|
4 months ago ::
Feb 12, 2013 - 4:09PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 12, 2013 - 4:21PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2012
|
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?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 12, 2013 - 4:39PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 12, 2013 - 4:44PM
#4
|
|
|
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...
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 12, 2013 - 4:44PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 12, 2013 - 4:57PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2008
|
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!
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 12, 2013 - 5:12PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 12, 2013 - 5:12PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
"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
Show
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)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 12, 2013 - 5:16PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2012
|
"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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 12, 2013 - 5:24PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
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.
|
|
|