You won't be able to cast everything in every encounter. The first level wizard I've seen described had a choice of two at-will spells (one was magic missile), one per-encounter spell (burning hands), and one daily-use spell (sleep). Even if Magic Missile still never misses, and I'm not certain that will be the case, it's not giving you better damage than you get from a light crossbow. Meanwhile the fighter still gets to swing his two-handed sword every round, but at least your contribution to the fight involves using some sort of magic. Anyone can shoot a crossbow, but I'd like my wizards to be spellcasters first and some guy with a crossbow only in an emergency.
The other thing people tend to miss: If you can cast everything almost every encounter, so can the bad guys. (read: No more depleting the enemy's resources one bit at a time. See BBEG. They turn into energizer bunnies too.)
Except you will be able to cast everything every encounter except the daily uses. Also we are not talking about just low level. Have fun with the 18th level lich archmage and his 15th level cleric friend that never runs out of spells. Ever.
You have unlimited healing? So do they. Great, players will be more awesome. But it is just an illusionary arms race, as the enemies will get access to the same tricks.
That is unless you plan on only fighting monsters not villains.
IT's my understanding that the power curve of the wizard/cleric/non-spontaneous casters (when taking about available spell slots per level) is 100% completely intentional 3.X game design, with the idea that these would be "advanced" classes requiring advanced tactics (perhaps this is actually a bit of internet mythology.)
That said, at low levels, a light or heavy crossbow (or appropriate racial ranged weapon) is generally more effective than low level combat spells, with a few notable exceptions (Color Spray, for example.) picking up a couple of ranged weapon related feats (point-blank shot, precise shot, zen archery) can go a long way in keeping the caster as a (somewhat) effective ranged combatant.
I do play a lot of wizards, and have only found the vancian system burdensome when DMs do not allow players the opportunity to make use of Item Creation feats, either due to not keeping up with the wealth-by-level tables without similar adjustment in encounter CR, or by flat out denying characters those options.
I also try and make sure that my characters have some out of combat utility so I have something to do when not casting spells.
That said, I do enjoy the Truenamer and Binder classes, which also seem to be pre-4e testing concepts, and can understand the appeal. The thing that gets me is that there is an inevitable trade off between constant power (at will, per encounter abilities) and range of power (having, potentially, 10's and perhaps even 100's of spells at ones disposal, rather than a handful of spells or spell-like abilities) and WoTC seems to have made the choice for us in 4e.
If given the option, I'd prefer having greater breadth of power (utility) over having more constant power (at will, per encounter powers.)
|
Anyone can shoot a crossbow, but I'd like my wizards to be spellcasters first and some guy with a crossbow only in an emergency.Sounds kinda like everyone's gonna have the equivalent of a Reserve Feat. Interesting.
Yup.
From the latest podcast on the WotC website:
What elements of Complete Mage are most 4E-like?
Definitely the reserve feats—powers that a wizard or sorcerer can use all day long, and keep up with the rest of his adventuring friends without forcing them to stop.How would Complete Mage be made even more 4E-like?
The reserve feats, basic in their function, should be made a bit more exciting—but not necessarily more complex since, as a design philosophy, things you do constantly need to be simpler than things you do less often.Bottom line...
Get used to the pacing that reserve feats provide spellcasters.
Except you will be able to cast everything every encounter except the daily uses. Also we are not talking about just low level. Have fun with the 18th level lich archmage and his 15th level cleric friend that never runs out of spells. Ever.
You have unlimited healing? So do they. Great, players will be more awesome. But it is just an illusionary arms race, as the enemies will get access to the same tricks.
That is unless you plan on only fighting monsters not villains.
I don't see how this is any different than the current edition of the game. If you attack and retreat, to decrease the villains spellcasting ability, you're still decreasing your own as well. An argument could be made that the villain becomes an easy target for the other characters at that point, but the spellcasters in the party are then stuck doing nothing; most of the players may be having a blast, but the caster's usually not.
I don't see how this is any different than the current edition of the game. If you attack and retreat, to decrease the villains spellcasting ability, you're still decreasing your own as well. An argument could be made that the villain becomes an easy target for the other characters at that point, but the spellcasters in the party are then stuck doing nothing; most of the players may be having a blast, but the caster's usually not.Except you will be able to cast everything every encounter except the daily uses. Also we are not talking about just low level. Have fun with the 18th level lich archmage and his 15th level cleric friend that never runs out of spells. Ever.
You have unlimited healing? So do they. Great, players will be more awesome. But it is just an illusionary arms race, as the enemies will get access to the same tricks.
That is unless you plan on only fighting monsters not villains.
I never said whether it was good or bad just that people are forgetting about it.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Up until level 7 or so, yes, running out of spells is a very real problem for spellcasters who aren't careful with their usage. Beyond level 7, it has been my experience that, in most typical adventures, the wizard will be unable to exhaust his entire repertoire unless he starts using spell slots frivolously.
That's part of the challenge and fun of playing a spellcaster, though. Keeping yourself alive long enough to reach level 7. At the very early levels (1-3), you practically can't HELP but run out of spells on a semi-regular basis. Often the wizard will only contribute meaningfully to one or two encounters per day at these levels and the rest of the time is spent wasting crossbow ammunition. :)
Once you get access to a couple of 2nd level spells, the wizard's versatility and contribution increases dramatically. And once you've got a few slots for fireball at level 5-6, then the class really starts to make a significant impact on a regular basis.
Do I think that eliminating the spell slots was a bad idea? No, not necessarily. They're still preserving the "tactical spellcasting" aspect by making some spells only useable once per day and once per encounter, so that's good. Without seeing the kind of spells that wizards have access to in 4e, I cannot speculate whether their versatility has tanked yet or not.
Another point regarding reciprocity between heroes and villains: In 3.5E, villains spellcaster can fire at will all their spells at the characters since they usually are there (alive) for only this one encounter and they don't really need to keep spells in reserve... A hero spellcaster who has just past a few encounters before encountering this villain have probably already depleted half is spells slots ... and his at a serious disadvantages... And if he has keep all this spells for this one encounter, he's beenn pretty useless in the 2-3 hours preceding this encounter... (It's like saving power to kill the Big Boss in a videogame).
And I agree with a lost of poster: Firing a crossbow bolt is not the idea I have of a fantasy wizard...
Spell Reserve look like a nice addition to the 3.5E, but it's not in the core rulebook (and this is the first time I read someone talking about this new feature).
Resounding yes, on both sides of the screen. Not just at low-level but the break in the action whereby the party has to stop and rest for 8 hours. Now, we don't run encounters of party level = CR almost at all, we usually have a series of [urine]-easy fights which usually use no reasources (the casters often don't even bother in these cases, sitting back and doing nothing) and cak-hard 'boss' fights.
So 'pushing' the PCs resource-wise fails in our group (especially by the old trick of attacking them at night so they can't rest) because once the party stop to rest it's 'cos they're totally knackered; as in, throwing an encounter to stop them resting will wipe them out. Besides, it just not fun for the magic-users to stand around doing nothing at any level. Nor does stopping every second or third encounter in the dungeon because the party has run out of resources (primarily spells) add anything to the fun of the adventure, in my opinion, to either DM or PCs. Eliminating "okay, you rest for 8 hours, moving on," seems like a damn good idea to me.
While I agree that the capability should be there to push the PCs (race against time and whatnot), I don't think the entire system should be based around that one instance. I whole-heartedly support the move to per encounter, rather than per day overall. It allows you have have fights with a lot more heroic gusto, because nobody's fretting about not spending this in case that happens and just gets on with shouting "NEEM!". I simply find more explosive fights more fun.
Granted, with spells you have to put the kybosh on certain, primiarily story-breaking effects (Remove Disease and Teleport being primary examples, so I think 4E's way of handling it in at will/per encounter/per day is quite a good one.
Prior to 4E I have cooked up my own alteration to the magic system anyway, ditching the entire vancian system (which I have no loyalty to any more than any other game mechanic; I don't get nostalgia about D&D at all). My new system uses mana points (harking closer to Rolemaster and Warhammer), split basically into two pools from which can be spells of up to 4th and one from which any level can be cast. The former pool starts to regenerate after a couple of hours of noncombat. The effect, I suspect, is broadly similar to what 4E will achieve (probably not as well as 4E will, but this has the advantage that it works with 3.5 spells with no modifications).
...
In the party I'm currently running, they have effectively unlimited healing capability out of combat; combine a Dread Necromancer's undead minions with a Shadow Sun Ninja...oh dear...and it hasn't affected gameplay in the least. Should I ever have to 'push' the PCs in this party, I'll simply have to do it in a way that makes every single round count!
At low levels, with the limited resources available to beginning characters, it's very appropriate. Even at higher levels, when the party has more "staying power," it's fairly realistic (based on real-world squad-level combat or professional sports) for each day's worth of "adventuring time" to only last 3-4 hours.Yes, but we're talking about fantasy adventure stories. I don't recall reading very many of them where the party got up in the morning, fought some horrible monster, then went back to sleep for 23 hours. That happens rather frequently in the games I play in.
No, they usually have one major encounter (or a handful of minor ones) in between long stretches of travel, normal non-combat activities, etc. ("character development" in fantasy stories; or just "time passes" if nothing plot-worthy happens). Even Conan didn't fight several major combats a day for a week straight.
It's actually something of a serious problem for adventure designers. There's a major difference in a spellcaster's power between their first encounter of the day and their fifth. If you're building a dungeon with 10 encounters, it's really hard to figure out what power level the adventurers will be at on the sixth encounter.
Agreed, which is one of the reasons using two or three linked locations of a few encounters each can be more effective than "one big dungeon," both from a game design and story basis. "Death-trap" dungeons are more useful in the "one big dungeon" concept than "reactive dungeons," especially if you design the "death-trap" dungeon into zones that can be cleared in turn.
I have to stand firmly in the middle of the first question, and say "no" on the second.
Is it a problem? Sometimes - especially for low level casters. However, that is part of the challenge and fun of PLAYING a low-level caster for some people.
Having to halt a dungeon crawl because the spellcasters need to rest can be a pain, but it can also heighten the tension - do we go on hoping to find an exit? Turn back hoping to get back to a safe place before monsters show up? Stay right here and hope our guards can keep monsters at bay so the casters can rest?
I've played entire sessions where my characters were down to few or no spells, and unable to regain them because monsters kept interrupting our rest periods - that was tense. A little frustrating, true, but tense, and the fact that we did survive made it far more rewarding.Would I look to change it?
Not in the core rules, but I WOULD be working on a side document with variant casters who didn't have this "problem" while working on the rules, so that groups or individuals who DO see it as crippling have options, but everyone else can stick with what they're familiar with.
Well said.
|
Yes, absolutely. This is especially true at low levels. A fighter can contribute throughout a fight or series of encounters but spellflingers cannot.
Since most mods are written with the big bad guy fight at the end it means that either the group scrapes through the mod without the big guns or big heals or they have to wait and rest which sometimes screws with the flow of the mod or the ability of the group to actually save the day.
Definitely a serious problem--especially with new people entering the game.
My anecdotal story of how bad the problem is this tale from a friend of mine. He was introducing D&D to a 12 y/o who decided to play a wizard. They started down the dungeon and he, of course, ran out of spells quickly.
He was simply agog that as a "wizard" he had run out of spells. It was so far beyond his expectation that it ruined the session for him right then and there and I don't know if he's played D&D since.
So, that's not only -1 player, that's -1 DM, and one more person who in a circle of friends will discourage the group from starting to play D&D.
It's really beyond common sense that a wizard would run out of spells. In no archetype that's generally familiar to the public who would likely start to play D&D is that the expectation.
Personally, what I think they expect is for the wizard to be able to cast a bunch of spells then be able to rest for just a few minutes and start anew right away. Do they expect a wizard to be able to cast enough lightning bolts to cut a mountain in half? No. But do they expect a wizard to be able to play the entire game session--casting spells and everything--even when they first start playing their character in the first game session? Yes.
Hasn't been a problem around here.
The game has plenty of mechanics and resources for dealing with the issue (artifacts, devices, alternative weapons).
The inability of a mage to chuck spells all day long with no limit or no consequence adds an element of strategy to the game - resource conservation puts a big twist on things, in a good way.
It's funny - I see a lot of complaints about the magic system as having no basis in fantasy literature, but isn't Jack Vance's work where the magic system came from?
Also, I'd be hard pressed to cite specific examples, since I haven't read a lot of fantasy lately (sci-fi has been taking up my time these days), but I know I've read a fair amount of it where the spellcasters had some heavy limitations on their casting ability - both quantity and quality.
Even Green Lantern's ring needs recharged...
I was running a side-trek in a larger campaign, around 7th - 8th Level. The people playing the party's spell-casters couldn't make it to the session, but the three characters remaining decided that everything was all right, because the PCs had stockpiled about 20 cure light wounds and a few cure moderate wounds potions apiece. So they went into the dungeon, and fought four fights, and...kept going. They finished an entire dungeon in one in-game afternoon, and were really charged with how much more they accomplished with just a fighter, ranger, and rogue, who could indeed keep going all day.
The next session, everybody was there, and the sessions went back to normal.
This only reinforces my feeling that it is a player problem, and not necessarily a rule problem.
This story tells me that:
a) The Fighter, Ranger, and Rogue don't need the spellcasters around
so;
b) They coddle and bow and scrape to the illusion that the casters are important
and;
c) Allow the players of the casters to set the tone by making the group rest every time they get a "little winded."
If a caster player isn't willing to pick up a mace/staff/scimitar/whatever their best weapon might be, and continue next to their buddies that protect them on the battlefield without stealing the spotlight in every particular combat then those are not the right kind of players for the casters.
Now, admittedly, given the opportunity, groups should let their casters rest up if they are running a little low. It only makes sense. But it shouldn't set the pace all the time.
My 11th level Living Greyhawk spellsword has never been caught without useful magic. He's run out of attack spells a time or two, but that's why wizards get Scribe Scroll as a freebie! Anyone who refuses to craft/buy any scrolls isn't holding up his end of things.
My 10 year old daughter's wizard (5th level) doesn't run out of spells, either. I remind her to "top off" her scrolls when she runs low.
I've seen parties without clerics get shredded, going through a wand of cure light wounds with every fight. Without those consumables, they can't hang in there either.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Yes, running out of spells is a problem, because spellcasting is what defines the Wizard! Resource management should be a concern, but not at the cost of a wizard's essential wizardness.
The idea of the at-will and per-encounter abilities, as I understand it, is to give the wizard something wizardy and magical to do even when he's holding onto his good stuff (per-day) for later, basically serving the same function as scrolls and wands.
And really, how is having at-will magic damage or healing any different than what most groups have now, with wands of magic missile and cure light wounds?
Ignoring HOW they are going about 'fixing' this for now, is this even a problem? Do you think it is something you would look at changing if you were the maker of 4E?
It's not a problem that needs to be "fixed," but I would look at changing it if I were making 4e, because my personal preference is for casters to have some "at will" spells.
|
|
My question for the "per encounter" or "at will " spells is:
Wht will these spells do and how much "fun" are they?
If a 4th wizard runs out of his "per day" spells, what can he contribute apart from doing hp damage?
Or, asking the other way round: Will the Wizard get only "blast" spells or also utility spells (like spider climb)?
Does somebody KNOW (not speculate) this?
My last character had the Fiery Burts Reserve feat and I was kinda glad when he died. It did decent damage to a small area so at low level is was fairly effective. The problem is after a while that's all the group wanted me to do. I felt like a one trick pony. Yeah it's nice to not have to roll to hit but it just got dull. For me what it comes down to is if your game is about nothing but encounters where damage trumps all other activities during combat then yeah reserve feats or at will powers are needed. Personally I prefer encounters where thinking outside the box gets you just as much as swinging your two-handed sword. I just feel like they are making rule changes so that you can do dungeon crawl after dungeon crawl without stopping at the expense of flavor.
What is interesting about this discussion is it seems everyone wants to make sure that the wizard has something to do in combat. While combat can take up a great deal of a gaming session its not all there is to the game. Will 4E be giving every character the ability to disable a trap? My fighter doesn't want to sit around and stare at the rogue as he disables the trap. He should be able to do it too right? What about figuring out a riddle or reading the moldy old tome to figure out how to solve the curse? Should my fighter be knowledgable in everything so he isn't twidling his thumbs while the wizards reads the ancient tome?
Ok so they are speeding up combat in 4E or at least that's the claim. Wouldn't be even less neccessary to have wizards do something every round of comabt since it should be taking up less of game time?
I think the whole thing is geared towards one style of game play. Maybe that's the direction D&D is going and that's fine, but I may go the other direction if that's the case.
My question for the "per encounter" or "at will " spells is:
[What] will these spells do and how much "fun" are they?
If a 4th wizard runs out of his "per day" spells, what can he contribute apart from doing hp damage?
Or, asking the other way round: Will the Wizard get only "blast" spells or also utility spells (like spider climb)?
Does somebody KNOW (not speculate) this?
Well, to answer the last question first. Anyone who KNOWS can not answer this question because they would be goverend by the NDA they signed and therefor could not legally give you an answer.
That said, we have had some pretty darn good hints as to the answer to this one. I feel I can fairly confidently answer this one with around 90% accuracy.
First, there are spells that are not going to be available to the wizard in 4E that we are used to in 3E. These fall into two groups. The first group is called rituals, these will be spells that are typically not available for use in combat in 3E (longer casting times, for example... many of the divination spells currently in the game will fall into this category... not all, likely just the out of combat ones).
The other category is "schools" that fall into the specialties of another class. Technically the idea of schools of magic won't be in 4E but that is how we are currently thinking of them. For example, Necromancy spells are considered more fitting with a Necromancer rather than a Wizard (I get the impression there will be seperate classes instead of specialist wizards which is fine with me since it means that the specialists will have a lot more flavor than is currently in the game... just extra spells isn't enough IMHO). It sounds like many of the mind controlling type Enchantment spells will now be set aside for psionics which will be in the base rules of 4E.
The rest of the spells are still around. At first level it sounds like a wizard gets 2 'at will' spells, 1 'per encounter' spell and 1 'per day spell' that they can choose from the list. My guess is that when you level up then the current per encounters drop down to at will and per day to per encounter and then the newest and highest level spells you get start at per day and work their way on down to at will as you go up in levels. I have no idea how learning new spells will work outside of levelling up or if you can switch around which spells are in which slots... but I hope there is something to this affect since that seems a big part of the 'flavor' of a wizard to me. Think of this as the higher level spells being more taxing to the character.
To actually answer your question though, yes you can absolutely have non-damaging utility spells in your repetoire. To my mind this would be a great use of things. Levitate is likely to be a much better per encounter spell and would be somewhat wasted in an at will slot (until much higher levels when you have a lot more at will slots I guess). You also could take spider climb or any other available utility spell... your call. I myself think I will likey choose a single dmg spell as an at will, a combat control at will, and utility spells for my per encounter and per day (at first level).
Anyway... I have no factual evidence for any of this since I am not a playtester or designer nor have I signed an NDA though so I can actually talk about it. This is just what I have gleaned from reading up on things so far.
Sean Mahoney
As noted previously, some players (myself included, I should add) love theplanning aspect of playing a wizard... picking the right spells and employing them judiciously. Our D&D is more like chess. Other people want to blast all day and think of nothing but attack spells. The sorcerer was invented to please that second group. So, with the advent of 3e, no "fixing" is needed because there's a spellcaster type for each personality type.
With regards to a lack of "fire and forget" in non-game literature, I'd remind people that it's called "Vancian magic" because Jack Vance wrote about it before D&D was ever invented. Additionally, in John Bellairs' The Face in the Frost, the wizards seem to have some always-ready minor abilities, but they also have spellbooks (literally), and spend time each morning "memorizing spells." Bellairs wrote that in 1969; the book was cited by Gygax as a direct influence on D&D as well.
Roger Zelazny's later, second set of Amber novels are clearly non-game-based, but the sorcerers in those stories also have to "hang" (prepare) a limited number of spells in advance of use.
At low levels, with the limited resources available to beginning characters, it's very appropriate. Even at higher levels, when the party has more "staying power," it's fairly realistic (based on real-world squad-level combat or professional sports) for each day's worth of "adventuring time" to only last 3-4 hours.Yes, but we're talking about fantasy adventure stories. I don't recall reading very many of them where the party got up in the morning, fought some horrible monster, then went back to sleep for 23 hours. That happens rather frequently in the games I play in.
It's actually something of a serious problem for adventure designers. There's a major difference in a spellcaster's power between their first encounter of the day and their fifth. If you're building a dungeon with 10 encounters, it's really hard to figure out what power level the adventurers will be at on the sixth encounter.
Yes, but then you have PCs who NEVER run low on resources and can continue to fight day&night without any sleep. They can wipe out cities with the unlimited resources 4th Edition plans to give them.
The easy solution would've been to just give Wizards free reserve feats at 1st and every 3 levels after that in 3.5E. (not create a WHOLE NEW Edition).
What is interesting about this discussion is it seems everyone wants to make sure that the wizard has something to do in combat. While combat can take up a great deal of a gaming session its not all there is to the game. Will 4E be giving every character the ability to disable a trap? My fighter doesn't want to sit around and stare at the rogue as he disables the trap. He should be able to do it too right? What about figuring out a riddle or reading the moldy old tome to figure out how to solve the curse? Should my fighter be knowledgable in everything so he isn't twidling his thumbs while the wizards reads the ancient tome?
Ok so they are speeding up combat in 4E or at least that's the claim. Wouldn't be even less neccessary to have wizards do something every round of comabt since it should be taking up less of game time?
I think the whole thing is geared towards one style of game play. Maybe that's the direction D&D is going and that's fine, but I may go the other direction if that's the case.
This is what I don't understand about 4th Edition at all. The designers keep stating they want everyone to contribute all the time in all situations, but doesn't this mean, well, any character can do anything now? If Fighters can fight toe-to-toe with the mightiest of spellcasters, who needs a Wizard or Monk in the group to counter the spellcaster? Who needs a Rogue if everyone can, well, also disarm the trap their own way? Why even play the game with the model of "5 Players" for 4E and just solo the damn thing with you and someone else?
I seriously am waiting for a 4.5E to come about not too long after 4E hits the shelves.
This is actually one of the more perplexing issues I have with 4E:"Running out of spells is not fun. So we are killing that mechanic. You will now have at will, per encounter, and per day spells.
ok.
"High level play is a confusing array of spells and powers that bog the game down, especially behind the DM screen. You will now have less spells/powers, but the ones you do have will be more useful and usable more often."
Superficially this seems a bit contradictory. You have too many options and it slows the game down, and you have too few options which slows the game down (or is not fun, or uncool, whatever dev buzzword you prefer).
I have this problem at my table actually. The wizard or cleric uses a spell and all of a sudden the game grinds to a halt while we check and see how the spell works. Its not so much that we don't know the spell at all - its more that we don't know exactly what the spell does in situation X. So two spells that slowed up the game last session were web and glitterdust. Both of them spells that, at lower levels, had been used often enough that we where pretty clear on them, but neither spell had been cast in many sessions.
The questions that came up where, for web, can a creature that makes its save take a 5' step? That one required checking not only the spell but, oh at least six other rules, and for glitterdust I needed to be sure that it would have no real effect on a guy that was simply hiding as opposed to invisible - which was annoying becuase I did not want to confirm their suspicion that 'something was out there'.
This is one of the reasons I like the Sorcerer class. With so few spells at the players fingertips, s/he tends to know them backwards and forwards. No matter how hard the cleric and wizard player seem to try they always seem to need to look their spells up.
I understand the love for wizards and their versatility - I'm just not really sure I support it any more. At the end of the day the class is complex - especially if you don't take basic damage dealing spells like fireball and instead opt for more exotic fare, but, ultimately, it means that one player is generally holding up the action reading a spell description so that we can determine if one is able to take a 5' step in a web.
|
|
This is what I don't understand about 4th Edition at all. The designers keep stating they want everyone to contribute all the time in all situations
They have never said in all situations. They have said that you should be able to contribute to your own role all the time. That does not mean at the top of your game. For instance - a wizard's most powerful spells are per day, moderately powerful are per encounter, and least powerful will be at will. The wizard can throw spells all the time and thus can contribute all the time.
They have never said in all situations. They have said that you should be able to contribute to your own role all the time. That does not mean at the top of your game. For instance - a wizard's most powerful spells are per day, moderately powerful are per encounter, and least powerful will be at will. The wizard can throw spells all the time and thus can contribute all the time.
I'll be interested to see what they do with the Warlock then since this was kinda there thing in 3.5
Personally, I've only had this problem in low level games. When characters get up to 14, 15th level and such, they have so many spells that you probably won't run out of them totally unless you're doing way more encounters per day than the game was designed for. Anyways, by that time, the cleric has probably run out of ways to heal the ability damage/negative levels that no doubt have been inflicted upon the party... you can memorize Restoration only a finite amount of times, of course (not to mention its material cost).
So, this was one of the first things that jumped out at me when I started looking at 4E, that they were 'fixing' the fact that spellcasters run out of spells.
Ignoring HOW they are going about 'fixing' this for now, is this even a problem? Do you think it is something you would look at changing if you were the maker of 4E?
Sean Mahoney
To answer the initial post, and just the intial post, I would have to say that yes, it is indeed a problem.
At low-levels, running out of spells might not seem like a big deal. Take 1st-level, for example. You roll out a couple magic missiles (automatic hit, average of 3 damage a pop) and then turn to your trust light crossbow.Now, statistically speaking, a wizard will likely have around...+1 to +2 to hit with said crossbow assuming a Dex of 12-14. She cant have Weapon Focus, because her BAB is +0. +1 to +2 might not see that bad, until you start looking at the basic AC values of your typical monster that you would like run into at 1st-level:
Orcs weigh in at a paltry AC of 13: the wizard has less than a 50% chance to hit this guy.
Skeletons are even lower on the CR rung, but have an AC of 15: the wizard will have a very, VERY hard time hitting this guy. This guy clocks in right up there with the goblin (AC 15 as well).
It is very, very hard for the wizard to hit anything with a mundane weapon, but it gets worse! Most of these monsters will be engaged in melee with your friends, so go ahead and slap on a -4 penalty on top of that.
Sure, you could waste some feats to alleviate those penalties, but they would probably be better suited elsewhere (such as for prerequisites to prestige classes, Reserve feats, Spell Focus, etc). Since your BAB scales up very, very slowly, taking those feats really just prevents you from falling behind more quickly, but you will eventually.
What this all boils down to is wizard players kind of standing around taking ineffective pot-shots at monsters that they will only rarely hit, while the rest of the gang actually does effectual things, like hitting them.
The wizard then has to try to get everyone to stop for the night so that she can get her class features back for the next day. Some people might try to cite intelligent and efficient usage of magic, but one cant always (or, rarely) know what one goes up against in the world of D&D, and any rounds that you spend not casting spells are likely spend mulling about trying to avoid getting hit, or taking aforementioned pointless pot-shotting.
Most classes have many things that they can do all the time and be at the least, somewhat effective. Whether this is primarily attacking (melee or ranged), some kind of iconic class feature (eldritch blast or charnel touch), or a skill application (Disable Device and trapfinding). With the wizard, her lion's share of nifty abilities trickles out pretty fast, and it gets even worse if you prepare spells that arent combat-themed (such as scry or legend lore).
Providing wizards with a built-in mechanic that allows them to do what they do best will make them much more fun than before.
|
|
I recently ran a C&C campaign that reached 20th level. Once the PC's broke into the higher levels the wizard became a steamroller of destruction. The other PC's would jokingly refer to themselves as the wizards lackeys.
Aah; if only all one's companions could have such an attitude...
Are you reading this, you ungrateful bunch?!
|
That was the day the DM changed the rules so everyone (not just clerics) got their stuff back only once every 24 hours, no matter how much they slept (otherwise we'd have ended up sleeping 8 hours for every 2 hours of activity).
Err..
That didn't actually need a change of rule; that 'once every 24 hours' is the actual rule...A wizard can read his spellbook to fill a slot during the day (if say, the party comes up against an unexpected obstacle), but only if he left a slot free in the first place, so this doesn't increase the total spells/day...
It is very, very hard for the wizard to hit anything with a mundane weapon, but it gets worse! Most of these monsters will be engaged in melee with your friends, so go ahead and slap on a -4 penalty on top of that.
Sure, you could waste some feats to alleviate those penalties, but they would probably be better suited elsewhere (such as for prerequisites to prestige classes, Reserve feats, Spell Focus, etc). Since your BAB scales up very, very slowly, taking those feats really just prevents you from falling behind more quickly, but you will eventually.
While Antioch makes some exceptional points in his point, I have to take slight exception on this one. Since Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot are also very effective for any wizard using ray spells in their career, I don't think they are wasted feats at all (in fact I often would choose them as the two feats for a 1st level human wizard if I were going the ray route). Since some darn powerful spells are rays, like Scorching Ray and Disintegrate, this isn't a bad path at all (and you then ignore the -4 for that you get firing into melee later when you are making your ranged touch attacks).
Providing wizards with a built-in mechanic that allows them to do what they do best will make them much more fun than before.
I have to say that I heartily agree. Until someone can show me that they are actually taking away the strategy aspect somehow (and I don't see that... just that is different), I think this will ADD to fun.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
Well, after a few encounters, the PCs can sell the loot, and get a (ta-da!) 1st-level CLW wand or staff for 750 gp, and an offensive wand or staff for the wizard, too! Total cost to party funds: 1,500 gp. Or less if the DM'll let the PCs buy a less-than-max-charged wands.
Alternatively, the DM may let the cleric and wizard start with such wants (with a limited number of charges).
I agree - but why should spellflingers require magic items to be effective when all the fighter needs is a weapon.
Aww crap, you're right Sean. I'd forgotten those that feats apply to ray spells, which actually makes them REALLY useful for the dread necro (who gets a lot of ray powers).
I think the "problem" stems from our "Instant gratification" society. Running out of spells is an INCONVENIENCE. It can slow things down and make things tense, and also make the spell-caster feel less useful - I know, my spellcaster used up every single spell in his repertoire in our last game, beginning with fireballing a tent. Going into the next one, he's sucking fumes. He also has the lowest hp total in the party, despite being sixth level, and the worst AC. He'll still wade into melee if he has to, just because that's what he does... He only sits back and does nothing if they're in a confined area and he CAN'T get into combat. Yeah, its a risk, yeah, the other characters will outdo him there 90% of the time.
So what?
But others view this as a Problem - if the mage can't do everything in every fight, the player feels like he's deadweight, and the rest of the party comes to agree.
Wizard could be considered my "favored class". Whenever possible, I love playing wizards and trying to tinker with various builds to try and identify which ones work the best.
From my experience its not too much fun to run out of spells, especially when your character is the kind of person who lacks a Strength score sufficient enough to lug around other mundane weapons, "just in case."Worse, is when you run out of spells and end up spending the rest of the session missing, praying you dont get hit (or grappled), or worse, when in reality it would just be best to stand back near the entrance to avoid being a liability to the rest of the party.
Running out of spells go so far being mere "inconvenience". A fighter who has to pick up a weapon with which he or she lacks the relevant weapon feats is an inconvenience. A wizard without spells is like a fighter who has to use only unarmed strikes for some reason. The difference is that the fighter is still likely to hit something.
I cant think of any fantasy media where a wizard ran out of spells, and so decided that the best logical action would be to wade into melee to achieve...well, not much. A bunch of misses, maybe a lucky hit now and then. Likely, a big monster with multiple attacks would just take a swing at you, perhaps for laughs, and take you out pretty quick.
Unless its one of many monsters with Improved Grab or Swallow Whole, in which case you are seriously boned.
I've been in situations where I ran out of spells, and I cant remember any of them being really fun. I remember running away, potentially leaving my party members to die gruesome deaths because there was frankly nothing that COULD be done.
This really isnt a case of "instant gratification", this is more of a realization that wizards have a very finite amount of resources, that is supposed to be balanced because their powers are so powerful. If you try to use your baseline abilities, you run out pretty quick and have to rely on less and less effective spells until eventually you just putter out while virtually every other player actually gets to accomplish something and by association have fun.
Another notion that wizards are challenging and fun to play because you have to plan out your spells doesnt hold a lot of water with me. In many adventures you dont know, and likely cannot know, what you are going up against. You may know that, yeah, you're going into the Temple of Elemental Evil and so should be on the lookout for...elementals, I guess. You could also just as likely be going into the Whispering Cairn, or the various temples in "Three Faces of Evil", and in both cases you really DONT know what to expect (because, well, no one does know). Should you prepare a lot of fire-damaging spells? Or did you pick fireball and fly, meaning that you only have a "current-level" fire attack at this stage of the game?
Choosing what spells to have access to can just as easily screw you over later, and going out to buy scrolls isnt cheap (neither is scribing them into your book).
See, a fighter can hit pretty much anything and expect a result. A thematic wizard might decided to prep a fly spell and never need to use it for the entire adventure, or require a divination spell that she didnt prep, thus forcing the entire party to stop for the night while she re-preps a spell.
Maybe that divination spell isnt necessary (when are they ever?), but because you didnt have it setup NOW, the party decides to find another way around that obstacle rather than wait a day, meaning that well, you coulda used it, but too late now.
The ability to more readily use your actual class features has a lot of appeal to me, and the use of implements makes wizards more fantastic (since there are plenty of fantasy tropes that use those things). If I can cast magic missile at will, is that really unbalanced? Sure, it always hits, but only does 1d4+1 damage. Opposed by the fighter who likely at 1st-level can roll out somewhere around 2d6+4 damage (assuming greatsword and Strength of 16), this isnt too shabby.
Also, since they are removing complete energy immunities, this means that elemental-themed spellcasters are more viable in play now.
I hope the focus on looking at what is 'fun' with the class means that they are also realizing that Wizard is the only class that has to pay for using its abilities.
You can learn any arcane spell! (of course, here are rules on how much it will cost to put each one in your spell book... so you can't do it too much)
You can summon a familiar at first level! (of course you can't afford it until you are likely second)
Anyway...
Sean Mahoney
[King Arthur music]
[clop clop clop]
[music stops]
[boom]
KNIGHTS: Eh. Oh. See it? Oh. Oh.
ARTHUR: Knights! Forward!
[boom boom boom boom boom]
[squeak]
[boom boom boom boom]
What manner of man are you that can summon up fire without flint or tinder?
TIM THE ENCHANTER: I... am an enchanter.
ARTHUR: By what name are you known?
TIM: There are some who call me... Tim?