Casters Still Don't Get Enough Spells

I think in particular the Wizard doesn't get enough spells and there are some things that don't seem thematically appropriate to me.

For instance, a Wizard with the minimum intelligence to cast a 6th level spell at Level 11 (16) and a 20th level Wizard with 20 Intelligence have the same amount of 6th level spell slots. In 3.5, that Wizard would be casting at a minimum 3 more 6th level spells.

There just doesn't seem to be much payoff magically but especially with the Wizard. The cleric and the druid, the other full casters, all get tons of other goodies and don't have nearly the amount of dead levels but still, they cast almost no spells.

Wizards in particular look like they are getting no mechanical benefit from leveling other than another HD and mildly better at skills
that their magic just replicates or is superior to, anyhow.

The lack of using the caster modifier for bonus spells stinks, too. It just doesn't feel right to me for a 20th wizard to be casting 20 or so spells a day and even so, a Scholarly Wizard would only be casting about 10 spells from 5th level or higher. From day 1 it has always seemed like a rip off to play most caster but especially the wizards.

Some things look like they should continue but don't, like Arcane Recovery. It is like stopping Barbarian damage at 6 or 8.
Fully agree, this is the single most lacking aspect of the game in my opinion. I also think casters actually get worse as they level, compared the the enemies they face. At low level you can easily cast three 1st level spells, and a 1st level spell might be able to kill a low level enemy outright or noticeably damage a group of them. But at high levels, you never, ever get more than one spell of the last three levels, so you're forced to use weaker spells against stronger enemies. And like you said, Arcane Recovery stops at 3rd level for no logical reason. 3rd level spells don't keep being as useful as they were when you were a 5th level character, you need to use better and better spells as you go on. You need to be able to augment your 3rd level spells as 6th level spells. The augmentation is brilliant, but we hardly get to use it because we hardly have any spell slots, and it feels like a complete waste to use one of your high level slots on a low level spell when you could use a high level spell, because you've been casting Burning Hands for the past few months and you want to move on to Cone of Cold already. And to top it all off you completely stop gaining spell slots at 17th level.

It used to be linear fighter, quadratic wizard. Now it's linear fighter, regressive wizard.

It also severely limits your utility as a caster, because you have so few spells that it's a difficult decision between a useful Knock or a damaging Melf's Acid Arrow. Part of playing a spellcaster is managing your resources between utility, defense, offense, etc. Now it feels like you can only pick one, especially for high level spells. I don't think you can prepare nearly enough spells, either. Yeah, you get at-will cantrips to maybe make up for it, but big deal; you can never learn more than youre starting three or four without taking a feat, and nobody plays a Wizard to cast Ray of Frost every turn for the campaign. Where's the versatility? People are worried about Wizards and Druids overshadowing their favorite class's tactical role, but I've always though the point of a spellcaster was to be able to substitute any role when needed, in a lesser capacity than a specialist. Is the best way to balance the game really to destroy some of its most iconic classes?

Some of the evocation spells have been seriously powered up. I'd rather they bring their power back down to where they used to be and let us cast more of them instead.

Bottom line: for anyone who liked 3rd edition casters, casters in this game are not worth playing. Anyone who specialized in casters in 3rd edition is very unlikely to buy or play this game as is.
I think in particular the Wizard doesn't get enough spells and there are some things that don't seem thematically appropriate to me.

For instance, a Wizard with the minimum intelligence to cast a 6th level spell at Level 11 (16) and a 20th level Wizard with 20 Intelligence have the same amount of 6th level spell slots. In 3.5, that Wizard would be casting at a minimum 3 more 6th level spells.

There just doesn't seem to be much payoff magically but especially with the Wizard. The cleric and the druid, the other full casters, all get tons of other goodies and don't have nearly the amount of dead levels but still, they cast almost no spells.

Wizards in particular look like they are getting no mechanical benefit from leveling other than another HD and mildly better at skills
that their magic just replicates or is superior to, anyhow.

The lack of using the caster modifier for bonus spells stinks, too. It just doesn't feel right to me for a 20th wizard to be casting 20 or so spells a day and even so, a Scholarly Wizard would only be casting about 10 spells from 5th level or higher. From day 1 it has always seemed like a rip off to play most caster but especially the wizards.

Some things look like they should continue but don't, like Arcane Recovery. It is like stopping Barbarian damage at 6 or 8.



I was planning on posting a comment about all these concerns and saw this first.  I agree on all points and also want to add this bit.

The wizard is the only class that does not have a non magical bonus to attack.  What gives?  In every edition to date the wizard had some modicum of combat prowess even if it was much less than all the other classes.  The current incarnation of the Wizard has no non magical combat attack modifier at any level.  The Cleric and Druid both do.  While the Druid's starts at 0 at 1st level if he selects Circle of the moon the first level form he can take, Bear, has a +4 bonus to attack.

To add insult to injury the Wizard has a slower progression of magical attack modifier than the Cleric and with the exception of level 3 where he is +1 better for that level only he is equal to the Druid in this regard.  I thought this was the class that focused solely at magic and as such would have the best bonus amongst them.  Instead the Wizard lags behind the Cleric beginning at level 8 and does so at each next change in magic attack modifier.  Is this sending the right message?

I realize some will say that the Wizard has Mage Armor as a cantrip and that he can armor up and then use Shocking grasp, Ray of Frost, etc... repeatedly.  But wait a moment Mager Armor only provides a +2 to AC how much help is that when the ogre steps within striking distance?  Let's remember that the Wizard has a low hit dice so ...

This also brings me to my next point regarding all caster's being unable to add their casting ability modifier to damage rolls for their magical attacks.  Even healing is nerfed by this omission.  It doesn't seem quite fair to me that the weapon slingers gain use of their ability modifiers for damage but the casters do not.   

I hope these things, along with those you have written about, are reviewed and corrected because with out these things going for the casters things seem a bit unbalanced.

 
It seems to me they're a little gunshy about juicing up the wizard and casters in general as I see a lot of complaints on here about caster supremacy and vancian magic being overpowered.  There are a couple of good things.  The fact that spell DCs are now tied to the power of the caster rather than the level of the spell is good and I like the spellcasting bonus.  The way that they prepare x number of spells and can then use their slots flexibly for those prepared spells nicely blends wizardly spell preparation with sorcerous spontaneous casting.

I'd like to see more magic feats, both 3.x style metamagic and some new ones.  I'd like to see more class feature options built into the class itself.  Maybe one that gives the wizard more spell slots.  Maybe at a given level a choice could be 'Combat Mage' or something of the like and it could grant the wizard an attack bonus and abilities that help him in combat.  That way, you could choose between a completely magic focused wizard or a more combat specific type.

It does seem like the class is incomplete, but then again, the game is far from complete.  Hopefully there are additions to the wizard coming.
Considering every single playtest report I've ever read has said that casters are overpowered, I'm gonna have to call BS on the OP.

I certainly do not want the 3.5 casters as a model for how powerful casters ought to be. They ruined the game. 
I certainly do not want the 3.5 casters as a model for how powerful casters ought to be. They ruined the game. 

The OP is just concerned that they don't get enough spells, without regard for their power. There's certainly room for toning down some of the more open-ended spells (i.e. wish as a plot-device rather than standard spell), and increasing the number of spells per day. Damage-wise, spells were still falling behind the fighter at-will damage, last I heard.

The metagame is not the game.

I sit in the middle on this one. I love the wizard... it's my favorite class. I feel the wizard has been really awful, except packet 2 which was still pretty bad. However, I really don't want to see a return of caster supremacy.

The Vancian model is hard to balance with pure math, as the number of encounter in a day really adjusts how strong they are (see the 5 Minute Workday thread for details). I think they need to make an assumption of the number of encounters per day (including non-combat encounters where utility spells may be used) and balance around that. Then they should give advice on encounter balance based on the number of encounters per day. If you only have 1 encounter per day, then it's going to be HARD! If you are going to have almost twice as many, then the encounters can be weaker. The trick is also to suggest that DMs vary the number of encounters per day. That way spellcasters are leery of spending all their spells, in case of another encounter before they can recover. Additionally, it helps the casters vs. non-caster balance, because casters will be more important for fewer/stronger encounters, but the non-casters will be more important for the more/weaker encounters. My suggestion for this number should be around 2-3 encounters per day at level 1, then steadily increasing them (as spellcasters gain more spells per day).
The problem with Wizards having more spells is that they have more utility, and they feel they can choose a broader range of spells.

With fewer spells, and incentives to choose from a specific school (because of class features relating to your Wizarding Tradition), the Wizard is far more balanced against other characters in terms of contribution ability to the party's overall adventuring potential. 

The "Generalist" Scholarly Wizard Tradition, as well as the idea of giving wizards more Spells in general, kinda messes with that balance.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

The problem with Wizards having more spells is that they have more utility, and they feel they can choose a broader range of spells.

With fewer spells, and incentives to choose from a specific school (because of class features relating to your Wizarding Tradition), the Wizard is far more balanced against other characters in terms of contribution ability to the party's overall adventuring potential. 

The "Generalist" Scholarly Wizard Tradition, as well as the idea of giving wizards more Spells in general, kinda messes with that balance.



I do not see that as a problem. The point of playing a Wizard is to have a broad range of spells, even if you're a specialist. Who ever heard of a Wizard that said "I can't prepare Knock, I'm just an Evoker!"

Wizards are not "balanced" right now. They are underpowered, boring, broken, useless. They're not okay. I think a lot of us would rather have the spells be less powerful and be able to use more of them.
I think in particular the Wizard doesn't get enough spells and there are some things that don't seem thematically appropriate to me. 

I think they get too many, but to each their own I guess. Now if you said more cantrips or encounter type spells I might agree but daily powers need smacked with a nerf bat.

The problem with Wizards having more spells is that they have more utility, and they feel they can choose a broader range of spells.

With fewer spells, and incentives to choose from a specific school (because of class features relating to your Wizarding Tradition), the Wizard is far more balanced against other characters in terms of contribution ability to the party's overall adventuring potential. 

The "Generalist" Scholarly Wizard Tradition, as well as the idea of giving wizards more Spells in general, kinda messes with that balance.



I do not see that as a problem. The point of playing a Wizard is to have a broad range of spells, even if you're a specialist. Who ever heard of a Wizard that said "I can't prepare Knock, I'm just an Evoker!"

Wizards are not "balanced" right now. They are underpowered, boring, broken, useless. They're not okay. I think a lot of us would rather have the spells be less powerful and be able to use more of them.



The point is not to forbid Evokers from preparing knock, but to encourage them to prepare scorching ray or Melf's acid arrow instead.  Rather than weaking Wizards further, empower Specialist Wizards with features that really pump up their personal school.  This will give them a REAL reason NOT to spend their spell slots on out-of-school spells, keeping them from being TOO versatile while maintaining the possibility to be versatile.  Wizards are supposed to be versatile, but if they're awesome at doing everything, then they mitigate the usefulness of other party members.  Knock steps on the toes of the Rogue, after all (even though, currently, the Rogue is much quieter at unlocking doors, and can do it all day, as compared to the Wizard who prepares and uses knock). 

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe



I do not see that as a problem. The point of playing a Wizard is to have a broad range of spells, even if you're a specialist. Who ever heard of a Wizard that said "I can't prepare Knock, I'm just an Evoker!"



I would like that to be the case.  The broad range of spells is what made the wizard too freakin' powerful, especially combined with how powerful the spells were in the first place.


I do not see that as a problem. The point of playing a Wizard is to have a broad range of spells, even if you're a specialist. Who ever heard of a Wizard that said "I can't prepare Knock, I'm just an Evoker!"



I would like that to be the case.  The broad range of spells is what made the wizard too freakin' powerful, especially combined with how powerful the spells were in the first place.



And I'd like to not have the most versatile class pidgeonholed into certain types of spells only.

There was a whole thread about this before, and I still don't get it: how does a Wizard's knock overshadow the Rogue? If you have a Rogue in the party, the Rogue is going to be the lockpicker, not the Wizard The Rogue can do it more quietly and can do it an unlimited number of times. There would be no logic in having the Wizard do it instead of a Rogue even if he could cast knock twenty times per day somehow.
The problem is that the Wizard can fill in for any area that is lacking just by preparing a different set of spells that day.  Other classes can do no such thing; they're locked into the skill and feature choices they made from the get-go.  Sure, one Rogue may be better at lockpicking than a Wizard with knock.  But say one week you have a Rogue who can lockpick in the party – say, a Thief (who are auto-trained in Open Locks), but the next week the Rogue player is out.  Luckily, you recently recruited a new player, who ALSO made a Rogue, so you're still pretty much balanced out.  But his Rogue is a Rake, and DOES NOT have Open Locks.  You're lucky the Wizard knows knock, right? 

Except that the very same character who didn't know how to open locks the week before, and didn't need to, now knows how to and has to.  The Wizard, by virtue of being able to swap his or her spells each day, was able to replace an entire missing character in the party. 

This is not necessarily a bad thing – the Wizard is versatile, you say.  That comes from a definite bias that arcane magic and the Wizard are and should be versatile – making the Wizard a swiss-army-knife class, so to speak, which I personally disagree with, but that's neither here nor there, since that seems to be part of the design premises of this edition.  The BAD thing is when you say ONLY the Wizard can be versatile, and everyone else has to have extremely pigeon-holed functions.  The Fighter fights.  The Rogue does skillful stuff like sneaking, lockpicking, and bluffing.  The Cleric heals.  The Wizard does EVERYTHING else. 

That's the problem.  The Wizad occupies a space that overrides all other classes, because it can play at being any one of them if it prepares the right spells.  Wizards have the combined powers of Merlin, Moses, Odin, Gandalf, Dumbledore, Morgan le Fey, Howell, Baba Yaga, Zeus, Jesus, and Batman (yes, Batman, who should be a Rogue) ALL AT THE SAME TIME.  Wizards get to be more awesome than everyone else because "magic is exceptional by definition."  Because heroes of martial prowess aren't exceptional; because martial heroes can never emulate figures of myth and legend without belts of giant's strength and whatnot in order to magically pump themselves up to par.

The problem is that magic is fundamentally unbalanced against the rest of the game, and to say that they need MORE spells is to both misunderstand the problems that already exist with the Wizard, and say, the heck with it, we want to make sure that Fighters, Rogues, and Clerics will always serve as the Wizard's underlings.  This is a game by Wizards of the Coast, not Fighters of the Coast, so Wizards rule and Fighters drool!

Thankfully, Mearls seems to have indicated that in the next packet, Fighters and Rogues will have much more potent, versatile features.  I'm inclinded to give him the benefit of the doubt, even though packet after packet have been disappointments in terms of parity of versatility, utility, function, and power.  Until now, the way it's gone has been this:  Fighters may be able to put out more damage than the Wizard, but that damage means little when the Wizard can shut down a combat with a single spell, let alone avoid the combat all-together and make sure the Fighter never contributes (because the Wizard can fight, can sneak, can socialise, and can solve puzzles, while the Fighter can only hit things hard).  From the sounds of it, we'll be getting Fighter packets that are able to do various things, like Knights who are particularly good at social encounters as well as combat encounters, or Gladiators who are resourceful and can utilitise specialty weapons (and probably are better at solving puzzles because of their unique skill sets). 

But even with the (yet-to-come) boosts to the Fighter and Rogue, the Wizard would still fall ahead in terms of versatility and ability to wreck the game.  As long as the Generalist Wizard exists, this will be the case.  Luckily, I can ban that function at my table, but I should not need to houserule out generalists all-together (in fact, Jack-of-Trades is a great archetype; the problem is that the Generalist Wizard is not a Master-of-None, it is a Polymath who is a Master-of-All, just only slightly less so than the Specialists). 

What I'm proposing is for Specialists to have a significant boost in utility for their SPECIFIC schools, and a revamping of the Generalist to be a lot more restrictive in its power-potential.  This will actually make the Wizard a more effective class from school to school; it will solve the problem of the Wizard feeling like it is nothing more than a bunch of spell slots as well.  Finally, it will curve the very dangerous problem of Wizards getting out of hand as an archetype.  In fiction, Magic-users tend to be concentrated in a specific school of magic, whether the person is a powerful Enchanter or a terrible Battlemage or whatnot.  Sometimes they know other utility spells on the side, and that's fine.  What ISN'T fine is that they're all carrying around Batman's utility belt and no one else has that sort of resource.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

You're describing everything that's great about Wizards and suggesting that it's bad. Seems to me that it's great for a Wizard to be able to fill in for the missing Rogue by preparing Knock. Wizard isn't the only versatile class, either. Clerics don't just heal in this game, they are very versatile. Rogues are pretty versatile too, they can be good warriors or smoooth talkers just as well as sneaky, lockpicky thieves. Some classes are going to be specialized, though, like the Barbarian, and we need those classes too.

And you've really said nothing to address my concerns on the spell slots. I simply do not see how it could be a good feature to only be able to use one 7th, 8th and 9th level spell per day. Yeah, a Wizard can shut down a battle with a single spell, but that spell can fail with a few good saving throws, and then they've wasted their big moment for nothing. What could be more disappointing? I don't see how this is more balanced or better in any way.

It just seems like in 3rd edition, for classes with daily resources, you usually could do what you wanted to without worrying about wasting resources, and after a long day of adventuring you'd start to wear thin and need to make camp. In 5th edition, it feels like casters are only really useful for a few rounds a day; the rest of the time you're spamming shocking grasp and ray of frost while the Fighter wins the battles.

So I'm just not seeing it your way. I don't even see how this issue can be reconciled when it's so divisive and so many people's desire to buy the game hinges on how arcane casters are handled.
I think the problems with Full casters in early editions was due to several reasons, but for this discussion two matter most:
- Spellcasters were more versatile as Marandahir corrertly points out.  I think the answer to this is to make the other classes more versatile as well, not the other way around. What if the Fighter and the Rogue could also switch (some?) of their abilities on a daily basis? Or gain versatility by just having a much wider choice of options.
- A problem in earlier editions was often that magic was just better. Knock was often better than Open Lock, Invisibility better than Hide. I think limiting the power of spells so they are worse than the class abilities they can sustitute would go a long way to fixing things. A lot of the problem is in the wording and mechanics of the spells, not how many the casters have. Especially stacking effects of different spells can lead to exponential growth quickly.

I don't think the number of spells is the real problem, but the lack of versatility in the other classes and the spells themselves.

Knock should just provide a bonus on Open Lock, not replace it. It would also make it interesting for a Wizard to invest in Open Lock if the party has no Rogue/Thief, and it would make it a boost to the Rogue's Open Lock if there is one in the party.

The same would be true for most other spells. Invis would just be a bonus to Hide, See Invis a bonus to Perception, things like that.

5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."

 

I once asked the question (in D&D 3.5) "Does a Druid4/Wizard3/ArcaneHierophant1 have Wildshape?". Jesse Decker and Andy Collins: Yes and the text is clear and can't be interpreted differently. Rich Redman and Ed Stark: No and the text is clear and can't be interpreted differently. Skip Williams: Lol, it's worded ambiguously and entirely not how I intended it. (Cust. Serv. Reference# 050815-000323)


Knock should just provide a bonus on Open Lock, not replace it. It would also make it interesting for a Wizard to invest in Open Lock if the party has no Rogue/Thief, and it would make it a boost to the Rogue's Open Lock if there is one in the party.

The same would be true for most other spells. Invis would just be a bonus to Hide, See Invis a bonus to Perception, things like that.



Now this is just silly.
If a wizard needs a lock picking set to pick a lock, it isn't magic.
If a wizard needs to duck behind a rock to turn "invisible," it doesn't really seem like anything magical happened.
This kind of wizard sounds more like a party magician and I don't want to play GOB Bluth.
Should their fireballs require starting small fires first? Should wishing for gold also require putting in the hard work and time of starting a small but eventually succesful business? Maybe Darkness can only be cast when you turn out all the lights.
;D
I think in particular the Wizard doesn't get enough spells and there are some things that don't seem thematically appropriate to me. 

I think they get too many, but to each their own I guess. Now if you said more cantrips or encounter type spells I might agree but daily powers need smacked with a nerf bat.





But there really isn't any such thing as and encounter spell.  Encounter spells were a forced mechanic to limit the effect wizards could have on a given encounter.  That always felt so limiting to me.  As for Daily's the only reason they exist at all in the current version is because high level spell slots are limited in how many are received per day.  But really you should expand away from those terms.  I'm just saying it would help the discussion. 
Dear OP : Remember that cantrips are unlimited/day casts and a 20th lvl wizard can/will/should be able to kill people doing 5d8 damage cantrips every round for the next 10 hours without taking a break. If the 20th level wizard has no magic items, but has put his stat increases wisely, the mobs need to defeat a DC20 on their save.
This is without using any of his spellslots at all.

So yes, there is not a zillion spellslots in DnDN anymore (like in the "good old days") but back then casters had no "standard attack" unless you count their staff/cudgels/whatever melee weapon. Now they have their cantrips and those are not something to be easily dismissed.

I, personally, would also like to see somewhat more of the higher level spells, especially now with the "use a spellslot X lvls higher and increase effect by a lot"-win/wins, but I think that the current low low level of higher level magics is explained by taking the cantrip argument a tad too far.

I hope that the devs decide to give a little love back to the number of higher spellslots and/or allowing Arcane Recovery above 3rd lvl spellslots, as this would grant the same "gating" mechanism disallowing massive spell überpwnage for sustained amounts of time.
I think the problems with Full casters in early editions was due to several reasons, but for this discussion two matter most:
- Spellcasters were more versatile as Marandahir corrertly points out.  I think the answer to this is to make the other classes more versatile as well, not the other way around. What if the Fighter and the Rogue could also switch (some?) of their abilities on a daily basis? Or gain versatility by just having a much wider choice of options.



I disagree with this because it breaks believability. How does a non-magical character "forget" something he learned how to do? If I can I fix a car today, then I can fix the same car tomorrow. If my rogue can hide today, he can hide tomorrow. This is reminiscent of the old Dual-Classing Rules from AD&D, where you just quit being a class to join another one, until you caught up to your old level, then suddenly remembered how to do everything again.

I do like the idea of more options.

- A problem in earlier editions was often that magic was just better. Knock was often better than Open Lock, Invisibility better than Hide. I think limiting the power of spells so they are worse than the class abilities they can sustitute would go a long way to fixing things. A lot of the problem is in the wording and mechanics of the spells, not how many the casters have. Especially stacking effects of different spells can lead to exponential growth quickly.

I don't think the number of spells is the real problem, but the lack of versatility in the other classes and the spells themselves.

Knock should just provide a bonus on Open Lock, not replace it. It would also make it interesting for a Wizard to invest in Open Lock if the party has no Rogue/Thief, and it would make it a boost to the Rogue's Open Lock if there is one in the party.

The same would be true for most other spells. Invis would just be a bonus to Hide, See Invis a bonus to Perception, things like that.



I would agree with you on Knock granting a bonus to the roll (and allowing it without tools or proficiency). 3E did the same thing with the Cleric Spell Find Traps, it granted +10 on the roll. So long as the bonus is really good (I would say +5 using BA, with greater increase with higher spell slots), otherwise you are going to make the spell worthless.

Invis doesn't grant you Hidden by the current rules btw, as you can still be heard if you move (or breathe, depending on the DM and situation).

I liked how later Wizard cantrips in 4e let you sub in an Arcana check in place of another skill, on a limited basis.
Dear OP : Remember that cantrips are unlimited/day casts and a 20th lvl wizard can/will/should be able to kill people doing 5d8 damage cantrips every round for the next 10 hours without taking a break. If the 20th level wizard has no magic items, but has put his stat increases wisely, the mobs need to defeat a DC20 on their save. This is without using any of his spellslots at all. So yes, there is not a zillion spellslots in DnDN anymore (like in the "good old days") but back then casters had no "standard attack" unless you count their staff/cudgels/whatever melee weapon. Now they have their cantrips and those are not something to be easily dismissed. I, personally, would also like to see somewhat more of the higher level spells, especially now with the "use a spellslot X lvls higher and increase effect by a lot"-win/wins, but I think that the current low low level of higher level magics is explained by taking the cantrip argument a tad too far. I hope that the devs decide to give a little love back to the number of higher spellslots and/or allowing Arcane Recovery above 3rd lvl spellslots, as this would grant the same "gating" mechanism disallowing massive spell überpwnage for sustained amounts of time.



But we want more than cantrips. We don't play Wizards to use cantrips all the time. The Fighter by level 20 might have that legendary +2 celestial longsword that breathes fire, but the Wizard is still casting ray of frost. It does more damage, big deal, numbers are boring, we want to summon meteors and freeze time and move the earth beneath us. It doesn't have to be game-breaking to be interesting, but we want it to be interesting. Lower the power of spells and give us more of them.
Having a high intelligence used to net you more spells. As it is now, high intelligence does what, one thing, a higher DC to your spell save? Bleh. Intelligence needs to play a bigger role in being a wizard. As far as learning spells, there seems to not be a big reason to level above level 17 because you will still be only able to cast 1 level 9 spell at 20. Sure, you get some more HP and a higher DC....but what, still only 1 level 9 spell? C'mon. Wizards needs some serious love.

But we want more than cantrips. We don't play Wizards to use cantrips all the time. The Fighter by level 20 might have that legendary +2 celestial longsword that breathes fire, but the Wizard is still casting ray of frost. It does more damage, big deal, numbers are boring, we want to summon meteors and freeze time and move the earth beneath us. It doesn't have to be game-breaking to be interesting, but we want it to be interesting. Lower the power of spells and give us more of them.



Wizards shouldn't only use Cantrips the whole time. I compare it with a figther - They can do lots of special moves when they have Expertise Dice, otherwise they're just "autoattacking".

Cantrips are casters "autoattack" and the actual spellslots are the special fancy moves. 

The DnDN wizard has a lot more sustained damage output than previous editions, at the cost of some highlevel spell slots. I'm not saying it's the way to go, especially with the reasonably short average fight lengths, but I for one like that no more is a 1st lvl wizard stuck with only his feeble melee wpn after the first 3 rounds of combat that day (and would remain stuck with the staff until nightfall/rest time).

 This means that the Wizard can pitch in for combat no matter how many spellslots have been used, just like a melee character can hack away with his weapon.

I agree with the notion that the devs have scaled spellslots too far back, especially at the higher levels. I did say that giving more spell slots and/or Arcane Recovery above 3rd lvl spellslots would go a far way in remedying this. 
Wizards shouldn't only use Cantrips the whole time. I compare it with a fighter - They can do lots of special moves when they have Expertise Dice, otherwise they're just "autoattacking".

Cantrips are casters "autoattack" and the actual spellslots are the special fancy moves.

Or, we could go back a few editions, and remove cantrips entirely. This way, your basic attack can be your basic attack, and your spell slots can be your special fancy moves.

Seriously, they cave in to requests for at-will magical abilities, and this is the response? I bet they could hand out fireball as an at-will ability, and next edition people would be asking for at-will meteor swarm.

The metagame is not the game.

 Or, we could go back a few editions, and remove cantrips entirely. This way, your basic attack can be your basic attack, and your spell slots can be your special fancy moves.

Seriously, they cave in to requests for at-will magical abilities, and this is the response? I bet they could hand out fireball as an at-will ability, and next edition people would be asking for at-will meteor swarm.



Well, this would lead to the wizard being somewhat useless whenever he runs out of spells. At low level, even in previous editions with loads of spells, this happened pretty quick and once he'd done his 2-3 spells (@lvl1), the wizard wanted nothing more than to lie down, sleep and memorize again so he'd feel useful again. Also only having 2-3 meaningful contributions per day to combat or other things gets old pretty fast.

In some ways, the wizards are too OP now.. as they can dish out damage on par with ordinary attacks of melee classes on the same level (disregarding possible cleaves/Multiattack), do massive (AoE) damage using spellslots AND have the possibility to fill unique utility roles.

I would love to see the spell list fleshed a little more out and find some compromise that makes the wizard a little less OP, yet still better off than in previous editions.



Dear OP : Remember that cantrips are unlimited/day casts and a 20th lvl wizard can/will/should be able to kill people doing 5d8 damage cantrips every round for the next 10 hours without taking a break. If the 20th level wizard has no magic items, but has put his stat increases wisely, the mobs need to defeat a DC20 on their save. This is without using any of his spellslots at all. So yes, there is not a zillion spellslots in DnDN anymore (like in the "good old days") but back then casters had no "standard attack" unless you count their staff/cudgels/whatever melee weapon. Now they have their cantrips and those are not something to be easily dismissed. I, personally, would also like to see somewhat more of the higher level spells, especially now with the "use a spellslot X lvls higher and increase effect by a lot"-win/wins, but I think that the current low low level of higher level magics is explained by taking the cantrip argument a tad too far. I hope that the devs decide to give a little love back to the number of higher spellslots and/or allowing Arcane Recovery above 3rd lvl spellslots, as this would grant the same "gating" mechanism disallowing massive spell überpwnage for sustained amounts of time.



But we want more than cantrips. We don't play Wizards to use cantrips all the time. The Fighter by level 20 might have that legendary +2 celestial longsword that breathes fire, but the Wizard is still casting ray of frost. It does more damage, big deal, numbers are boring, we want to summon meteors and freeze time and move the earth beneath us. It doesn't have to be game-breaking to be interesting, but we want it to be interesting. Lower the power of spells and give us more of them.

while the fighter COULD have a celestial +2 longsword,  this system is designed with the assumption that he will still be using a regular greatsword at level 20.

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

I think wizards should have 12 spell slots at all levels.


At level 1 they have 12 1st level spell slots. Bylevel 20 they have 3 6th level slots, 3 7th level slots, 3 8th level slots, and 3 9th level slots. (Yes lower level spell slots get "upgraded" as the wizard levels into higher level slots). This gives the wizard enough spells to use throughout the typcial adventuring day but never reaches the point where the wizard has too many spells.

The game is designed around the assumption of ~16 rounds of combat per day, meaning the wizard can cast a combat spell 75% of the time and only uses cantrips 25% of the time. Any spell slot the wizard wants to use for utility purposes comes directly out of combat potency. This should be a meaningful tradeoff as non-combat utility should not be handed out to the wizard for free.

No more days of wizards with 25+ spell slots where they can load up on utility and still have enough blasting power to dominate every fight.

I agree with lawwolf.  Leveling should make your spells more powerful, not let you cast more spells.



Also, i would have wizards take an action to "reload" between each spell cast.  This not only prevents you from blowing them all in a single fight, but it also allows for a somewhat bigger bang per cast, since it's now 2 turns worth of effect.

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.

Couldn't disagree more with the OP Casters, especially wizards, need fewer spells.

Mello's idea regarding "Reloacing" is interesting, but I would preger charge-up before to reload after --- AKA 2-action cast times to spells.  this would also enable easy spell disruption.

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

The Wizard class is not underpower. The strength of the class is in the spell list. The class feature intelligently improve the versality of each given tradition without breaking balance. Scholar provide more spell options. Evocation provides better area saturation and elemental choices. And Illusion provide more reliable control.

The concern for spell slot number seems to be preference between more/weak and less/strong spells. Strong spells speed up combat. High damage balances better against status effect than low damage spells.

Nevertheless, a wizard can run out of spells if does not manage resource well. Cantrips do provide a simple stop gap. Less spell slot do stress the importance of resource management.
Over powered?!?!??! ...because they can do on par damage as ordinary melee attacks.  This is rediculous!  I think many of the anti-magic folks have some idea just stuck in their heads about 3rd edition (which by the way, never seemed to play out as "God Wizards" in the campaigns I was involved in, though I somewhat understand the criticism)

High level wizards have almost nothing to gain except a hitpoint for gaining levels.  Their higher level spells are capped at 1 at every level.  This is a way-over-the-top reaction to what Might (just might) have been too much power for high level wizards in 3rd edition. Wizards need to see some growth at the higher levels (and not just another die on their cantrips).

..."/>In some ways, the wizards are too OP now.. as they can dish out damage on par with ordinary attacks of melee classes on the same level (disregarding possible cleaves/Multiattack), do massive (AoE) damage using spellslots AND have the possibility to fill unique utility roles.






Over powered?!?!??! ...because they can do on par damage as ordinary melee attacks.


Yes.  Because they can do on par with a fighter's melee at range (thus avoiding counter attacks) and targeting weaker defenses (saves, rather than AC) if any.  To exist at a balance point, spells MUST be weaker in attacks when it comes to single target damage.  Casters make up for it in utility, AoE, and other categories. 

This is rediculous!  I think many of the anti-magic folks have some idea just stuck in their heads about 3rd edition (which by the way, never seemed to play out as "God Wizards" in the campaigns I was involved in, though I somewhat understand the criticism)


Here, I actually agree with you -- partially because "Balance" is an illusion in a system as complex as D&D has been.  Suboptimal builds (you know, the kind you end up with when you build for fun rather than to break the game) are a big equalizer in practice


High level wizards have almost nothing to gain except a hitpoint for gaining levels.  Their higher level spells are capped at 1 at every level.  This is a way-over-the-top reaction to what Might (just might) have been too much power for high level wizards in 3rd edition. Wizards need to see some growth at the higher levels (and not just another die on their cantrips).


You still get a new power at every level, and an expansion of your pre-existing power, unlocking further tiers of spells.  You can say a lot about the wizard, but "They get bupkis from levelling" is not that.





/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

Over powered?!?!??! ...because they can do on par damage as ordinary melee attacks.


Yes.  Because they can do on par with a fighter's melee at range (thus avoiding counter attacks) and targeting weaker defenses (saves, rather than AC) if any.  To exist at a balance point, spells MUST be weaker in attacks when it comes to single target damage.  Casters make up for it in utility, AoE, and other categories. 

This is rediculous!  I think many of the anti-magic folks have some idea just stuck in their heads about 3rd edition (which by the way, never seemed to play out as "God Wizards" in the campaigns I was involved in, though I somewhat understand the criticism)


Here, I actually agree with you -- partially because "Balance" is an illusion in a system as complex as D&D has been.  Suboptimal builds (you know, the kind you end up with when you build for fun rather than to break the game) are a big equalizer in practice


High level wizards have almost nothing to gain except a hitpoint for gaining levels.  Their higher level spells are capped at 1 at every level.  This is a way-over-the-top reaction to what Might (just might) have been too much power for high level wizards in 3rd edition. Wizards need to see some growth at the higher levels (and not just another die on their cantrips).


You still get a new power at every level, and an expansion of your pre-existing power, unlocking further tiers of spells.  You can say a lot about the wizard, but "They get bupkis from levelling" is not that.





/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}


Starting at level 11, they no longer get many of their best spells.  An 11th level wizard gets 1 6th level spell.  They never get another 6th lvel spell.  I guess 2 levels later they get one 7th level spell, with the same progress (meaning no more 7th besides the one).  At 15th, they get their one and final 8th level spell.  At 17th level they get their final spell increase - one spell.   18th = nothing.  19th = nothing  20th = no more spells.

And of course, their lower level spells have been stagnant as well.  Not that a high level spellcaster is dying to cast 1st level spells, but they haven't received another 1st level spell since 3rd level!  2nd through 5th are also pretty set fairly soon after getting access.  The point is that the wizards spells cast is incredibly stagnant.

Starting at level 11, they no longer get many of their best spells.  An 11th level wizard gets 1 6th level spell.  They never get another 6th lvel spell.  I guess 2 levels later they get one 7th level spell, with the same progress (meaning no more 7th besides the one).  At 15th, they get their one and final 8th level spell.  At 17th level they get their final spell increase - one spell.   18th = nothing.  19th = nothing  20th = no more spells.

And of course, their lower level spells have been stagnant as well.  Not that a high level spellcaster is dying to cast 1st level spells, they haven't received another 1st level spell since 3rd lvel!  2nd through 5th are also pretty set fairly soon after getting access.  The point is that the wizards spells cast is incredible stagnant.



Only if you're looking at spells per day.  A wizard can prepare spells equal to 1+level, so gets a new option of what to use those slots on every level.  They also get to add a free spell to their spellbook at every level, so the options go up there, too.

Wizard Level 11 has 1 6th level spell in his/her book, but Wizard Level 20 can have as many as 10 from progression alone (though this would be a bit of a waste), all of which could be prepared as options for the L6 slot.

Remember: Wizard is no longer "Fire and Forget" -- they're more like 3e Spirit Shamans in that they cast any spell they "know" at the cost of an appropiate slot but can change what spells they "know" daily from a larger list.

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

Spells don't need to do less damage.  They just need to be used less frequently.  

Daily slot's limit them on the back end.  But you need something to limit them on the front end.  Hence my suggestions that you have to take an action to reload before you cast a second spell.  You get a nice big, powerful, magic bang, but only every other round.

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.

I can't believe so many people are in favor of this horrible system with one spell slot per day for half of the spell levels. It seems regressive to me, since enemies are growing stronger but you're stuck using lower level spells to combat them. It's very limiting, since you'll have to choose between an offensive spell and any other type of spell at those levels, which pretty much forces Wizards to specialize even if you want to be more balanced.

It doesn't seem on par with other classes, since high level Druids could pull off a couple of dire ancient behemoth shapes per day, a Monk could do more than one quivering palm, even Fighters get multiple uses of their combat surge (and I've seen that in action, it can result in as much damage as a good evocation spell). Wizards are the only class limited to one of something per day at 20th level, and they are supposed to be the most versatile class. Not to mention that for other daily resources like wild shape or channel divinity, there is no chance of failure. For a Wizard, you can use your one amazing epic moment of the day and get shut down by a good saving throw.

Learning new spells after 17th level doesn't make up for it. The one spell you learn per level is practically meaningless since most of a Wizard's spellbook is usually obtained outside of level-ups. The extra preparations don't mean much, since that's just more things you have to give up when you decide what to use your one spell slot for.

I don't see how anyone considers this system functional, let alone overpowered. Wizards are the worst class in the game, and I won't buy it if they give in to people who want to ruin it for everyone just because they've met a few overpowered Wizards in the past. Yes, when you introduce mroe versatility powergamers will find a way to exploit it, but that doesn't mean we should take away that versatility and prevent legitimate roleplayers from enjoying the game.
I have said before and will again now: If the class named "Wizard" is titally useless, by far the worst, then we can actually have hope for post-launch magic classes.  But, for this to happen, there has to be no way whatsoever for people who dislile magic to cry that the Wizard is Overpowered.   They need less damage, less utility, less everything than even the most basic of martial classes.  And folks shall say the game is balanced, and those of us with some sense will hopefully know to wait for wizards to release a "mage" or other class that's got a different name but sililar concept and is actually on par rather than worlds behind.

Because really, it seems to be the name that a lot of people care about.  Sacrifice the Wizard to PR and next will probably be a better place.

But even aside from that, even assumign we're trying to make a I don't think "One Level N Spell Per Day" is a problem when you can prepare multiple options for that slot and your bloody cantrip provides acceptable rould-by-round damage (which is, itself, a problem: the wizard needs more spells if you eliminate at-will cantrips or their scaling, which I would do.)

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

Here's what I like about the Wizard's abilities and what I don't like about them:

Cantrips - You get to use them at will.  They are not generic in thier flavor.  You get Ray of Frost but what if the creature you attack with it is immune to cold?  It should be something more like Magic Missile's force or some other broader form of damage.  Chill Touch and Shocking Grasp have the same issue.  I think if the flavor is more generic then Wizards will want to use them less because they don't feel so special when they are used.  Wizard players might want to go with the spells that are more flavorful instead.

Spell Slots - Wizards should get more spell slots but the rate at which they get them should slow down as they advance as they focus more of their energy learning  to channel magical energy to power higher level spells.  A wizard should also gain extra spell slots from above average intelligence at least in the lower level spells.  Say for example if you have a +1 modifier you get an extra level one slot.  If you have a +3 modifier you get a 1st level, 2nd level, and 3rd level slot.  Wizards should also get a few extra slots for high level spells or a trade in of lower level slots to power higher level spells should be considered.  Say you want to use another 7th level spell.  Well you could give up the required level of spell slots plus two from lower level spell slots.  So it would cost you say ... a two 3rd level spell slots, a 1st level spell slot and a 2nd level spell slot.  That totals 9 slots to power your 7th level slot.  Why?  Because higher level spells cost the caster more personal energy to cast reducing their ability to cast those lower level spells.  Perhaps it goes something like:  6th requires 7 slots of power, 7th requires 9 slots of power, 8th requires 11 slots of power, and 9th requires 13 slots of power.  All of the slots sacrificed have to come from spell slots level 1st to 5th.  I do think the power of higher level spells is a bit much but most especially in things like Wish and spells like it that provide for some god like power.

Spells Memorized should also be affected in the same way as mentioned above for a high stat score.
 
Spell Damage - I don't like that you can't add your ability modifier to damage.  I think that's rather nerfed.


More later 





     

Actually, I love magic.  But it's incredibly utilitarian, and runs off a per-day structure, and thus very very very careful balance is necessarily to keep it in check versus characters with much less diversity of abilities.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

I agree with lawwolf.  Leveling should make your spells more powerful, not let you cast more spells.


Also, i would have wizards take an action to "reload" between each spell cast.  This not only prevents you from blowing them all in a single fight, but it also allows for a somewhat bigger bang per cast, since it's now 2 turns worth of effect.


This would be very interesting indeed.

I'd have the number of spellslots go up very slightly with level though (for feel mostly) and have the "charge up" be before the big spell can be cast - gather up the mana or somesuch. (also stops 1st turn nova burns and also makes it so a few rounds of prep time before an encounter is a real reward - and so is denying it to your ennemies.)

Sign In to post comments