Does anyone truly like any 4e arcane class other than wizard?

54 posts / 0 new
Last post
I understand that there is the occasional Warlock, but I rarely see someone play a arcane class other than the Wizard. Is it because the other arcane classes just aren't as useful? Or is it some other reason? I don't necessarily think they aren't useful but the wizards is obviously better with out of combat scenarios. Especially with wizard utilities. I've never seen a sorcerer or warlock spell be useful out of combat. Does anyone else notice this.

PS I play a Epic lvl fighter so excuse my ignorance when it comes to arcane classes. 

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

Games I Play:

 

D&D 4e - D&D 3.0  - Pathfinder - AD&D 2e - Call of Cthulhu - Legend of the Five Rings - 13th Age - World of Darkness - PTU - D&D B/X

ive played, dmed for, and loved them all, so i dont really have the same experience
I've seen every arcane class in play at my table. I can't say I've seen the Wizard corner the market on out-of-combat utility or mass appeal. Personally speaking, my favorite arcane class would probably be the Sorcerer for flavor reasons, with Swordmage at a close second.
My Sig
Reality is but the sum total of all illusions. Proud Hand of Karsus, now and forever Mess with one Hand, mess with 'em all I am Blue/Green
I am Blue/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
"just do what LM the lord of magical might does, and you'll be fine" - sfdragon, 10/12/09
Board Snippets
147048523 wrote:
"I don't like X, they should remove it." "I like X, they should keep it." "They should replace X with Y." "Anybody that likes X is dumb. Y is better." "Why don't they include both X and Y." "Yeah, everybody can be happy then!" "But I don't like X, they should remove it." "X really needs to be replaced with Y." "But they can include both X and Y." "But I don't like X, they need to remove it." "Remove X, I don't like it." Repeat. Obstinance?
56790678 wrote:
Until you've had an in-law tell you your choice of game was stupid, and just Warcraft on paper, and dumbed down for dumber players who can't handle a real RPG, you haven't lived. You haven't lived.
56902498 wrote:
Lady and gentlemen.... I present to you the Edition War without Contrition, the War of the Web, the Mighty Match-up! We're using standard edition war rules. No posts of substance. Do not read the other person's posts with comprehension. Make frequent comparison to video games, MMOs, and CCGs. Use the words "fallacy" and "straw man", incorrectly and often. Passive aggressiveness gets you extra points and asking misleading and inflammatory questions is mandatory. If you're getting tired, just declare victory and leave the thread. Wait for the buzzer... and.... One, two, three, four, I declare Edition War Five, six, seven eight, I use the web to Go!
57062508 wrote:
D&D should not return to the days of blindfolding the DM and players. No tips on encounter power? No mention of expected party roles? No true meaning of level due to different level charts or tiered classes? Please, let's not sacrifice clear, helpful rules guidelines in favour of catering to the delicate sensibilities of the few who have problems with the ascetics of anything other than what they are familiar with.
56760448 wrote:
Just a quick note on the MMORPG as an insult comparison... MMORPGs, raking in money by the dumptruck full. Many options, tons of fans across many audiences, massive resources allocated to development. TTRPGs, dying product. Squeaking out an existence that relys on low cost. Fans fit primarily into a few small demographics. R&D budgets small, often rushed to market and patched after deployment. You're not really making much of an argument when you compare something to a MMORPG and assume people think that means bad. Lets face it, they make the money, have the audience and the budget. We here on this board are fans of TTRPGs but lets not try to pretend none of us play MMORPGs.
90571711 wrote:
Adding options at the system level is good. Adding options at the table level is hard. Removing options at the system level is bad. Removing options at the table level is easy. This is not complicated.
57333888 wrote:
112760109 wrote:
56902838 wrote:
Something like Tactical Shift is more magical than martial healing.
Telling someone to move over a few feet is magical now? :| I weep for this generation.
Given the laziness and morbid obsesity amongst D&Ders, being able to convince someone to get on their feet, do some heavy exercise, and use their words to make them be healthier must seem magical.
158710691 wrote:
D&D definitely improves mental health; Just as long as you stay away from these forums ;)
I loves me some Artificer.

I think part of the issue is that the Wizard is probably the overall best controller, whereas the arcane classes in the other roles are often overshadowed; while they aren't necessarily BAD, there's usually a better option from either the efficiency or ease of play front.  I mean, the Sorcerer isn't a BAD striker, but nobody compares to the Ranger.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I really love the warlock. The only one that doesn't get much love from me is the artificer.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
I have seen ample of warlocks and bards. Artificers and swordmages are rarer, but personally I have fun with my swordmage (it is challenging to make it effective, but that is half the fun).
Running and playing LFR games for our Local Gaming Store, I have seen all arcane classes played and used pretty nicely.

I think were it comes in is the glut of classes out there.  People want to keep trying new classes and so the older ones kind of go to the side. 
I loves me some Artificer.



I second this motion.
Artificiers, Bards, Swordmages, Sorcerors and Locks oh my...  

Wizards have cantrips certainly a fun  but cant imagine focusing on just one.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I have a Swordmage, an Illusionist, a Warlock, and an Artificer in my current batch of players and they seem to be doing quite well and having a good ol' time with it. It may just be that, in your area/play group there is little interest beyond the classic Wizard.
Just a few onions short of a patch.
For me it is the opposite.

As a Player I like just about all of the arcane classes except the wizard (I have never liked having to be an accountant when I play.).
As a DM, I have no preferences or objections to any of the classes. The player plays, and I DM.
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
I didnt see anyone play a wizard till last year. That said, Wizards have gotten more love than any arcane class since essentials by far, so its possible thats why alot of people are playing them lately.
One of my favorite characters is a plaguescarred elemental and a warlock/sorcerer hybrid.  He's complicated but awesome, and he's got a whole lot of cool magic and not a hint of wizard.

My friend plays a bard in every game.  I can't stand playing them myself, but I always like having his at the table.

I will say, though, that I find the artificer to be nothing but awful.  And swordmages are just okay.
I've played a Bard and a Warlock and I liked both of them equally. I've thought about rolling a Bladesinger as of late, but nowhere to play him =/
I've played a Bard and a Warlock and I liked both of them equally. I've thought about rolling a Bladesinger as of late, but nowhere to play him =/


people diss the bladesinger, but i have an eladrin bladesinger mutliclassed swordmage that is a bad bad girl
Funny, from what I've seen the Wizard is rare

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg)

Funny, from what I've seen the Wizard is rare

I dunno.  There were two in our last campaign.
i have a secret confession. ive built some witches, in secret. several levels of the same witch, named "brunhilda"
I honestly enjoy every arcane class but the wizard. As someone else said, I don't want my turns to take 20 minutes to count up math. That isn't fun for me. Also, all of the Essentials variations on the Wizard have put me off as well. Especially the Bladesinger (witch and mage aren't bad, though).

But my favorite are Bard, Swordmage, and Artificer, in no particular order. Swordmage or Swordmage/Warlock is probably my favorite build in 4e.
I actually starting reading about the Artificer and it is pretty cool. I don't have the Ebberon books so I didn't really know much about it. But I think it may be a little better than the wizard too.

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

Games I Play:

 

D&D 4e - D&D 3.0  - Pathfinder - AD&D 2e - Call of Cthulhu - Legend of the Five Rings - 13th Age - World of Darkness - PTU - D&D B/X

Well, you can't really compare them. The Artificer is a leader, while the Wizard is a controller (and sometimes a striker if you build a Blaster.)
I don't like Wizards, they have boringly powerful attacks, and a few weak features. While they are arguably the most powerful class in the game (Warlord and Ranger compete with them), that's basically the same as saying they aren't well designed (too powerful is bad for game balance). I also don't like Warlocks, they don't do their job properly, and their fluff is effectively "I am not a good, heroic character" which means the class shouldn't exist in this edition, all Warlocks should be NPCs.

Bards are amazing, pretty much everything they do is interesting and they have more unique powers than any other class, at the level they get those powers. Same with Swordmages, they manage to be on-par with fighters as defenders by using a tactic of "Why would I want to stand infront of the guy I have marked? He might try to hit me!"

Artificers, despite being the average leader (3 leaders are better, 3 are worse) and having fantastic features, have nearly the worst support and are almost always better off Hybriding because of it.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
I don't like Wizards, they have boringly powerful attacks, and a few weak features. They are not a good class. I also don't like Warlocks, they don't do their job properly, and their fluff is effectively "I am not a good, heroic character" which means the class shouldn't exist in this edition, all Warlocks should be NPCs.

Bards are amazing, pretty much everything they do is interesting and they have more unique powers than any other class, at the level they get those powers. Same with Swordmages, they manage to be on-par with fighters as defenders by using a tactic of "Why would I want to stand infront of the guy I have marked? He might try to hit me!"

Artificers, despite being the average leader (3 leaders are better, 3 are worse) and having fantastic features, have nearly the worst support and are almost always better off Hybriding because of it.



I completely agree with you on all points except for the warlock. To me they are like the artificer, in that hybrids can be amazing and fun (like the SM/Lock.) And they can do the job, it just takes more work/dedication than most strikers. And they really can be more fun, because you resort to less of the mba/rba spamming that a lot of classes do (granted, Eldritch Strike is a thing, but still.)

And they don't all have to be evil/emo-kids. There are other backstories.
MountFang: Fair enough, I should have said that "Warlocks are no more capable of doing their job than any other class, including clerics"
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
I've mostly stayed away from the arcane power source, although I have come around to bards, and I had fun playing a mage in essentials.

However, it seems to me like arcane classes are a bit bloated in general and have been for a while.  How many variations on "dude in robes who casts arcane spells" do we really need?  Does different flavour require a whole new class?
DM advice: 1. Do a Session Zero. 2. Start With Action. 3. Always say "Yes" to player ideas. 4. Don't build railroads. 5. Make success, failure, and middling rolls interesting. Player advice: 1. Don't be a dick. 2. Build off each other, don't block each other. 3. You're supposed to be a badass. Act like it. Take risks. My poorly updated blog: http://engineeredfun.wordpress.com/
Does different flavour require a whole new class?



According to the current devs? No, of course not. It requires ANOTHER BUILD OF WIZARD!



Yeeeaaah that got kinda silly. I mean, the Mage wasn't so bad, it's just when they had 3 more Wizard subclasses it gets a bit silly.
their fluff is effectively "I am not a good, heroic character"



And since fluff is mutable and non-binding, this is a non-issue.  Any warlock can be a good, heroic character.
I had a lot of fun playing a feylock, who had entered his pact under duress and I roleplaying a basically good character forced to serve an evil seahag type NPC.

Assault swordmages are fun if you hybrid them with another class as well.  I played a hybrid barbarian and it was very different than the regular barbarian I played for a while.

Bards are really well done in this edition as well, though I have never got to try one.

My main complaint about wizards is that they have gotten too much of the support and are overpowered.  I had fun playing an illusionist one and it was my longest lasting PC of 4E that I played for 12 levels.

Artificer is the only one I don't really care for.
Of the pre-Essentials arcane classes, the only one that is really "meh" atm is the Artificer, mostly because it spends too much time being a so-so striker (more off-turn attacks than half the strikers in 4e it seems) and controller, and not enough time actually enabling or healing.


Wizards got waay too much support post essentials, though I did like the witch.  
I'm having trouble understanding why there is all of this hate for the artificer class. Magic weapon is an incredible at will if you are clever with character postioning, and their non combat abilities are all very useful.

What sold me on the class is being able to play a dwarf with magicaly returning mundane thowing hammers.
Does different flavour require a whole new class?



According to the current devs? No, of course not. It requires ANOTHER BUILD OF WIZARD!



it's not even that, most of the wizard sub builds are basically the same concept as pre existing classes. 
 the bladesinger is basically the same concept as swordmage.
the shar'ir is the sorcerer (in the same book as a sorcerer sub build no less)
and the witch is a warlock.
they're all flavor clones of existing classes, without the benefit of the few features wizards or the classes they're trying to copy have. In fact they lack any useful features.
It's possible that they created the Bladesinger so people who want to use a Swordmage-esque character in a game that doesn't allow FR material can do so.

How well they succeeded ... eh.
I like the idea of having a melee controller, It just saddens me that it turned into another wizards sub-class.
The witch and shar'ir could also have been very interesting where it not for this fault.
I like the idea of having a melee controller, It just saddens me that it turned into another wizards sub-class.



Good news.  Melee controllers are also called Defenders.  You have plenty of options.
I suppose there is some truth in that statement.

The one time that I saw a bladesinger in combat was prety fantastic, right up untill it used magic missile.
I suppose there is some truth in that statement.

The one time that I saw a bladesinger in combat was prety fantastic, right up untill it used magic missile.



That's more Magic Missile's fault that anybody else's.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
It's possible that they created the Bladesinger so people who want to use a Swordmage-esque character in a game that doesn't allow FR material can do so.


Given which book the Bladesinger was published in, that seems... unlikely.
"There's an old saying that all it takes for evil to triumph is that good people do nothing. I've always had a problem with that. If you do nothing to oppose evil, then how are you 'good'? To turn aside and allow evil to flourish is to collaborate with it. You ask for mercy. You claim you have done nothing. That 'nothing' is why you deserve no mercy." - Lorian Karthfaerr, drow paladin of Avandra Robin Laws says I'm a Storyteller:
Show
You're more inclined toward the role playing side of the equation and less interested in numbers or experience points. You're quick to compromise if you can help move the story forward, and get bored when the game slows down for a long planning session. You want to play out a story that moves like it's orchestrated by a skilled novelist or film director. Storyteller 92% Tactician 83% Method Actor 75% Butt-Kicker 67% Power Gamer 67% Specialist 58% Casual Gamer 8%
I'm currently in two 4E campaigns and in one we have a mage, a skald, a hexblade, a sorcerer and an elementalist covering just about all the arcane bases (indeed, the only non-arcane in the entire party is the Warforged Knight). In the other campaign we have an artificer and a bladesinger (along with a cleric who's been built/refluffed as a necromancer... the conjurations/summons mixed with death domain powers just feels more like a traditional necromancer than the "I summon one undead minion at level 9" of the Necromancer Mage).

So yeah, we're not seeing the mage exclusivity at all. If anything, we've seen a blatent avoidance of all things Divine (the cleric refluffed as a necromancer is literally the first divine PC I've seen at any table I've played with since 4E came out... warlords and bards are the most common leader classes from what I've seen).
It's possible that they created the Bladesinger so people who want to use a Swordmage-esque character in a game that doesn't allow FR material can do so.

How well they succeeded ... eh.



Try again. The Bladesinger is FR material.



Hmm.  For some reason, I remember it being printed in Dragon rather than an FR sourcebook.
The bladesinger was part of the neverwinter campaign book.
I'm having trouble understanding why there is all of this hate for the artificer class. Magic weapon is an incredible at will if you are clever with character postioning, and their non combat abilities are all very useful.

What sold me on the class is being able to play a dwarf with magicaly returning mundane thowing hammers.



The problem is Magic Weapon is all that it really has going for it. Its other at-will powers are lacking, it has a few decent powers here and there, but most effective artificers will have more or less the same powers. Its pretty cool at level 1, but just doesnt get the OOMPH other leaders get at higher levels in terms of leading.


Same can be said about your throwing hammer. Thats cool, but he'll want magic throwing hammers soon enough, making the feature moot.


We had one in the party for like 15 levels. She was cool in that she did decent damage and had some nice gimmicks, but then we got a cleric after she left and it was a whole different game.