|
12 months ago ::
Jun 26, 2012 - 8:54PM
#11
|
|
|
@Vacant psalm: the issue is that low level spells are too useful at high levels. That an te devs have said they want low level monsters staying relevant. So burning hands will still take out 50 orcs at high level where 50 orcs are part of a challenge. Then you get things like invisibility, sleep, flight, etc that are useful at all levels. Also, wouldn't most utility spells be better off as rituals? Why do you need 36+ spells to be "Vancian". Why isn't 9 enough?
Burning hands. 15' cone.
50 orcs.
WTF am I reading?
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 26, 2012 - 8:59PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2012
|
@Vacant psalm: the issue is that low level spells are too useful at high levels. That an te devs have said they want low level monsters staying relevant. So burning hands will still take out 50 orcs at high level where 50 orcs are part of a challenge. Then you get things like invisibility, sleep, flight, etc that are useful at all levels. Also, wouldn't most utility spells be better off as rituals? Why do you need 36+ spells to be "Vancian". Why isn't 9 enough?
Burning hands. 15' cone.
50 orcs.
WTF am I reading?
Well, orc Nurseries are made of wood... Did I go too far?
I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 26, 2012 - 9:01PM
#13
|
|
|
@Vacant psalm: the issue is that low level spells are too useful at high levels. That an te devs have said they want low level monsters staying relevant. So burning hands will still take out 50 orcs at high level where 50 orcs are part of a challenge. Then you get things like invisibility, sleep, flight, etc that are useful at all levels. Also, wouldn't most utility spells be better off as rituals? Why do you need 36+ spells to be "Vancian". Why isn't 9 enough?
Burning hands. 15' cone.
50 orcs.
WTF am I reading?
Well, orc Nurseries are made of wood... Did I go too far?
At least they aren't arguing wood doesn't burn. 
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 26, 2012 - 9:25PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2009
|
No. I think that we should make all spells at-will, reduce the damage and allow the victims many save rolls to break their helpless condition so that these spells would be acceptable to cast once per turn.
Honesty I really like this suggestion, but I think it's too extreme of a change for the DND Wizard. optionally you could choose to spend your "daily" powers to ramp the spell up to a more powerful version. (this might even be doable since you'd only be making minor spells and allowing them to ramp up into existing spells)
Ember > Burning Hands
Slow > Sleep
etc.
If this would fly I think we'd have the most fun (to me) wizard yet. But, again, I doubt they'd do it. they're trying to please the pro-vancian crowd. Shame there can't just be a comprimise and allow multiple versions and still let it be a wizard.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 26, 2012 - 10:00PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2012
|
Do wizards need more than 9 big spells per day? With at wills and the potency of daily spells we have seen so far is it necessary for a wizard to cast more than one or two big spells per fight? Would it not provide for a better resource management if you actually had to manage resources instead of possessing enough spells to cast all day long past level 6?
I do not see this kind of limitation being applied to 5E. While I agree it would be a nice way to limit the wizard and still make him feel his daily limits.
For this to work the wizard would need to have his 9 daily powers at lv one and watch them grow increasingly more powerful as he gains levels. Maybe his at-wills will also scale slowly. This does change everyones perception of what the wizard is. A dangerous design move.
When 4E came out there is something I missed about the old spell slot system. The idea of 9th level spells was gone. and It is kinda nice to see it come back in a system other than Pathfinder.
What I hope the designers do is make sure the lower level spells kinda become not impressive at higher levels. With the HP limit these low lv dailies will not be the wizards big stick. He still may on have a half dozen encounter changing spells at his command. It may even be "Cleaner" to have low level spells become at-wills at a certain level. Maybe only the Wizards top 3 levels of spells will have daily limits and the rest just become at wills. If they are balanced to eventually be used at-will then they cannot make a lv6 spell deal immediate reapeatable death.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 26, 2012 - 10:16PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Feb 17, 2010
|
I recall reading somewhere that to reduce "spell bloat" (i.e. wizards having too many spells) you would "lose" lower level spell slots as you got to higher levels, but could memorize spells in a higher level spell slot, which would make them more powerful (not increase the frequency with which you could use them). I could be misremembering, though.
I want "punch magic in the face" to be a maneuver
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 26, 2012 - 10:20PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2005
|
Take 4th edition.
Reduce the number of abilities by roughly 50%.
Now you have the proper number of abilities.
More than that is too many.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 26, 2012 - 10:22PM
#18
|
|
|
Take 4th edition.
Reduce the number of abilities by roughly 50%.
Now you have the proper number of abilities.
More than that is too many.
Instead of having every conceivable option in the world available (improvising)? Really? You can't be serious. Even if I were inclined to more codified 'manuevers' over the attack+manuever=modifier, that would be too few.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 27, 2012 - 12:47AM
#19
|
|
|
Take 4th edition.
Reduce the number of abilities by roughly 50%.
Now you have the proper number of abilities.
More than that is too many.
Lay out in detail what you have in mind?
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 27, 2012 - 2:43AM
#20
|
|
|
@Lawful:
It really depends on other factors. 9 could be a viable option but there are a lot of ifs. You would for instance need other ways to access utility magic at higher levels than spells. You would need to introduce magical feats that give you persistent/encounter spells (like a mage armor or levitate feat). You would also need to introduce feats that give you more advanced at-will or encounter based combat magic because casting one spell per encounter and then use magic missile the rest of the time will get old quickly.
My personal preference is around 14 though. That's roughly equivalent to a level 7 caster in the previous editions. That's enough spell slots to have a mix of combat and non-combat magic. 9 spell slots is a level 5 caster in the previous editions. That's not really enough spell slots to have a decent mix of combat and non-combat spells.
|
|
|
