Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ADSKINNER 10-12-07, 02:27 PM	I am very out of the loop on this. I know that Mystra is dead, which means no weave. Is the source of magic different but the spells and classes based off of it the same, or what? I've also heard that they are eliminating some of the classes, including coming up with new spell casting classes. Is this true? Wat is going on?
Derren S. 10-12-07, 03:18 PM	So far everything is just speculation (except that Mystra wil die). We know that WotC want to bring fighters on par with wizard and that every class will have /day, /encounter and at will abilities. In my opinion this means that magic will me a lot more universal in 4E, meaning that even fighters will have some magic like abilities. It is also not known which, if any, class will be cut, but the classes which seem to be the most obvious are bard and /or monk. On the other hand the Warlock will become core and we will have a new class called Warlord. For more information read the 4E board.
Suin Bahhar 10-12-07, 03:55 PM	The wizard and warlock (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071012a) will be the new arcane classes. Wizards have traditions which flavor your at will abilities (magic blasts), per encounter abilities (wizardstrikes and some spells), and limit your choice of vancian per day spells (I hope magic schools stay). They may be using implements to harness their arcane powers, such as staffs, orbs and wands. The new wizards may very well be weave independant. Warlocks I think are pretty fun classes in 3.5. Their 4ed incarnation are more evil and otherworldy with curses and banishments.
MarkusTay63 10-12-07, 11:19 PM	1) Spells will go up to 25th level (no joke), and PC's will have 30 levels as standard in the PHB. Also, when you level, abilities not only go up based on class, but also based on race. 2) Magic will work along 'traditions' - think of them as specialists taken to their logical extreme. A warlock would be a prime example of one form of 'tradition'. I would assume these traditons will more then likely also correspond to spell schools, although not neccesarily. 3) They are getting rid of the 'Vancian' magic system that has been a staple of D&D for thirty years. I don't understand how the new system works, but I would assume some form of 'magic points' will be involved (Mana?). perhaps even some sort of wierd hybrid between vancian and Mana-based. 4) little colored sparkles will come out of the tip of your wand whenever you cast a spell. ;) *That last one was a joke, BTW, but you probably WILL need a wand, or some other focusing device.
Green Elven Vampire 10-13-07, 12:01 AM	Die 4ED, DIE!!!!
Zanan 10-13-07, 07:10 AM	Die 4ED, DIE!!!! See, essentially you have the Five or Six 3RE Corebooks (PHB, DMG, MM, Spell & Rule & Magic Compendium) and about 20,000 years pre-4E in-setting Realms to play with. ;) (Just like me, for the time being.)
Zsych 10-13-07, 02:14 PM	The idea of warriors and wizards being directly balanced at higher levels annoys me :) Ability uses per encounter, or per day also sorta worry me. As in, would it be a pre-defined, x-uses for Fireball a day, with no choice in the matter? I personally like the mana system better. Also, I wonder if Wizards wouldn't have been better off keeping the existing system... I remember an example from my Principles of Marketing class, where Coca Cola, finding that more people liked the sweeter Pepsi, made their own more sweet only to find that the 40% market share they had was from people who liked their old taste(and who they were now at risk of losing), and Pepsi of course already had the other 60% and wasn't likely to lose them to a new entry in that specific taste market :P
Zanan 10-13-07, 06:00 PM	Come on Zsych, the idea that a fighter closes up to a dragon with a "Agile Combat Style feat" - given speed of 100 feet per round and using that "Final Strike" feat to deliver 189 points of damage with a single hit is not that new an invention. They use to call that Final Fantasy though. Then again, over there, they deal far worse damage on creatures with thousands of HP ... of course. :yuck:
Suin Bahhar 10-14-07, 09:19 AM	I love doing heaps of damage while swinging a sword and moving 100 feet per round. Markus, the spells will even go up to level 30 I last heard (so spells have levels equal to class levels). And vancian spells will still exist but in a more limited manner. The targeting of spells will be more relevant as the wizard will get to roll vs the defence of its targets and he could even critically hit with a spell (just like a ray attack). Utility spells are still the bread and butter of the wizard as their traditions allow those perday and perencounter abilities so less memorization of blast spells is necesary.
ADSKINNER 10-15-07, 01:38 PM	I love doing heaps of damage while swinging a sword and moving 100 feet per round. Markus, the spells will even go up to level 30 I last heard (so spells have levels equal to class levels). And vancian spells will still exist but in a more limited manner. The targeting of spells will be more relevant as the wizard will get to roll vs the defence of its targets and he could even critically hit with a spell (just like a ray attack). Utility spells are still the bread and butter of the wizard as their traditions allow those perday and perencounter abilities so less memorization of blast spells is necesary. What is "Vancian" spellcasting? I keep seeing ity referred to on this thread. I don't think it's so bad to make wizards carry wands/ staves, but I also don't think it would be good to completely eradicate the old way, too.
Suin Bahhar 10-15-07, 02:46 PM	Vancian referes to the fantasy works of Jack Vance. He described mages having to store the energy from spells mentally and releasing them to cast spells, effectively wiping them from memory and removing their use untill rest. This will stay but be enhanced with the more flexible casting (i.e. at will magiclike missiles and such) wich is shown in most fantasy novels.
MarkusTay63 10-16-07, 02:05 PM	The idea of warriors and wizards being directly balanced at higher levels annoys me :) Ability uses per encounter, or per day also sorta worry me. As in, would it be a pre-defined, x-uses for Fireball a day, with no choice in the matter? I personally like the mana system better.Warriors should be on equal footing - guys like Conan always had a chance of killing a powerful mage, so it fits the genre, no mattter how silly on the surface it might seem. We won't be seeing a pure Mana system until 5e - they have to make changes a little at a time or risk losing their core audience. ;) Markus, the spells will even go up to level 30 I last heard (so spells have levels equal to class levels). And vancian spells will still exist but in a more limited manner.Thats news to me - initially at Gencon they revealed only 25 levels - Where was this re-adressed? :confused: I know everything above 20 was considered 'epic', IIRC. I would have to agree though that magic should go up as high as the caster - it just seemed kind of pointless to me to keep playing a wizard after you hit lev 18 - he pretty much topped out. Then again, I never liked playing wizards. Perhaps I will consider it if the new rules are any good. ;)
Alediran 10-16-07, 02:26 PM	The idea of warriors and wizards being directly balanced at higher levels annoys me :) Me too, why we have to suffer those bumbling i***** with metal sticks when we wizards have the power to undone reality? [/QUOTE]Ability uses per encounter, or per day also sorta worry me. As in, would it be a pre-defined, x-uses for Fireball a day, with no choice in the matter?[/QUOTE] I hate that to. That is why I use the Spell points system from Unearthed Arcana, much more real for the spellcasters, it's not like the only non-spellcaster character of my group gets bored when spells fly, he can dish a lot of damage with only one swing and the party Wizard is more a Primary Sniper/Secondary Blaster. Also, I wonder if Wizards wouldn't have been better off keeping the existing system... I remember an example from my Principles of Marketing class, where Coca Cola, finding that more people liked the sweeter Pepsi, made their own more sweet only to find that the 40% market share they had was from people who liked their old taste(and who they were now at risk of losing), and Pepsi of course already had the other 60% and wasn't likely to lose them to a new entry in that specific taste market :P[/QUOTE] The targeting of spells will be more relevant as the wizard will get to roll vs the defence of its targets and he could even critically hit with a spell (just like a ray attack). That sucks, are spell effects have no need to be precisely aimed, what difference makes to the fireball if it lands two or three feets at your side instead of where your are? That will only annoy combat type classes from your party who always get the missed arrow or ray spell (I've seen a 20th lvl fighter being disintegrated by his friend who rolled a natural 1 on his ranged touch attack). Making every damage spell like that will give us a two way problem: Either Spellcasters now have better BAB (which would be messing with the fighter's area of power), or party members will not play melee characters, and will focus instead on the Elf/Ranger with a bow so the Wizard (a necessary party member) doesn't kills them.
Suin Bahhar 10-16-07, 05:43 PM	Me too, why we have to suffer those bumbling i***** with metal sticks when we wizards have the power to undone reality?*whispers*Perhaps you'll think differently with 3 foot steel in your gut. :P Ability uses per encounter, or per day also sorta worry me. As in, would it be a pre-defined, x-uses for Fireball a day, with no choice in the matter? I hate that to. That is why I use the Spell points system from Unearthed Arcana, much more real for the spellcasters, it's not like the only non-spellcaster character of my group gets bored when spells fly, he can dish a lot of damage with only one swing and the party Wizard is more a Primary Sniper/Secondary Blaster. Also, I wonder if Wizards wouldn't have been better off keeping the existing system... I remember an example from my Principles of Marketing class, where Coca Cola, finding that more people liked the sweeter Pepsi, made their own more sweet only to find that the 40% market share they had was from people who liked their old taste(and who they were now at risk of losing), and Pepsi of course already had the other 60% and wasn't likely to lose them to a new entry in that specific taste market :P That sucks, are spell effects have no need to be precisely aimed, what difference makes to the fireball if it lands two or three feets at your side instead of where your are? That will only annoy combat type classes from your party who always get the missed arrow or ray spell (I've seen a 20th lvl fighter being disintegrated by his friend who rolled a natural 1 on his ranged touch attack). Making every damage spell like that will give us a two way problem: Either Spellcasters now have better BAB (which would be messing with the fighter's area of power), or party members will not play melee characters, and will focus instead on the Elf/Ranger with a bow so the Wizard (a necessary party member) doesn't kills them. No, I believe the placement of the fireball is still the same, but the saving throw mechanic is now gone. The instigator rolls: Wizard casts fireball at goblin mooks, wizard rolls once vs the reflex defence of all goblins.
Muddman72 10-19-07, 12:57 AM	I just think of a time I was playing with this one DM and when I made my fighter, he was annoyed: "This is 22nd level and you can't cast spells, thats just stupid". And he was right, in 3.5 if you're high level and you can't cast spells then you're an idiot, and thats a BAD thing. The genre works best if everyone has their role and all those roles are of equal importance. When a wizard can fill any and all roles, then he's too powerful. And if you don't think he can, you haven't played with the 'right' players. In order for a fighter to even approach the wizard class he needs to be an expert on every munchkin magical item there is, which is dumb since the only way you should know about those items is if you are a spellcaster or have wicked ranks in knowledge skills. Oh and to finish my story, I made a fighter/monk/rogue that dealt equal damage to a wizard using every trick in the book. He hated my guy so much he disjuncted my equipment (with a DC 44 WILL save), made unfair rulings about my abilities he'd never stand for as a player and then sent two solars to kill me. Needless to say, not a good DM :)
goldomark 10-19-07, 02:59 AM	The main differences between a wizard and a fighter are: A wizard can deal damage to many targets for a limited number of times in a day. The fighter deals damage to limited number of targets for a illimited number of times, in a day. The best exemple if a combine wiz/fighter, the warlock. Unlimited magical blast to a limited number of targets, in a day. A wizard's spells can be counterspelled and rather easily. Parry does not existe anymore, so a fighter can't be stop. Disarming can be dealt with a gantlet that holds your weapon in place and sundering rarely works, the fighter and is friends usually kills the sunderer before is weapon breaks. Also, the wizards is more fragile with a lower AC and HP pool. He is out more easily. Its all balanced. Well was. Wonder if it will be with spells per encounter.
GothicDan 10-20-07, 08:36 PM	A wizard's spells can be counterspelled and rather easily. Parry does not existe anymore, so a fighter can't be stop. Disarming can be dealt with a gantlet that holds your weapon in place and sundering rarely works, the fighter and is friends usually kills the sunderer before is weapon breaks. But you need to basically be another Wizard or a higher level Cleric to counterspell. Fighters trying to do it are useless. And it's not like the Wizard just can't use Telekinesis and steal a fighter's weapon to stop him, or anything.... Seriously, any people I've seen who have said fighters can challenge high level wizards really just have no idea how to play wizards.
GreenKnight 10-20-07, 09:40 PM	Thats news to me - initially at Gencon they revealed only 25 levels - Where was this re-adressed? They said that 25th level spells existed. They never said those were the most powerful spells. And according to Logan Bonner, spell level corresponds to character level. Originally Posted by Xeran Thanks Logan, i really appreciate learnign that, good to have that cleared up at last. Any word on whether the rumor about 30 spell levels is true? If not, are we sticking to the original nine? Power level corresponds to the character level at which you gain the power. http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13508318&postcount=255 One can infer from that that when a Wizard reaches 5th level, he gets 5th level spells. When he reaches 12th level, he gets 12th level spells. When he reaches 25th level, he gets 25th level spells. And when he reaches 30th level, he gets 30th level spells. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that spell levels will increase with character level, but they'll just stop at 25th level for some inexplicable reason.
Karsus the Mad 10-20-07, 09:48 PM	And it's not like the Wizard just can't use Telekinesis and steal a fighter's weapon to stop him, or anything.... Seriously, any people I've seen who have said fighters can challenge high level wizards really just have no idea how to play wizards. Pretty much. It makes me wonder why they're trying to "balance" out all classes:confused: I simply can't fathom how someone (no matter how skilled) with a piece of steel can even begin to match someone that can bend reality with the power of their mind.
MarkusTay63 10-21-07, 04:49 AM	Because even a lev 1 Hobbit can f*#k -up a Dark-Lord's plans. ;) And the first time the party encounters one of those rare portals - the kind that ONLY teleports the character, and nothing else - the Monk is going to be in the best position, and fighters may be Okay if they can find a decent stick to use as a quarterstaff. The Wizard is going to be royal screwed without any of his magical gee-gaws ans spell components. :D A wizard is only good when he's prepared - a party escaping a dungeon after having their equipment taken away will do alright once the warrior gets a sword away from a gaurd. A wizard without his spell book is just a scrawny old man with few Hit points. :P
goldomark 10-21-07, 05:01 AM	But you need to basically be another Wizard or a higher level Cleric to counterspell. Fighters trying to do it are useless. And it's not like the Wizard just can't use Telekinesis and steal a fighter's weapon to stop him, or anything.... Seriously, any people I've seen who have said fighters can challenge high level wizards really just have no idea how to play wizards. I never said that. What I was saying is, for PCs, they are equal.
GothicDan 10-21-07, 01:17 PM	Because even a lev 1 Hobbit can f*#k -up a Dark-Lord's plans. And the first time the party encounters one of those rare portals - the kind that ONLY teleports the character, and nothing else - the Monk is going to be in the best position, and fighters may be Okay if they can find a decent stick to use as a quarterstaff. The Wizard is going to be royal screwed without any of his magical gee-gaws ans spell components. A wizard is only good when he's prepared - a party escaping a dungeon after having their equipment taken away will do alright once the warrior gets a sword away from a gaurd. A wizard without his spell book is just a scrawny old man with few Hit points. This is basically a useless argument, Markus, because it's basically impossible to take into account environmental biases when trying to 'balance' the classes. :) That's actually part of the reason I hate when people (and WotC) takes into account magic items when looking at class balance/capabilities.
Suin Bahhar 10-21-07, 04:35 PM	Fantasy swordsmen do show extraordinairy skill even facing evil high powered wizards. Sure spells bend reality, light your way in darkness, scries and zapps your enemies, but a piece of steel in the right hands can bend the personal reality for the one who gets hit with it. As I said earlier, concentrating on spells can be very hard with three foot steel in your gut... If the open blade fails, stealth and surprize trumps lower to mid level wizards most of the time. A great deal of the balance issues will be removed when wizards instigating spells are the ones that roll (saving throws will be less used) and the wizard needs to utilize more focii like the implements mentioned.
GothicDan 10-21-07, 05:40 PM	As I said earlier, concentrating on spells can be very hard with three foot steel in your gut... Not that that would ever happen to a high level wizard. If the open blade fails, stealth and surprize trumps lower to mid level wizards most of the time. True. We're talking about higher level. Those with 7th+ level spells, in general, and maybe even 5th+ depending on the player and DM. A great deal of the balance issues will be removed when wizards instigating spells are the ones that roll (saving throws will be less used) and the wizard needs to utilize more focii like the implements mentioned. I'm not sure why the first part will balance anything. The whole point we're making is that Wizards can use/make spells that completely invalidate Fireball/Sword/Shield combat altogether, because of versatility.
Suin Bahhar 10-21-07, 06:35 PM	In the new way of casting an attack by a wizard can crit. This will have to be taken account of in the statistics of level appropriate damagespells i.e. lead to lower avarage damage. I believe they will have to be more careful in the placing of utility vancian spells to strike a balance with the versatilty aspect of wizard. Maybe bump up divination spells a bit, or having extra components (like special tomes) required for the provenly strong problematic spells (such as polymorph or summonning).
GothicDan 10-21-07, 06:39 PM	The schools that are the most problematic at the higher levels are Divination, Transmutation, and Abjuration Conjuration and Enchantment can be bad, too.
Suin Bahhar 10-21-07, 06:55 PM	Maybe they could include flavourfull weak points in spells, like increasing fatigue when overchannelling or casting powerful spells.
Antaeus 10-21-07, 07:17 PM	The issue of game balance between character classes seems to come up again and again.. fighters vs wizards, number of powerful attacks in a given day. One other thing to consider in balance is frequency of character classes in the world. It used to be that character classes had requirements, and it was assumed that there should be more "unskilled" or "basic" classes than "advanced" classes that required more training. I have trouble seeing how one on one, classes will be equivalent 1st through 30th level. Yeah, I'm sure a high level mage could easily kill a high level warrior, but there's no way he's taking on a roomful of them. I just hope they don't water-down the spell casting classes, nor make warriors something they are not.
Suin Bahhar 10-21-07, 07:27 PM	Read on the myths on Cuchulauin, an Irish mythological fighter figure who pulled of some epic stuff, like surviving horrendous wounds, cleaving heads by the dozens and breaking curses. He and several other mythological martial heros trashed monsters, hags and wizards alike. Why should my character be denied those powers? He lives in a mythical setting.
ADSKINNER 10-21-07, 07:40 PM	Agreed. I've long thought that melee types should have some obvious advantage over casters. What that would be... I haven't the slightest.
ADSKINNER 10-21-07, 07:45 PM	Oh and to finish my story, I made a fighter/monk/rogue that dealt equal damage to a wizard using every trick in the book. He hated my guy so much he disjuncted my equipment (with a DC 44 WILL save), made unfair rulings about my abilities he'd never stand for as a player and then sent two solars to kill me. Needless to say, not a good DM :) May I inquire as to the exact nature of that build and character, b/c it sounds quite interesting. Anyways, anything you are willing to give me, I would appreciate. Thanks.
Alediran 10-22-07, 08:23 AM	Yeah, I'm sure a high level mage could easily kill a high level warrior, but there's no way he's taking on a roomful of them. I just hope they don't water-down the spell casting classes, nor make warriors something they are not. There are a couple ways I can think for the wizard to defeat a whole room. One of them is the Spell Weird, unless they make a will saving throw (almost impossible for a fighter) they take massive amounts of damage and if they fail a fortitude saving throw (it can happen to the best) they die instantly. Another way would be to cast a mass hold person (another will save) and then kill each fighter with his own sword just to embarrass them to the extreme.
Zsych 10-25-07, 03:43 AM	I have the impression that Wizards intends to add more abilities to fighters, and remove abilities from Wizards that make them so flexible. Like if you play a wizard in most computer games, the abilities are straight forward and a wizard and fighter will just fight head-to-head directly trying to deal damage to the other. Like in NWN, I'm not sure even a 40th level wizard could actually do that much.
MarkusTay63 10-25-07, 03:10 PM	Less flexible, yes. Less powerful? No. Imagine a guy who just specializes in Fire magic - he might not be able to scry the dark lord's lair, or hurl lightening bolts, or even levitate... but he can cast a meteor swarm consisting of a dozen or more fireballs the size of Volkswagons. :eek: This allows incredible levels of power, but also gives him a built-in weakness - any guy with a firehose just became his arch-nemesis. ;)
Karsus the Mad 10-25-07, 05:40 PM	Less flexible, yes. Less powerful? For a wizard, their flexibility is their power and their weakness.
Suin Bahhar 10-25-07, 06:50 PM	Yes the flexibel spell selection will be there. We're talking bookchurning WotC here. But the traditions sure sound like a great step forward in the "feel" of magic. Most books describe nonvancian casting and in game I imagine magic to be more liberated with at will spells.
Lobotaru 10-25-07, 07:10 PM	I think they are probably going with a magic point system like you see in a lot of modern roleplaying games (computerized or not). The general concensus of the rpg community, at least in the eyes of game producers, is that magic point systems are superior to a vacian system. The first final fantasy games had a vacian like system, but that has long been replaced by mp. Palladium had been using a PPE system since the time of its conception, although the palladium system tends to be clunky on a few ends. I'm not saying Wizards is ripping off anyone's idea. I'm just saying magic point systems seem to be effective and flexible so a lot of games use it, which leads me to believe that is probably what they plan on doing.
Suin Bahhar 10-25-07, 07:31 PM	But D&D has had psionics as the system that uses spell points. The "flavour" of this mechanic fits better to the Invisible Art IMO. Magic should remain "triggery" in feel like the vancian system to remain some of the same feel as older magic.
Zsych 10-27-07, 12:32 AM	I think the powers should just be different with a spell point system for both wizards and psionics. Different skill trees with their own quirks.
Curtisin 10-27-07, 02:21 PM	I think that perhaps the discussion looks to be ending more in a fighter vs. wizard discussion. The way magic changes, I think, will be along the lines of the Star Wars Saga Edition, where they redid the Force powers to be 1 per time-unit (that being: Encounter, day or whatever). If they do so it's not completely bad, because the star wars system works really well... However, it will be interesting to see how it'll work with our beloved magical system. (although I hope they discard the psionic system... I was never too keen on that). I do hope however, that they don't mess too much with the way that multiple attacks work for the physical damage-people... That would limit a Fighter rather nastily. Curtisin Out.
Lobotaru 10-27-07, 06:23 PM	I hope they don't get rid of psionics. I always preferred psionics over magic to begin with. Anyway, I think they will be using a magic point system, although I have no way to confirm this.
Zsych 10-27-07, 07:28 PM	From what I read about it, the new system will have the following types of options for wizards: 1. 'At will' abilities. Lets say giving wizards endless Missiles of Magic. 2. 'Per Encounter' abilities. Certain ability x times in a fight? 3. 'Per day' abilities: These I think might either be x uses per day, or a variant of the current memorization system. Whether or not memorization is part of number 3, wizards will have some limited additional flexibility in the form of being able to memorize at least a few spells, on top of their existing arsenal.
Karsus the Mad 10-27-07, 07:36 PM	Thus players of wizards won't have to think....bleh....not much of a wizard then. I remember when this game forced players to think...players with wizards were only greater when they had to think beforehand... Now a wizard character can be just as stupid as the person playing the wizard.
Suin Bahhar 10-27-07, 07:38 PM	Psionics isn't in the 4ed PHB. It doesn't belong there. It does belong in the realms though, so I hope they have some good ideas for psionic mechanics. The 3.5 expanded psionics system is robust once understood.
Zsych 10-28-07, 04:28 AM	@KtM: From what I read, the motivation is just that a wizard not run out of spells and start looking like an idiot. ... probably means he'd be left a character balanced on high hit power vs. low HP(and I agree... not requiring as much thought).
cython 11-03-07, 11:29 PM	One question about the endless fighter vs. wizard discussion! Even if they the balance between fighters and wizards at the low levels is fixed with the new system of magic (i.e. the wizard will end up without spells and becoming a burden to the rest of the group...) then what will happen at high levels? Will the fighter will gain access to spells? Will the spells be weak enough to maintain the balance? Or will once more the wizard will shine at high levels? Just a question... :confused:
GothicDan 11-03-07, 11:44 PM	Really, the question of magic power (spellcasting or otherwise) should come down to campaign settings, not core rules, as far as I'm concerned. In FR for instance, it seems Ed Greenwood ALWAYS meant for spellcasters to, in general, 'trump' at higher levels - and that's just the way it is, rules aside. At least, that's what I've gotten from his comments, short stories, and novels. And that's part of what defines FR. People may not like it, but it would be silly to try to cater to everyone.
Suin Bahhar 11-04-07, 09:58 AM	I thought fighters in 4ed get powers of similar mechanical strategic importance of wizards (i.e. similar damage output or targetted control). But the actual gameplay tactical options for wizards will always be greater because thats what magic does. It adds options and makes you versatile. If 4ed does melee and magic right I'm totally in. They might have to reduce or delay the powercurve of wizards, they might even cut save and die spells I heard once.
Green Elven Vampire 11-13-07, 08:52 AM	Die 4ED DIE a horrible money depraved death!!!
MerrikCale 11-17-07, 10:54 AM	Die 4ED DIE a horrible money depraved death!!! Thats all we need a lich 4e
Suin Bahhar 11-17-07, 03:23 PM	4ed rules looks more like a sleek and enchanting sorceress to me. If the rumors on the mechanics are right the new magic will feel like it has been unleashed fully. I detest the fact the party wizard is constantly going nova in the first encounter and ends up an intelligent commoner the rest of the dungeon. Sure it has been part of D&D since first edition, but getting specifically flavoured unlimited spells is a HUGE step in the right direction. I'm not that keen on the implements for wizards though.
Alediran 11-20-07, 08:59 AM	4ed rules looks more like a sleek and enchanting sorceress to me. If the rumors on the mechanics are right the new magic will feel like it has been unleashed fully. I detest the fact the party wizard is constantly going nova in the first encounter and ends up an intelligent commoner the rest of the dungeon. Sure it has been part of D&D since first edition, but getting specifically flavoured unlimited spells is a HUGE step in the right direction. I'm not that keen on the implements for wizards though. Well, I do the opposite thing as a Wizard, I'm very carefull when using my spells and I only cast the minimum neccesary spells to survive the encounter. I preffer to throw a Finger of Death/Disintegrate against a powerfull target and a fireball against multiple weak targets. Ore one spell that takes the encounter from ECL 100 to ECL 1. The right spell for the right job approach of a Generalist Wizard :D
Suin Bahhar 11-20-07, 09:53 AM	Won't you prefer for your first level wizard to actually cast spells during combat?
Bluenose 11-20-07, 10:28 AM	Won't you prefer for your first level wizard to actually cast spells during combat? I'd be delighted if that was the case. If a 1st level wizard doesn't become a commoner with less hit points after a couple of encounters, because there's some magical ability that they can call on no matter what. Even if it's something as minor as being able to cast a Ray of Frost at will as long as they retain some other cold based spell in memory (I'm thinking from the analogy of Reserve feats from Complete Mage here) then I'll be happier doing that than using a crossbow, although the crossbow might be more effective it's not magic. You still have to make the decision of when to use your spells if they somehow power your other abilities, but at least you're able to do something magic fairly regularly. I'd be equally happy if at high-level they made all classes retain their usefulness. The rules aren't being made just for FR, and at the moment people like Conan, Cuchulain, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser just aren't effective characters.