the round-by-round action has been resolved.
For Wizards, spells like Magic Missile would be necessary as 'fast-casting' spells, while something like Identify already takes a ridiculous amount of time to cast (in combat-round terms), and could be made a 'ritual' that the wizard wouldn't have to prepare or even think about, it's just something he's learned to do, and will be able to do 'out of combat.'
I think that they are going to change identify around. It was only kept at the 8 hour casting time because "thats how it worked in 2nd Edition", which is a pretty lame design philosophy. I dont really care for some of the "sacred cows" and am glad they are trying to make the game more fun.
I dont think that they are destroying the soul of D&D, or whatever, by doing so, either. Many of those "sacred cows" lead to continual problems in 3rd Edition (polymorph). By keeping the core idea of D&D (heroic fantasy), they can hopefully build a more functional game without all the abuse.
Take the ogre mage, for example. Its a big mess of wierd abilities that dont really fit its CR ranking. I've seen them mess with its stats and propose a new ogre mage that was much more functional.
It seems to me that some spells are better suited to count as 'rites' or 'rituals' that are used out of combat.
Cure Light Wounds or Spiritual Weapon or Delay Poison are pretty much required as combat-castable spells, but Create Sustenance or Remove Disease or Lesser Restoration are perfectly suitable to require some minutes-long ritual effect after the round-by-round action has been resolved.
For Wizards, spells like Magic Missile would be necessary as 'fast-casting' spells, while something like Identify already takes a ridiculous amount of time to cast (in combat-round terms), and could be made a 'ritual' that the wizard wouldn't have to prepare or even think about, it's just something he's learned to do, and will be able to do 'out of combat.'
Using Talent trees I think will make things easier and better when it comes to making original content. Instead of having to build a class from the ground up, you can just add a Talent tree to it. They also make character builds more flexible, and reduce the overall number of classes. Instead of having the ranger and scout, you can have Talent trees that emphasize both character types, allowing you to move your character in one way or another.
You dont NEED to have the "spell-less ranger" variant, because you just dont use that Talent tree. You dont need to have the scout class, because you can just go down the Skirmisher Talent tree.
If this is the way they are trending, I'd be quite happy. They've, IMO, done a less-than-stellar job of making it sound like this is the route they are going, 'though.
Your description of how Talent Trees could be used is a heck of a lot more appealing than what I've seen from the development team at ENWorld (and happens to precisely fit what I'd like to see, less core classes and Prestige Classes built around one 'gimmick' (like Rage, or Improved Unarmed Strike) with *more* options for what sort of class abilities that the core 'Fighter' class can specialize into and what sort of roles that...
Well, they are also yanking prestige classes out of the game. Instead there will be paragon paths and epic destinies that only add more features to your existing class.
This means that now we might see full-classed characters instead of wizards prestiging out asap along with fighters, sorcerers, and other classes that have no incentive to stick it out.Multiclassing will still exist, and as David Noonan has said "any combination, any level, always works". If I want to play a wizard who is competent in melee, I can actually try to pull it off now instead of waiting until like, 8th-level.
Feats wont have classes as a prerequisite, but some feats that were honestly just class features incognito (such as Weapon Specialization) might become Talents instead (Weapon Specialization is a soldier Talent under the Weapon Talent tree in Saga Edition).
They might have level as a prerequisite, or race or require you to have a Trained skill, but no longer are "class-only". I'm kind of glad that they are removing stuff like BAB and base-save requirements: those just translated into "we dont want you to get it until x level" anyway, and since every class has the same progression now, we wont get those wierd BAB totals and ridiculous base saves that some class combos can have (I've seen a player go fighter/ranger/paladin before, and he ended up with a BASE Fort save of +9 at 6th-level, I think his total was around +12 or +13).
Also, I'm not a Wizards employee or anything like that. I'm just illustrating what I think is cool, and that there is probably more good stuff in 4E than many posters are willing to admit.