Dragon just put up a class acts article detailing a whole whack of illusion type spells to add to the wizard options. There's some neat stuff in there. I haven't read through it too much yet, but at first glance I like the Phantom Chasm and Maze of Mirrors spells. I look forward to more of these options. Maybe some necromancy next, or conjuration or enchantment.
The exception based design style they've incorporated is definitely different from what some of us are used to but I think it has a lot of potential. Once some of the not-so-optional splat books start coming out I expect a wealth of interesting material to become available.
They just need to make sure that it's balanced with the PHB 1 material. If they lose sight of that goal, things will take a downward turn fast.
As for the articles on Dragon and Dungeon, I agree. They've been a lot more interesting and useful than I expected. It's one of the few things they've done right. Now they just have to follow through with the GSL and the DnDInsider electronic tools.
I really like these powers too. My only problem is that I can't figure out what is the duration of the phantasmal terrain utility power. I'm assuming it was cut by accident; hopefully, they can add it to the .pdf file later.
I really like these powers too. My only problem is that I can't figure out what is the duration of the phantasmal terrain utility power. I'm assuming it was cut by accident; hopefully, they can add it to the .pdf file later.
I'm guessing its Sustain minor. That is how I'll be playing it anyways until I see otherwise.
The class acts clearly display the flexibility of the new system. Now, it is certainly quite easy to create a class with the flavor you like. Nevertheless, I would have prefered to see the Illusionist as a distance class based on shadow power.
I didn't quite grasp one power though. The spectral hound (I think that was the name) does not seem to explain how the illusion reacts with interaction. The illusory wall is just a wall and I cannot pass through it even if I interact with it but the hound if I choose to attack it should either show that I cannot kill it or else I should negate the effect the magic has on me.
|
I actually had a "meh" reaction to it. In my view, it shows one of the distinct holes in 4E: That most powers are the same mechanically equivalent except for flavor text:
Illusory Ambush - Wizard Attack 1
You create an illusion of swirling spectral assailants that swarm over your enemy.
At-Will * Arcane, Illusion, Implement
Standard Action Ranged 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Intelligence vs. Will
Hit: 1d6 + Intelligence modifier psychic damage, and the target takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls until the end of your next turn.
Increase damage to 2d6 + Intelligence modifier at 21st level.
VS
Ray of Frost - Wizard Attack 1
A blisteringly cold ray of white frost streaks to your target.
At-Will * Arcane, Cold, Implement
Standard Action Ranged 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Intelligence vs. Fortitude
Hit: 1d6 + Intelligence modifier cold damage, and the target is slowed until the end of your next turn.
The differences being
1) damage type (Psychic vs. Cold)
2) defense target (will vs fortitude) which IMO is based on damage type (Cold attacks Fortitude. Fire, Acid, Force attacks Reflex. Psychic attacks Will, etc)
3) some minor "bonus, such as "Slowed" or the -2 penalty.
So let me see if I can get a nice "Necromancer" power:
Lifetap - Necromancer Attack 1
A necrotic ray of black death streaks to your target, drawing out its life force and aiding an ally with its power.
At-Will * Arcane, Necrotic, Implement
Standard Action Ranged 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Intelligence vs. Fortitude
Hit: 1d6 + Intelligence modifier necrotic damage, and you or one ally you can see gains temporary hit points equal to your Charisma modifier + one-half your level.
(In my view, Necromancers are leaders...)
Now, I can see this as a "good thing" from the standpoint of design. DMs love this. I love it. But as a player I feel a bit cheated. It brings new meaning to the over-used phrase "filed off the serial numbers..." and I predict that once we've all actually played our first character and start playing a new character it will start to come home...especially if the second character is in the same "role" (leader, controller, striker, defender).
|
|
...Would the Powers look more distinct if they were presented as Effect + Damage rather than Damage + Effect?
Nope. Thats my point entirely. The ONLY variation is in the effect, and there are very few effects. I don't have the DMG in front of me, but basically there is a table in there stating how much damage a power should do for any given level. This is the "Power curve" you need to stay on to remain balanced. Fine. But (in the case of wizards particularly and this article specifically) the fun of spellcasting has always been in the effects. Many spells such as entangle, essentially introduced a mini-mechanic on casting. There is no general mechanic for entanglement, only the spell description. This is both unwieldy (each spell has a different mechanic? ugh) and interesting (oooh...each spell has a different mechanic!)
3rd edition also had this problem in some respects...a lot of the later splatbook spells were in this category. But in this case there was 30+ years of D&D history...making new spells is pretty hard at that point.
The conditions page in the PHB (DMG?); the slide, pull, push, movement rules; healing; and the damage types are your "parameter" space for making interesting spells.
Damage types are largely irrelevant (or at least minor), and healing is reserved for leader roles primarily, that leaves the conditions and movement. Basically about 20 different interesting effect. (i'm including things like +2 or -2 to attacks but excluding damage types)
You can vary other parameters, like how far you can slide a creature, but thats largely a function of power level and not necessarily something "different" or interesting...
Granted, I'm not saying there aren't a lot of options. There are. But the parameter space is fairly well covered in the PHB I and there are very few "combinations" that aren't already expressed. The point being there are very few "interesting" ways to express things, like an illusionist.
My example above for a necromancer power is basically a cleric healing power with the "serial numbers filed off". I think any "new" classes you see are going to have the same sort of "serial number filing" from the base classes.
Nope. Thats my point entirely. The ONLY variation is in the effect, and there are very few effects. I don't have the DMG in front of me, but basically there is a table in there stating how much damage a power should do for any given level. This is the "Power curve" you need to stay on to remain balanced. Fine. But (in the case of wizards particularly and this article specifically) the fun of spellcasting has always been in the effects. Many spells such as entangle, essentially introduced a mini-mechanic on casting. There is no general mechanic for entanglement, only the spell description. This is both unwieldy (each spell has a different mechanic? ugh) and interesting (oooh...each spell has a different mechanic!)
3rd edition also had this problem in some respects...a lot of the later splatbook spells were in this category. But in this case there was 30+ years of D&D history...making new spells is pretty hard at that point.
The conditions page in the PHB (DMG?); the slide, pull, push, movement rules; healing; and the damage types are your "parameter" space for making interesting spells.
Damage types are largely irrelevant (or at least minor), and healing is reserved for leader roles primarily, that leaves the conditions and movement. Basically about 20 different interesting effect. (i'm including things like +2 or -2 to attacks but excluding damage types)
You can vary other parameters, like how far you can slide a creature, but thats largely a function of power level and not necessarily something "different" or interesting...
Granted, I'm not saying there aren't a lot of options. There are. But the parameter space is fairly well covered in the PHB I and there are very few "combinations" that aren't already expressed. The point being there are very few "interesting" ways to express things, like an illusionist.
My example above for a necromancer power is basically...
Good post Stedd, and a well stated point. Obviously we won't really know how much foresight you have re: this matter until further books come out, but as a counterpoint, I'd point to some of the dev statements made re: the lack of charm/enchantment type spells for the Wizard.
Essentially, devs said they culled many charm/enchantment affects from the Wizard's powers to give to the Psion later on (possibly the T, as in Telepath, from the PHB II?) in order to prevent this sense of "serial filing" as you say.
Here's hoping they pull it off! :)
Yup, can't wait to see the telepath. I hated running psionic NPC's in dark sun as a DM. It was pretty much "Make a Will save", "Oh, you succeeded?" Bam bam bam, psion dead by next round.
It will be interesting to see how they handle that.
|
|
Here's hoping they pull it off! :)
Amen, brother.
I'd like to also point out that my intent is bring awareness to this "issue". (It remains to be seen if it is an issue...further books will either prove me wrong or right). The goal here is that if there is enough awareness, and enough people "see the wizard behind the curtain" there will be some attempt at wizards to expand the parameter space reasonably rather than haphazardly via house-rules, 3rd party, etc.
I think the illusion rules are pretty good actually. The illusory wall is great for hiding your nefarious illusionist until somebody bumps up against it.
The illusion spells can be passed off as monster on their own by a creative DM. You could use the hound, plus the attack spells to essentially make the hound "attack" the pc's.