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 my own question:
It wasn't long ago I would have said, "No, this is not a problem. It is the thoughtfulness of spell choice and choice of when to spend your resources that makes a spell caster fun." Turns out though that the rest of my gaming group (I am the DM now) doesn't agree.
I tend to play wizards because I like these aspects. All of them who have played a spellcaster have tried to avoid it (and going sorcerer to even avoid having to prepare spells).
But it turns out this is one of the major complaints of my group... so yeah, I would have to say it is a problem for many people in having fun with the game.
Sean Mahoney
I think it is a bit of a problem.
Especially for clerics - who tend to burn spells on healing or buffs. It is partially solved in 3.5 by everyone who can buying a wand of clw, which is a bit inelegant. Having said this I like the warlock who is different because he doesnt run out of spells.
I like the idea of weak abilities that never run out, and others which are daily etc-- so I reckon 4e designers have identified something to be improved.
I think it is a considerable problem - it doesn't ruin the game by any means but - I never liked that spell casters could run out of spells.
It is very unlike books (folklore or literature) were casers grow fatigued and perhaps run out of energy but not spell slots. It is also contrary to my experience with how memory works. So if 4.0 fixes that I will consider it a plus.
|
Not really. I always liked the idea that a character has only so much power to burn off in spells or abilities, and when it's gone you can kiss your... ehm.
OK, let's just say that I appreciate the D&D classical vancian structure, even for lowly spells. That said, sometimes the limitations on spell casters - with metamagic feats, particularly - were just too much, so I came up with a house ruled solution.
Since Arcana Unearthed (the one from Monte Cook) I adopted the spell slot switch mechanic - three low spell slots to gain a higher level spell slot, one high level spell slot to gain two lowlier spell slots.
Also, spellcasters such as wizards and clerics work as sorcerers, but have a very large selection of prepared/known spells, opposed to a (relatively) small number of spell slots.
Since Unearthed Arcana (the one from WotC) I adopted the vitality/wound system, and the "health for mana" mechanic - a caster can burn off half his wounds to gain a spell slot of his highest available level.
Combined with the aforementioned system, and because it impairs the character and forces him to use extra resources to heal, I found out that it works just fine.
So in the end a spell caster can easily run out of spells just as in the standard rules, but he has extra flexibility in the management of his spell slots, and has the opportunity to regain a modest number of slots in exchange for a significant amount of health - ideally just what it takes to save the situation or flee to fight another day.
No problem.
Of course, I have seen people having problems with running out of spells half an hour (in-game time) after starting the adventure), but incidentally, they were the very same people who go out of their ways to min-max their characters (not the bit of boost most people give their characters. I mean the type that goes through all the books to find something to give you yet a bit more of a boost. The kind of player who piles templates onto their characters and fills up with levels in many classes, usually the front-loaded ones).
One incident one of those guys (I know two like that, in different groops, but this one was often obnoxious to boot) involved a psion. We'd enter the fight, he'd outperform the rest of the group combined (with one or two powers per round, each with the maximum number of power points put into it). After the third fight or so (none of them really challengin), he ran out of power points, and of course started complaining that he had to rest now (30 minutes into the dungeon), and when the rest of the party didn't comply, he started whining and sulking.
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).
In the end, all it takes is a bit of restraint and forethought and it works well without casting spells all day. I know in the 7 or so years we've been playing D&D, only those two guys really had a problem with it. In fact, the majority seems to like how goings get tough towards the end of the day, when things start to get scarce. Feels less of a cakewalk that way.
We've never really had much problem with running out of spells. At low levels we ration our spells out carefully and accept that the wizard is a commoner with a crossbow until he gets a few levels under his belt. At higher levels we all accept when a character says, "guys, I'm running low on steam". Now admittedly we don't do a lot of adventures with really tight timetables-our DM still does a good job of making us worry about our dithering in many cases. But we've never worried much about having to stop and rest. A few minutes of game time and it's the next morning, people are prepping their spells as we go and that's that. There's also been an evolution that we have fewer combat encounters per day and more interaction encounters, so running down is less common.
Is running out of spells a problem with the game system? Nope.
Is it a problem with the player? Yep.
There's a learning curve that comes with playing D&D. It's always going to be there, because even the simplest form of D&D is very complex.
I think they did the gaming community a disservice when they took the term "Advanced" off the game's name.
What do you get when you start "simplifying" things? You get simple people. Just look at the public school system if you don't believe me.
(*Rant aborted. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.*)
It's never been a problem for me. If the players are smart, they'll put their hard earned gold where it really belongs when you make spellcasters: wands, staffs, scrolls, potions!
All my spellcaster players do one or two things:
1) Get Craft Wand, Scribe Scroll (Wizards have this for free!), Brew Potion, or whatever you want. Craft Wand is the best (and, later, Craft Scepter) or Craft Staff. Place spells you'll use often in those items, such as wands of fireball, mirror image, detect magic, lightning bolt, whatever. Use your slots for spells that are handy but not used often like mount, knock, featherfall, etc. Spellcasters should rely on their "tools" as much as warriors do. Sure, the spellcaster runs out of magic eventually, but the warriors run out of hit points, and they rely on your spellcaster for those magic items as much as you do their fighting prowess.
2) Conserve their spells to when it's absolutely necessary. They perform tasks like counterspelling, aiding another, or even attacking if necessary or some other activity. No one is ever absolutely useless. You're only as useless as you make yourself out to be in D&D.
They don't mind the running out of magic. Technically, they all know when NOT to cast a spell. If you're fighting a group of goblins, let the melee/ranged attackers handle it. Meanwhile, your job should be readying to counterspell or seeing what spell is coming to warn your friends.
A spell should only be cast when necessary.
I hate destroying the tradition of Vancian magic all because World of Warcraft players hate the fact they can't "regenerate their mana" in D&D by standing around or whatever. It's downright retarded of these people and downright retarded for WotC to even attempt to appeal to these sorts of people.
how we do wizard is give em more options {spell like ablitys usadble x times a day,mage armor at will,craft staff from dragon,summon spell book, +2dc to somespell that kind of thing} add spell mastry every 4 levels,we also use a spell point system spellslot=spellpoint so u get 4 at 1st,8at2nd 10 at 3rd and so on. works well for us
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
I only DM D&D3.x ,but it seems to me that the characters rarely ran out of spells. It has to be either a large scale battle (like 40 vs 20 or so) or an unrelenting 'chase'-style action sequence (like when the PCs were trying to find the vampires coffins hidden under the city while fighting off the day-time guardians. They really didn't want the sun to set before they found the coffins.)
Other then those two, uncommon, circumstances the spell casters hardly ever totally run spell-dry.
I'm probably one of those retarded as Razz imply cause in 20 years of playing DnD, the Vancian magic system is probably the part of the game system that we found the most problematic and illogical... It don't reflect the way magic is use in Fantasy litterature and having to invest gold and XP to be as effective as other players is a pretty lame substitute (adding to the fact that being able to go to the local magic shop to buy yourself a Wand of Fireball or a +4 Vorpal longsword is another pretty strange thing unique to DnD).
All the magic users players I've played in all those years eventually come out off spells after only a few encounters... and then all the party must rest (most of the time in the dungeon...or retreat to a safer place)...
We can say that all those players are retarded... or maybe take a look at the magic system and try to make it better... I don't know.. just a tough from a stupid and ignorant DnD player...
|
|
Before, my answer would have been a resounding "Hell no, it is not a problem." but I'm not 100% positive I still feel that way.
I've seen a lot of low level wizards grumbling when they run out of their few spells and have little to contribute in most fights after that. Generally I figure they need to suck it up because at the higher levels of the game they really come into their own and wield amazing power. Low level suckage was part of being a wizard. However, someone on the C&C boards made me think another way with a post of theirs.
He stated that with crazy work schedules and everything else, his games weren't like they were when he was younger. The campaigns didn't last years as people played the same character. With all the schedule conflicts, people moving, etc, his campaigns were generally short campaigns and players of the wizards suffered from the wizard suckage but never reached the levels to enjoy the power. I never thought about it that way and after thinking about it, he's right.
My typical campaign is a a mini campaign that might last for 6-8 sessions. Not enough time for a wizard to progress into the levels of hellfire,but plenty of time for him to feel the suck.
So,if they are going to make some changes in this regard.I won't grumble about it until I see how it is implemented.
the Vancian magic system is probably the part of the game system that we found the most problematic and illogical... It don't reflect the way magic is use in Fantasy litterature
Well truth be told different literary worlds have different ways of using magic. Some are allmighty and can bend time and space as they like, others can only do small tricks that could easily be explaned as sleight of hand, or the ever elusive charisma.
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, if I read fantasy 'litterature' base on DnD, of course it will reflect the vancian magic system... that doesn't make it more intuitive, logic or interesting... But I agree that it's a question of personal taste...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
*ahem* keep it civil people.
There is a learning curve to be certain. The battle sorcerer in our group has a (un)healthy fear of melee, likely because she knows healing is finite at low levels. In the last fight, she went through all her 0 level spells on acid splash. Holding back wasn't an option, since there were 10 goblins and 3 second level characters (and a 2nd level NPC merc)
BTW, anyone in central/eastern Ohio looking for a game?
In her case, her only mistake was missing that the goblins were using morning stars, or she'd have focused on disarming them with grease. (my party's scared of the critical hit deck, and doesn't want to learn the over/undercast mechanic of AE.)
our cleric/bard runs out of spells, but that's because he's a 1/1 not a cleric 2.
I try not to run out of spells. The problem with a level 1 anything is unless you're relying on save or suck spells (sleep, colour spray) you've a very short clip. Though I do pride myself that the first goblin killed by my elan psion was with a crossbow, natural 20 to boot.
I'm not sure that would be the best of examples. Those books are based on the D&D system so will of course mimic it.
That is true. Still he said there were no such mages in litterature, the keyword being litterature. Now D&D novells aren't that revolutionary, but they are still literature.
What I also tried to say, although I was a bit too vague, is that rules for magic exist in all form of litterature (or good literature anyway). I think it was Orson Scott Card who wrote the book How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy (or something like that). He said that there should always be rules and limitations for using magic. He even gave an example system when a spellcaster had to remove a part of his body everytime he cast a spell. I can see how you would run out of spells sooner or later with that system.
|
|
I guess that this only sucks at low levels.
Later, the wizard has lots of power and can use nearly any magic item (and is able to create them!) and I never found the possibility to run out of spells an issue.
Sure, the tactical aspect is somehow challenging in my opinion.
I really like this risky component, but wizard is definitly no class for a D&D newbie.
The main concern on low levels is to survive and to later claim the price for these sucky times.
Sure, something could be done about it, but I never thought that something should be done.
There are enough spellcasting classes out there that work different and so players can avoid these aspects if they seem to be too challenging.
Well, I'm really curious to see, how the wizard will change in 4E, but it's not something that I'm looking forward to.
In my experience, low-level spellcasters run out of spells constantly. But once they reach about 8th level or so, it becomes extremely rare, and by high level, you just can't make them burn through all their spells.
So "fixing" this only seems to change the way that low-level play feels.
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.
|
It hasn't been a problem in my games. This is true mostly because the repeat casters want to save spell X for moment y while ignoring the call to be effective every single round. For people new to spellcasting I tend to suggest spontaneous casters as an intro (fewer spells/more spell slots) and only once they've had some experience saving/using spells do I recommend wizards/clerics.
Personally, my favorite class as a player has always been wizard and I've found the "suck now, rock later" to be a satisfying investment. But I can understand how at higher levels other classes might resent my wizards. The problems are exacerbated at epic level gameplay, where I usually require restraint by my casters
Ultimately I think its a question of taste. Is it fun to blow stuff up? Yes. Can it be a drag when your "boom" spells are all used on mooks? Yes. Do I think people who blow the mooks up instead of conserving are "stupid"? Heck no! If its fun for them then its fun for them. So let them play!
After all, this is a game!
|
|
Personally, my favorite class as a player has always been wizard and I've found the "suck now, rock later" to be a satisfying investment.
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.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Personally, my favorite class as a player has always been wizard and I've found the "suck now, rock later" to be a satisfying investment.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.
LOL!
This is very true. Wizards running out of spells might be a problem at low levels, but as they progress, Wizards become the Beast of the party.
The opposite is true of the Fighter. They rock at low levels, but at higher levels their abilities tend to pale in comparison with some of the other classes.
I've always viewed this as part of the balance of D&D. Each class has its strengths and weaknesses which display themselves as each class gains experience. I hope 4e doesn't take this away in the process of "fixing" it.
|
BTW, anyone in central/eastern Ohio looking for a game?
Where are you at? We're in Bellaire/Neffs just a little ways from St. Clairsville. Not that I am looking for a game - too much on my plate at the moment, but it would be something I would keep in mind if you are around.
To the OP, I like Vancian Magic. Its harder at low levels but those who master it rarely run out at high levels.
|
I don't really see a problem with the magic system. If you tend to burn through your spells quickly, take a reserve feat. Now you can drop balls of flame(or whatever) all day long and use most spell slots for more usable spells besides all offensive. That coupled with a few choice wands, scrolls, and other items de magick should ensure that you never are out of spells. If you are out, you did something wrong in the planning stage.
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?
Absolutely. It's a running gag in our group. They run around between 8am and 10am (game time) and then it's time to find a place to hole up for the remaining 22 hours. It affects in-game play in that NPCs have 22 hours to react to something the PCs did over 2 hours. If the PCs could go for a lot longer game time, then the NPCs would not have as much time to react.
Out of game, it just seems kinda silly...
Greg
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It was interesting.
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.
Firt of all, I'm on the fence about the whole 4th edition thing. I did buy the Wizards 4.0 Race & Class preview book to get some info, but found it to be a bit of a waste (surprise).
As far as spellcatsers getting 5 minutes of fun then standing in the back for the rest of the night; my group experiences this often. I DM a group of non-munchkins and we typically play between 1st and 10th level campaigns. At these levels the fighter classes can really dominate and get more useful game time out of long battle nights. So I agree the system could use a tweak to moderatelty balance out the classes. I also agree though that at 20th level spelcasters should be a little more powerful, but I just don't play games at that level enough to get upset about the impact.
Ultimately I know I'll buy the first couple 4.0 books, read them, and form opinions then. If I don't like it my group will probably be happy because they won't go buy new books and we'll stay in 3.5.
I'd also like to add I am really happy with the products Paizo are releasing. The ROTR adventure path is well done, and it's the first non-D&D brand campaign we've used (current group playing for 12 yrs.) I spend a lot more with them in the last year than I did with Wizards over the last couple in RPG materials (not-incluing D&D Mini's, my crack habit).
They problem about running out of spells is there at all levels, but not in the same manner.
At low level you do run out of spells fast, but at high level you run out of effective spells fast.
I'm DMing a AoW campaing and my group is about to enter Dragotha's lair and are close to 20th level and the casters are "running out" of spells after 2 fights maybe. Of course they aren't dried up, but 6th level spells and lower are almost useless because the damage isn't high enough to matter or the DC are trivial to monsters, example lighting bolt againts a ancient red dragon is useless. And don't get me started on wands...no offensive spells are worth the cost.
A spell that monsters can only fail on a 5 or less even if it attacks it's bad save is not going to help, so technically the higher level caster has the same amount of effective spells than the lower ones, they only have more trash and utility spells (which is fine). So they are stuck at having 5-7 comabt usefull spells.
The level 7-13 range is the best because your number of effective spells is higher than the lower and upper level range...but the mid-levels are the sweet spot of 3.5 for everyone.
Having at will low damage output, per encounter mid damage output and per day high damage output abilities will help the running out of juice factor wizard have.
I've found it to be. My groups have seen it as such a problem, I can almost never get anyone to play a spellcaster.
My players understand that they're trading low-level hurt for high-level power, but they still don't want to play one. They tell me the low levels just aren't any fun, and I can understand this. I wouldn't like using sub-par combat abilities due to rationing minimal spells, when everyone else in the group was actively contributing to a battle; I'd rather roll up a fighter, rogue, or other class that doesn't rely on a limited resource as its primary feature. On the rare occasion I've gotten someone to try a caster they never run out of spells, but they don't enjoy themselves, either, and before long ask to roll up a new character.
Even when I can get someone to play a cleric, it's always run more as a paladin in design; heavy armor and combat abilities, with spells reserved for nothing more than healing or increasing combat effectiveness.
I don't really see a problem with the magic system. If you tend to burn through your spells quickly, take a reserve feat. Now you can drop balls of flame(or whatever) all day long and use most spell slots for more usable spells besides all offensive. That coupled with a few choice wands, scrolls, and other items de magick should ensure that you never are out of spells. If you are out, you did something wrong in the planning stage.
If you're trying to dispute the changes, you should probably avoid mentioning Reserve Feats. It was revealed that they are in essence examples of 4E's spellcasting mechanic, implemented to test the waters, as it were. The fact that you and I and others like us enjoy using them is one of the reasons they're changing the system. In essence, Reserve Feats are the at-will abilities spellcasters will see in the new edition of the game.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
I've found it to be. My groups have seen it as such a problem, I can almost never get anyone to play a spellcaster.
Even when I can get someone to play a cleric, it's always run more as a paladin in design; heavy armor and combat abilities, with spells reserved for nothing more than healing or increasing combat effectiveness.
Try inserting some undead encounters for your Clerics. A Cleric's turning ability can trump their spell casting at low levels. I'm currently running a first level Cleric with the Sun and Glory domains, and it's been a blast sending undead critters packing!
As for Wizard/Sorcerors, a couple of the players at our game table put their second highest ability score in Dexterity, and use a crossbow pretty effectively. It's not the same a fireballing an army of kobolds, but it gives them something to do when spells have run out. One of them actually keeps a running "Kill List" of creatures he has finished off using his crossbow.
Running out of spells occurs at low level quite often, especially if you play a wizard. If you play a sorcerer you don't have that problem quite so much.
At least this has been my experience from playing a necromancer and a sorcerer through the first few levels. A player in my group started playing a wizard at level 5 and now he kicks ass and takes names. So an arcane caster just has to survive levels 1-4 to shine. But this has been pointed out already.
With the right DM you can play a game without mages and clerics in the party. The right player should always be able to do something even when he is out of spells.
|
|
As for Wizard/Sorcerors, a couple of the players at our game table put their second highest ability score in Dexterity, and use a crossbow pretty effectively. It's not the same a fireballing an army of kobolds, but it gives them something to do when spells have run out. One of them actually keeps a running "Kill List" of creatures he has finished off using his crossbow.
One "fix" I've seen some folks use for the wizard is giving them the ability to use at-will magical bolts. They still have to make an attack roll and the damage is only equivalent to a dagger or light crossbow.
This gives them a very magical feel even when out of spells and is really no different than using the crossbow only it has better flavor.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
As for Wizard/Sorcerors, a couple of the players at our game table put their second highest ability score in Dexterity, and use a crossbow pretty effectively. It's not the same a fireballing an army of kobolds, but it gives them something to do when spells have run out. One of them actually keeps a running "Kill List" of creatures he has finished off using his crossbow.One "fix" I've seen some folks use for the wizard is giving them the ability to use at-will magical bolts. They still have to make an attack roll and the damage is only equivalent to a dagger or light crossbow.
This gives them a very magical feel even when out of spells and is really no different than using the crossbow only it has better flavor.
Nice idea! Plus, you don't have to keep track of ammunition. I may suggest that at our session this weekend.
What do you get when you start "simplifying" things? You get simple people. Just look at the public school system if you don't believe me.
As a teacher in a public school, I find this statement offensive. I would ask upon what evidence your provactive comment is based. I would also urge you to think carefully about making sweeping generalizations such as this. The students passing through our halls are far from "simple," and to imply such is to demean the hard work that teachers, administrators, and yes, even students do.
Rant concluded.
My players reaction to this news was: But doesn't that take out all the strategy, the pre-planning? I told them that perhaps there would be some other mechanic that would take its place, but I'm not sure what it is.
I think it was Orson Scott Card who wrote the bookDamn, bringing up Orson Scott Card reminds me, now I'm going to have to read Ender's Game.
I love that book.
Who doesn't?
Larry Lichman wrote:
As for Wizard/Sorcerors, a couple of the players at our game table put their second highest ability score in Dexterity, and use a crossbow pretty effectively. It's not the same a fireballing an army of kobolds, but it gives them something to do when spells have run out. One of them actually keeps a running "Kill List" of creatures he has finished off using his crossbow.One "fix" I've seen some folks use for the wizard is giving them the ability to use at-will magical bolts. They still have to make an attack roll and the damage is only equivalent to a dagger or light crossbow.
This gives them a very magical feel even when out of spells and is really no different than using the crossbow only it has better flavor.
I also will give that idea some thought. It has good flavour and doesn't really alter anything currently in the game.
|
|
I don't really see a problem with the magic system. If you tend to burn through your spells quickly, take a reserve feat. Now you can drop balls of flame(or whatever) all day long and use most spell slots for more usable spells besides all offensive. That coupled with a few choice wands, scrolls, and other items de magick should ensure that you never are out of spells. If you are out, you did something wrong in the planning stage.If you're trying to dispute the changes, you should probably avoid mentioning Reserve Feats. It was revealed that they are in essence examples of 4E's spellcasting mechanic, implemented to test the waters, as it were. The fact that you and I and others like us enjoy using them is one of the reasons they're changing the system. In essence, Reserve Feats are the at-will abilities spellcasters will see in the new edition of the game.
Yes but the reason I like reserve feats is that they are limited. One feat, one at-will attack. The new addition looks like it will add one or more different ones per level and that they will cover many differing options. That makes a big difference to me.
Also I have "Combat Wands" in my campaign which are this:
Combat Wands
I think this concept works better for a spellcaster than having a wizard using a crossbow. It fits them more, flavor-wise, in my opinion. Attacks with Combat wands are ranged touch attacks.
These wands are made by saturating the wand in rare resins and alchemical substances that are infused with the energy type of the wand to be made.
Although they channel arcane energy, most wands are not magical themselves. For purposes of further enchanting them, they are considered masterwork weapons which are limited to only being able to receive enhancement bonuses (+1 through +5) and not the special abilities of weapons.
Special- For every 3 points the wielder’s concentration check exceeds the wand’s DC, the wielder may add 1 point of their ability bonus (of their primary casting ability, determined by highest caster level) to damage. So a wizard who exceeds the DC by 9 may add up to +3 points of his/her intelligence modifier to damage.
Special- Combat wands are considered one handed weapons for the purposes of two weapon fighting. They require great mental training and focus to use.
Special- Any effect that applies a penalty of bonus to the wielder’s attack, is also applied to the concentration check. Examples: Two weapon fighting penalties, being prone, recipient of a Bless spell.
Special- An attack with a Combat wand is treated as a ranged attack for determining things like attacks of opportunity.
Combat Wands:
Wand Type/ Base Cost/ Base Damage/ Concentration DC/ Range
1 / 750gp/ 1d4/ 10/ 40ft
2 / 1000gp/ 1d6/ 15/ 40ft
3 / 1500gp/ 1d8 / 20 / 60ft
4 / 3000gp/ 1d10 / 25 / 60ft
5 / 5000gp / 1d12 / 30 / 80ft
Energy Type / Multiplier Cost*
Fire / 0gp
Cold / 50gp
Electricity / 50gp
Acid / 75gp
Sonic / 100gp
Force / 500gp
(* multiply the energy cost by the wand’s type, and add this cost to the wand’s base
cost to determine the overall price. So a Type 5 Combat wand of Force will cost 7500gp.
5000gp (Wand type 5) + 2500 (Price of the Force energy type time the Wand type: 500X5)
The format got a bit screwed up in the transfer but oh well!
|
Contributor
|
Arcane casters running out of spells at low level in 3.5 is not really a big deal, since they can use crossbows almost as well as a fighter at that point. Running out of healing at low level can halt the game. In my games we always buy a wand of CLW as soon as we can afford it, even if we have no other magic items.
At high level the challenge is more often about running out of the right spells, or the reverse, not using spells to conserve slots for utility or recovery spells. Last Night the sorcerer in my group said "If I cast that now, I can't teleport us out of here later."
This can be a fun resource-management challenge. But it can also just bring the game to a halt, or cause continuity problems.
Personally, I think a more annoying thing is that most caster's standard frequent use items are charge items, meaning they permanently use more resources than non-casters.
I also do think there is a point in mid-level play where arcane casters have fallen too far behind in mundane combat to be useful at all, and their spells are much more useful, but they still don't have enough resources to keep going for the long haul.
Try inserting some undead encounters for your Clerics. A Cleric's turning ability can trump their spell casting at low levels. I'm currently running a first level Cleric with the Sun and Glory domains, and it's been a blast sending undead critters packing!
I did do this once, and their combat-oriented clerics actually proved effective at the task. They still didn't invest any effort in their spellcasting, however.
As an interesting aside, I've always loved playing clerics and maximizing their spellcasting ability. But even then I run out of useful spells. It just doesn't come as much of a problem, as even an average cleric is usually well-suited for straight combat; they can hold their own in a pinch, such as when the magic runs dry, and it seems this is one of the concepts they're trying to apply to arcane casters in 4E.
As for Wizard/Sorcerors, a couple of the players at our game table put their second highest ability score in Dexterity, and use a crossbow pretty effectively. It's not the same a fireballing an army of kobolds, but it gives them something to do when spells have run out. One of them actually keeps a running "Kill List" of creatures he has finished off using his crossbow.
I did decide to show my players that a low-level spellcaster can be fun, and rolled up a group of wizard and sorcerer characters to run as NPC companions, and one to play myself. All had high Dexterity and could use their crossbow effectively, but ran into problems when it came to firing into melee. It can hurt for a caster to invest two feats to negate the penalty at low levels, and without it they're back to their sub-par abilities. Needless to say, my attempt didn't generate much interest in the classes (though it did increase my respect for those who love to play casters).
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?Absolutely. It's a running gag in our group. They run around between 8am and 10am (game time) and then it's time to find a place to hole up for the remaining 22 hours. It affects in-game play in that NPCs have 22 hours to react to something the PCs did over 2 hours. If the PCs could go for a lot longer game time, then the NPCs would not have as much time to react.
Out of game, it just seems kinda silly...
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.
|
|
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
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).
This tells me the problem wasn't vancian magic per se (in the developers mind), but that you have too little spells at early levels and too many spells at higher levels. One could envision a spell progression chart for 3.5 that has say Double 1st-3rd level spells, 1X 4th-6th level spells, and 1/2 7th-9th spells for all spell casting classes, or some other schema along those lines. I suppose "at will" and "per encounter" is a way to address this, but it does change the feel of the game.
Personally I think the Vancian system is a part of D&D's charm despite its flaws. If we need wizards to have an "at will ability" that is something that the current system can do either as a class ability or as a new feat.
Regardless, I have always maintained that in regards to fantasy roleplay, the MAGIC SYSTEM is really what defines a games feel. Changing D&Ds magic system will certainly change its feel.
Straying a bit from the topic at hand I would like to point out the fact that fighters seem to be able to dish out cans of whoop a** non stop for 24 hours. Running up and down stairs and fighting in heavy armor with heavy weapons would definatly tire you out in less than two hours.
So the point I would like to get across is: Making characters conserve their energy and strategize causes realism. Not doing this causes non-stop action.
Depending on what kind of game you run any one of these could work for you, I would like a nice middle way. With lots of action, but still having to put some thought behind my actions not turning it into some kind of 24 hour action-scene.
As to the problem of running out of spells? Nah, no complaints from me or my players.
Is it really a problem with the game or that some people can't be awesome all the time?
Not to pick a fight or insult anyone. Who doesn't want to have fun by being the fire slinging font of penultimate power? But what about the rest of the party? I personally love playing a spell-caster. But without a limit on the amount and type of spells a spell-caster can cast why would they need the party?
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 enemie's resources one bit at a time. See BBEG. They turn into energizer bunnies too.)
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.