Wizard spells don't become more potent over time any more??

55 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hey All..  Gonna expound a bit here to start, but if you like, please scroll to the bottom ## to see my main question only. 

New to forum, and am basically coming back into DnD after perhaps a 17 year hiatis.  I now have children of my own who are interested in playing with their friends, and I thought I might lend a hand.  Lead them on some adventures, give them the basics, and then let them roll with it, or stick with them if I find myself enjoying it.. who knows..  For the purpose of this question, lets stick to the Wizard class, which was always my favorite.

So I purchased the latest addition, 4e, which is madly different the the 2nd edition I used to play in my youth.. Some thing I sort of like, some things I miss.  I like the way they have handled powers in this game for the most part, encounter powers, at will powers.  I always thought the previous method of having wizards have to sit and memorize all their spells in the morning, was pretty lame and tedious.  It seems to me, that a 20th level mage, who cast sleep one time, ought to be able to cast it again a few minutes later if he likes, even if, oh snap, he had only memorized it one time. 

It seems that there are fewer spells now, but they do more damage, at least in the beginning, which is part of my question.  The descriptions are pitifully small, which I do not like very much, and a wizards spell book is no more..  you just learn it, and it is yours..  I liked the wizard class when there were hundreds of spells out there, and you might be able to find some wizards old spell book in their dusky lab, and copy a few new spells to your own.  Now you just learn them, and it is over with.

##here is my main question:  It seems that most spells don't increase in damage as wizards level, either that or they barely increase at all once you hit 21st level..  Really??  Am I reading this right.   No more fireball with 1d6 per level damage.  Now a first level mage can cast a spell that does 1d6 + int, and then a 18th level mage will cast the same spell, and do the same damage... or a 21st level mage will cast the same spell and do a wopping 2d6 +Int damage, which unless I am wrong, is about the equivalent of a magical sneeze...? Am I right?  Please tell me I am wrong and am just mis-reading this.  Thanks in advance for any insites you might provide..
It also seems like even the high level spells barely do more damage.  2d8 + int at 10th level, 2d10 + Int at 15th.. etc..  crazy..  So my max damage as a wizard at 18th level is about 25-30.  Please tell me I am missing something and correct my ignoramous..
No more fireball with 1d6 per level damage.  Now a first level mage can cast a spell that does 1d6 + int, and then a 18th level mage will cast the same spell, and do the same damage...

Yes that is the basic idea. 

The 18th level mage will do a lot more damage though, because

his INT modifier will be higher,

he will have a magic wand that adds its bonus to the damage 

he will quite possibly have chosen feats and gathered other items that also add a bonus to damage, 

he may be a lot better at hitting (either by himself or thanks to his friends helping him hit much better now than back at level 1)  so he does more 'average damage'



You will also find that a 4E mage has a different task from 17 years ago.  His ability to do massive damage at high levels is mostly gone - that is now the purview of the group of classes called "strikers".  A wizard (which is not a "striker") can be constructed to do quite a bit of damage, but a "striker" can be constructed to, at the same level, do considerably more.


You will also find a 1st level mage no longer has 4 hps and is easily hit and killed with one Orc's swing ... and that he can cast more than one light spell per day.  The design assumption that a magic-user's great power at high levels is "balanced" by being incredibly vulnerable at low levels has been eradicated from D&D.

Times have changed   May you like what you discover!
spells damage being caster level based was a bad system, it may have been simple, but it was bad none the less. 
Why use a sword for say 1d8+7 (8 to 15 damage, average 11.5) when the wizards can deal 5d6 (5 to 30 (average 17.5) to multiple opponents. And it gets worse every level afterwards. 

damage per caster level was removed, because it destroyed game balance, like so many other parts of the old edition wizard. 
also higher level spells tend to do more damage, or have better secondary effects then lower level spells, making them more powerful.  
Please note that at levels 13, 17, 23, and 27 you replace an old encounter power with a newer (better) one. Daily powers are likewise replaced at levels 15, 19, 25, and 29. Fireball doesn't get better because your wizard moves on to casting cooler, more powerful spells.

As others have mentioned, in 2nd edition wizards were balanced around the idea that they were super-powerful at high levels and super-useless at low levels (as well as in serious danger of being one-hit-killed by common housecats). Noticing that not everyone starts at level 1 and plays to the level cap, WotC redesigned classes to have about the same amount of power as each other at all levels.

Another change is that classes now have one of four specific roles to describe how they contribute to the group during combat: strikers are focused on doing lots of damage, leaders are built to heal/buff allies, defenders try to force foes to waste their turns attacking targets that are difficult to hit and have lots of health, and controllers specialize in area damage (for minions; more on this in a sec) and debuffing foes.

Wizards are controllers; that means they don't specialize in putting up big damage numbers, but rather in controlling the battlefield, debuffing enemies, and doing damage to multiple foes at once to help kill minions. In 2nd edition you may recall mid-to-high level characters fighting vast swarms of weak enemies that would have been reasonable opponents several levels earlier; the problem that emerged with this kind of fight design was that high-level characters have often noticeably improved their armor class, saves, and THAC0. This means that the weak enemies have literally no chance to hit the players, while the players always hit them; while the fight is meant to allow the DM to pit a horde of weak foes against the players for a change of pace from the "3-5 monsters" fight and the "single huge boss" fight, it ends up not being a proper challenge. 4th edition solves this problem with a new class of monster, the minion: minions have level-appropriate defenses and attack rolls, but do reduced damage and die as soon as they take any damage. This allows them to fill the role of cannon fodder in a fight while still being a noticeable threat in large numbers. Because they die as soon as they take damage, players who can use area affects to damage multiple foes at once (like wizards) are the best at taking out minions.
It seems that there are fewer spells now, but they do more damage, at least in the beginning, which is part of my question.  The descriptions are pitifully small, which I do not like very much, and a wizards spell book is no more..  you just learn it, and it is yours.. 

There is still a spellbook, it just doesn't do as much you can swap out you daily or utility spells at the start of the day, so you have more flexibility than other classes. 

There are indeed fewer spells, and the descriptions are much more concise.  4e separated the descriptive aspect of what a spell was/did from the mechanical aspects of how it's resolved.  That removed a /lot/ of unneeded verbiage from spell descriptions, and made them much clearer and more balanced.  You are free to elaborate on spell descriptions for flavor - how their cast, what kind of components you might use to cast them, what they look like, etc. 

Also, some of the less combat-oriented spells have been moved to Rituals.  Rituals are recorded in a book, require costly components, and can be discovered as treasure or purchased.

I liked the wizard class when there were hundreds of spells out there, and you might be able to find some wizards old spell book in their dusky lab, and copy a few new spells to your own.  Now you just learn them, and it is over with.

Rituals still work that way.  They're not as significant to your sheer in-combat power as spells used to be, but they can be fun and handy, and you collect them much like you did old-school spells.  They really don't come into their own until you have some levels (and a lot of gold) under your belt, though, as it's really lower-level rituals that you can afford to use a lot.

##here is my main question:  It seems that most spells don't increase in damage as wizards level, either that or they barely increase at all once you hit 21st level..  Really??

Yep.  I was taken aback by that, as well.  It seemed absurd for a fireball to keep doing 3d6 forever (even if it go from to 3d6+5 to 3d6+15 over time).  Part of it is that you are expected to trade out lower level spells for higher as you level, so you simply won't be casting fireball at Epic, you'll be casting some bigger-radius, higher-damage firey explosion type spell.  

The more important part, you already noticed.  You have encounter and at-will spells you can afford to cast in every single combat.  You don't have to expend a daily spell to put the hurt on the enemy, so it's less vital to your wizard's effectiveness that his damaging spells hit really hard.

Finally, as you level, your damage does go up.  Your INT goes up, which means more damage, you use more potent magical implements, which means more damage on hits,and even more on criticals, and eventually you crit more often, too,  you can also accumulate feats & items that add bonuses to damage, and your leader can give you attack and damage bonuses. 

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Another good thing about rituals is that a wizard no longer has to choose between WEB and KNOCK.
Most of the long casting time out of combat spells are rituals now.

If you only have the Essentials book and not players handbook you will not have the rules for rituals-sorry.

Also while damage of higher lv attacks might not go up that much look at the secondary effects.  A lv1 attack may give an enemy a -2 to hit on next attack the lv20 may say can not attack (save ends)
The sea looks at the stabillity of the mountian and sighs. The mountian watches the freedom of the sea and cries.
The biggest improvement in scaling is that now a high level wizard actually has a good chance at landing a lower level spell that he knows. Back in the day, a spell's DC was tied to its level, so a 9th level wizard is going to have an easier time landing a 3rd level spell than a 2nd or a 1st level one. When you got to higher levels it could become frustrating to have a ton of low level spells that you never wanted to memorize because their DCs just couldn't keep up and they fell to the wayside.
Also, very often when it is time to replace a low level spell with a higher level spell, the spell you are gaining can be looked at as an upgraded version of the departing spell.  For example, Empowering Lightning, a level 1 encounter spell found in the Arcane Power supplement, does ranged lightning damage and pushes one target.  At level 13, you can choose to gain Thunderlance, which is a close blast spell that does more lightning damage and pushes farther and can hit multiple enemies.

Mechanically they are different spells, but to your character, they might be the "same" spell, just enhanced as your character has progressed.

So, in a way, the idea of a spell becoming more powerful as you level remains present.  Kinda.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.
Your at-wills scale with your level (since you are constantly improving your attack/damage statistic), implements and feats as well.
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387
spells damage being caster level based was a bad system, it may have been simple, but it was bad none the less.



   Well they didn't get rid of it.  Your attack roll with the spells goes up every 2 levels, so your average damage does go up based on level.  The magic items you have get better with level and the number of crit dice is based on that.  You also swap lower level spells for higher damage ones at certain levels.  Really nothing has changed, it's just more complex and the slope is more gradual thanks to weaker feats/magic items.
 
Why use a sword for say 1d8+7 (8 to 15 damage, average 11.5) when the wizards can deal 5d6 (5 to 30 (average 17.5) to multiple opponents. And it gets worse every level afterwards.



  I sort of do wonder that.  In 3E I had lots of ways to up my damage as a fighter, but in 4E the wizard's AEs really can't be matched and he's frequently putting out 2-3x the damage of the party's strikers.  Only the rogue taking a couple AE powers have let him even come close to matching the wizard.  In a 5 round encounter when the wizard has already hit 8 or 10 targets by round 2, the ranger really can't catch up.

damage per caster level was removed, because it destroyed game balance, like so many other parts of the old edition wizard. 
also higher level spells tend to do more damage, or have better secondary effects then lower level spells, making them more powerful.  


 
  Uh, no.  If a melee couldn't beat the d6 per level a wizard was getting, they were doing it very very very wrong.  The damage per level was high, but balanced just fine with melee.  The problem came in from multipliers.  For magic you could stack metamagic feats/rods.  For melee you could stack number of attacks per round or stack power attack multipliers or both.  A rogue doing 10 attacks a round each with level/2 sneak dice = 5x level d6.  Dumping 100d6 just in sneak attack damage at level 20 was par for the course.  And people are complaining twin strike's 2 swings are broken.

@mikemearls don't quite understand the difference

I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down. - Eric Cartman

Enough chitchat!  Time is candy! - Pinky Pie

Also, also, also, there are several other adjustments on the monster math side of the equation as well.  The rate at which monster defenses and hp increasew has been (with some early exceptions) pretty well tied to the rate of PC damage and accuracy within this edition.  Your 4e fireball needs to hit a 4e dragon, not a 2e dragon.  Part of this is built into fewer outright immunities on the part of monsters.  The red dragon won't be as hurt by your fireball, but it won't be a total waste.  This reliability means a little less damage each outing balances out.
 
  Uh, no.  If a melee couldn't beat the d6 per level a wizard was getting, they were doing it very very very wrong.  The damage per level was high, but balanced just fine with melee.  The problem came in from multipliers.  For magic you could stack metamagic feats/rods.  For melee you could stack number of attacks per round or stack power attack multipliers or both.  A rogue doing 10 attacks a round each with level/2 sneak dice = 5x level d6.  Dumping 100d6 just in sneak attack damage at level 20 was par for the course.  And people are complaining twin strike's 2 swings are broken.



Full attack as a full round only option says hi. The wizard gets his best move in a standard (or minor). You better hope you can wrangle pounce to keep up. Lets also not forget those later iterative attacks are there to hope you roll a 20.  

And really, if your wizard is dealing damage, THEY're the ones doing it wrong.

Of course, this assumes the only important thing in D&D is DPS. If all you do is hack through never ending HP blobs, it might look equal. Given caster's obscene amount of narrative control advantage over the poor dude who gets climb, jump, and hit stuff as his skills, there's a huge imbalance in the non-combat arena.



spells damage being caster level based was a bad system, it may have been simple, but it was bad none the less. 
Why use a sword for say 1d8+7 (8 to 15 damage, average 11.5) when the wizards can deal 5d6 (5 to 30 (average 17.5) to multiple opponents. And it gets worse every level afterwards. 



The fighter was doing that every round (and usually multiple times a round) while the wizard/magic-user had only 1 fireball at 5th level (where he does 5d6 damage).  Also remember that (at least in 1e -- I am not that familiar with 2e and 3e but I assume it is the same) the blast radius of the fireball was huge and he couldn't just drop one in the middle of melee without frying his friends.

 Any Edition

Thanks all..  I think I will just have to start in with it and see how it turns out.  I sort of missed the fact that there were rituals all together, have not gotten that far into it.  Are rituals just for Wizards, or for other casters as well?
Rituals are for anybody with the Ritual Caster feat.  Wizards and Priests get that feat for free, and are generally trained in the right Skills, so they tend to be the best ritualists.
Most higher level wizard spells seem to go from being 2d6 + int to just 2d10 + int, that is not a very big increase..

Will have to play with it and see how it goes..

Thanks for the help
Side note..  So Magic Items are now in the Players handbook for all to see, rather than in the DMG?  Interesting..
Most higher level wizard spells seem to go from being 2d6 + int to just 2d10 + int, that is not a very big increase..

If you're interested in the most "bang for your buck" (and seeing just how devastating many class powers can be when implemented wisely, and when supported with the right races, feats, tactics, and equipment), I recommend checking out the character optimization forum. You'll find, in many cases, that a spell that normally does 2d10 + Int modifier damage can be easily augmented to do vastly more damage, as well as inflicting potentially encounter-changing additional status effects on enemies.
Side note..  So Magic Items are now in the Players handbook for all to see, rather than in the DMG?  Interesting..



Yes.  Random treasure is dead, because stuff that the PCs don't want or can't use isn't really treasure.  It's not particularly interesting when you find a magic longbow when nobody in the party can use one.  It is expected that magic items will be not only useful, but desirable by the PCs.  The players should provide the DM with a wishlist of magic items of their level +1 to 4 so the DM knows 'this is the kind of stuff I'm interested in', even if he chooses not to award those specific items.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Full attack as a full round only option says hi. The wizard gets his best move in a standard (or minor). You better hope you can wrangle pounce to keep up. Lets also not forget those later iterative attacks are there to hope you roll a 20.


 
  Pounce is hard to get, Leap Attack isn't.  There are also teleports as swift, various other ways to get around the battlefield... if you even had to.  Simply putting the monster into your reach zone with Improved Trip and Robilar's Gambit or Mage Slayer, or some other similiar combination pretty much shut them down and/or gave you attacks.

  Thats assuming you aren't just using a splitting bow.

  Needing a 20 to hit is only if you're using Power Attack and not using something like Shock Trooper, Robilar's Gambit, Pain Mastery etc.  A DM can just as easily add a ridiculous amount of spell resistance to a monster and shut down most wizard spells too.

And really, if your wizard is dealing damage, THEY're the ones doing it wrong.


 
  Wail of the Banshee and Evard's won't stop everything, it's good to have avasculate and 500+ damage scorching rays ready, or be able to boost an orb spell or some other conjuration for magic immune monsters.

@mikemearls don't quite understand the difference

I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down. - Eric Cartman

Enough chitchat!  Time is candy! - Pinky Pie

spells damage being caster level based was a bad system, it may have been simple, but it was bad none the less. 
Why use a sword for say 1d8+7 (8 to 15 damage, average 11.5) when the wizards can deal 5d6 (5 to 30 (average 17.5) to multiple opponents. And it gets worse every level afterwards. 

damage per caster level was removed, because it destroyed game balance, like so many other parts of the old edition wizard. 
also higher level spells tend to do more damage, or have better secondary effects then lower level spells, making them more powerful.  


To avoid confusion, let me first say that I agree that wizards (like other full spellcasters) are way overpowered at high and very high levels in 3rd edition. The example you've given however is very flawed. There's a lot it doesn't take into account and you're comparing a caster that tries to do damage with a melee character that has other priorities. A melee character who wants to deal as much damage as possible can use a +1 greataxe (1D12+1) in two hands which adds 1.5 times strength (your 7 is acceptable for a char starting with 16 STR with a +2 STR item). While the wizard gets new spells each level, the fighter gets bonus fighter feats. Obvious choices are Weapon focus (+1 to hit) and weapon specialisation (+2 damage) . 1D12 +9 (average 15.5) is a lot closer to 17.5 than it is to 11.5.

Now some things that aren't taken into account; of the top of my head:
-chance to hit the enemy
-miss with a weapon vs miss with a spell (the former is 0 damage while the latter is usually 50%) a point for the wizard here
-While the wizard can hit multiple enemies with some spells (at your example level he can cast this fireball twice before having to turn to a lower spell level by the way) the fighter gets to make attacks of opportunity each time an enemy goes through his threatened space or tries to do something silly like grapple, cast, etc.
-Fighters get to deal with damage resistance which is overcome using the correct type of weapon
-wizards get to deal with energy resistance which is overcome by not using a spell of that energy type. He has to prepare his spells in advance though and has only 2 level 3 spells at level 5
-Wizards get to deal with spell resistance (this is on top of the saving throws and energy resistance) which totaly negates a spell
-Wizards have to use lower level spells after they burn through the spells of their highest level. Each step lower lowers the DC of the save by 1. At your chosen level all but level 0 spells have the same maximum damage of 5D6 though.
-You can crit with a weapon (tripling the damage in the case of a greataxe). You cannot crit with a spell that hits multiple enemies.

Which is short for: stating the average damage of one spell and of one weapon is far too simplistic to mean anything.

At higher levels the damage of the wizard keeps increasing, but so does the damage of the fighter. And all things taken into account there's nothing game breaking going on there. What makes the wizard and other spellcasters so overpowered in 3.X is their versatility, the sheer amount of things they can do. For nearly every skill or class ability, there's a spell that trumps it. Spells like fly or gaseous form leave skills like jump, climb, balance and swim dead in the water. Invisibility trumps hide. Listen or spot? Just use one of the many 'detect' spells. etc... While the fighter might be dealing damage, the spellcasters get spells that can instantly kill an oponent (or multiple opponents at highest levels), at low levels they can disable an entire group of enemies, which is often just as good as killing them, with a spell like 'sleep'. They can summon powerful outsiders, or polymorph in a monster to deal with magic immune monsters or those with high spell resistance.

After a while it's often silly for a spellcaster to be casting damage spells round after round when they can cast one spell to do the same job.
Should I make grammar mistakes, I am most likely unaware of them. Feel free to point them out lest I keep making them. I shall take no offense.
Side note..  So Magic Items are now in the Players handbook for all to see, rather than in the DMG?  Interesting..



Yup.  In previous editions, selecting gear had pretty much become a de facto part of creating your character, so with 4e they formalized this and just put it (mostly) in the players hands.  Then they kind of backpedaled this with item rarity.

I forget which developer, but one of them had a blog post about the decision to put items in the player's guide.  It was one of the authors of Adventurer's Vault, maybe someone remembers where to find it?
Most higher level wizard spells seem to go from being 2d6 + int to just 2d10 + int, that is not a very big increase..

Nod.  Monsters start off with more hps, so the proportional gain from lowest to highest levels isn't as great for them, either.  And, of course, that '+int' gets a lot bigger, too, your INT bonus is likely to double over your carreer, and then there are enhancement bonuses going from 0 at first to 6 at 30th, plus feats, buffs from leaders, and so forth.

Side note..  So Magic Items are now in the Players handbook for all to see, rather than in the DMG?  Interesting..

Yep.  The PH presents everything you need to build a character, including a character higher than 1st level, which necessarily includes magic items.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I was going to say between enhancement bonuses and attribute bonuses and feats that enhance later on... yeah everybodies abilities do bloody well get more powerful over time.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

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

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

 

Hey All..  Gonna expound a bit here to start, but if you like, please scroll to the bottom ## to see my main question only. 

New to forum, and am basically coming back into DnD after perhaps a 17 year hiatis.  I now have children of my own who are interested in playing with their friends, and I thought I might lend a hand.  Lead them on some adventures, give them the basics, and then let them roll with it, or stick with them if I find myself enjoying it.. who knows..  For the purpose of this question, lets stick to the Wizard class, which was always my favorite.

So I purchased the latest addition, 4e, which is madly different the the 2nd edition I used to play in my youth.. Some thing I sort of like, some things I miss.  I like the way they have handled powers in this game for the most part, encounter powers, at will powers.  I always thought the previous method of having wizards have to sit and memorize all their spells in the morning, was pretty lame and tedious.  It seems to me, that a 20th level mage, who cast sleep one time, ought to be able to cast it again a few minutes later if he likes, even if, oh snap, he had only memorized it one time. 

It seems that there are fewer spells now, but they do more damage, at least in the beginning, which is part of my question.  The descriptions are pitifully small, which I do not like very much, and a wizards spell book is no more..  you just learn it, and it is yours..  I liked the wizard class when there were hundreds of spells out there, and you might be able to find some wizards old spell book in their dusky lab, and copy a few new spells to your own.  Now you just learn them, and it is over with.

##here is my main question:  It seems that most spells don't increase in damage as wizards level, either that or they barely increase at all once you hit 21st level..  Really??  Am I reading this right.   No more fireball with 1d6 per level damage.  Now a first level mage can cast a spell that does 1d6 + int, and then a 18th level mage will cast the same spell, and do the same damage... or a 21st level mage will cast the same spell and do a wopping 2d6 +Int damage, which unless I am wrong, is about the equivalent of a magical sneeze...? Am I right?  Please tell me I am wrong and am just mis-reading this.  Thanks in advance for any insites you might provide..






You will have to accept that the wizard as you knew it is dead.   4e has shifted many his powers into several other classes and relegated all the powers that  made the game interesting to rituals.


Now many will argue that such changes were needed in order to nerf the wizard class.   I completely disagree.  I think 4e could have preserved all the things we loved about the wizard and still keep the game balanced.    The designers just lacked imagination and went with a single template for all the classes.  


I agree, it would be great to be able to cast the same encounter or daily power more than once.   If you have 4 encounter powers you should be able to use the same encounter power 4 times


The power descriptions are pathetic, uninspiring and deliberately absent.    Some would argue that it’s a good thing, but personally I don't have time to write new descriptions for all the powers.  I expect some level of detail or default flavor which is a little more interesting.


And yes, not being able to find and copy new spells is another disappointment in 4e.      


I also agree that the memorization concept wasn’t needed, but many people played 2e and 3e with an open spell book anyway.    


Lastly, there really are no more spells as you might think of them in 4e.   Everything is called a ‘power’ and your character is a marvel superhero from level 1.     



Yes.  Random treasure is dead, because stuff that the PCs don't want or can't use isn't really treasure.  It's not particularly interesting when you find a magic longbow when nobody in the party can use one.  It is expected that magic items will be not only useful, but desirable by the PCs.  The players should provide the DM with a wishlist of magic items of their level +1 to 4 so the DM knows 'this is the kind of stuff I'm interested in', even if he chooses not to award those specific items.



An amendment to this...

A level-3 magic longbow that the DM thinks a PC is likely to be glad to have is a treasure. If the DM can't figure out a reason why it would be where the encounter is, he can substitute coins or gems amounting to 680 GP.

A level-3 magic longbow that the DM is pretty sure no PC will keep is also a treasure. However, it's only 136 GP.

If it turns out the DM is mistaken about what the PCs will keep, he can make adjustments in a later treasure parcel.

Even with the devaluation, non-useful magic items can be worthwhile. Particularly at higher levels. A level-20 Longbow of All-our-weapon-users-are-melee-only weighs 3 pounds. It's worth 25,000 GP (sale value), which weighs (if I remember correctly) 1,250 pounds. I know which treasure I'll volunteer to carry.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
[You will have to accept that the wizard as you knew it is dead.



Yep, he's no longer a god, he's part of the party now, just like everyone else.

4e has shifted many his powers into several other classes and relegated all the powers that  made the game interesting Wizards ovepowered to rituals.



There, fixed it for ya.  And Wizard still get Ritual Casting for free.  Other classes have to spend a feat to get it.  My Paladin is pleased because now he can help those starving refugees by creating food for them ala Jesus

Now many will argue that such changes were needed in order to nerf the wizard class.   I completely disagree.  I think 4e could have preserved all the things we loved about the wizard and still keep the game balanced.



Sincerely, and I'm not trying to be a jerk here, how would you do this?  Not saying it's impossible to do another way but I think the way they did it works fine.  Wizards are still fun to play, and now all the other classes don't have to feel like second fiddles.

The designers just lacked imagination and went with a single template for all the classes.



I think it was the smart thing to do, not unimaginative.  It makes the game easier to play and helps the fun without having to invest time in encyclopedic knowledge.  That kind of knowledge and research can be fun too, but most people will find the fun more often if you make it easier to play.

I agree, it would be great to be able to cast the same encounter or daily power more than once.   If you have 4 encounter powers you should be able to use the same encounter power 4 times



You can cast the same encounter power more than once with the right game elements, like certain feats, so it's not impossible.  But I also agree with you that casting the same encounter power four times if you have four of them wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing or game breaking.

The power descriptions are pathetic, uninspiring and deliberately absent.



Deliberately absent, yes.  Their design philosophy is to let you use your own imagination.  The one or two sentences of flavor is enough for most people and prevents rules lawyering over fluff, which was a problem for some, especially in 1e.

Some would argue that it’s a good thing, but personally I don't have time to write new descriptions for all the powers.  I expect some level of detail or default flavor which is a little more interesting.



Why do you need to write descriptions for them?  Why can't you just make them up as you go along?  Seriously, try it sometime.  I think it's fun.

And yes, not being able to find and copy new spells is another disappointment in 4e.



Rituals.     

I also agree that the memorization concept wasn’t needed, but many people played 2e and 3e with an open spell book anyway.



Yeah, I agree with you here.  When we played 1e and 2e we used spell points to allow you to cast whatever you spell you wanted at any time, given a number of points per level of spell.  IIRC this was an optional rule in 2e?  But I may be wrong on that.   

Lastly, there really are no more spells as you might think of them in 4e.   Everything is called a ‘power’ and your character is a marvel superhero from level 1.



Yeah, everything is powers, true.  But you couldn't be more wrong about the superhero statement.  The game is consistently challenging from levels 1-30 now, with no sweet spots anymore.   I suspect you haven't played 4e much.  

Your opinion is welcome of course, but I strongly disagree with most of what you said.  And since we're mostly arguing opinion, I hope we don't get into a fight.  In the campaign I DM the Wizard PC is an integral part of the party, kicks butt just as much as everyone else, and does stuff no one else can do.  But he's not a walking god anymore with everyone else serving as his bodyguard.  I like it that way and my players like it too.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

And yes, not being able to find and copy new spells is another disappointment in 4e.      


Oh yeah, the 3.5 wizard definitely needed the ability to get more spells.

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
And yes, not being able to find and copy new spells is another disappointment in 4e.      


Oh yeah, the 3.5 wizard definitely needed the ability to get more spells.

+1

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

spells damage being caster level based was a bad system, it may have been simple, but it was bad none the less.

 

   Well they didn't get rid of it.  Your attack roll with the spells goes up every 2 levels, so your average damage does go up based on level.  The magic items you have get better with level and the number of crit dice is based on that.  You also swap lower level spells for higher damage ones at certain levels.  Really nothing has changed, it's just more complex and the slope is more gradual thanks to weaker feats/magic items.


Yes but everyone gets that, and is on a much lower/slower scale then the old 1dX per level spells.
Why use a sword for say 1d8+7 (8 to 15 damage, average 11.5) when the wizards can deal 5d6 (5 to 30 (average 17.5) to multiple opponents. And it gets worse every level afterwards.

 

  I sort of do wonder that.  In 3E I had lots of ways to up my damage as a fighter, but in 4E the wizard's AEs really can't be matched and he's frequently putting out 2-3x the damage of the party's strikers.  Only the rogue taking a couple AE powers have let him even come close to matching the wizard.  In a 5 round encounter when the wizard has already hit 8 or 10 targets by round 2, the ranger really can't catch up.

From some previous comments you have made, I am not surprised, but a wizard should not be beating the strikers in damage, the AoE should be one or 2 targets most of the time, and 3 every now and then. which does not allow the wizard to triple let alone double the striker's output. 
Though really it has been clear for a while that there are some problems with your groups experience.  
damage per caster level was removed, because it destroyed game balance, like so many other parts of the old edition wizard. 
also higher level spells tend to do more damage, or have better secondary effects then lower level spells, making them more powerful.  

 
 
  Uh, no.  If a melee couldn't beat the d6 per level a wizard was getting, they were doing it very very very wrong.  The damage per level was high, but balanced just fine with melee.  The problem came in from multipliers.  For magic you could stack metamagic feats/rods.  For melee you could stack number of attacks per round or stack power attack multipliers or both.  A rogue doing 10 attacks a round each with level/2 sneak dice = 5x level d6.  Dumping 100d6 just in sneak attack damage at level 20 was par for the course.  And people are complaining twin strike's 2 swings are broken.

Maybe but only by min-maxing and optimizing, though that is only in 3.X, back in the days of 2nd and earlier the spell damage and power was balanced against the fact that if the wizard took even a point of damage he lost the spell, as well as a high AC and pathetic hp. the melee PCs could not keep up with the wizards unless the wizards ran out of gass. 

spells damage being caster level based was a bad system, it may have been simple, but it was bad none the less. 
Why use a sword for say 1d8+7 (8 to 15 damage, average 11.5) when the wizards can deal 5d6 (5 to 30 (average 17.5) to multiple opponents. And it gets worse every level afterwards. 



The fighter was doing that every round (and usually multiple times a round) while the wizard/magic-user had only 1 fireball at 5th level (where he does 5d6 damage).  Also remember that (at least in 1e -- I am not that familiar with 2e and 3e but I assume it is the same) the blast radius of the fireball was huge and he couldn't just drop one in the middle of melee without frying his friends.

Sure, but fireball was not the only spell that did damage on that level. allot of peopl forget that. 

Burning hands would be 5d4 to multiple opponents (average 12.5) in 3.X, or 1d3 + 10 (avg 11.5) in 2nd
For second level slots, Acid arrow could do 4d4 (10 average) total from level 3-5, and then there if Flaming Sphere. 

THis is not even leaving the PHB, if you go outside that in both editions you get access to more spells. plus for a wizard damage spells normally the wrong choice as spells lke sleep and others could win an encounter on their own
Actually, wouldn't it be great if all classes had the ability to gain, find, and learn new spells or abilities?    

Why does such an element have to be removed from the game for the sake of balance?    If all classes are created equal there is no need to remove the fun elements from the game.   


As for 4e being cool from levels 1-30.... not really.   I've played 4e long enough to know there are still sweet spots.    In fact I think there are too many levels.   You still fight all the standard rats, kobolds, and goblins at low levels.    There are many spells that used be low level that are now very high level.   There are also many monsters that just won't make an appearance anymore unless you  plan to play a very high level campaign.
 
Actually, wouldn't it be great if all classes had the ability to gain, find, and learn new spells or abilities?    

Why does such an element have to be removed from the game for the sake of balance?    If all classes are created equal there is no need to remove the fun elements from the game.   


As for 4e being cool from levels 1-30.... not really.   I've played 4e long enough to know there are still sweet spots.    In fact I think there are too many levels.   You still fight all the standard rats, kobolds, and goblins at low levels.    There are many spells that used be low level that are now very high level.   There are also many monsters that just won't make an appearance anymore unless you  plan to play a very high level campaign.
 



And those same high level monsters are very easily modified to a lower level, thanks to the very simple monster creation guidelines (I hesitate to use the term "rules").  Really want to see aboleths in your low-heroic campaign?  Make the simple adjustment.  You can even do the reverse.  Want high level kobolds?  Pump those suckers up, toss on a template if necessary, and you're done.

But I will agree that there is a "sweet spot" for 4e, though it represents a much larger range of play than 3.X's sweet spot.  The common assessment of 3.X was that is was best from ~level 6 (when classes start to hit their stride) through ~level 16 (when casters begin to seriously outstrip non-casters).  Harsher judgements will say the sweet spot was actually level 8 through level 14.

For 4e, I think the "sweet spot" is from level 5 through level 25.  Before 5th level, character feel a little bit "bare" with only 1 encounter, 1 daily, 2 at-wills, and likely little to no rituals.  The game wants to present level 1 characters as "Heroes!" and not the typical "boy fresh off the farm" level 1 PCs from previous editions, but I've found the lack of powers interferes with that sense of self a bit.  At 5th level, things are rolling along nicely.  And they keep rolling along until Epic.  Not that epic level 20+ breaks down like it did in 3.X (cuz it doesn't...), but by mid-epic tier, most PCs are bogged down with tons and tons of powers and abilities (from class, path, destiny, items, etc) that it's a little bewildering, if not overwhelming.  In my experience, players at that level tend to lock into patterns and use specific powers in specific orders, if only to help organize everything.  Rote, by-the-numbers play becomes a coping mechanism, for dealing with the potential clutter.

Still, at least the game doesn't break before 5th level and after 25th.  So 4e's sweet spot is different from 3.X's.  The 3.X sweet spot marked the range where the game functioned in a reasonably balanced sort of way.  Play outside that range and party dynamics could very well become disfunctional.  4e's sweet spot is the range of maximum fun.  Playing outside that range might be boring or frustrating in comparison, but at least it still "works".
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.
Actually, wouldn't it be great if all classes had the ability to gain, find, and learn new spells or abilities?    

Why does such an element have to be removed from the game for the sake of balance?    If all classes are created equal there is no need to remove the fun elements from the game.


Are you talking about a game system like in the elder scrolls series, or maybe even fallout?

Should I make grammar mistakes, I am most likely unaware of them. Feel free to point them out lest I keep making them. I shall take no offense.
Actually, wouldn't it be great if all classes had the ability to gain, find, and learn new spells or abilities?    

Why does such an element have to be removed from the game for the sake of balance?    If all classes are created equal there is no need to remove the fun elements from the game.

1. Rituals -> specifically ritual scrolls that any class can gain and find, and use without any previous training.  The "learn" part is a bit of a doozy when using this method, but otherwise is fine.

2. Alternate rewards (DMG2 p.136) -> This is probably what you're looking for.  It might be in the format of a magic item, but effectively it grants any class "the ability to gain, find, and learn new spells or abilities".  While the book limits the benefits to just 3 types of alternative rewards, I do believe there are other materials offering a fourth type (Reputation), and although it's a bit complicated legally[1], it doesn't take much to houserule away the "Wizard" part of the whole thing[2].  If, in spite of getting your new powers from
* the gods themselves,
* bathing in the blood of an ancient dragon[3],
* reading a tome of esoteric knowledge[3],
* solving the riddle of an immortal sphinx[3],
* a grandmaster (be it loremaster or swordmaster or what not),
* magical items, or
* simply being badass,

you still feel that you're not getting "all classes [having] the ability to gain, find, and learn new spells or abilities", there's something certainly wrong here, in my very honest opinion.

EDIT: Going back to the original topic, it's not that they don't become more potent over time, it's just that Wizard spells have now been pulled back to the same rate of progression as other classes.  So instead of having a 15d6 Fireball that pretty much works the same as higher level powers (and forcing other classes [read: non-casters] to dual wield and do the equivalent of 15d6 damage.... eventually....), you now have Fireball later being replaced by Meteor Storm (which was pretty much an upgraded Fireball when you look at it, really).

[1] multiclass Wizard, get Adept Power, swap one of your dailies for a Wizard daily
[2] tome daily powers would work with any class provided that they sacrifice their own daily of the equal or higher level, instead of a Wizard daily of equal or higher level
[3] taken directly from DMG2, p. 136
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
Actually, wouldn't it be great if all classes had the ability to gain, find, and learn new spells or abilities?    

Why does such an element have to be removed from the game for the sake of balance?    If all classes are created equal there is no need to remove the fun elements from the game.   


As for 4e being cool from levels 1-30.... not really.   I've played 4e long enough to know there are still sweet spots.    In fact I think there are too many levels.   You still fight all the standard rats, kobolds, and goblins at low levels.    There are many spells that used be low level that are now very high level.   There are also many monsters that just won't make an appearance anymore unless you  plan to play a very high level campaign.
 





 The common assessment of 3.X was that is was best from ~level 6 (when classes start to hit their stride) through ~level 16 (when casters begin to seriously outstrip non-casters).  Harsher judgements will say the sweet spot was actually level 8 through level 14.





Actually the consensus is that the sweet spot in 3E is from level 3 (when characters have enough hp to not die in one hit) until 6th (just before all semblance of class balance completely falls apart).

Not liking the new forums.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/18.jpg)

 

 

Actually, wouldn't it be great if all classes had the ability to gain, find, and learn new spells or abilities?    
 
 


Rituals and Martial practices.. do exactly that but you pay for the training or materials too ... further gaining powers when you level up ? they are just off camera finding a mentor or book or whatever and learning them do you think poof... now I know 3 more languages when I take linguistics?

Someone mentioned how alternative rewards also allow other elements typically ones encapsulated by magic items to become advancements of abilities for the characters.

I think of battlefield magic as things that would take special emphasis to learn to a degree you can do them quickly enough that they work in a fight.... that special emphasis is not something you just find accidentally or should be the DMs choice as to what you can focus on.

My AD&D wizard - sigh me having virtually zero ability to choose what his spell repertoire looked like was not a feature of the game. Random die roll your next level up if you want that
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

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

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

 

Side note..  So Magic Items are now in the Players handbook for all to see, rather than in the DMG?  Interesting..



Even back in the day I thought that expecting that players wouldn't see them because they were in the DMG was pretty self-delusional anyway.  I never knew a player who didn't either own a DMG or had at least flipped through a DMG at some point.  
The common assessment of 3.X was that is was best from ~level 6 (when classes start to hit their stride) through ~level 16 (when casters begin to seriously outstrip non-casters).  Harsher judgements will say the sweet spot was actually level 8 through level 14.

Actually the consensus is that the sweet spot in 3E is from level 3 (when characters have enough hp to not die in one hit) until 6th (just before all semblance of class balance completely falls apart).


Yup that was our latter-day 3.X judgement as well.  As soon as someone started chatting about that awesome prestige class* he was going to try, we generally wrapped campaigns up.  There's a variant of 3E called "7" or something (I wish my brain worked these days, sigh) where the max level of anyone in the game world is L7.  Never tried it (had long since moved on) but I think those folks were on the right track. 

* = these things required planning to become eligible for, and started showing up around level 6 and 7.  Some of these classes were conceptually awesome and a lot had fantastic fluff but the extra multi-classing crunch to go along with it was a burden.  Not to mention people just cherry picked a few levels to get features they wanted and moved on to the next one.  Bleagh. 
Full attack as a full round only option says hi. The wizard gets his best move in a standard (or minor). You better hope you can wrangle pounce to keep up. Lets also not forget those later iterative attacks are there to hope you roll a 20.


 
  Pounce is hard to get, Leap Attack isn't.  There are also teleports as swift, various other ways to get around the battlefield... if you even had to.  Simply putting the monster into your reach zone with Improved Trip and Robilar's Gambit or Mage Slayer, or some other similiar combination pretty much shut them down and/or gave you attacks.

  Thats assuming you aren't just using a splitting bow.



Again, melee has to jump through hoops to get to pull off their basic schtick (the full attack). Not familiar with the splitting bow, so again, an obscure item requirement to function. Meanwhile the caster gets to fatly sit around and do whatever they want as a standard. 



  Needing a 20 to hit is only if you're using Power Attack and not using something like Shock Trooper, Robilar's Gambit, Pain Mastery etc.  A DM can just as easily add a ridiculous amount of spell resistance to a monster and shut down most wizard spells too.



No, thats assuming just regular attacks. You know, +16/+11/+6/+1? Those made at the +6 and +1 arent going to hit squat.

And really, if your wizard is dealing damage, THEY're the ones doing it wrong.


 
  Wail of the Banshee and Evard's won't stop everything, it's good to have avasculate and 500+ damage scorching rays ready, or be able to boost an orb spell or some other conjuration for magic immune monsters.





Generally, save or sucks are the way to go. Regardless, the casters get significant combat advantage without having to scour sourcebooks for cheese patches, and relegate non-casters to the player that goes on a beer run in non-combat situations due to their incredible plot busting abilities.

Actually, wouldn't it be great if all classes had the ability to gain, find, and learn new spells or abilities?   



As to having PCs gain bonus powers and abilities; its in 4e, you just have to do a little legwork as a DM and hunt down stuff like Grandmaster's Training, Battle Scars, Wild Talents, and so on, which are extra little perks you can give your players on top of the standard AEDU system.  Granted, it would be nice if a lot of this extra stuff was the forefront as far as rewards the DM can hand out but the system does, in fact, have multiple ways for characters to pick up bonus powers.

In my own games ive discovered that i can actually give out a decent amount of bonus minor powers without effecting the balance of the game much at all. A bonus encounter power here, a free Wild Talent there and players feel rewarded and more attached to their unique character.
Sign In to post comments