|
In my experience in sword and sorcery games the way that a sword works is always different from the way that a spell works. Magic is almost universally more complicated, with more rules to learn and more planning to accomplish. In the most popular form of sword and sorcery games (d20) attacking with a weapon is much simpler that attacking with a spell.
A fighter type is generally very easy to play. They need a high strength score and a high base attack bonus and these generally allow them to overcome their opponent’s armor class to hit and overcome their damage reduction to deal damage. Additionally, fighters may find masterwork or magical equipment that makes their attacks land more often and deal more damage. It is a fairly strait forward, rewarding and effective system.
A Wizard on the other hand is much more complicated to play. If they want all of their spells to be effective they need a vast array of high stats for their spells to be effective. For an opponent to be effected by their spells the Wizard might be required to roll a regular melee attack, ranged regular attack, touch attack, ranged touch attack, or not and or may then require their opponent to make a saving throw, or use some other system entirely based on the spell. Depending on what system is being used a different stat needs to be high for the wizard to be effective. For all of the available spells to be useful a Wizard therefore requires a high Strength, Dexterity, base attack bonus and or Intelligence.
Once a Wizard casts the spell as “effectively” as they can their magic is then resisted by their opponents’ armor class, touch armor class, saving throws, Spell Resistance, and energy resistance where applicable. The equipment that improves the effectiveness of magic works vastly differently than the equipment that improves a fighters attacks. Those items don’t simply increase their ability to hit with spells, make the spell more damaging or even hinder their opponents’ ability to resist them. Instead they often work by indirectly raising the wizard’s stats to give them bonuses or in rare cases increasing caster level to better resist spell resistance.
It seems as though spells are designed to be obsolete about six levels after they have been unlocked As a character increases in level their enemies’ ability to resist their spells (either through armor class, saves, spell resistance, etc.) increases but the potency of those same spells does not.
Meta magic seems like a neat idea. After all, fighters have all these neat feats that makes them better so wizards need some sort of feats to make them better as well, right? It may even appear that meta-magic feats are a way to take a spell that has been rendered obsolete and convert it into something more useful. Unfortunately, meta-magic feats are overly expensive both in terms of what you give up to gain them and then the effect they have on the spell slots of the wizard using them. Examining every meta-magic feat even published in the (d20 / pathfinder) base book is outside the scope of this article.
When playing a fighter type (read not a caster) multi-classing is an often interesting way to diversify your character. You can add a level of this and a level of that and your ability to effect your enemy (BAB) generally isn’t negatively effected. Not so for a caster, multi-classing with a caster does not allow their primary stat (caster level) to stack like a fighter’s does.
Another sticking point regarding the magic system in general is the divide between Arcane Magic, Clerical Magic, Psionics, and what other flavor of cheese you may want to mention. Every time someone thinks of a new idea for the source of the power that allows you to fling fire from your hands the designers strive to mechanically make it as distinct as possible.
/rant off
|
If only I could count the number of tears I have shed for the poor spell casters. Being able to cause ridiculous damage to large groups of enemies with a word and a bit of bat crap, being able to call all manner of beasts, demons, and angles to fight for you while you sit in luxury behind your impenetrable walls of magical force, being able to take to the skies and fly to the top of a mountain while I have to struggle every inch of the way in my full plate, having the ability to mumble a few words and have the ability to converse with with anything in it's native tongue, I can't imagine the convenience of being able to turn invisible with a gesture while our compatriot the thief has dedicated his whole life to trying to match that ability without magic, let not the ease in which you can simply will an object into being let you forget the poor craftsmen who have to toil for days to not even match your ability, I truly do weep for you when you summon a magical steed to carry you across the land and not experience the fun of walking from place to place, it is always uphill both ways, of course you could always just teleport and not worry about the horse ride at all. Yes mage you have received the crappy end of the stick.
As for the mechanics, what do you expect? Do you not want enemies to have a way of overcoming a spellcasters spells? What fun would the game be if all spells were instant death with no save? To me the beauty of spellcasters is that they are adaptable. Fighters swing weapons, that's all we get. Spellcasters have utility.
If only I could count the number of tears I have shed for the poor spell casters. Being able to cause ridiculous damage to large groups of enemies with a word and a bit of bat crap, being able to call all manner of beasts, demons, and angles to fight for you while you sit in luxury behind your impenetrable walls of magical force, being able to take to the skies and fly to the top of a mountain while I have to struggle every inch of the way in my full plate, having the ability to mumble a few words and have the ability to converse with with anything in it's native tongue, I can't imagine the convenience of being able to turn invisible with a gesture while our compatriot the thief has dedicated his whole life to trying to match that ability without magic, let not the ease in which you can simply will an object into being let you forget the poor craftsmen who have to toil for days to not even match your ability, I truly do weep for you when you summon a magical steed to carry you across the land and not experience the fun of walking from place to place, it is always uphill both ways, of course you could always just teleport and not worry about the horse ride at all. Yes mage you have received the crappy end of the stick.
As for the mechanics, what do you expect? Do you not want enemies to have a way of overcoming a spellcasters spells? What fun would the game be if all spells were instant death with no save? To me the beauty of spellcasters is that they are adaptable. Fighters swing weapons, that's all we get. Spellcasters have utility.
you basically summarized it for me. and with much better skill.
i have a single addition to that
For all of the available spells to be useful a Wizard therefore requires a high Strength, Dexterity, base attack bonus and or Intelligence.
Wait... what spell is there for a Wizard to cast that requires a high Strength? I'm honestly curious, because I can't think of any.
A Wizard needs decent to high Dexterity and Constitution and ungodly amounts of Intelligence (By level 20 if your Intelligence is under 30 something's gone horribly wrong imo). That's pretty much it. -Maybe- a decent Wisdom for the Will save, but you could live with an average Wisdom. The high Dexterity (acquired through magic items, tomes and other fun stuff) makes up for the low BaB for the few times you need to make a touch attack.
|
|
For all of the available spells to be useful a Wizard therefore requires a high Strength, Dexterity, base attack bonus and or Intelligence.Wait... what spell is there for a Wizard to cast that requires a high Strength? I'm honestly curious, because I can't think of any.
A Wizard needs decent to high Dexterity and Constitution and ungodly amounts of Intelligence (By level 20 if your Intelligence is under 30 something's gone horribly wrong imo). That's pretty much it. -Maybe- a decent Wisdom for the Will save, but you could live with an average Wisdom. The high Dexterity (acquired through magic items, tomes and other fun stuff) makes up for the low BaB for the few times you need to make a touch attack.
Any non-ranged touch attack.
Well the original poster may overstate the fact that wizards need good ability scores a bit........ they are probably one of the classes that can do with the least ability spread. (Fighters also need good strength and constitution, and with the advent of the "armour masteries" etc also dexterity).
However, it is true that in general Wizards and other spellcasters seem to be made artificially complicated, with instead of spells adequately leveling with you, having to select more and more and more spells, which you have to memorize..... now this does increase their power (also low level spells can be usefull if not necessarily powerfull at higher levels) but there is some disbalance.
The general "theme" for D20 kind games seems to be: Spellcaster = More difficult and thus more powerfull........
Any non-ranged touch attack.For all of the available spells to be useful a Wizard therefore requires a high Strength, Dexterity, base attack bonus and or Intelligence.Wait... what spell is there for a Wizard to cast that requires a high Strength? I'm honestly curious, because I can't think of any.
A Wizard needs decent to high Dexterity and Constitution and ungodly amounts of Intelligence (By level 20 if your Intelligence is under 30 something's gone horribly wrong imo). That's pretty much it. -Maybe- a decent Wisdom for the Will save, but you could live with an average Wisdom. The high Dexterity (acquired through magic items, tomes and other fun stuff) makes up for the low BaB for the few times you need to make a touch attack.
As far as I know, touch attacks are Dex + BaB, not Strength. You're trying to touch someone, not power through their armor.
A Wizard on the other hand is much more complicated to play. If they want all of their spells to be effective they need a vast array of high stats for their spells to be effective. For an opponent to be effected by their spells the Wizard might be required to roll a regular melee attack, ranged regular attack, touch attack, ranged touch attack, or not and or may then require their opponent to make a saving throw, or use some other system entirely based on the spell. Depending on what system is being used a different stat needs to be high for the wizard to be effective. For all of the available spells to be useful a Wizard therefore requires a high Strength, Dexterity, base attack bonus and or Intelligence.
Unfortunately, meta-magic feats are overly expensive both in terms of what you give up to gain them and then the effect they have on the spell slots of the wizard using them.
Ok, I know other people have already replied to this, but a vast array of stats? The vast majority of spells that require an attack roll are ranged attack spells. They only require you to hit a target's touch AC, which is usually quite low. Spellcasters need a super-high caster stat, and a decent Dex. They do not need a high BAB. They need a good Con, but so does every other class.
How are metamagic feats overly expensive? What do you give up to gain them, besides the other feats you could have chosen? If you're worried about spells losing effectiveness take Heighten Spell. And what is the problem with the effect they have on the spell slots? Quite often a metamagicked spell is better than other spells of equivalent level. An empowered fireball is better than a cone of cold, and an empowerd delayed blast fireball is better than a meteor storm.
You want a game where magic is just as mechanically simple as hitting people with a stick?
Guess what? There is one, it's called 4e.
As for needing a "high con", of course the Wizard needs a high con, EVERY character needs a high con. It means more HP. That's like saying "well wizards do need to breathe".
The high str and dex is total BS. Yes they do apply to your hit roles, but those are TOUCH attacks. At high levels most opponents have the touch AC of a barn. See that Dragon with the AC of 50? Guess what his touch AC is? That's right, it's a 2 or a 4! How much Dex or Str do you need to hit that?
Even for the enemies whose touch AC isn't a joke there's the fact that MOST wizard spells don't require an attack roll at all.
Yes spell do become obsolete. That's because you keep getting new ones. One of the most broken factors of psionics was that the powers in 3.5 never did go obsolete. I banned psionics after running a game where a player demonstrated just how broken they were.
Multi-classing into a non-spell casting class doesn't work well. But a fighter can't multi-class into rogue type classes without sacrificing his BAB. When you multi-class out of your specialty you become less specialized. DUH!!! Of course you can multi-class into as many classes that give full spell casting as you want without losing anything that matters.
I have run multiple systems, including more than 3 years running D&D (3.0, 3.5 and now PF). In my experience as a GM a properly handled wizard is on par with any other character in a party. A wizard in the hands of an experienced and skilled player should be feared beyond almost anything else in the game.
If you want lessons on how to properly play a wizard without needing things like Str, and without sucking in the slightest I'm sure there are plenty of people on the board who would help.
|
|
As for the mechanics, what do you expect? Do you not want enemies to have a way of overcoming a spellcasters spells? What fun would the game be if all spells were instant death with no save? To me the beauty of spellcasters is that they are adaptable. Fighters swing weapons, that's all we get. Spellcasters have utility.
I am not asking for spells to cause instant death without a save. I never mentioned or proposed that.
I propose that we make spells use the same mechanic that is used in the rest of the game. A spell that turns someone to stone should do X damage / save for half and if your HP fall below zero you become a statue.
|
|
How are metamagic feats overly expensive? What do you give up to gain them, besides the other feats you could have chosen? If you're worried about spells losing effectiveness take Heighten Spell. And what is the problem with the effect they have on the spell slots? Quite often a metamagicked spell is better than other spells of equivalent level. An empowered fireball is better than a cone of cold, and an empowerd delayed blast fireball is better than a meteor storm.
First you pay a feat for the ability to choose to use meta-magic, then you pay to use that feat by increasing the spellcasting slot of the spell in question. The spells in question don't even seem to be designed to be effected by meta magic... a meta-magiced spell often looks unappetizing when compared to the Plane Jane spells that are competing with the same spell slot.
for example, most illusion or enchantment spells cap out at certain hit die, heightening the spell to increase the DC, thematically this should increase the HD effect. It doesn't. Sleep for example is first level and can put 4 hd worth of creatures to sleep, Deep slumber is third level and can put 10 hd worth of creatures to sleep. When choosing spells should I have a heightened sleep spell in my third level slot or a deep slumber? They would have the same DC... Thematically they should have the same effect...
Lets also not mention that in almost any home game, the DM will allow wizards to make their own spells and allow them to tweak duration, range, and components in exchange for GP. That is one of the major historical appeals of the class.
As for the mechanics, what do you expect? Do you not want enemies to have a way of overcoming a spellcasters spells? What fun would the game be if all spells were instant death with no save? To me the beauty of spellcasters is that they are adaptable. Fighters swing weapons, that's all we get. Spellcasters have utility.I am not asking for spells to cause instant death without a save. I never mentioned or proposed that.
I propose that we make spells use the same mechanic that is used in the rest of the game. A spell that turns someone to stone should do X damage / save for half and if your HP fall below zero you become a statue.
Then go play 4e.
Your knowledge is inaccurate.
The Str/Dex split is made with regard to melee/ranged targetting with only a single exception: Weapon Finesse (and Brutal Throw in 3.5 to use Str for ranged... meh.) Touch has the effect of lowering (in theory) enemy AC by disallowing their use of armor or such bonuses. No adjustment is made for a touch effect with regard to attack stats.That said, a mage does not need a high strength. Select Weapon Finesse (unarmed strike) or just don't use touch range effects. Not a big deal.
O.o
If Strength is truly used for touch attacks, I have to say that is the single dumbest rule I have yet encountered. It's -touching-... which should have nothing to do with physical strength and everything to do with Dex/Accuracy. Strength for a touch attack... that's ridiculous. *Shakes head*
Your knowledge is inaccurate.
The Str/Dex split is made with regard to melee/ranged targetting with only a single exception: Weapon Finesse (and Brutal Throw in 3.5 to use Str for ranged... meh.) Touch has the effect of lowering (in theory) enemy AC by disallowing their use of armor or such bonuses. No adjustment is made for a touch effect with regard to attack stats.That said, a mage does not need a high strength. Select Weapon Finesse (unarmed strike) or just don't use touch range effects. Not a big deal.
O.o
If Strength is truly used for touch attacks, I have to say that is the single dumbest rule I have yet encountered. It's -touching-... which should have nothing to do with physical strength and everything to do with Dex/Accuracy. Strength for a touch attack... that's ridiculous. *Shakes head*
Been there since 3.0. Str is used for all melee attacks, whether they are touch or not. Frankly using Str for the to hit bonus at all is the stupid rule, but it's not one I've ever seen anyone have a real problem with.
|
|
You want a game where magic is just as mechanically simple as hitting people with a stick?
Guess what? There is one, it's called 4e.
Go here http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ if you can figure out which logical falicy you are using I will admit defeat.
As for needing a "high con", of course the Wizard needs a high con, EVERY character needs a high con. It means more HP. That's like saying "well wizards do need to breathe".
I never mentioned con
The high str and dex is total BS. Yes they do apply to your hit roles, but those are TOUCH attacks. At high levels most opponents have the touch AC of a barn. See that Dragon with the AC of 50? Guess what his touch AC is? That's right, it's a 2 or a 4! How much Dex or Str do you need to hit that?Even for the enemies whose touch AC isn't a joke there's the fact that MOST wizard spells don't require an attack roll at all.
Then why have the mechanic? I am not talking exclusivly about play at high levels. Have fun fighting ghosts at 7th level.
Multi-classing into a non-spell casting class doesn't work well. But a fighter can't multi-class into rogue type classes without sacrificing his BAB. When you multi-class out of your specialty you become less specialized. DUH!!! Of course you can multi-class into as many classes that give full spell casting as you want without losing anything that matters.
You are comparing apples to oranges. A fighter can multiclass with a ranger, barbarian, paladin, etc without suffering the penalties I mentioned. They do have some options that don't hinder them.
A wizard can only multi-class with prestige classes. Multi-classing with bard, sorcerer, cleric, druid, etc. does not increase their caster level, despite the fact that they have been learning more about how magic as a whole functions.
The multi-classing system works well for one and not the other. It is a valid complaint.
While I will admit to being somewhat sarcastic and mocking, I am not using a logical falicy.
You are right that you did not mention con, so feel free to consider that directed at those who did.
I have both played and run in games from low to high level. Generally less than 10% of the spells that I or any of my players have used on a regular basis, regardless of the level of play, involve an attack roll. My wizard will be happy to take on that ghost at 7th level. Magic Missle, which does not require an attack roll and is force effect so no miss chance, will eat that ghost for breakfast.
A fighter who multiclasses to other class cannot qualify for fighter or feats or get bonus feats from fighter. Barbarians who multiclass do not have their rage improve, or get DR, or any of their other class features. Palladin have a whole mess of abilities to miss including spell casting of their own. Rogues miss out on more sneak attack dice.
In fact I generally encourage spell casters, particularly wizards to multi-class. The majority of classes out there are prestige classes. A wizard with a few prestige classes under his belt can get some really nice extra bonuses. That's on top of potentially still having full spell casting ability.
|
4E definitely sounds tailor made to your desires. That's not meant sarcastically, or as a dig at either you or 4E (just throwing that out there before Scott Betts shows up). It's a much cleaner system, and whether you are a spellcaster or a sword-swinger, you'll be using much the same mechanics to get the job done, making it much more consistent, regardless of the class you choose. You won't have to learn an entirely new system to play a wizard, or a psion, as they use the same core mechanics, just with different flavoring.
Other games, like 3.5 D&D and GURPS, have radically different mechanisms for martial effects and magical effects (and psionic effects, etc.), and that's part of their structure, both an asset, for those who like that sort of thing, as each game becomes multiple 'mini-games' (that may not always play well together...), and a detriment for those who want to learn one consistent coherent internally-balanced system of mechanics to handle martial, arcane, divine, psychic, etc. means of affecting the environment / damaging the enemy.
3.5, and, eventually, Pathfinder, will always have a plethora of different subsystems. Wizards do things one way. Sorcerers another. Psions another. Warlocks, Incarnum users, Shadowcasters, Binders, Truenamers, etc, etc. all use different systems to accomplish very similar roles, and there are a plethora of 3rd party options, such as in Monte Cook's World of Darkness or EN World's Elements of Magic or Arcana Unearthed or Green Ronin's Complete Psychic Handbook or Mutants & Masterminds or True20, that allow for yet different ways of handling supernatural effects. Heck, the Book of 9 Swords even introduced some radically new non-spellcasting mechanics for the martial classes, creating yet another system-within-a-system.
Complexity is the bugaboo of this system, both it's blessing and it's curse. A streamlined True20 or M&M2E based game might be closer to what you are looking for, coming closer to using the same sorts of mechanics for martial and magical arts, but pre-4th edition, D&D just didn't traditionally go that route.
A Wizard on the other hand is much more complicated to play. If they want all of their spells to be effective they need a vast array of high stats for their spells to be effective. For an opponent to be effected by their spells the Wizard might be required to roll a regular melee attack, ranged regular attack, touch attack, ranged touch attack, or not and or may then require their opponent to make a saving throw, or use some other system entirely based on the spell. Depending on what system is being used a different stat needs to be high for the wizard to be effective. For all of the available spells to be useful a Wizard therefore requires a high Strength, Dexterity, base attack bonus and or Intelligence.Once a Wizard casts the spell as “effectively” as they can their magic is then resisted by their opponents’ armor class, touch armor class, saving throws, Spell Resistance, and energy resistance where applicable. The equipment that improves the effectiveness of magic works vastly differently than the equipment that improves a fighters attacks. Those items don’t simply increase their ability to hit with spells, make the spell more damaging or even hinder their opponents’ ability to resist them. Instead they often work by...
Well, I'll agree with you... in part. A very small part, mind you. That part being my general dislike of "save or suck" spells. Sleep, Charm Person, Blindness/Deafness, and the like are great when you first learn them, but are useless at higher levels.
That said, I don't think Wizards (or Sorcerers) need any help...
Armor Class: very few spells target a straight AC.
Touch AC: the "default" touch AC is 10. A 20th level Wizard has a BAB of +10. Considering that their Dex is likely at least a +1, if not much higher, AND many of the higher level creatures are bigger than medium size (easier to hit with touch attacks), the Wizard (or sorcerer) will be hitting touch AC on a roll of a 2 or 3 most of the time. That's better odds then the melee combatants in most cases.
Saving Throws: Many of these are "save or suck" spells, which I already mentioned.
Spell Resistance: These creatures are designed to be tough against spellcasters, just as a creature with a high AC is designed to be tough against a melee combatant.
Energy Resistance: In my opinion is less effectinve than DR, which hurts melee attackers. With Energy Rsistance, you have to be right on which one of several energy types you are trying to resist. With DR, you (generally) don't have to pick between piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning.
Now, you might be right in that a wizard has a tough time in covering all these defenses. However, you shouldn't be trying to cover all of them. That's like expecting a melee combatant to be good at mounted combat, ranged combat, melee combat, and sneaking around... all at the same level of ability.
My advice to any class is to pick one or two "things", and improve those "things". Trying to cover every possible scenario will mean you will be OK at everything, but not great at any of them. If you want to focus on rays, then you only have to worry about improving your touch attacks. If you want to focus on "save or suck" spells, then you only have to worry about improving your spell DC.
Been there since 3.0. Str is used for all melee attacks, whether they are touch or not. Frankly using Str for the to hit bonus at all is the stupid rule, but it's not one I've ever seen anyone have a real problem with.Your knowledge is inaccurate.
The Str/Dex split is made with regard to melee/ranged targetting with only a single exception: Weapon Finesse (and Brutal Throw in 3.5 to use Str for ranged... meh.) Touch has the effect of lowering (in theory) enemy AC by disallowing their use of armor or such bonuses. No adjustment is made for a touch effect with regard to attack stats.That said, a mage does not need a high strength. Select Weapon Finesse (unarmed strike) or just don't use touch range effects. Not a big deal.
O.o
If Strength is truly used for touch attacks, I have to say that is the single dumbest rule I have yet encountered. It's -touching-... which should have nothing to do with physical strength and everything to do with Dex/Accuracy. Strength for a touch attack... that's ridiculous. *Shakes head*
That's really weird. We've been using Dex for all touch attacks since 3.0... I think we'll keep doing that, honestly because it only makes sense.
...and yeah, I agree with you, using Strength as a "to hit" bonus made little sense to begin with. That's like saying "Stronger Hulk gets, more accurate Hulk Gets!", which is pretty silly imo.
Been there since 3.0. Str is used for all melee attacks, whether they are touch or not. Frankly using Str for the to hit bonus at all is the stupid rule, but it's not one I've ever seen anyone have a real problem with.Your knowledge is inaccurate.
The Str/Dex split is made with regard to melee/ranged targetting with only a single exception: Weapon Finesse (and Brutal Throw in 3.5 to use Str for ranged... meh.) Touch has the effect of lowering (in theory) enemy AC by disallowing their use of armor or such bonuses. No adjustment is made for a touch effect with regard to attack stats.That said, a mage does not need a high strength. Select Weapon Finesse (unarmed strike) or just don't use touch range effects. Not a big deal.
O.o
If Strength is truly used for touch attacks, I have to say that is the single dumbest rule I have yet encountered. It's -touching-... which should have nothing to do with physical strength and everything to do with Dex/Accuracy. Strength for a touch attack... that's ridiculous. *Shakes head*
That's really weird. We've been using Dex for all touch attacks since 3.0... I think we'll keep doing that, honestly because it only makes sense.
...and yeah, I agree with you, using Strength as a "to hit" bonus made little sense to begin with. That's like saying "Stronger Hulk gets, more accurate Hulk Gets!", which is pretty silly imo.
Agreed. House rule as you seen fit, I always do. I've yet to have a wizard complain to me about it, so I don't see any need to make the changes yet.
First you pay a feat for the ability to choose to use meta-magic, then you pay to use that feat by increasing the spellcasting slot of the spell in question. The spells in question don't even seem to be designed to be effected by meta magic... a meta-magiced spell often looks unappetizing when compared to the Plane Jane spells that are competing with the same spell slot.
Payment means a cost. Unless a feat has a prereq, and metamagic feats generally don't, the only cost is the opportunity cost, i.e. the fact that you could have chosen another feat. But since this is true of every feat, it's not a valid criticism at all.
Which "spells in question" don't seem to be designed to be affected by metamagic? Spells with an area? Or a duration? Or a variable die roll involved? Or a save dc? Or a range?
for example, most illusion or enchantment spells cap out at certain hit die, heightening the spell to increase the DC, thematically this should increase the HD effect. It doesn't. Sleep for example is first level and can put 4 hd worth of creatures to sleep, Deep slumber is third level and can put 10 hd worth of creatures to sleep. When choosing spells should I have a heightened sleep spell in my third level slot or a deep slumber? They would have the same DC... Thematically they should have the same effect...
Most, huh? Like the sleep spells and the fear spells? So..4? Am I missing some spells? Sure there are some spells that become useless at higher levels, sleep being among them. So don't use them anymore. There are enough spells just in the PHB to satisfy a wizard through 20th level. Use sleep at low levels when it totally kicks ass, and then drop it. If you're a sorcerer train out of it, and if you're a wizard just stop using it. What's the problem?
Lets also not mention that in almost any home game, the DM will allow wizards to make their own spells and allow them to tweak duration, range, and components in exchange for GP. That is one of the major historical appeals of the class.
I've never heard of this in any of my games, but maybe our games our unusual.
|
|
Payment means a cost. Unless a feat has a prereq, and metamagic feats generally don't, the only cost is the opportunity cost, i.e. the fact that you could have chosen another feat. But since this is true of every feat, it's not a valid criticism at all.
With regard to feats I was referring to the opportunity cost. With regards to increasing the level of the spell I was referring to that. Criticism over a things opportunity cost is a valid criticism. You are generalizing when you say it is true of every feat. Some feats are almost always the best choice.
Which "spells in question" don't seem to be designed to be affected by metamagic? Spells with an area? Or a duration? Or a variable die roll involved? Or a save dc? Or a range?
I had thought I explained that with the sleep vs deep slumber. When there is a higher level version of the same effect that performs better than the equivalent lower level spell improved via metamagic. Again with opportunity cost.
Most, huh? Like the sleep spells and the fear spells? So..4? Am I missing some spells? Sure there are some spells that become useless at higher levels, sleep being among them. So don't use them anymore. There are enough spells just in the PHB to satisfy a wizard through 20th level. Use sleep at low levels when it totally kicks ass, and then drop it. If you're a sorcerer train out of it, and if you're a wizard just stop using it. What's the problem?
The meta-magic system feels like it was tacked on after the fact. It feels half done and has in every edition of dungeons and dragons / pathfinder that included it. The fact that it isn't a problem in every situation does not invalidate that there is a problem.
It was an example. Do you expect me to compile a complete list of low level spells and compare them (after every feasible metamagic enhancement)with every similar spell of a higher level to prove a point?
(Edited to correct spelling)
|
|
4E definitely sounds tailor made to your desires. That's not meant sarcastically, or as a dig at either you or 4E (just throwing that out there before Scott Betts shows up). It's a much cleaner system, and whether you are a spellcaster or a sword-swinger, you'll be using much the same mechanics to get the job done, making it much more consistent, regardless of the class you choose. You won't have to learn an entirely new system to play a wizard, or a psion, as they use the same core mechanics, just with different flavoring.
Other games, like 3.5 D&D and GURPS, have radically different mechanisms for martial effects and magical effects (and psionic effects, etc.), and that's part of their structure, both an asset, for those who like that sort of thing, as each game becomes multiple 'mini-games' (that may not always play well together...), and a detriment for those who want to learn one consistent coherent internally-balanced system of mechanics to handle martial, arcane, divine, psychic, etc. means of affecting the environment / damaging the enemy.
3.5, and, eventually, Pathfinder, will always have a plethora of different subsystems. Wizards do things one way. Sorcerers another. Psions another. Warlocks, Incarnum users, Shadowcasters, Binders, Truenamers, etc, etc. all use different systems to accomplish very similar roles, and there are a plethora of 3rd party options, such as in Monte Cook's World of Darkness or EN World's Elements of Magic or Arcana Unearthed or Green Ronin's Complete Psychic Handbook or Mutants & Masterminds or True20, that allow for yet different ways of handling supernatural effects. Heck, the Book of 9 Swords even introduced some radically new non-spellcasting mechanics for the martial classes, creating yet another system-within-a-system.
Complexity is the bugaboo of this system, both it's blessing and it's curse. A streamlined True20 or M&M2E based game might be closer to what you are looking for, coming closer to using the same sorts of mechanics for martial and magical...
You mistake the heart of my complaint. I enjoy complexity, I want complexity, I simply want a cohesive well thought out complexity. Spells that don't become obsolete, Magic Items that increase a wizards ability to cast the spells they have rather than give them more spells to cast, more viable tasty options... besides new spells (cheese) that only end up contributing to the problem...
4E is not complex and robs the wizard of anything that threatens to be interesting (please don't flame me for this, it is my opinion not absolute truth). I played and loved Arcana Evolved's meta-magic system (though several of my complaints apply to that system as well).
|
|
You mistake the heart of my complaint. I enjoy complexity, I want complexity, I simply want a cohesive well thought out complexity. Spells that don't become obsolete, Magic Items that increase a wizards ability to cast the spells they have rather than give them more spells to cast, more viable tasty options... besides new spells (cheese) that only end up contributing to the problem...
I haven't seen the new magic system that Monte Cook uses in his World of Darkness revamp, but from what I have heard said about it, it might be the sort of thing you are looking for.
The Elements of Magic (Revised) magic system, which I do own, is an Ars Magica-like system that builds effect-based magic. A 'fire wizard' is able to use effects that duplicate affects normal fires, burning hands, fireball, quench, etc. without having different (and potentially contradictory) mechanics for each effect (burning hands starts fires, fireballs don't?), making it much more coherent and internally-consistent.
You might give a system like that a look and see if it works better for your needs.
Now that I have a better idea of what you are looking for, you sound pretty much like I did back in the days of Vampire: the Masquerade, when WW would come out with yet another incompatible magic system and my eyes would roll so hard that I'd have to go look for them afterwards. (True Magick, Sorcery, Thaumaturgy, Theurgy, Tzmisce Sorcery, Setite Sorcery, Infernal Sorcery, Assamite Sorcery, Necromancy-as-Blood-Magic, Garou Gifts, Mummy Hekau, etc, etc.)
One simple effects-based system, rather than a bunch of differently-shaped wheels all attempting to pull a single cart, would be nice, wouldn't it?
|
|
I haven't seen the new magic system that Monte Cook uses in his World of Darkness revamp, but from what I have heard said about it, it might be the sort of thing you are looking for.The Elements of Magic (Revised) magic system, which I do own, is an Ars Magica-like system that builds effect-based magic. A 'fire wizard' is able to use effects that duplicate affects normal fires, burning hands, fireball, quench, etc. without having different (and potentially contradictory) mechanics for each effect (burning hands starts fires, fireballs don't?), making it much more coherent and internally-consistent.
You might give a system like that a look and see if it works better for your needs.
Now that I have a better idea of what you are looking for, you sound pretty much like I did back in the days of Vampire: the Masquerade, when WW would come out with yet another incompatible magic system and my eyes would roll so hard that I'd have to go look for them afterwards. (True Magick, Sorcery, Thaumaturgy, Theurgy, Tzmisce Sorcery, Setite Sorcery, Infernal Sorcery, Assamite Sorcery, Necromancy-as-Blood-Magic, Garou Gifts, Mummy Hekau, etc, etc.)
One simple effects-based system, rather than a bunch of differently-shaped wheels all attempting to pull a single cart, would be nice, wouldn't it?
Indeed!
I have been hesitant to look over Monte Cook's world of darkness when I found out it was a d20 game and ran off to play nwod instead. Perhaps I should go back and give it a look.
I haven't seen The Elements of Magic (Revised) magic system. I will look into that as well.
What did you think of Arcana Evolved's magic item creation feats?
|
|
What did you think of Arcana Evolved's magic item creation feats?
Love that sort of thing.
3.0 started on a path to madness, IMO, with the Candle Caster PrC and the PRCS 'Gem Magic' feat, which were, essentially, just entire class abilities and feats blown on the ability to make potions and scrolls that weren't actually potions or scrolls, but 'candles' and 'gems.'
Crazy!
As early as 2nd edition, we were playing 'Craftsmages' who used alternate means to produce magical effects, such as weaving intricate cloths, or scribing illuminated scrolls or even brewing elixirs, that were then consumed or expended during 'spellcasting.' (The Complate Sha'ir's Guide had some wizard Kits that worked sort of like this, like the Mageweaver and the Clockwork Mage.)
The last thing I thought the game needed was a bajillion different new Crafting feats for 'things that are charged spell-trigger items like wands, but are actually crystals' or 'things that are single-charge use-activated like potions, but are rune-inscribed clay tiles that you break.'
With Craft Wondrous Item already being a dumping ground that can do almost anything, including making potions of stuff you can't normally make potions of (by calling them 'elixirs'), the plethora of Craft feats just seemed silly, to me.
Monte's system takes all that unwarranted utility away from Craft Wondrous Item, the 'do-anything' feat, and allows for a wider range of 'items' than the factory-manufactured feel of ye olde potion of X and wand of Y.
You mistake the heart of my complaint. I enjoy complexity, I want complexity, I simply want a cohesive well thought out complexity. Spells that don't become obsolete, Magic Items that increase a wizards ability to cast the spells they have rather than give them more spells to cast, more viable tasty options... besides new spells (cheese) that only end up contributing to the problem...I haven't seen the new magic system that Monte Cook uses in his World of Darkness revamp, but from what I have heard said about it, it might be the sort of thing you are looking for.
The Elements of Magic (Revised) magic system, which I do own, is an Ars Magica-like system that builds effect-based magic. A 'fire wizard' is able to use effects that duplicate affects normal fires, burning hands, fireball, quench, etc. without having different (and potentially contradictory) mechanics for each effect (burning hands starts fires, fireballs don't?), making it much more coherent and internally-consistent.
You might give a system like that a look and see if it works better for your needs.
Now that I have a better idea of what you are looking for, you sound pretty much like I did back in the days of Vampire: the Masquerade, when WW would come out with yet another incompatible magic system and my eyes would roll so hard that I'd have to go look for them afterwards. (True Magick, Sorcery, Thaumaturgy, Theurgy, Tzmisce Sorcery, Setite Sorcery, Infernal Sorcery, Assamite Sorcery, Necromancy-as-Blood-Magic, Garou Gifts, Mummy Hekau, etc, etc.)
One simple effects-based system, rather than a bunch of differently-shaped wheels all attempting to pull a single cart, would be nice, wouldn't it?
ROTFL because it's SO TRUE.
I love WoD stuff though. A b*&&& to play, but so much fun, and so much backstory.
4E is more consistent in regards to attacking set defenses, i.e. AC, Dexterity, Foritude and Will Power, versus having melee use one method and spelll casters another. But if you don't like the mechanics, i.e. powers, then obviously it won't be your game of choice. There is variation in regards to affects, but nothing on the scale of 3.5
I believe a better match is GURPS, where everything is based on a skill rolls, whether combat, spells, or non-combat. In addition as you character grows in strength the spells scale in regards to less power needed to gain the same affect, longer distances, and more difficult tasks. The spells are also based on trees, where you can learn higher levels spells that are dependent on gaining lower level ones from the same magic school, or accross multiple schools. The other benefit is clerics use the same spell mechanic.
First> I'd suggest getting out and exploring other systems. DnD/Pathfinder is a 'camel' built by various people over the years. It has a 'Swiss Army Knife' of different systems that have been 'bolted' on to it over the years. Heck, there wasn't even a thief/rogue class in the beginning (check out Labyrinth Lords if you want the old goodness). Much less there wasn't any skill system or spells above level 6 or psionics. All that got added on over the years to the original minatures Chainmail rules.
Second> Going with the first point, I wouldn't blame the inconsistency of systems on the system in DnD. It was built over years of people saying 'wouldn't it be neat if...'. Then they went and made up a rule or set of effects to cover that situation. DnD heart and soul is people in their homes deciding to make up their own 'house rules' or inventing their own 'brand of magic'. This is why DnD is filled with spells with Named Wizards. These were the friends who all advanced their characters and eventually Multiclassed their humans as Wizards. They each brought unique spell creations to the game as they designed spells to 'out think' the DM.
Third> After exploring some other systems with a single designer or only a few designers then you may find a system that is more consistent from top to bottom in effect and handling of things. Mutants and Masterminds is a system that can be used for doing fantasy RPGs (done a few characters in that system and it gives the ability to make a more Final Fantasy style feel). FATE has some new rules coming out that work well for more consistent effects of fighters and mages. Savage World is another system that has plenty of support on variety of products with some of them really neat and clever.
Every Friday I like to watch Game Geeks with Kurt Wiegle to see what he has to say on a system. One hundred fourty-three episodes of goodness.
http://www.youtube.com/user/pugknowspro
Fourth> I am actually more sad that there are so many magic systems that are the same in the world. I watch various anime like Fairy Tale and think wouldn't it be fun if more writers and RPG designers stopped the Gandalf / Merlin / Harry Potter template copy and paste and designed something fun and wondrous to reflect the diversity of magic. Use your search engine and look up martial arts styles or divination techniques and you'll find hundreds of varieties and yet with magic it seems to all be pretty much the same serving of vanilla.
In my experience in sword and sorcery games the way that a sword works is always different from the way that a spell works. Magic is almost universally more complicated, with more rules to learn and more planning to accomplish. In the most popular form of sword and sorcery games (d20) attacking with a weapon is much simpler that attacking with a spell.
And that's a good thing.
A Wizard on the other hand is much more complicated to play. If they want all of their spells to be effective they need a vast array of high stats for their spells to be effective. For an opponent to be effected by their spells the Wizard might be required to roll a regular melee attack, ranged regular attack, touch attack, ranged touch attack, or not and or may then require their opponent to make a saving throw, or use some other system entirely based on the spell. Depending on what system is being used a different stat needs to be high for the wizard to be effective. For all of the available spells to be useful a Wizard therefore requires a high Strength, Dexterity, base attack bonus and or Intelligence.
Are you trolling? Wizard is one of the least MAD classes. Three basic abilities are complete dump stats (STR, WIS, CHA), and DEX and CON are only of secondary importance...
Once a Wizard casts the spell as “effectively” as they can their magic is then resisted by their opponents’ armor class, touch armor class, saving throws, Spell Resistance, and energy resistance where applicable. The equipment that improves the effectiveness of magic works vastly differently than the equipment that improves a fighters attacks. Those items don’t simply increase their ability to hit with spells, make the spell more damaging or even hinder their opponents’ ability to resist them. Instead they often work by indirectly raising the wizard’s stats to give them bonuses or in rare cases increasing caster level to better resist spell resistance.
Or increasing DEX to improve ranged touch attacks the same way that DEX increasing items help a finesse rogue...
But it doesn't even really matter, because a player who knows what he is doing will have the appropriate spell... so if the monster has spell resistance, change the environment (black tentacles, solid fog, ... ) or summon monsters. If it has good reflex saves, use a spell that targets fortitude or will.
It seems as though spells are designed to be obsolete about six levels after they have been unlocked As a character increases in level their enemies’ ability to resist their spells (either through armor class, saves, spell resistance, etc.) increases but the potency of those same spells does not.
Spells scale a lot better than e.g. fighter feats, which don't scale at all. Weapon focus is always +1. Great, that's nice for a level 1 melee character, but a few levels... not so great anymore.
Meta magic seems like a neat idea. After all, fighters have all these neat feats that makes them better so wizards need some sort of feats to make them better as well, right? It may even appear that meta-magic feats are a way to take a spell that has been rendered obsolete and convert it into something more useful. Unfortunately, meta-magic feats are overly expensive both in terms of what you give up to gain them and then the effect they have on the spell slots of the wizard using them. Examining every meta-magic feat even published in the (d20 / pathfinder) base book is outside the scope of this article.
When playing a fighter type (read not a caster) multi-classing is an often interesting way to diversify your character. You can add a level of this and a level of that and your ability to effect your enemy (BAB) generally isn’t negatively effected. Not so for a caster, multi-classing with a caster does not allow their primary stat (caster level) to stack like a fighter’s does.
WAT.
Maybe have a look at the Complete Mage or Complete Arcane splatbooks? What about the Archmage PRC in the DMG? Or in PF Core, the Loremaster?
There are many, many different arcane PRCs which give full caster progression. A list is here (for sorcerers, but most of them are equally appropriate to wizards).
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19861838/Sorcerer_Prestig e_Classes_with_Full_Caster_Progression
Another sticking point regarding the magic system in general is the divide between Arcane Magic, Clerical Magic, Psionics, and what other flavor of cheese you may want to mention. Every time someone thinks of a new idea for the source of the power that allows you to fling fire from your hands the designers strive to mechanically make it as distinct as possible.
Psionics doesn't really count, but the split into arcane and divine magic is a good thing. Wizards and Clerics/Druids are by far the most powerful classes already, no need to make them even more powerful by removing restrictions on who can cast which spell.
It might be a good thing for you to read up on the actual strengths and weaknesses of the full caster classes before ranting any further ;)
Malaclypse you have to remember that apparently only core classes count for multi-classing, at least as far as this rant is concerned.