Bored with Lance of Faith and Ray of Frost

Not sure why but something about having every cleric cast lance of faith and every wizard cast ray of frost gets incredibly boring.

I realize that fighters and archers perform the same action ad nauseum but with mundane weapons it seems normal to go through the motions.  What else are you going to do with a swords other than attack someone with it?  It doesn't require any magical energy so it seems reasonable that sword attacks have an inexhaustable supply.

Having to come up with insightful maneuvers for fighters doesn't help.  I don't want the game to be about the combat anyway except as a device to move the plot and story forward.  The fights should injure the players, give them some insight into the enemies they face but I don't want to waste hours moving miniatures around a grid with dozens of different maneuvers to use.

What if cantrips didn't have such a specific description?  May that would help.  Or maybe not.  I guess spellcaster need some incentive to use mundane weapons.  Right now they have none.

Anyone else tired of Lance of Faith and Ray of Frost?  More cantrips won't help either.  I guess it is just supernatural fatigue.  Clerics and Wizards should have to use mundane weapons occasionally.  Just like Gandalf.  Although he had Glamdring, the Foehammer.
I disagree. I see that as a seperate class like PF's Magus. 

What about players who do not want to play Gandalf but want a wizard?  
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
I disagree. I see that as a seperate class like PF's Magus. 

What about players who do not want to play Gandalf but want a wizard?  



Do you like the clerics casting Lance of Faith and the Wizards casting Ray of Frost.  I'd rather they attack with weapons occasionally.  Seems they shouldn't even be armed since weapons are less effective than their at will cantrips.

I guess the opposite is also useless.  Having cantrips that cause 1 point of damage.   

I think it works like this: The more you use something, the more mundane it becomes. 

Ask people that live in a breathtaking area of the country.  Sure they enjoy it, but its beauty subsides and doesn't resonate unless they're with someone else who is enjoying it.  Same can be said for powers.

That's why if a wizard had only one spell a day everyone at the table would stop and watch and hold their breath.  If he is using magic every 3 seconds, well...   
I disagree. I see that as a seperate class like PF's Magus. 

What about players who do not want to play Gandalf but want a wizard?  



Do you like the clerics casting Lance of Faith and the Wizards casting Ray of Frost.  I'd rather they attack with weapons occasionally.  Seems they shouldn't even be armed since weapons are less effective than their at will cantrips.

I guess the opposite is also useless.  Having cantrips that cause 1 point of damage.   



If I wanted to play an attacker I'd play a barbarian or a fighter. If I wanted a cleric that attacks with a weapon I simply would choose an archtype that does. If I wanted to play a wizard/attacker hybrid I'd play a PF Magus. When I choose to play a wizard I envision a ranged controler or pinger what never gets close to the enemy. If cantrips only did one point of damager I'd go play something other than Next or I'd house rule. It would make wizards not very fun if they nerfed them and required weapons. Such an option should exist but honestly it should be its own class and attack should be better than normal wizard attack. A wizard who attacks isnt fun because it would never hit. It sounds like you do not want to play a wizard but a Magus. Magus is really fun and I do hope that Next ends up with something similar but I wouldn't want Wizard to become that. 
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
Not sure why but something about having every cleric cast lance of faith and every wizard cast ray of frost gets incredibly boring.

I realize that fighters and archers perform the same action ad nauseum but with mundane weapons it seems normal to go through the motions.  What else are you going to do with a swords other than attack someone with it?  It doesn't require any magical energy so it seems reasonable that sword attacks have an inexhaustable supply.

Having to come up with insightful maneuvers for fighters doesn't help.  I don't want the game to be about the combat anyway except as a device to move the plot and story forward.  The fights should injure the players, give them some insight into the enemies they face but I don't want to waste hours moving miniatures around a grid with dozens of different maneuvers to use.

What if cantrips didn't have such a specific description?  May that would help.  Or maybe not.  I guess spellcaster need some incentive to use mundane weapons.  Right now they have none.

Anyone else tired of Lance of Faith and Ray of Frost?  More cantrips won't help either.  I guess it is just supernatural fatigue.  Clerics and Wizards should have to use mundane weapons occasionally.  Just like Gandalf.  Although he had Glamdring, the Foehammer.



It's all about the treasure!
I like having wizards who have to fight with mundane weapons occasionally but then, pa-pow, they put all the goblins to sleep or throw a fireball into the orc camp or something.

Honestly, though, the cleric's Lance of Faith is more bothersome than the Ray of Frost. Clerics never use anything but Lance of Faith now.  Even the Arcanist find that Lance of Faith is better than the Wizards cantrips.

 
"Wizard Caster that doesn't have always-on-magic" really should be an option - hell, maybe even two options ("Doesn't have always-on-magic, and doesn't know how you use any weapon" and "Doesn't have always-on-magic, but does know how to use a few token weapons").
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
"Wizard Caster that doesn't have always-on-magic" really should be an option - hell, maybe even two options ("Doesn't have always-on-magic, and doesn't know how you use any weapon" and "Doesn't have always-on-magic, but does know how to use a few token weapons").


That's why I think it should be its own class. This way both options are still there and work. I don't think it would be fun to play a weapon wielding wizard with a much lower attack. 
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
Then make sure the wizards can do somethign relevant with their weapons, It doesn't have to be a cantrip but they need a useable, significant at-will action. Don't just replace the at-wills with more dailys.
I disagree. I see that as a seperate class like PF's Magus. 

What about players who do not want to play Gandalf but want a wizard?  



What, exactly, is a wizard?
In dnd terms? A conglemeration of every mythological/fictional archetype/character who ever wore a robe and waved a stick at someone.
4e has a lot of great at will spells for wizards. It would be a shame to see them vanish into the ether. Wizards do finitely need more choices!
As for clerics, they at least can do some melee thwacking while at the same time casting words of power. Too bad they can't cast words of love, though.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/10.jpg)

Then make sure the wizards can do somethign relevant with their weapons, It doesn't have to be a cantrip but they need a useable, significant at-will action. Don't just replace the at-wills with more dailys.



I agree.  

I'm also hoping that spell school specializations/cleric domains get a reworking to really add variety to class abilities even if they are not attack spells.   Also, I wouldn't be against having cantrips do very minimal damage or no damage at all, but have a chance (save vs. effect) of doing something interesting for 1 round.   There needs to be more interesting or "sexy" caster abilities for round to round use.   Let PCs save their spell slots for when they really need them and keep them limited.

The best kind of cantrips (or "at will" abilities) are the ones that give players more options, or ones that have special twists to using them.   Ray of Frost and Lance of Faith are boring.   Mage Hand is interesting.   Even Shocking Grasp is more interesting than Ray of Frost or Lance of Faith.  Minor illusion is interesting.   I want to see more cantrips and orisons that fall into the interesting category.

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

I disagree. I see that as a seperate class like PF's Magus. 

What about players who do not want to play Gandalf but want a wizard?  



What, exactly, is a wizard?


When I think of a wizard  think of a spellcaster who studies for spells
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
I disagree. I see that as a seperate class like PF's Magus. 

What about players who do not want to play Gandalf but want a wizard?  



What, exactly, is a wizard?


When I think of a wizard  think of a spellcaster who studies for spells



Like Harry Potter?
I disagree. I see that as a seperate class like PF's Magus. 

What about players who do not want to play Gandalf but want a wizard?  



What, exactly, is a wizard?


When I think of a wizard  think of a spellcaster who studies for spells



Like Harry Potter?


When wizards come to mind so does Harry Potter as well as Gandalf and the presentation of the wizard in Pathfinder and D&D. That's why I think there should be two types of wizardly classes to appeal to both types of players since neither is wrong on their defintion of the wizard.
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
I have to disagree with the OP. When I want to play the core nagic user, the premier magic user of DnD I don't want to have to rely on my trusty crossbow and dagger. Should there be a caster that has limited at-will magic and needs some weapons? Sure, I think so. Just not with the iconic magic user of DnD.
I have to disagree with the OP. When I want to play the core nagic user, the premier magic user of DnD I don't want to have to rely on my trusty crossbow and dagger. Should there be a caster that has limited at-will magic and needs some weapons? Sure, I think so. Just not with the iconic magic user of DnD.


Agreed. 
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)

"Wizard Caster that doesn't have always-on-magic" really should be an option - hell, maybe even two options ("Doesn't have always-on-magic, and doesn't know how you use any weapon" and "Doesn't have always-on-magic, but does know how to use a few token weapons").

In another topic, I was talking about that option, but the existence of at-will magic is more of a system wide thing. So I think that there should be a module/dial that removes at-will magic from the entire system. But balance must be maintained.
Then make sure the wizards can do somethign relevant with their weapons, It doesn't have to be a cantrip but they need a useable, significant at-will action. Don't just replace the at-wills with more dailys.



I agree.  

I'm also hoping that spell school specializations/cleric domains get a reworking to really add variety to class abilities even if they are not attack spells.   Also, I wouldn't be against having cantrips do very minimal damage or no damage at all, but have a chance (save vs. effect) of doing something interesting for 1 round.   There needs to be more interesting or "sexy" caster abilities for round to round use.   Let PCs save their spell slots for when they really need them and keep them limited.

The best kind of cantrips (or "at will" abilities) are the ones that give players more options, or ones that have special twists to using them.   Ray of Frost and Lance of Faith are boring.   Mage Hand is interesting.   Even Shocking Grasp is more interesting than Ray of Frost or Lance of Faith.  Minor illusion is interesting.   I want to see more cantrips and orisons that fall into the interesting category.



Maybe the cantrip could add power to their staff or fire bolts from a initiates wand or something.  Ray of frost gets worn out.

Clerics should have a powerful radiant lance for undead and demons and devils but a divinely charge on their mace would be better as a cantrip. 
I am two minds.

Part of me (the old school part) would like to remove At-Will combat spells, forcing the Cleric to use a mace (or sling) and the Wizard to use a staff (or dart). This would return the sense of wonder to magic (as a player) because spells should then have meaning.

The other part of me knows this will not happen (except perhaps as an Advanced Rule), and wants the caster to be able to DO things in combat once the spell slots have been spent.

I have encouraged the (very) few players willing to play the wizard to be creative with their cantrips. Prestigitation to distract an enemy, Light cast on the noseguard of an orc to "blind" it for a moment (not actually blindness condition - that's too powerful), etc., allowing the enemy a save I felt was appropriate (Int for the distraction, Con for the blindness, etc.). I even allowed a player to slap another PC with Mage Hand (no damage, but it got his attention). This is the kind of thing I want to see encouraged, because it allows a creative player to use ALL his cantrips in combat, not just 1 (no PC I've seen takes more than 1 Combat Cantrip). I suppose the Cleric could benefit from this as well, but considering how much better the Cleric is right now, I just don't feel the need.
Then make sure the wizards can do somethign relevant with their weapons, It doesn't have to be a cantrip but they need a useable, significant at-will action. Don't just replace the at-wills with more dailys.



I agree.  

I'm also hoping that spell school specializations/cleric domains get a reworking to really add variety to class abilities even if they are not attack spells.   Also, I wouldn't be against having cantrips do very minimal damage or no damage at all, but have a chance (save vs. effect) of doing something interesting for 1 round.   There needs to be more interesting or "sexy" caster abilities for round to round use.   Let PCs save their spell slots for when they really need them and keep them limited.

The best kind of cantrips (or "at will" abilities) are the ones that give players more options, or ones that have special twists to using them.   Ray of Frost and Lance of Faith are boring.   Mage Hand is interesting.   Even Shocking Grasp is more interesting than Ray of Frost or Lance of Faith.  Minor illusion is interesting.   I want to see more cantrips and orisons that fall into the interesting category.



Maybe the cantrip could add power to their staff or fire bolts from a initiates wand or something.  Ray of frost gets worn out.

Clerics should have a powerful radiant lance for undead and demons and devils but a divinely charge on their mace would be better as a cantrip. 


I think that this would work for some clerics but not for others. I don't really view the Arcanists and Lifegiver as the mace-wielding cleric though. I think some archtypes would really benefit from this type of bonus though instead of lance. I don't know that I would want a wizard to be forced to use a staff though. I feel like my character would get dead really fast from being too close to the enemy. 
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
Then make sure the wizards can do somethign relevant with their weapons, It doesn't have to be a cantrip but they need a useable, significant at-will action. Don't just replace the at-wills with more dailys.



I agree.  

I'm also hoping that spell school specializations/cleric domains get a reworking to really add variety to class abilities even if they are not attack spells.   Also, I wouldn't be against having cantrips do very minimal damage or no damage at all, but have a chance (save vs. effect) of doing something interesting for 1 round.   There needs to be more interesting or "sexy" caster abilities for round to round use.   Let PCs save their spell slots for when they really need them and keep them limited.

The best kind of cantrips (or "at will" abilities) are the ones that give players more options, or ones that have special twists to using them.   Ray of Frost and Lance of Faith are boring.   Mage Hand is interesting.   Even Shocking Grasp is more interesting than Ray of Frost or Lance of Faith.  Minor illusion is interesting.   I want to see more cantrips and orisons that fall into the interesting category.



Maybe the cantrip could add power to their staff or fire bolts from a initiates wand or something.  Ray of frost gets worn out.

Clerics should have a powerful radiant lance for undead and demons and devils but a divinely charge on their mace would be better as a cantrip. 


I think that this would work for some clerics but not for others. I don't really view the Arcanists and Lifegiver as the mace-wielding cleric though. I think some archtypes would really benefit from this type of bonus though instead of lance. I don't know that I would want a wizard to be forced to use a staff though. I feel like my character would get dead really fast from being too close to the enemy. 


In the movie, Lord of the Rings, when Gandalf and Saruman fought, they used their staffs and basically punched each other from a distance or threw each other around.  I can't remember how the books described this fight.
It just seems strange for clerics to be using blasts of light all the time.  Clerics should be blessing, commanding,  cursing, and striking their enemies down with the wrath of their god.  Every cleric shouldn't be firing shots of light all the time.  They need different cantrips.



Ray of frost is slightly less boring then basic attacks.

Which brings the wizard down the fighters level. 

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Then make sure the wizards can do somethign relevant with their weapons, It doesn't have to be a cantrip but they need a useable, significant at-will action. Don't just replace the at-wills with more dailys.



I agree.  

I'm also hoping that spell school specializations/cleric domains get a reworking to really add variety to class abilities even if they are not attack spells.   Also, I wouldn't be against having cantrips do very minimal damage or no damage at all, but have a chance (save vs. effect) of doing something interesting for 1 round.   There needs to be more interesting or "sexy" caster abilities for round to round use.   Let PCs save their spell slots for when they really need them and keep them limited.

The best kind of cantrips (or "at will" abilities) are the ones that give players more options, or ones that have special twists to using them.   Ray of Frost and Lance of Faith are boring.   Mage Hand is interesting.   Even Shocking Grasp is more interesting than Ray of Frost or Lance of Faith.  Minor illusion is interesting.   I want to see more cantrips and orisons that fall into the interesting category.



Maybe the cantrip could add power to their staff or fire bolts from a initiates wand or something.  Ray of frost gets worn out.

Clerics should have a powerful radiant lance for undead and demons and devils but a divinely charge on their mace would be better as a cantrip. 


I think that this would work for some clerics but not for others. I don't really view the Arcanists and Lifegiver as the mace-wielding cleric though. I think some archtypes would really benefit from this type of bonus though instead of lance. I don't know that I would want a wizard to be forced to use a staff though. I feel like my character would get dead really fast from being too close to the enemy. 


In the movie, Lord of the Rings, when Gandalf and Saruman fought, they used their staffs and basically punched each other from a distance or threw each other around.  I can't remember how the books described this fight.
It just seems strange for clerics to be using blasts of light all the time.  Clerics should be blessing, commanding,  cursing, and striking their enemies down with the wrath of their god.  Every cleric shouldn't be firing shots of light all the time.  They need different cantrips.




LOTR is not the only representation of the wizard and I think both types should be represented. Maybe I want my wizard to be more Potter-like or more like the classic D&D wizard. Why should I be forced to use a weapon? And you should be able to use one. 

I absolutely love the idea of being able to play a cleric that doesn't have to use a weapon. I love it. It gives it a completely new feel. I got bored with the cleric since I play it all the time and no one else wants to. It was really nice to see a build able to be built that can be more ranged effectively. I do agree though, not all should be using Lance of Faith. I think different ones should be presented that are just as good. Lance is great for Lightbringer and Arcanist since I see them as the type to be further from the enemy and healing from afar. I could easily seeing them using a word of power and then striking down an enemy with Lance.  
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
At least in the early levels, I prefer a middle-ground between the extremes of "no at-will magic, you must use a weapon" and "laser spam."  I'd like to see a wizard who uses a sling for at-will attacks, but his sling bullets burst into flame as they fly.  I'd like to see a cleric who wields a mace, his murmured (or shouted) prayers charging his strikes with divine power.

I don't want these things at the exclusion of additional options that others might want, but the examples I described appeal to me more than "I'ma shoot it with mah LAZOR!"

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

Good game design requires the presentation of meaningful choice.  Ray of Frost and Lance of Faith eliminate meaningful choice.  Magic Missile v. Crossbow is a meaningful choice.  MM does more damage and is a sure shot, but I only have a few of them available.  I have a bunch of bolts for the crossbow.  To make a cantrip that has a place in the spectrum of meaningful choice, it has to have a drawback.  Rarity is out with the at-will nature of the cantrip.  Drama is lacking v. the crossbow/dart/dagger/staff 'cause it uses a better attack value.  What is left is to reduce the damage or the range (or both).  Ray of Frost needs to be 1d4 up to 50'. 

Lance of Faith needs to die altogether.  A cleric holding a shield and melee weapon has no business matching ranged damage with a fighter holding a javelin or a bow.  The choice for a cleric should be "do I buff the party, disrupt the enemy or close to melee and attack for damage."  LoF should be very short range (20) and do 1d6 to undead/evil planar creatures.  Unless faced with the iconic foe of the cleric, the cleric should throw a javelin, not a spell.

The lament that the wizard's at-will should do "relevant damage" is exactly wrong.  First, all damage is relevant.  Second, the wizard should not come close to approaching the fighter on an at-will attack.  The wizard can periodically eliminate entire groups of enemies.  The counterbalance to that is that the rest of his combat efficacy is limited.

The fighter is the touchstone. 
The cleric can exceed the fighter briefly via spells to improve his attack/ac/hp.
The wizard can exceed the fighter briefly via direct damage spells and area effects.
The rogue can exceed the fighter briefly via stealth and backstab.
The barbarian can exceed the fighter briefly via rage.
The paladin can exceed the fighter only against certain foes.
The ranger can exceed the fighter only at ranged combat.
The druid can exceed the fighter only in certain environs.

At the end of a long combat, when the wizard is out of spells and the cleric is out of prayers and the rogue is out of hit points, the fighter shines.  there is nothing wrong with that scenario.  The wizard, cleric and rogue already shined in that combat.  When they had resources to expend, they eclipsed the fighter.  The question is for how long and by how much.  A big margin for a short period = wizard.  A small advantage for a longer time = barbarian. 

The rogue is the corner case.  There is a loud contingent clamoring for the 4e striker uber-damage rogue.  OK, it should be an option at the cost of the skill-monkey traits of 2e and 3.?.  The classic rogue is built to find the combat, not anchor it.  A massive damage bonus against (surprise!) surprised enemies would let the rogue benefit from its high intiative.  The rest of combat a rogue is built to manuever to high-value targets to maximize its low damage output.   Again, the lower damage does not make the rogue irrelevant, it just makes him not a fighter.
Good game design requires the presentation of meaningful choice.  Ray of Frost and Lance of Faith eliminate meaningful choice.  Magic Missile v. Crossbow is a meaningful choice.  MM does more damage and is a sure shot, but I only have a few of them available.  I have a bunch of bolts for the crossbow.  To make a cantrip that has a place in the spectrum of meaningful choice, it has to have a drawback.  Rarity is out with the at-will nature of the cantrip.  Drama is lacking v. the crossbow/dart/dagger/staff 'cause it uses a better attack value.  What is left is to reduce the damage or the range (or both).  Ray of Frost needs to be 1d4 up to 50'. 

Lance of Faith needs to die altogether.  A cleric holding a shield and melee weapon has no business matching ranged damage with a fighter holding a javelin or a bow.  The choice for a cleric should be "do I buff the party, disrupt the enemy or close to melee and attack for damage."  LoF should be very short range (20) and do 1d6 to undead/evil planar creatures.  Unless faced with the iconic foe of the cleric, the cleric should throw a javelin, not a spell.

The lament that the wizard's at-will should do "relevant damage" is exactly wrong.  First, all damage is relevant.  Second, the wizard should not come close to approaching the fighter on an at-will attack.  The wizard can periodically eliminate entire groups of enemies.  The counterbalance to that is that the rest of his combat efficacy is limited.

The fighter is the touchstone. 
The cleric can exceed the fighter briefly via spells to improve his attack/ac/hp.
The wizard can exceed the fighter briefly via direct damage spells and area effects.
The rogue can exceed the fighter briefly via stealth and backstab.
The barbarian can exceed the fighter briefly via rage.
The paladin can exceed the fighter only against certain foes.
The ranger can exceed the fighter only at ranged combat.
The druid can exceed the fighter only in certain environs.

At the end of a long combat, when the wizard is out of spells and the cleric is out of prayers and the rogue is out of hit points, the fighter shines.  there is nothing wrong with that scenario.  The wizard, cleric and rogue already shined in that combat.  When they had resources to expend, they eclipsed the fighter.  The question is for how long and by how much.  A big margin for a short period = wizard.  A small advantage for a longer time = barbarian. 

The rogue is the corner case.  There is a loud contingent clamoring for the 4e striker uber-damage rogue.  OK, it should be an option at the cost of the skill-monkey traits of 2e and 3.?.  The classic rogue is built to find the combat, not anchor it.  A massive damage bonus against (surprise!) surprised enemies would let the rogue benefit from its high intiative.  The rest of combat a rogue is built to manuever to high-value targets to maximize its low damage output.   Again, the lower damage does not make the rogue irrelevant, it just makes him not a fighter.


+1 Agreed.
I think it works like this: The more you use something, the more mundane it becomes. 

Ask people that live in a breathtaking area of the country.  Sure they enjoy it, but its beauty subsides and doesn't resonate unless they're with someone else who is enjoying it.  Same can be said for powers.

That's why if a wizard had only one spell a day everyone at the table would stop and watch and hold their breath.  If he is using magic every 3 seconds, well...   

This is the issue. I don't think you can win here either. At-wills let casters cast all the time but cheapens the feel of magic by making it really commonplace. Limited spells/day keeps magic as this rare and powerful thing that is flashy and draws attention to itself. I like the at-wills in play, myself, but I'd like to create a variant that allows me to remove them without hitting the caster too hard.

For clerics, it seems easiest to give them more of a bonus to their martial damage (which they're reasonable with anyway). For wizards... I dunno. I was thinking of some way they could use their knowledge to their advantage. The 3.5e Archivist's Dark Knowledge was an awesome concept, maybe something along those lines.

I think it works like this: The more you use something, the more mundane it becomes. 

Ask people that live in a breathtaking area of the country.  Sure they enjoy it, but its beauty subsides and doesn't resonate unless they're with someone else who is enjoying it.  Same can be said for powers.

That's why if a wizard had only one spell a day everyone at the table would stop and watch and hold their breath.  If he is using magic every 3 seconds, well...   

This is the issue. I don't think you can win here either. At-wills let casters cast all the time but cheapens the feel of magic by making it really commonplace. Limited spells/day keeps magic as this rare and powerful thing that is flashy and draws attention to itself. I like the at-wills in play, myself, but I'd like to create a variant that allows me to remove them without hitting the caster too hard.

For clerics, it seems easiest to give them more of a bonus to their martial damage (which they're reasonable with anyway). For wizards... I dunno. I was thinking of some way they could use their knowledge to their advantage. The 3.5e Archivist's Dark Knowledge was an awesome concept, maybe something along those lines.



There is no point for clerics to use weapons. Lance of Faith is superior.  It hits more frequently and does more damage than any weapon in the hands of a cleric. 

My choice would be for clerics to hit harder with their divine magic but have a greater chance of failure.  They don't miss In the same way as other characters.  A divine attack directed from the gods shouldn't miss.  Their deity just does not always respond to every prayer.  Sometimes it takes 3 rounds before the god responds.  Opponent's AC therefore wouldn't matter for divine attacks.  Is a little plate armor going to stop a bolt from heaven?

Cleric Cantrip - Divine Word of Power - causes 1d8 hit points of total damage per cleric level to up to one enemy per 2 cleric levels (automatic hit, no save) If more than one enemy is targeted, cleric may divide damage dice as desired. 30% standard success rate (DM may add or subtract from this depending on the cleric's and the party's need, the cleric's faithfulness to the precepts of the deity, and effect that success will further the cause of the deity).  Failure means no effect that round. Chance of success increases by 5% for each round of failure and continued attempt for exercise of faith.
The more I read these threads,  with their Wizards who can't really use weapons,  cowering behind the Fighters until the moment they unleash the awesome power of their one spell for the day, the more I'm thinking  "Rincewind!"

It's funny for a reason..
 
The problem with getting rid of lance of faith is priests.  As long as the priest (unarmored and non-martial) gets wrapped up in the cleric class, things like lace of faith are necessary.  Ultimately, it's pointless to argue that it needs to go because it's a personal preference.  Give people a choice.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

The more I read these threads,  with their Wizards who can't really use weapons,  cowering behind the Fighters until the moment they unleash the awesome power of their one spell for the day, the more I'm thinking  "Rincewind!"

It's funny for a reason..
 


I think many people just don't want to see wizards casting ray of frost every round and clerics casting lance of faith.  It cheapens the novelty of magic to have it used like a laser gun.

Wizards need a mix of utility spells and combat spells. I still think they should be required to use weapons occasionally. 
The problem with getting rid of lance of faith is priests.  As long as the priest (unarmored and non-martial) gets wrapped up in the cleric class, things like lace of faith are necessary.  Ultimately, it's pointless to argue that it needs to go because it's a personal preference.  Give people a choice.


I want a choice where Lance of Faith does not exist but a better option does.
The problem with getting rid of lance of faith is priests.  As long as the priest (unarmored and non-martial) gets wrapped up in the cleric class, things like lace of faith are necessary.  Ultimately, it's pointless to argue that it needs to go because it's a personal preference.  Give people a choice.


I want a choice where Lance of Faith does not exist but a better option does.


I really can't agree or disagree with that because it depends heavily on what you're calling a "better option."

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I still think they should be required to use weapons occasionally. 



This is where modularity comes in, then, I suppose.  Nothing was more frustrating and made me feel less like a magician than having to become a half-assed crossbowman.
At-wills let casters cast all the time but cheapens the feel of magic by making it really commonplace. Limited spells/day keeps magic as this rare and powerful thing that is flashy and draws attention to itself. I like the at-wills in play, myself, but I'd like to create a variant that allows me to remove them without hitting the caster too hard.

For clerics, it seems easiest to give them more of a bonus to their martial damage (which they're reasonable with anyway). For wizards... I dunno. I was thinking of some way they could use their knowledge to their advantage. The 3.5e Archivist's Dark Knowledge was an awesome concept, maybe something along those lines.


There is no point for clerics to use weapons. Lance of Faith is superior.  It hits more frequently and does more damage than any weapon in the hands of a cleric.

You didn't actually read what I wrote, did you. Or you did but you're so ready for an argument that you're fighting your corner even though I didn't attack it.
My choice would be for clerics to hit harder with their divine magic but have a greater chance of failure.  They don't miss In the same way as other characters.  A divine attack directed from the gods shouldn't miss.  Their deity just does not always respond to every prayer.  Sometimes it takes 3 rounds before the god responds.  Opponent's AC therefore wouldn't matter for divine attacks.  Is a little plate armor going to stop a bolt from heaven?

Cleric Cantrip - Divine Word of Power - causes 1d8 hit points of total damage per cleric level to up to one enemy per 2 cleric levels (automatic hit, no save) If more than one enemy is targeted, cleric may divide damage dice as desired. 30% standard success rate (DM may add or subtract from this depending on the cleric's and the party's need, the cleric's faithfulness to the precepts of the deity, and effect that success will further the cause of the deity).  Failure means no effect that round. Chance of success increases by 5% for each round of failure and continued attempt for exercise of faith.


A high yield/high risk attack is neat too, but tricky because if it's too risky nobody will try. I know I wouldn't bother with it if the chance I'd waste my action was reasonably high, even if I was desperate. It's the save or die dilema all over again.

It's a frustrating state of affairs, to be sure. The only solution I think is for us all to pick the solution that works for our games and do that. Sometimes, that means to spam lance of faith.

At-wills let casters cast all the time but cheapens the feel of magic by making it really commonplace. Limited spells/day keeps magic as this rare and powerful thing that is flashy and draws attention to itself. I like the at-wills in play, myself, but I'd like to create a variant that allows me to remove them without hitting the caster too hard.

For clerics, it seems easiest to give them more of a bonus to their martial damage (which they're reasonable with anyway). For wizards... I dunno. I was thinking of some way they could use their knowledge to their advantage. The 3.5e Archivist's Dark Knowledge was an awesome concept, maybe something along those lines.


There is no point for clerics to use weapons. Lance of Faith is superior.  It hits more frequently and does more damage than any weapon in the hands of a cleric.

You didn't actually read what I wrote, did you. Or you did but you're so ready for an argument that you're fighting your corner even though I didn't attack it.
My choice would be for clerics to hit harder with their divine magic but have a greater chance of failure.  They don't miss In the same way as other characters.  A divine attack directed from the gods shouldn't miss.  Their deity just does not always respond to every prayer.  Sometimes it takes 3 rounds before the god responds.  Opponent's AC therefore wouldn't matter for divine attacks.  Is a little plate armor going to stop a bolt from heaven?

Cleric Cantrip - Divine Word of Power - causes 1d8 hit points of total damage per cleric level to up to one enemy per 2 cleric levels (automatic hit, no save) If more than one enemy is targeted, cleric may divide damage dice as desired. 30% standard success rate (DM may add or subtract from this depending on the cleric's and the party's need, the cleric's faithfulness to the precepts of the deity, and effect that success will further the cause of the deity).  Failure means no effect that round. Chance of success increases by 5% for each round of failure and continued attempt for exercise of faith.


A high yield/high risk attack is neat too, but tricky because if it's too risky nobody will try. I know I wouldn't bother with it if the chance I'd waste my action was reasonably high, even if I was desperate. It's the save or die dilema all over again.

It's a frustrating state of affairs, to be sure. The only solution I think is for us all to pick the solution that works for our games and do that. Sometimes, that means to spam lance of faith.



There was no intent on my part to argue with you. Perhaps I shouldn't have quoted you since you perceived that I was rebutting you in some way.  I guess I quoted you because I liked what you had to say.

I want a different mechanic for priests.  Decent warriors but capable of powerful divine miracles when their deity feels it is deserved.  I am not sure if 30% is high enough.  It was just a stab in the dark. 

Fair Dues.


I really wish we could detach the notion that everything must do damage. Another strategy is to give casters two or three at-wills: one damage, one buff, one debuff. Balance them out so each round the caster can choose to do damage, buff or debuff in any given round and have each choice be equally valid.


It starts to raise questions about how the daily casts are used though. My preferred strategy is to make the prepared spell quite a lot more effective than an at-will.

Another strategy is to give casters two or three at-wills: one damage, one buff, one debuff. Balance them out so each round the caster can choose to do damage, buff or debuff in any given round and have each choice be equally valid.


I like this style of choice, although I would be satisfied with combining the buff / debuff cantrips with a little bit of damage instead of having a straight-up damaging cantrip. If a Wizard wants to do good damage, they should have to cast a daily spell and if a Cleric wants to do good damage, then they should have to use a weapon. Even the Lifegiver cleric has access to a wide range of weapons, which she should be required to use if they want to deal at-will damage, the only real exception for the Wizard would have to be the Arcanist, but she has access to wizard cantrips anyway, so that should solve that problem.