Old wizard spells do not appear in the essential have no school keywords. Some of them, such as Scorching Burst,Ray of Enfeeblement,Evard's Black Tentacles. If we give them Evocation,Necromancy and Nethermancy keywords,I think it will be more interesting and match tradition.
I would expect that when the Class Compendium: Arcanist article goes up in either June or July (forget which), all of the Wizard spells from the PHB which were not reprinted in Heroes of the Fallen Lands will pick up a School designation if they do not already have one (for example, Conjurations and Summons already have the keywords they need).
Be patient, young Grasshopper.
So far the Mage has been the darling of Essentials+, so they'll probably get some more (rather, better) toys from the Arcanist update.
I'd be mildly surprised if we don't see Mage-school keywords in the Wizard's spell list. It's also been all be said outright that their Encounter powers will be upgraded across the board. What's up for nerfing? I can't imagine. Implement Expertise, perhaps? Rituals? Any remaining obviously problematic spells, /maybe/.
So far the Mage has been the darling of Essentials+, so they'll probably get some more (rather, better) toys from the Arcanist update.
What I'm hoping is that Magic Missle becomes a Cantrip, and that Arcanists select four Cantrips from the list (so that Wizards can make use of the new Cantrips published in HotFL and HoS) instead of automatically getting Light, Ghost Sound, Mage Hand and Presdigititation.
One would think that the magi will not see the same sized nerf bat that the cleric recieved. Magi seems to me MMs pet class.
That would be the Warlord. Maybe with wizard a close second.
Which would bring us closer to wizards rule; fighters drool. Which seems to be MMs goal with 4.5.
How so?
It is exactly the same situation that already exists with the Mage. Mage gets Magic Missle for free, and then selects three Cantrips from the list of all available.
Were a Wizard able to select Magic Missle as a Cantrip, out of four possible selections, then he would have Magic Missle plus three other Cantrips selected from the list of all available. Just like the Mage.
Part of the problem with "Wizards rule; Fighters drool" was that Fighters became meaningless at higher levels. The fact that the Fighter is just as important to the success of the party as the Wizard at level 1 and at level 30 and all levels in between means we aren't even close to "WR; FD" yet.
Not that you will evert be convinced by anything I have to say (we have been at loggerheads too long for me to think that we can ever agree when it comes to game balance and design), but maybe someone else could be.
The issue is more that Slayers and Knights are a BORE to some people, due to few real choices and MBA-spamming (albeit, they like to empower their MBAs with fighter stances and power strike exploits). But really, one of the things I've noticed when I play D&D is how difficult it is to keep track of everything I can possibly do. Both Psionics and the Essentials+ design paradigms limit the amount of "stuff I can do each round" while still keeping the power rather equal, and thus allows me to focus on doing what I do, rather than being bogged down in both character creation and combat by option-paralysis.
That all said; the idea of magic missile becoming a cantrip intrigues me. It WOULD make Cantrips and MM work the same way between the two; and I REALLY want WotC to open up choice to Cantrips, since instead of the 4 we started with, we now have 7 (and if MM was a cantrip, we'd have 8). At the same time, this sort of goes against the idea of what a cantrip is and should be. Then again, disrupt undead, while a cantrip, sort of goes against the cantrip philosophy of being mainly useful out-of-combat. It sort of takes up a cantrip slot, while being necessary for Necromancers and Nethermancers and Wizard that deals necrotic damage. But all Cantrips are utilities, not attacks, and MM is an attack. And that's where I would call issue.
The thing is, there are only 2 things that Arcanists have over Mages: an extra cantrip (at the cost of an extra at-will attack power) and Ritual Casting with bonus rituals as they level. I guess the bonus rituals are supposed to balance against the lack of encounter powers in the Spellbook, and the extra cantrip vs. the free magic missile. But I really don't see why anybody would take the School of Magic class feature feats to trade their Arcane Implement Mastery for a Mage School. 3 feats for an equivalent class feature is a bit much. Then again, free rituals are tasty when you're short on funds due to magic items. Money is ALWAYS an issue, especially when you don't get free ritual casting 1/day like with the Bard, Artificer, or Alchemist (well, Alchemist get's free alchemy 1/encounter, but you get the point).
It's the "yet" that bothers me because I can see the way things are going. Still not happy with the design this last year. It brings up way to many not very fond memories of older editions.
I can see why you might feel that way. By the end of 3.x, I was getting pretty frustrated with the system, and hungry for something new (and, when 3.0 came out, I thought it was the bee's knees compared to 2nd Edition). 4E was a breath of fresh air for me. I felt that D&D had finally grown up and established an identity for itself beyond its father, Gygax's shadow. They still shared some genetics (AC, HP, classes, etc.), but it felt new and fresh because it really encouraged team play and cooperative gaming, something at which, I feel, 3.x failed miserably.
One thing that impresses me with the current design, and the reason I am not worried about the game turning into "WR; FD," is that even the simpler subclasses seem to retain their releveance at higher levels. I can say this with absolute certainty up to the end of Paragon, and I will soon be able to report on their success in Epic.
In early / mid Paragon, Heroes of the Fallen Lands came out. My player who had been playing a Fighter asked if he could retcon into a Knight. I allowed it. Even with far fewer options, he continues to be just as effective a Defender as he was before (and he was and is very effective). He seems to be having just as much, if not more, fun. They are just about to hit level 20 (after or during the next session), and level 21 is just about five sessions away.
Having played the Slayer myself, and seen the Knight, Slayer and Scout played by others at my table, I'm of the opinion that these classes don't really come into their own until 7th level when rider effects get added to Power Strike. This feeling may get modified somewhat by Feat selection, but all races and classes are not equal when it comes to quality of Feat choices. In general, though, these classes aren't tactically rich enough to interest me until then. Other people enjoy them, so who am I to begrudge them. However, the fact that these new classes, even with greatly simplified mechanics, can compete with far more complex classes and mechanics but still not fall behind the curve says a lot to me about the validity of the new design. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I prefer more complex classes myself, with my favorites being any build of Warlord, Brawler Fighter, Rogue and Monk. Of the new subclasses, I dig the Hexblade and Hunter. The Warpriest is growing on me as more Domains are added to the mix. The Thief and their movement Tricks seem fun (makes it feel like a Hybrid Rogue / Monk to me) and I really want to play an Executioner and / or Blackguard.
One of the things I've noticed is your far more articulate than I tend to be.
I don't think this is necessarily true. I think the difference is that you probably post faster than I do. I reread what I wrote once before I hit preview. Then I preview it and read it again. This gives me the chance to pick up on a few spelling errors and grammatical mistakes. It also allows me to modify my tone.
If something got my goat, I usually try to walk away from my computer for 30 seconds before I come back and preview my post. In this way, I try to avoid posting in anger something I will regret later.
You are a passionate D&D player and it seems like you would be a fun person to play with (at least, based on your posts). At the end of the day, that matters more to me than any disagreements we may have over whether we are currently in "4.5" or not.
Martial
A: fighter,ranger,rogue,warlord
Arcan
A: wizard
B: warlock,bard,artificer,swordmage
D: sorcerer
Divine
A: invoker,paladin
B: cleric,avenger,
C: runepriest
Martial rule; Arcan drool
Fighter is a very powerful class in 4E...
The phb1 fighter isn't the issue. It also isn't a power issue. It's about the wizard going back to someone who has the widest array of options available to anyone, while the essentials fighters are pushed back to being one-trick ponies.
One would think that the magi will not see the same sized nerf bat that the cleric recieved. Magi seems to me MMs pet class.
That would be the Warlord. Maybe with wizard a close second.
There hasn't been so much as a glimpse of the Warlord in Essentials+, so far. Even the Marshall doesn't have the Essentials icon and isn't Encounters-legal. The Mage, OTOH, has gotten new toys in HotFL, Dragon, and HoS, and will doubtless get more in the Feywild book and whatever else is coming down the line.
The Fighter and Warlord didn't get nerfed much, but I wonder if that's not just because they're comparatively popular classes. The Cleric is iconically one of the least-popular classes, and even nerfing it raised heck. I think the plan is to keep heaping love on the Mage and just leave the Warlord out of it.
One would think that the magi will not see the same sized nerf bat that the cleric recieved. Magi seems to me MMs pet class.
That would be the Warlord. Maybe with wizard a close second.
There hasn't been so much as a glimpse of the Warlord in Essentials+, so far. Even the Marshall doesn't have the Essentials icon and isn't Encounters-legal. The Mage, OTOH, has gotten new toys in HotFL, Dragon, and HoS, and will doubtless get more in the Feywild book and whatever else is coming down the line.
The Fighter and Warlord didn't get nerfed much, but I wonder if that's not just because they're comparatively popular classes. The Cleric is iconically one of the least-popular classes, and even nerfing it raised heck. I think the plan is to keep heaping love on the Mage and just leave the Warlord out of it.
Actually, the Warlord was MENTIONED in Heroes of Shadow; evidence that Essentials+ is counting Class Compendium as legit and part of the story. I say mentioned – it was given as one of the favoured classes for the Vryloka race. And I also don't mean to say that things like Bards or Sorcerers aren't legit or part of the story of 4e any more; simply that since Player's Essentials, they have only been mentioning classes and races in flavour text that have been released in Essentials+ material (Player's Essentials, Class Compendium, Heroes of Shadow, and presumably will continue with Heroes of the Feywild and Elemental Heroes).
HoS actually makes references to a couple of pre-essentials stuff, like Unarmored Agility.
The role system in 4E ensures that there's simply no such thing as a best class. In play, a wizard has it's uses and a fighter it's uses.
Now traditionally, Wizard has always been an advanced class for the thoughtfu player who WANTS an a**-ton of options and variations and Fighter has always been an introductory class with a bread-and-butter approach. Essentials returns to that dynamic in a refreshing sense: I can give a new player (I'm up to 9 now, and apparently they all like their personal stories. Dunno how I do it.) a Knight and say "just hit the monsters with your sword, and stand between the other people and the ogre and you'll be fine" and it turns out just like that. On the other angle, a more experienced player who wants the down to earth feel of a common man with a skill for swordplay can get what he wants out of a slayer, no bells and whistles, just armor, axe, and goblin gore.
For my advanced players, or the ones who delight in the wierdness of fantasy, Wizard is a great class. It has easy and early access to the strange, the arcane, and the forbidden. My evil mage girl is now considering getting rid of a curse magic item by using her arcane lore to split her soul in half and discard the soul-half bound to the magic item. (mechanically, I will turn her into a Shade when she finishes her rituals and research)
The typical fighter player, in my experience, does not want to spend time contemplating the arcane mysteries and just wants something in a rules set that will let him simply bash enemies and lift heavy doors, (ranging from Gimlis to Obierres) while the wizard player sees her role as the explorer of the strange and as such she wants the wierd and varied options (Ranging from Gandalfs to Deedlits). Wizard's decision to give us back the School system gives those players the deep mythos that they want.
In the earlier editions, the strangeness of the Wizards "tactical" power to light people on fire with a thought was traded for the Fighter's sameness with the common folk. A wizard CANNOT hope to become the ruler of any kind of common folk. They'd be convinced they were thralls of witches. A great warrior however could achieve such temporal power. In 4E this is no longe rthe case, both are tactically dangerous rihgt up to 20 (haven't gone past yet).
In this sense, I agree with the comment that D&D has outgrown Gygax, yet retains it's genetic heritage, not simply in the mechanical sense however, but thematically.
"unsopported" is a word I've been seeing a lot of lately. It smacks of a WoW player convert who still expects the company to do all the work of development for them. If the GM and players are not generating house rules, they're doing it wrong. The feel of any particular game should always always always be tailored to the desire for awesome of the participants, and this is why I orbid the use of character builder with my players: the damned machine makes no room for improvisation.
I've decided to ascribe this notion of "homebrew" or "unsupported" to a lack of creativity founded in an electronic background. The words themselves are loaned from the MMO and video game culture, and come with the disgusting idea that only professional game developers are qualified to be creative. Most saddening, these are elements of the community. Yes, the rules do not carefully spell out how to have your fighter jump onto the dragon's head and aim for the brain or how your wizard can turn to mist and slide into the monsters throat to cast a lightning bolt into it's heart directly, but these shouldn't be reasons for why those things don't happen.
I advocate examining classes and the game in general outside of the limiting scope of the combat vacuum. I know that the rules largely focus on this aspect of play, but it's important to keep in mind that they're really more like guidelines, and a rule is only binding if it helps to tell the story you are evolving in a way that you like.
The typical fighter player, in my experience,
sounds like 1970s prejudices of fighters being the idiot class... have fun with that.