RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
IMO, I'd rather have a sort of magic point system, like what psionics have for 3.5, with the abiity to spend extra points for more effect, to make the lower level spells more effective at higher levels. I really don't like the warlock, since what they have is pretty much unlimited abilities for no cost.
|
IMHO the whole discussion mostly misses the point. Here are some of my thoughts:
Firstly it is simply not true, that the fighter "only" needs a sword to be able to fight. This might be true for the first few levels, but later on he needs a magic/cold iron/aligned/whatnot weapon and also a decent armor to be able to stand up to the encounters. Or try fighting an iron golem without admantite weapon. The Fighter has to invest hugely in his tools of the trade. So the Wizard can spend a few GPs and EXP and create or buy scorlls and wands and other tools of HIS trade to be good at HIS job.
Secondly the Fighter also uses a finite recource: his Hit Points! A Fighter without hp is of not much use for the group. And, as he can not participate in an encounter, he has, according to the definition no fun. The big difference between Fighter and Wizard is that the Fighter can top-up his resource if a Cleric is in the group or he has access to healing items (see tools of trade above). The Wizard has no such top-up opportunity. Take away the Cleric from the group and see who complains first and wants to rest. The Fighter to heal or the Wizard to regain spells.
Thirdly, there is a big difference between what the fighter does and can do and what the wizards does and can do. The Fighter mainly can damage one opponent at a time. Sure, he can pick up some tricks like disarm and trip or -gasp- grapple. But mainly it is dishing out a lot of damage to ONE opponent at the time. The wizard can damage one opponent, but he can also damage or incapacitate a group (Fireball and Sleep). But, and that is the main difference to the Fighter, he can do things with his spells the Fighter is not able to duplicate without magic items (see point one). He can become invisible, he can see the invisible, he can fly he can create a wall of fire, iron or force, he can teleport and in later levels even shift planes. Is it less fun to play a fighter because he can not change rock to mud or charm a person?
That was, is and will not be the fighters ROLE in the group.
I am playing D&D since 82' and started with the red box, then went to AD&D 1st and 2nd, then to D&D 3rd and now am at D&D 3.5. In between I played a lot of different RPGS. And always the Wizard Class (or the equivalent) was and is my favorite. In all RPGs I played recource management was essential for the Wizard (be it Vancian Spell-Slots or Mana or Spells doing HP damage or whatever).
I often ran out of spells with my characters.
And guess what?
I still was fun playing the Wizard. As I cast my spells (and made a difference in an encounter) I stood in the Spotlight for a while. But then it was time for the Fighter or Cleric or Rogue to shine.
After all, D&D was and is (and maybe will be) a GROUP experience where all Players have their time to shine and be in the spotlight.
See, the discussion reminds me of a child who spent all his allowance on the first few days of the month. Then he comes back to his parents and complains that his other friends still have cash and that it is no fun to play with them. Then he demands more allowance.
I know what my parents would have said to me:
"Next time don't spend all you cash in the first few days on sweets and arcade games (back in my day they were en vogue). Save it up and spend it for important stuff!"
And this is my advice for all those out there who run out of spells and stop having fun: Save your spells and use them to make a difference. That is your time to be in the spotlight. Then stand back and allow the others their due!
|
|
I agree that the fighter has an expendable resource, but the fighter can contribute to a fight for quite a bit longer than a wizard. This is especially true when there multiple encounters per day.
And regarding hit points - effective fighters lose very few hit points compared to the damage they can deal. Spellflingers on the other hand have very few ways to enhance their slots per day.
I agree that resource management is a critical skill no matter what character you play but it would seem that spell casters get the truly fuzzy end of the stick in that regard.
Contributor
|
IMO, I'd rather have a sort of magic point system, like what psionics have for 3.5, with the abiity to spend extra points for more effect, to make the lower level spells more effective at higher levels. I really don't like the warlock, since what they have is pretty much unlimited abilities for no cost.
I use a system like this and it works really well. One change I made is that I made 0-level spells free, but I changed cure minor wounds to stabilize, which automatically brings a dying character to 0 and stable.
That way, when all the spells are gone, spellcasters can still acid splash, ray of frost, and disrupt undead to their hearts content. It works well for us.
|
|
See CWM, now it comes down to individual perception of what the wizard should be and how he should play.
I like my wizard rather contribute once per encounter or even per day but making a big difference (like using sleep on a group of goblins) that whittling away every round with blast spells.
Or I use this hold portal to give the group some rounds to prepare against the Ogre following us.
I have some concerns with "at will" and "once per encounter" spells. I do not want them to be mainly spells from the "blast" category. To me (and that is my personal opinion) the wizard would become just another fighter-type. But I can not see how utility spells (like expedious retreat) could become at will or once per encounter Spells. This would create the 3.0 Haste situation again. These Spells would have to be cast every encounter because they are simply to good. Think of at will or once per encounter invisibility, blur or mirror image.
So, either the at will/once per encounter utility spells will be nerfed and therefore not used or there won't be utility spells but only blast spells (or control spells like sleep and hold person).
These are the fears that I have.
IMHO the whole discussion mostly misses the point. Here are some of my thoughts...
Tharen, while you are absolutely entitled to your thoughts and opinions on this, and they are valid, that is not to say the discussion is missing the point. The title of the thread and the first post are asking "do you think running out of spells is a problem?" Your answer is "no" and you certainly aren't the first to say that (nor likely the last) which is great, we want your opinion.
As a result I think the discussion so far has been spot on for the thread (that is people are answering the question in both ways based on their experience). My hope was and is that people will see that some/many people DO think the change was needed in 4E (or if that wasn't the case I would have seen I was alone) and realize that WotC isn't just making changes to fix problems that don't exist. A lot of people seem to think it is an issue (even if they may not be 100% on board with the proposed 'fix').
As far as the fighter vs. wizard comparison, I think it is fair to say that if you had a fighter who ran out of all of their HP very fast every time they went out they would consider the game not very fun as well (I died again... whoopie!).
But please do avoid inferring that the people who disagree with you are whiney little kids who spent all their money. Attacking others for their opinion is not a good way to get your point across.
Sean Mahoney
I have some concerns with "at will" and "once per encounter" spells. I do not want them to be mainly spells from the "blast" category...
These are the fears that I have.
I can see why you would have those fears, but for whatever it is worth, the feeling I get from reading what I can on this is not that they are taking away your ability to memorize and use strategic or utility spells... just your ability to run entirely out of spells.
Expeditious Retreat is a fine spell in some situations but would make no difference in others. You still will have a limited number of slots to fill in with spells (I am assuming you do this at the beginning of day just like current memorization), so there is still the strategy of deciding what to put in what slot.
Sure you want a blast spell and it will likely go in an at-will slot, you do want to be able to do some damage. But that isn't all... you want those utility spells too... but what slot to put them in? Expeditious Retreat at will wouldn't make much sense... I mean you just can't use it every round (would actually slow you down). However at 'per encounter' it might be pretty good.
I think that as you hit new levels of spells you can cast they will initially be only able to fill the higher slots in the chain (specifically the "per day" then move down to "per encounter" as you continue to level and eventually down to "at-will"). So for your 15th level wizard that fly spell is pretty simple and so he can fit it in any slot. Is fly at will powerful? Sure, but at that level you can expect it on magic items anyway so it isn't game breaking in any way.
Another piece of info that hopefully will put at least some of your fears to rest is their description of the role of the wizard in the party is as controller NOT blaster. This means that you are more likely to see things like grease, sleep and evard's black tentacles than an arms war with the Warlock (who IS a blaster). But there will be blasting available (as there is now)... so you can still lay down some hurt once you have control of the battlefield (or whatever strategy you decide to employ).
I think the 'feel' of the wizard that they will retain is that it is the most flexible and utilitarian of the casting classes.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
IMHO the whole discussion mostly misses the point. Here are some of my thoughts...Tharen, while you are absolutely entitled to your thoughts and opinions on this, and they are valid, that is not to say the discussion is missing the point.
-snip-
But please do avoid inferring that the people who disagree with you are whiney little kids who spent all their money. Attacking others for their opinion is not a good way to get your point across.
Sean Mahoney
You are right, that was not a good way to contribute.
I did not wish to imply that the posters before me missed the point. I wanted to point out a new view to this discussion.I also did not want to imply that other players a whiny kids. I just wanted to say that if you use up all your ressources fast, knowing that you only have x spells per day you better learn to manage your ressources.
Sorry for that
Sorry for that.
No worries. I didn't think you were being malicious in any way, I am just a bit touchy about the tone on the 4E part of the boards these days since it can quickly break down to rudeness and I have actually been VERY pleased with the discussions on both sides of this thread.
Please do keep your opinion coming though, you made some good points.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
See CWM, now it comes down to individual perception of what the wizard should be and how he should play.
I like my wizard rather contribute once per encounter or even per day but making a big difference (like using sleep on a group of goblins) that whittling away every round with blast spells.
Or I use this hold portal to give the group some rounds to prepare against the Ogre following us.
I agree. I think that is how a 3E spell caster should be played. I do not think its as engaging since that PC may not be engaged in every round. It could lead to very bored players.
I have some concerns with "at will" and "once per encounter" spells. I do not want them to be mainly spells from the "blast" category. To me (and that is my personal opinion) the wizard would become just another fighter-type. But I can not see how utility spells (like expedious retreat) could become at will or once per encounter Spells. This would create the 3.0 Haste situation again. These Spells would have to be cast every encounter because they are simply to good. Think of at will or once per encounter invisibility, blur or mirror image.
So, either the at will/once per encounter utility spells will be nerfed and therefore not used or there won't be utility spells but only blast spells (or control spells like sleep and hold person).
These are the fears that I have.
I ABSOLUTELY agree with that sentiment. I am worried that they will take a good idea and nerf its execution.
|
|
See CWM, now it comes down to individual perception of what the wizard should be and how he should play. I like my wizard rather contribute once per encounter or even per day but making a big difference (like using sleep on a group of goblins) that whittling away every round with blast spells.
The 'Gandalf' school of magic. He'd use magic once in a blue moon, but spent 90% of 'combat rounds' swinging his sword and staff around.
As much as I disliked Vancian magic, we've had 20-some years to get used to the tactical decisions as to when to cast 'em and when to hold 'em, and the strategic decisions of deciding what spells to prepare each morning. One of the things 3.0 got very, very right, IMO, was introducing both the Vancian Wizard and the spontaneous Sorcerer as Core classes, allowing fans of either style of play to have the character they wanted, and the arcane caster that best fit their preferred style of spellcasting.
If 4E is all about having every character be a little bit 'at will' and a little bit 'daily,' I'm not sure that's the ideal solution. If anything, it's inherently unsatisfying to *both* camps, both pro-'fire and forget' and pro-flexible.
I have some concerns with "at will" and "once per encounter" spells. I do not want them to be mainly spells from the "blast" category.
There are quite a few effects that wouldn't be overpowered as 'at will' powers. A beefed up Mage Hand, not capable of inflicting damage, but useful to open doors, snatch up dropped items, possibly even disarm someone, would be cool. Various attack effects that don't do damage, such as Daze Monster or effects that Sicken, Dazzle, Blind (for a round or so only), etc. a foe could work. Each round the Wizard could use magic to do *something* cool and useful, and not necessarily just play Warlock-wannabe and blast people with Magic Missile. To balance the 'at will' nature, most of these effects would likely only last a short time (in the case of effects that inflict Shaken, Dazzled, Dazed, Sickened or Fatigued results) or a single round (for effects that Blind someone) or have an instantaneous effect (a 'Grease' spell that trips a single foe, or causes it to drop it's weapon).
Less combat-centric 'at wills' might allow the Wizard to use transmutation magic to lighten himself and let him walk at full speed over difficult terrain, or pit traps, or even move at a slightly increased speed, but with the effect lasting only a single round. Each round he'd have to use his magical action to let him do this, so that he wouldn't be able to run around blasting people. He'd have to blast on one round, scamper at full speed over the snowdrifts on round two, and then blast again on the third round, trying to keep ahead of his snowbound pursuers (to pick one example). A higher level version of this effect might allow him to teleport 30 ft. or so. He could, in theory, do this every round, but it would be his magical action, and generally wouldn't be any faster than walking. It's use would be purely tactical, and it would require line of sight / effect, barring it's use to get past doors or web spells or stinking clouds.
In theory, they might have thought of stuff like this, and the Wizard won't just be a poor man's Warlock.
But I can not see how utility spells (like expedious retreat) could become at will or once per encounter Spells. [snip] Think of at will or once per encounter invisibility, blur or mirror image.
They would definitely have to tone them down.
Having them work like the 'Sudden Invisibility' style of spells and only last a single round, forcing the Wizard to choose to be Invisible *or* to do anything else (and to 'drop shields' to use any of his other powers, like a Romulan coming out of cloak to fire the plasmas) would be one way of balancing this out.
There might be other limiting factors. Perhaps Mirror Images would disappear, one per round, even if not damaged, and the effect cannot be re-invoked until the last image is dispelled (or fades). The Wizard would be able to summon up say four images on his first round, and then spend the next couple of rounds blasting, protected by his illusory dupes, but they'd be gone within 4 rounds, or sooner, if any are struck and dispelled by damage.
Alternately, having defensive effects like Shield or Blur last rounds equal to the casters Int modifier (so 3 round for a Wizard with Int 16-17) would allow the caster to put the spell up and have a few rounds of protection before he's got to spend another action refreshing it.
He *could* have Shield up during an entire combat, but he'd have to spend his first combat round putting it up, and then be effective for three rounds, and then have to refresh his Shield spell. For that +4 deflection bonus to AC, he's giving up 25% of his firepower.
Set,
I think you gave some fantastic examples there of what I envision things will be like based on the information that has been parcelled out so far. I could certainly be wrong, but I think you are closer to the mark than most might think.
Great post!
Sean Mahoney
|
|
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. [/QUOTEExcept that one of the tenets of 4E is that NPCs and monsters work differenly than PC's. They have less complexity and diversity, so the archlich and undead cleric may not be energizer bunnies compared to PC's.
I never liked the Vancian system. It never felt like magic to me and always destroyed my immersion. I do agree magic needs limits but x/day just feels like a modern concept.
I never liked the Vancian system. It never felt like magic to me and always destroyed my immersion. I do agree magic needs limits but x/day just feels like a modern concept.
I loved Vancian magic from the beginning. Still do. Luckily, 3e catered to both of us: I could play a wizard (limited strategic spell selection), someone else could play a sorcerer (more uses per day, no need to think about what spells to prepare), someone else could play a psion (no need to worry about level slots, even), and a fourth person could play a warlock (blast all day, with no points and no slots at all to keep track of). We would all have fun, playing the style that appealed to us most.
Take that away for 4e, apparently, and force everyone into a "per day/per encounter/at will" system. Seemingly, individual player preferences are to be replaced with a "one-size-fits-all" proposition.
Luckily, 3e catered to both of us: I could play a wizard (limited strategic spell selection), someone else could play a sorcerer (more uses per day, no need to think about what spells to prepare), someone else could play a psion (no need to worry about level slots, even), and a fourth person could play a warlock (blast all day, with no points and no slots at all to keep track of).
How many supplements would I have to buy to have all those options? Instead of giving me unlimited options to begin with, WotC releases only a handful of options at a time in a big, shiny new book. It is really genius when you think about it.
4E: The Booster Pack Edition of D&D
I love how people somehow think this is a change from how things have been done in 3E. The only difference I see here is that they are admitting it upfront and planning for it (which will probably actually make products better).
I have bought a TON of 3E stuff. I bought all the 3.0 class books as they came out. I happily replaced them with all the Complete 3.5 books. I bought the environment series... I bought the Races of series... I bought area after area for Forgotten Realms.
The fact is that many of us (and specifically the ones who give WotC the most money) have shown that we WANT to buy book after book of additional content.
In fact, the only complaint I have in this area is that I love adventures more than any other product and they kind of hosed all over Dungeon. (And I don't like the new format WotC uses for adventures).
Sean Mahoney
Luckily, 3e catered to both of us: I could play a wizard (limited strategic spell selection), someone else could play a sorcerer (more uses per day, no need to think about what spells to prepare), someone else could play a psion (no need to worry about level slots, even), and a fourth person could play a warlock (blast all day, with no points and no slots at all to keep track of).How many supplements would I have to buy to have all those options? Instead of giving me unlimited options to begin with, WotC releases only a handful of options at a time in a big, shiny new book. It is really genius when you think about it.
For 3.5e play, you would buy one (1) supplement, and then only if you wanted the warlock. The sorcerer, wizard, and psion are all in the 3.5 SRD.
I did not know the psion was in the SRD. Still, I will stick with my skill based systems.
Still, I will stick with my skill based systems.
Which ones are you using? We had a long and VERY happy run with a hybrid of Victory Games (all skill-based advancement) and TSR (used as a tack-on for spells), and combat was a mesh of the two. We ditched it only because I got a subscription to Dungeon, in fact, and wanted to play straight out of the magazine (curse you, James Jacobs, for "Wormcrawl Fissure," forcing us into the 3.5 mainstream like that!)
Aah; if only all one's companions could have such an attitude...
Are you reading this, you ungrateful bunch?!
Yes, now cast that bloody haste spell forthwith - or are you going to horde your spells like always..?
Anal-retentive so-and-so
:-)
I fail to see how unlimited casting options is going to "fix" weak low level characters. Where is the drama? Where is the desperation? Oh crap! I just cast my last spell...I guess I am not an anime hero after all. How is this a bad thing?
Want to cast every round? Buy wands. Write scrolls. If you can spontaneously cast spells in unlimited fashion, where's the incentive to do these things?
My group had this problem throughtout 3.0. The wizard was always using all his spells in the first encounter or two. At lower levels, this is understandeable, but at 7th level it was still happening! I actually paid attention to his playing style, and "noticed" he never used his melee or ranged weapons once! He never used any skill other than spellcraft. Broken system? Or broken player?
Half of playing a spellcaster is knowing when to conserve your limited energies. That's the whole reason why magical item creation was standardized. I give my players two for one on all item creation feats. Otherwise nobody ever took them because it was a "waste" of a precious feat.
I feel this balancing issue was the reason why the duskblade class was introduced. To give a spellcaster something to fall back on. Then there's the hexblade, eldrich knight, warmage, and at least 3 or 4 more classes that either allow you to start or work up to spellslinger with options territory.
Levels 1-5 suck for a wizard. There's a reason for that. You are an APPRENTICE. A lame-o wannabe wizard learning not only arcane might...but arcane prudence.
I forsee 4E turning every combat into the exact same dance, only with different partners ala WoW. It's a great game, but as anyone who has played will probably agree, most of the game seems to be an endless pushing of the same 4-10 hotkeys over and over and over and over again. The only difference was the enemies.
This is not a broken system or class. If you want change - homerule it. I used to allow characters to burn spells right out of their spellbooks like scrolls. Talk about "break glass in case of emergency".
Long and short is, if you don't have many spells, use them INTELLIGENTLY. otherwise you end up ditching colossal cosmic power to wack monster with stick...poorly I might add. It's all part of the fun!
edit: Besides, having the wizard crit with that lame-ass crossbow and save the party always makes it worth while. Agree?
Edit edit: Please forgive my laziness, but I posted this in another similar thead only an hour ago, and really didn't want to have to re-write the whole darned thing. [/lifted]
|
This is not a broken system or class. If you want change - homerule it. I used to allow characters to burn spells right out of their spellbooks like scrolls. Talk about "break glass in case of emergency".
That used to be our 2nd Edition rule too.
The official RAW put a cap on the number of spells of any level a wizard could learn (not just prepare), based on INT, so this meant that spellbooks still retained a value after the wizard PC's head was 'full-up'.The relaxation on spells known, and the free Scribe Scroll feat make this unnecessary, now.
|
|
I have been running a sorcerer in age of worms and never have run out of spells, the cleric has gotten low but not before many encounters.
We do try to aquire wands and scrolls to help save power, I look at it as character development. My sorcerers does not want to run out of power in the middle of things so he soon learns his limits and tries to compesate as best he can.
Having more spell power to me would take away from character planning (which I enjoy).
All that being said making zero level spells "free" and giving a school attack power "at will" will help lower level casters stay useful with out unbalancing them (face it cantrips get less effective as you level up but are great at low levels).
Simply put, yes this is a HUGE problem and I'm glad it's finally being addressed in 4E. The image of a wizard with a crossbow in 3.whatever-you're-calling-it-now has always annoyed me to no end.
Kudos to WotC for slaughtering this unruly sacred cow. Steak anyone?
This has always been a huge problem in my group.
1. 90% of the time that the group decides to rest, it is because either the cleric, mage or sorceror states that they are out of spells. Typically, this occurs after 2 or 3 encounters. It is very annoying to me as a DM and player when it takes days in order for a group to clear a small dungeon. It is even more annoying when, at higher levels, the group will spend multiple days resting to recover hit points because no one wants to use their wands or potions to speed the process along.
2. It is rarely ever described in a module how the bad guys will respond to multiple invasions, so I generally spend quite a bit of time trying to figure out clever ways to prepare for a second, third and sometimes fourth assault on a lair. This is time that I could spend looking forward through the adventure or planning another part of the story.
3. It always nagged at me why a mage would have to rely on a crossbow or a quarterstaff when they have spent their life discerning the secrets of magic. Especially when the likelihood of them actually hitting the bad guys can be so difficult. Touch attacks and reserve feats are the only saving grace for magic users in 3E and unfortunately they seem to be over- or under-powered.
4. I have had several new people join my gaming group recently and it is important for me that each of them have something to do during almost every round of combat. I am excited about 4E adding at will, per encounter, and per day abilities for magic users. I agree that each player should have an opportunity to shine, but that doesn't mean that each player needs to have an opportunity to not do anything. Ultimately, D&D is a game to be enjoyed. No one likes to play games and have their turn skipped, which is basically what happens when any class has nothing that is effective. Some of that can be resolved by thinking creatively, but I think those situations should happen much less frequently than it seems to happen in 3E.
I fail to see how unlimited casting options is going to "fix" weak low level characters. Where is the drama? Where is the desperation? Oh crap! I just cast my last spell...I guess I am not an anime hero after all. How is this a bad thing?
Want to cast every round? Buy wands. Write scrolls. If you can spontaneously cast spells in unlimited fashion, where's the incentive to do these things?
Yes, the wizard may avoid losing effectiveness if loads himself with wands or scrolls. However, one of the exact purposes of 4th edition is to make characters less dependant on magic items (the so-called "chrismas tree effect").
I think it would be nice if wizards didn't need to carry sacks of scrolls and wands in order to maintain their usefulness, and if high-level fighters didn't need to carry 10 items each giving +5 to "something" in order to be able to face opponents of apropriate challenge rating.
While vancian magic may fit well some heroic fantasy scenarios, I don't see any which christmas-tree heroes fit.
Levels 1-5 suck for a wizard. There's a reason for that. You are an APPRENTICE. A lame-o wannabe wizard learning not only arcane might...but arcane prudence.
Well, it was a recurring argument on this topic to say that the game is not unbalanced because the weakness of the wizards at low levels is compensated by him reigning supreme at high levels.
However, if a game system can provide balance at all levels, doesn'it it make superior? (at least, of course, on the balance issue). Obviously, I still don't know if 4th is this system, but if it can do that, score to it.
I can see obvious disadvantages on the "multi-level balance". Not all groups run adventures which "balance" low and high levels. As someone already mentioned, many groups only run short adventures or mini-campaigns, so they never reach high levels. In the other hand, other groups only mantain the campaigns they had for years - so PCs are likely to spend much more time on high than on low levels.
But the most problematic issue, in my opinion, is when you introduce new players to the system. Okay, those who play D&D for decades may not necessarily love the vancian magic system, but they are used to it and not bother with it, me included. But as Moonline pointed, how a new D&D player feels with a character which is obviously far less effective than the rest of the party? As new players don't have the patience to spend weeks to "try" the system, is he willing to wait 12 game sessions until his character begins to "feel" like the incredible wizard he sees on books, movies and videogames?
There are, of course, inumerous and relatively simple ways for a DM to deal with this, such as speeding up level up, giving the PC extra magic items, adding house rules, or simply do as someone suggested: discourge new players to play an "advanced" class such as the wizard.
However, if something needs to be fixed, no matter how easy is the fix, then it has a flaw in the first place.
However if you read such litterature as the Forgotten Realms and Eberron novells I think you will find a host of books where spellcasters can, and do, run out of spells.
Well, Keith Baker mentioned on his blog that he never felt that vancian magic suited Eberron:
Point number two is one I have to approach with caution, because it's something that hasn't been fully revealed. And that's magic. The core, original idea of Eberron was that arcane magic was essentially a form of science - and that as a science, it ought to be incorporated into society over time and used to provide the basic services we've developed with technology: transportation, medicine, communication, entertainment, warfare, and so on. And we did the best we could, using dragonshard focus items and magewrights. The problem is that Vancian magic really doesn't lend itself to this principle. The concept is that the streets of the cities of Khorvaire are lit by continual flame. But when a magewright specializing in this spell can still only cast it once or twice a day, how many weeks will it take him to light Main Street? What does he do for the rest of the day after casting the spells? We just went ahead with it, saying that the most critical functions were provided by reusable magic items (like the Sivis speaking stones). But it wasn't really what I wanted - a world in which magewright could be a true occupation, not something where you could blow your professional specialty in five minutes.
Here's where I really can't reveal anything, because if someone official hasn't already explained how it works, I sure shouldn't be spilling the beans. However, I will say that the way non-combat magic (rituals) work creates a far stronger foundation for a magical economy than Vancian magic did. It's a system where it's clear how that lamplighter can put in a full day of work, as opposed to burning out his power with a single spell. So again, Eberron was founded on 3E, and the idea that magic was a force that followed logical patterns, that could be reliably controled by formula and ritual, and which could be taught - but Vancian magic always put some limits on the logic of a truly magical society. The rules for rituals make the idea of a professional, full-time magewright a simple and logical idea - and in fact, the system is such that it doesn't even require the existence of a separate magewright class.
As far as the original question goes, running out of spells has never been a problem for me. If I had to choose between having mages run out of spells vs. having mages be able to whip out their favorite magical solution to the problem that presents itself to the group, I vastly prefer the former because of the challenge presented to the group whose mage CAN run out of spells.
What would keep a mage from going bats**t with spells anytime there was an encounter? Nothing except some house rules you'd have to create to keep the mage from dominating play. After all, without spell loss for the day, isn't that unlimited spell access?
Then, there's this snippet from Keith Baker's blog posted earlier:
The problem is that Vancian magic really doesn't lend itself to this principle. The concept is that the streets of the cities of Khorvaire are lit by continual flame. But when a magewright specializing in this spell can still only cast it once or twice a day, how many weeks will it take him to light Main Street?
I don't think I've ever heard a more ridiculous answer to the "problem" of Vancian magic in my life. Keith assumes this magewright (whatever that is) of his only has access to one or two spells for the day. Well, even if that were true, wouldn't you think someone whose official title in Khorvaire being "lamplighter" would have multiple sets of cantrips like Firefinger at the ready to do the lighting for him? And even if you don't like the idea of this mage using many cantrips to light the city streets, don't you think the ruling body of Khorvaire, knowing that they like to have their city streets well lit at night, would create cantrip wands full of Firefingers to hand out to all their lamplighters? It seems to me that'd be an infinitely better alternative to one first or second level spell.... ;-)
What would keep a mage from going bats**t with spells anytime there was an encounter? Nothing except some house rules you'd have to create to keep the mage from dominating play. After all, without spell loss for the day, isn't that unlimited spell access?
It seems people are still confused about some things about 4E, or trying to look them with a 3E mindset.
Wizards won't become unstopable killing machines on 4E. In fact, if you took the opportunity to download the character sheets from DDXP, you can see that a wizard's at will spells don't hit more or do more damage than a fighter or ranger's at-will maneuvers. In fact, they hit LESS and do LESS damage: a ranger's Careful Attack has +10 to hit and does 1d10+4 damage, or 1d10+1d8+4 if the enemy is the designed quarry of the ranger. A wizard's Magic Missile does 2d4+5 damage and has a mediocre +5 to hit. There's absolutely nothing unbalanced about it.
As far as the original question goes, running out of spells has never been a problem for me. If I had to choose between having mages run out of spells vs. having mages be able to whip out their favorite magical solution to the problem that presents itself to the group, I vastly prefer the former because of the challenge presented to the group whose mage CAN run out of spells.
Interesting. Since when "challenge = being able to run out of spells?". So, characters which don't rely on abilities with per-day limitation, such as fighters or rogues, are "unchallenging" by nature?
And wizards RUN OUT of spells at 4th edition. They just don't run out of at-will spells, which as I already mentioned, are weaker tha regular attacks.
I don't think I've ever heard a more ridiculous answer to the "problem" of Vancian magic in my life. Keith assumes this magewright (whatever that is) of his only has access to one or two spells for the day. Well, even if that were true, wouldn't you think someone whose official title in Khorvaire being "lamplighter" would have multiple sets of cantrips like Firefinger at the ready to do the lighting for him? And even if you don't like the idea of this mage using many cantrips to light the city streets, don't you think the ruling body of Khorvaire, knowing that they like to have their city streets well lit at night, would create cantrip wands full of Firefingers to hand out to all their lamplighters? It seems to me that'd be an infinitely better alternative to one first or second level spell.... ;-)
Well, as you obviously don't know much about Eberron, permit me to clarify things for you.
On Eberron, utility magic is part of daily life, not something rare and thus not reserved for "the ruling body of Khorvaire" or "master lamplighters". Regular citizens (farmers, artisans, craftsmen, etc.) are able to use a limited form of arcane magic to accomplish their daily tasks - these are the magewrights, which is a NPC class.
To adapt the magerwight concept to D&D rules, Keith did just as you say - load magewights with magic items, making them able to use more than 1 or 2 utility spells per day.
However, in 4th edition's concept, Keith's concept, and particularly my concept too, this is far from the ideal scenario, since magic items should be aids to the characters - not what define and shape them. Just as I find far from ideal scenario, that for a 20th-level fighter, his 760,000 gp of equipment contributes much more to his effectiveness than all his skill points and feats together.
Well, as you obviously don't know much about Eberron, permit me to clarify things for you.
You're right. Thank you.
On Eberron, utility magic is part of daily life, not something rare and thus not reserved for "the ruling body of Khorvaire" or "master lamplighters". Regular citizens (farmers, artisans, craftsmen, etc.) are able to use a limited form of arcane magic to accomplish their daily tasks - these are the magewrights, which is a NPC class.
I'm not surprised to learn any average Joe can use magic in Eberron. That seems to be the trend in gaming overall these days, and not just with magic.
To adapt the magerwight concept to D&D rules, Keith did just as you say - load magewights with magic items, making them able to use more than 1 or 2 utility spells per day.
However, in 4th edition's concept, Keith's concept, and particularly my concept too, this is far from the ideal scenario, since magic items should be aids to the characters - not what define and shape them.
I don't agree this should be an absolute statement for every NPC everywhere. Someone that chooses to work for a city lighting lamps, that for whatever reason has no magical aptitude, would have to rely on magic items for him to do his job.
Interesting. Since when "challenge = being able to run out of spells?".
You're kidding, right? Since having no spells to draw upon reduces a mage's effectiveness in any encounter. You don't see the challenge of running out of spells, and then having to decide on alternatives to keep your head attached to your neck?
The ever-increasing amplification of character abilities is an obvious attempt to make character survivability greater. If that's something that floats your boat, great, but I'm rather sick of it myself.
So, characters which don't rely on abilities with per-day limitation, such as fighters or rogues, are "unchallenging" by nature?
You know what I meant. Stop twisting my words.
Interesting. Since when "challenge = being able to run out of spells?".You're kidding, right? Since having no spells to draw upon reduces a mage's effectiveness in any encounter. You don't see the challenge of running out of spells, and then having to decide on alternatives to keep your head attached to your neck?
Actually you are the one who twisted my words. I'm not going to blame you, however, since I'm assuming that you didn't understand my question.
It's obvious that being able to run out of spells increases the game's challenge. What I asked is if this is NECESSARY to provide a challenging game. For instance, adding a rule that makes a fighter's weapon break after being used a certain number of times would certainly increase the challenge (after all, an unarmed fighter is much less effective). But this rule doesn't exist - simply because "increase challenge" is not the sole purpose of rules.
I'm 100% sure that there are many ways of making a game more challenging without having to make a PC completely uneffective if he makes a wrong decision. Specially, when the decision may not be his fault at all - after all, unless the DM shows the entire adventure to his players in the beginning of the session, the player simply can't know when is the best time to use of a spell.
The ever-increasing amplification of character abilities is an obvious attempt to make character survivability greater. If that's something that floats your boat, great, but I'm rather sick of it myself.
However, you have no proof that this "ever-increasing amplification of power" is ocurring.
A 15th-level wizard's cone of cold (which, by the way, is a DAILY power) will merely do 6d6+(Int bonus) points of damage on 4E. How much damage a 15th-level wizard can do on 3E with his highest level spell slots? Not counting save or die spells, which won't exist anymore...
As mentioned by WotC, only low-level characters will actually be more powerful than its 3E counterparts. And I doubt that this will impact the challenge of the game, since low-level monsters are also far more powerful, and more importantly, have more tactical options.
But wait . . . isn't running out of hit points a problem? ;)
It's obvious that being able to run out of spells increases the game's challenge. What I asked is if this is NECESSARY to provide a challenging game.
Well, give me an alternative to spell loss then, because that's just one of the reasons why I game in the first place: to have my characters challenged, and thereby, challenging my ability as a player to think beyond my spells. Is that necessary? I think it is one possible necessary aspect of gaming if I'm expecting the game to be fun. The inherent risks that come with calling yourself 'adventurer' fade considerably if you always have the solution at your fingertips.
For instance, adding a rule that makes a fighter's weapon break after being used a certain number of times would certainly increase the challenge (after all, an unarmed fighter is much less effective). But this rule doesn't exist - simply because "increase challenge" is not the sole purpose of rules.
No, it's not the sole purpose, but rules like these are viable options to keeping the challenge level up.
However, you have no proof that this "ever-increasing amplification of power" is ocurring.
28 years of exposure to the D&D brand is all the proof I need. If 4e is attempting to reverse that trend, kudos to them.
A 15th-level wizard's cone of cold (which, by the way, is a DAILY power) will merely do 6d6+(Int bonus) points of damage on 4E. How much damage a 15th-level wizard can do on 3E with his highest level spell slots? Not counting save or die spells, which won't exist anymore...
6d6+Int for a Cone of Cold from a 15th level wizard? That's it? What's the average intelligence of a 4e mage?
As for the save or die issue, part of me wants to shout out "good riddance", yet another part of me says by doing so, they're ripping the myth right out of the mythological. Certain creatures can kill by a simple touch, look, bite, or whatever. The removal of that only makes them weaker, and changes the whole dynamic of encounters when you know you can now charge something horrible and caveman it with only superficial injuries, nothng too permanent now. We can't have a character die to a Catoplebas' death gaze because they failed to inform themselves of the risks they undertook.
6d6+Int for a Cone of Cold from a 15th level wizard? That's it? What's the average intelligence of a 4e mage?As for the save or die issue, part of me wants to shout out "good riddance", yet another part of me says by doing so, they're ripping the myth right out of the mythological. Certain creatures can kill by a simple touch, look, bite, or whatever. The removal of that only...
A 15th level Wizard in 4E would likely have a lower Intelligence than his comparative in 3E because of the loss of stat-upping spells/items. Of course the rate of ability ups might have changed, but I still doubt it'd be fast enough to make up for the afore mentioned loss.
As for the absence of Save-Or-Die, I think you're mistaken that there will no longer be creatures that can kill with touch/look/bite/whatever. The difference is, whether or not that creature's ability kills you now is seperated from one random roll.
For example, I'll point to the Bodak. 3E's Bodak boasts this
4E's Bodak Reaver boasts thisDeath Gaze (Su)
Death, range 30 feet, Fortitude DC 15 negates. Humanoids who die from this attack are transformed into bodaks 24 hours later. The save DC is Charisma-based.
Death Gaze (standard; encounter) Necrotic
Range 10; targets a living creature; +20 vs. Fortitude; If the target is weakened, it is reduced to 0 hit points, otherwise the target takes 1d6+6 necrotic damage and loses 1 healing surge.
4E's Bodak still has a pretty deadly gaze, but it isn't a make one roll to determine if you need to get a new character situation. I still wouldn't feel very safe fighting one of these!
Cheers! :)
It's obvious that being able to run out of spells increases the game's challenge. What I asked is if this is NECESSARY to provide a challenging game.Well, give me an alternative to spell loss then, because that's just one of the reasons why I game in the first place: to have my characters challenged, and thereby, challenging my ability as a player to think beyond my spells. Is that necessary? I think it is one possible necessary aspect of gaming if I'm expecting the game to be fun. The inherent risks that come with calling yourself 'adventurer' fade considerably if you always have the solution at your fingertips.
Don't you already have the answer for your question? You explictly said that you didn't consider fighters and rogues (which don't "run out of spells") unchalleging. So, I assume you can think plenty of reasons of making a character challenging without "running out of spells".
As for my answer, just to name a few:
- Resource management which implies on having "reduced effectiveness" rather than "null effectiveness" if you don't manage your resources well. That's what 4E does.
- All characters, not only spellcasters, having resource management. That's what 4E does.
- Every monster, even low-level and non-spellcasting ones, with tactical capabilities. That's what 4E does. For instance, kobolds have shifty and mob attack; hobgoblins have formation strike and phalanx fighting.
- Characters having abilities which rely on teamwork, thus punishing individualistic players. That's what 4E does.
- Nerfing of "save or die" and other "instant victory" effects. While this also affects monsters, it's worthwile to note that a PC with such abilities may use them on every encounter, while not every encounter will feature a monster with such abilities. That's what 4E does.
Personally (as a 4E enthusiast), this is one of the changes I'm least happy about. I like to run sequences where eave after wave of combat comes (whether it's successive rooms in a dungeon complex, or repeated attacks during the city battles in Red Hand of Doom), with players feeling the pressure as their resources run low. I find it really focuses the group's attention, and they feel the victory even better when they know how close they had gotten to the end of their resources.
So, I'm actually playing a wizard right now in my Wednesday night 4E campaign (Vargas, 6th-level eladrin wizard). Keeping in mind that I have a very experienced DM, I can say I DEFINITELY start feeling the pressure once my daily spells are gone, and when my encounter spells go too then it's sort of a race against the clock. My at-will spells are fine for letting me continue to contribute something while still feeling wizardly, but they pale in comparison to my encounters and dailies. I find myself trying to conserve my encounter and daily spells for just the right time when I feel they'll be MOST effective, because once I'm out of those spells I don't have nearly as much sway over how the battle comes out. It's a different kind of resource management, trying to figure out when it's best to use a certain spell as opposed to fighting against my per-day spell limitations for when I get to use the fun stuff. I also just got my first magic item (yes!) so I've got a little bit more to play with now as well.
As to the OP's question, is running out of spells a problem? Obviously that largely depends on your playstyle. I think people that play wizards mostly (and this is pure personal speculation) do so because they want to cast spells. Requiring them to spend a few levels as a commoner with a crossbow, or pushing them into doing the item creation tango, just to be able to consistently cast spells is certainly one way of making that possible. It's not the way I would choose. In many ways it's like having to earn the fun; you only get to do the things you want to do with your character if you put in the time and effort to make it happen. On the other hand, you have the fighter who can Power Attack to his heart's content, and does nothing to earn his fun. Some people like that, and it's a perfectly legitimate playstyle, but I don't think it's necessarily a critical part of what makes D&D a fun game.
Just to re-chime in.
Is running out of spells a problem?
No.
Does running out of spells or not running out of spells change the style and flavour of the game?
Yes.
Is it a better/worse change?
Depends on your preference.
For me I like people to run out of spells. It makes magic rarer. It makes people play smarter (strategic use of resources) and helps with group cohesion (as the team must support each other and play together).
For me at will spells and toned down 'charged' spells (X uses per day, etc) gives a flavour where magic is both more plentiful and less spectacular. This can be quite a fun idea but does not match either my previous understanding of D&D nor what I wish D&D to be.
Just to re-chime in.
Is running out of spells a problem?
No.Does running out of spells or not running out of spells change the style and flavour of the game?
Yes.Is it a better/worse change?
Depends on your preference.For me I like people to run out of spells. It makes magic rarer. It makes people play smarter (strategic use of resources) and helps with group cohesion (as the team must support each other and play together).
For me at will spells and toned down 'charged' spells (X uses per day, etc) gives a flavour where magic is both more plentiful and less spectacular. This can be quite a fun idea but does not match either my previous understanding of D&D nor what I wish D&D to be.
I think disconnect here may be the lack of info on how 4E's non-combat spells (termed rituals, now) will work. Depending on how rituals work, magic in a 4E world could be plentiful (as some assume based on at-will magical attacks) or it could be pretty rare.
I think most would agree it is the stuff casters do off the battle field that is really magical ... we all live in the real world and have seen the technological equivalent of a Wizard's fireball. I don't know anyone who has seen a teleport though (a real one, at least!)
Just because combat magic is more reliable, that doesn't mean the rest of it is as well.
Cheers! :)
I think disconnect here may be the lack of info on how 4E's non-combat spells (termed rituals, now) will work. Depending on how rituals work, magic in a 4E world could be plentiful (as some assume based on at-will magical attacks) or it could be pretty rare.I think most would agree it is the stuff casters do off the battle field that is really magical ... we all live in the real world and have seen the technological equivalent of a Wizard's fireball. I don't know anyone who has seen a teleport though (a real one, at least!)
Just because combat magic is more reliable, that doesn't mean the rest of it is as well.
Cheers! :)
To me at will is at will. It's why I dislike and have banned the warlock class as well. I don't mind a feat for spell-casters for something roughly the equivalent to a crossbow (stats wise) but described as a 'magic bolt' instead. Just flavour to me. I know it seems like a nice bit of hypocrisy there, but one is an at will effect that is just really a flavour change and the other are at will effects.
Oh and rituals is one of the few things about 4E that I really am intrigued about. (And may reverse engineer.)
To me at will is at will. It's why I dislike and have banned the warlock class as well. I don't mind a feat for spell-casters for something roughly the equivalent to a crossbow (stats wise) but described as a 'magic bolt' instead. Just flavour to me. I know it seems like a nice bit of hypocrisy there, but one is an at will effect that is just really a flavour change and the other are at will effects.
Oh and rituals is one of the few things about 4E that I really am intrigued about. (And may reverse engineer.)
Ah well, as they say, to each their own (which also sums up why I left most of your original post uncommented on!)
Re: a feat to give Wizard's an at-will 'magic bolt', I'd think a feat is a bit too precious to spend on it. But that's just IMO.
I'm pretty psyched about rituals too, and am always intrigued by any info I manage to dig up on them.
Cheers! :)