What is the in universe explaination for why the magic system is changed so much since 3e? I'm guessing the killing of Mystra messed it up somehow?
Yes, Mystra dying vastly changed the nature of magic and how it is harnessed. In the Realms any way. I dont think they gave a reason why it changed in Eberron, or Dark Sun, perhaps Mystra had more influence than we though and governed magic in those words as well!
Again, no expert here. Just taking a stab at it.
Maybe a dumb question but why would killing just one god change the world so much? I mean a lot died in the Time of Troubles but it didn't have the same effect
NAh, not a dumb question. Its kinda hard to explain, but ill try. Basically Toril had the Weave, which was like a network of magic. The weave was matained by Mystra, and was part of her, it allowed her to regulate magic use by mortals on Toril, actualy all of Realmspace, by imposing level limits and certain restrictions, to stop bad things from happening, like Karsus's Folly, which caused the downfall of the Empire of Netheril way back when. Thats why magic went wonky during the Time of Troubles, because Mystra was not there to mantain the Weave. With the Death of Mystra this also caused the destruction of the Weave, which basically caused magic to run wild. By 1479 things have more or less stabalized, and Wizards and other spellcasters have had to learn a whole new, Weaveless, form of magic, the 4e stystem.
Make sense?
Ive either answerd your question, or just raised more questions.
Also, IIRC, isn't Darksun essentially a magic-less world?
But Mystra died duringthe ToT, also. Or was the Time of Troubles during the change-over from 2nd to 3rd edition?
Also, IIRC, isn't Darksun essentially a magic-less world?
Yes Mystra did die during the Time of Troubles, but her essence, and thus the weave, was passed on to Midnight, so the Weave remained intact, although slightly tattered. What really caused the Spellplague was not that Mystra died, it was that Shar somehow stopped Mystra essence from going to the next Mystra, this caused the collapse of the Weave, and the Spellplague.
And no, Dark Sun does have magic, its gods that its laking. Although magic sometimes feeds off the life force of the planet, causing vegatation to wither, and hitpoint loss for any creatures in the area.
That makes sense. Also how many Mystras have their been ( I think the one in ancient Netheril, the pre ToT one and the one that was killed by Cyric)?
Theres been 3, that we know of, there might of been more, who knows? Well technicaly the first one was called Mystryl, When Karsus of ancient Netheril tried to claim her portfolio and mastery over all magic she sacrificed herself, which caused magic to stop working for awhile, and the fall of Netheril. Her essence then moved on to her mortal successor, who I have no idea what her mortal name was, it is possible that it was Mystra, but any way she became the first Mystra, and altered the weave so that no spell above 9th level could be cast, and altered magic some from what was used in Netheril, basically a mana point system, to the Vancian system. And then during the Time of Troubles she was killed by Helm when she tried to ascend a celestial stairway back to her domain, her essence then was transferred to Midnight a mortal spellcaster (actually I think it was transfered to Elminster, then to Midnight, but anyway...) After the Time of Troubles passed Midnight ascended with the rest of the gods and kept the name MYstra, and pretty much kept the Weave and the regulations for spellcasting pretty much the same as the previous Mystra.
Maybe a dumb question but why would killing just one god change the world so much? I mean a lot died in the Time of Troubles but it didn't have the same effect
You're trying to find a logical explanation, but the honest truth is that nothing the designers came up with really makes sense to explain the massive changes to Faerun and all of the outer planes.
None of it makes sense. So you can either handwave it all away (e.g. because Ao said so), or come up with an explanation of your own.
Mystryl sacrificed herself during the moments of Karsus' Folly to prevent the kind of destruction to the world that we see in the 3E-4E transition, the idea that we would have seen the very kinds of destruction she died to prevent seems unlikely to me.
During the ToT, Mystra had been cast down to the mortal world, she was not currently managing the Weave and it may well have been placed in a holding pattern of sorts, waiting for either Mystra's return or Mystra's replacement (I still think her death by Helm's hand was monumentally dumb).
For the 4E transition Midnight neither went of her own accord, or was seperated from the Weave before her death came. On that basis, widespread destruction and insanity is exactly what I would expect in this, very specific, case.
...now, if only in the lashing threads of the fraying and collapsing Weave there could have been a tiny kernel of Mystra 2.0's divine essence (which the Weave actually may have been) that coallesced and led to her rebirth (maybe in a foetal stage, weak and not able to exert control... yet) we could have the old, neutral (and my favourite) goddess of Magic back.
I guess that has something to do with the Spellplague.
Now wizards in the Realms are not 'under' Mystra's thumb to cast or use spells.
Meh, with Alassra on her way out, and El in serious need of fixing, I really do think we need his original Lady Love, Mystra 2.0 back, even as a minor immortal in search of her original portfolio.
I think that it would make a heck of a book...
Now whether that's good or bad is up to the individual. Personally I think its bad and definitely not to my taste, but I know a lot of people who love the new system, which is great for them.
As to how to rectify that with previous editions, I'd go with handwaving and stop trying to look for rational explanations. 3e introduced enough contradictions of what was known (the nature/existance of the Shadow Weave being a glaring example), and 4e just added to the mess. I'd say just ignore the differences and say it was always like that in classic retcon style, or just say that the spellplague greatly gimped/nerfed/balanced/fixed (pick one to suit your tastes) spellcasters (comparatively anyway) and leave it at that. Honestly, it doesn't really matter how you justify or rationalize things, so long as you're having fun.
Maybe a dumb question but why would killing just one god change the world so much? I mean a lot died in the Time of Troubles but it didn't have the same effect
You're trying to find a logical explanation, but the honest truth is that nothing the designers came up with really makes sense to explain the massive changes to Faerun and all of the outer planes.
None of it makes sense. So you can either handwave it all away (e.g. because Ao said so), or come up with an explanation of your own.
I thought I did a pretty good job of explaining things. I think they (the designers) did a fairly good job of explaining things, Thats one of the things I liked about 4e Realms, things that changed had an explanation for doing so, obviously it wont be to everyones tastes, but at least they did have an explanation, and just didnt handwave things, like theyve done with other settings, and with the Realms in the past, thats what really irks me, if something changes, like the system of magic changing or the Sharr shrinking, there should be some in-game reason why it happened. But as you said you can come up with your own explanations why things changed, one of the Realms 4e philosophies, and really any edition, is that you should make the Realms your own, so yeah if their explanations, or the state of the Realms in general are not to your liking you can, of course, change things more to your liking.
But as you said you can come up with your own explanations why things changed, one of the Realms 4e philosophies, and really any edition, is that you should make the Realms your own, so yeah if their explanations, or the state of the Realms in general are not to your liking you can, of course, change things more to your liking.
This statement needs a caveat:
The above is certainly true if your interest in the Realms is primarily game-centric.
If you are novel-centric, it just doesn't work.
Eberron I don't know. Very good question.
Eberron 4e did not try and explain why "magic changed." Rather, 4e Eberron is a rewrite of the setting designed to incorporate the 4e rule-set. The fluff is virtually identical to the 3e fluff, with a few exceptions designed to include the "new" 4e races. Magic in 4e Eberron plays the exact same thematic role as magic in 3e Eberron, it simply uses different mechanics.
What is the in universe explaination for why the magic system is changed so much since 3e? I'm guessing the killing of Mystra messed it up somehow?
Yes, Mystra dying vastly changed the nature of magic and how it is harnessed. In the Realms any way. I dont think they gave a reason why it changed in Eberron, or Dark Sun, perhaps Mystra had more influence than we though and governed magic in those words as well!
There is no change to the explanation of magic in Eberron as the setting never cared much how people actually did magic much to begin with IIRC.
Actually basically very little changed in Eberron from 3rd to 4th. Only FR seems to have this odd need to make metaplot explanations for things and I'm beginning to think that's an extremely daft way of doing things. I'd love a Dark Sun like reboot more than anything with a complete removal of metaplot entirely. That would be brilliant.
And another thing, different eras ofthe Realms should have different magic systems, I mean the magic was different during the age of Netheril, and it was different before the Spellplague, if they did a reboot and suddenly magic is just the same in every era, I think that loses something there, It just wouldnt make any sense. After the fall of Netheril Mystra reworked the weave so that magic would work exactly the same? The Spellplague altered magic so that it works exacltly the same? Not in my Realms!!!
Of course this is merely my opinion, and I know others see it differently, and if they did do a reboot I would probably still buy it. But they better make it different enough were its not just the box set all over again. If they redid it with out all the other settings shoehorned in there, and made it closer to Ed's original then Id probably be more into that, but id still feel as if Ive wasted the last 20 years of my life buying this crap in the first place.
This statement needs a caveat:
The above is certainly true if your interest in the Realms is primarily game-centric.
If you are novel-centric, it just doesn't work.
Why?
If you're novel-centric, you naturally have a very limited view of the Realms. You get a lot of info, sure, but it's self contained on a per-novel basis and isn't written from the mostly-omniscient view of a sourcebook that's trying to speak to a Realms Dungeon Master or player about wide swaths of the setting.
This can lead to just as great a sense of wonderment and questioning (that evolves into the interest in buying more novels) about the Realms as happens in the minds of those who enjoy playing D&D in the Realms.
:::
On topic:
The Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide for Edition D&D spells things out pretty clearly as far as what happened to Mystra and the consequences from those events.
Why all the hand-wringing and head scratching?
Why?
If you're novel-centric, you naturally have a very limited view of the Realms. You get a lot of info, sure, but it's self contained on a per-novel basis and isn't written from the mostly-omniscient view of a sourcebook that's trying to speak to a Realms Dungeon Master or player about wide swaths of the setting.
This can lead to just as great a sense of wonderment and questioning (that evolves into the interest in buying more novels) about the Realms as happens in the minds of those who enjoy playing D&D in the Realms.
My apologies, I should have made it clear that I was challenging the bolded section of the sentence below:
if their explanations, or the state of the Realms in general are not to your liking you can, of course, change things more to your liking.
The caveat was to point out, that for the novel centric Realms fan, it is somewhat less possible to chance things to make them more to your liking. As I said before, I apologise for my lack of clarity.
Why all the hand-wringing and head scratching?
Asking, in the spirit of inquiry, and with tongue firmly in cheek, you do realise that you are asking this on an internet forum, right? ;)
it was TXTed on whats his name's cell phone just before the terminal spanking of mystra.
Mystra was magic. I try not to think of her as a sentient being and more of a mortal's way of describing the weave because they cannot comprehend it in any other way. The weave was destroyed and magic has gone to hell in a handbasket. There are still pockets of it lashing around, thus the Spellplague (again, a mortal's way of comprehending the issue of Magic changing).
If Mystra was literally magic, then why does it still exist after her murder by Cyric? It actually seems more powerful and easier to access now rather than before with the Weave.
Mystra was magic. I try not to think of her as a sentient being and more of a mortal's way of describing the weave because they cannot comprehend it in any other way. The weave was destroyed and magic has gone to hell in a handbasket. There are still pockets of it lashing around, thus the Spellplague (again, a mortal's way of comprehending the issue of Magic changing).
If Mystra was literally magic, then why does it still exist after her murder by Cyric? It actually seems more powerful and easier to access now rather than before with the Weave.
I'd probably argue the point that magic was more powerful. Didn't seem that way to me at all when I looked over the 4e rules... seems like every edition has watered it down from its heights of 2e (I get why before anyone's head starts spinning about broken casters and such), and 4e seemed to continue that trend. But I don't really think the argument is worth starting, nor am I conversant enough with 4e's system to really smash your arguments to enough pieces to satisfy my bloodlust for broken posters left in my wake.
It actually seems more powerful and easier to access now rather than before with the Weave.
I've played magic users extensively in 4E and I can't agree with this statement in the slightest. Not least because it was an intentional design decision to nerf casters because of the feeling, from earlier editions about whose veracity I cannot speak, of being overshadowed in later levels by those casters.
It actually seems more powerful and easier to access now rather than before with the Weave.
I've played magic users extensively in 4E and I can't agree with this statement in the slightest. Not least because it was an intentional design decision to nerf casters because of the feeling, from earlier editions about whose veracity I cannot speak, of being overshadowed in later levels by those casters.
But can't you cast things like magic missile at will? Maybe it's "less powerful" in the sense that it's "balanced" for combat (damage done vs. hit points of monsters, or whatever), but going from a one-shot a day (and requiring meditation to recover it) all the way to "at will" seems like a dramatic increase.
If Mystra was literallymagic, then why does it still exist after her murder by Cyric? It actually seems more powerful and easier to access now rather than before with the Weave.
You bring up a good point, Im sure thats something that the Cult of Mystra would use to prove that the Goddess is still alive, after all magic still exists, its just changed, so it stands to reason that Mystra is still around, just altered.
If Mystra was literallymagic, then why does it still exist after her murder by Cyric? It actually seems more powerful and easier to access now rather than before with the Weave.
You bring up a good point, Im sure thats something that the Cult of Mystra would use to prove that the Goddess is still alive, after all magic still exists, its just changed, so it stands to reason that Mystra is still around, just altered.
So I was right all along! I'm awesome.
If Mystra was literallymagic, then why does it still exist after her murder by Cyric? It actually seems more powerful and easier to access now rather than before with the Weave.
You bring up a good point, Im sure thats something that the Cult of Mystra would use to prove that the Goddess is still alive, after all magic still exists, its just changed, so it stands to reason that Mystra is still around, just altered.
So wait... is she magic or the weave? Or both? Or neither? (I vote the latter) I have to admit I don't understand the fascination with Mystra and am kind of glad to see her gone personally.
If Mystra was literallymagic, then why does it still exist after her murder by Cyric? It actually seems more powerful and easier to access now rather than before with the Weave.
You bring up a good point, Im sure thats something that the Cult of Mystra would use to prove that the Goddess is still alive, after all magic still exists, its just changed, so it stands to reason that Mystra is still around, just altered.
So I was right all along! I'm awesome.
by mystra's bloody bones please dont say awesome again
But can't you cast things like magic missile at will? Maybe it's "less powerful" in the sense that it's "balanced" for combat (damage done vs. hit points of monsters, or whatever), but going from a one-shot a day (and requiring meditation to recover it) all the way to "at will" seems like a dramatic increase.
From what I recall of Magic Missile, it now requires an attack roll, only fires off one missile, and still does kinda crappy damage (going off of memory here, so I could be wrong about it). Great at low levels, but underwhelming in a lot of respects, unlike the previous incarnations of the spell, where it stayed relevant for much longer.
From what I recall of Magic Missile, it now requires an attack roll, only fires off one missile, and still does kinda crappy damage (going off of memory here, so I could be wrong about it). Great at low levels, but underwhelming in a lot of respects, unlike the previous incarnations of the spell, where it stayed relevant for much longer.
Indeed, the new Magic Missile spell is useable more often but it is pretty paltry in comparison.
In 3.5, MM hit without an attack role irrelevant of visibility conditions (as long as you could see it at all), whereas the new MM requires an attack roll and is subject to cover modifiers.
in 3.5, MM did 1d4+1 damage at 1st level, at 3rd level did 2d4+2 (and gained another missile every 2 levels up to 9th where it did 5d4+5 damage to up to 5 targets). in 4E, MM does 2d4+(Int Mod) at level 1, and then 4d4+(Int) at 21st level, to one target.
That means that from 9th level to 20th level there is a disparity between the two that amounts to about 3d4 damage per casting, across 4 extra targets. You could balance this with just casting it more times but remember that doing so requires a standard action, which is pretty much the most useful you have, and it assumes that you don't have an encounter power that does the job better.
Fireball, another example, available to the 3.5 caster at 5th level (meaning a starting damage of 5d6, 1d6/caster level up to 10d6) with a range of 400ft+40ft/caster level (600ft at 5th level) and hits everything in a 20ft area automatically but allows a reflex saving throw for half damage. In 4E Fireball is also available at 5th level, where it has a range of 100ft, a damage of 3d6+(Int Mod), requires a roll to hit (vs Reflex) everything in a 15ft area and bestows the same proportion (half) damage on a miss from a much bigger original damage (3.5E at 5th level 5-30 damage, 4E 3-18+(Int Mod) damage). Fireball in 4E does not scale with level.
So no, even using well known spells as an example, Magic has emphatically not gotten stronger, and until the Rituals started being published in significant quantities it was a considerably less broad field too. Spells seem to primarily be designed to be useful at the level they were taken (with a possible bonus at Epic) and then be supplanted fairly quickly.
For the record, a Wizard is probably better at surviving at 1st and 2nd level than he was in 3.5. However, after that he just gets left in the dust. This, is my opinion that has been formed by playing casters of various kinds over the last year and a half. I will say that I have not played as far as Epic level yet, but I don't consider this much of a problem with respect to the rest of my argument.
Preface: I do not actively play 4th Edition D&D. I have the books, but only played a tiny bit to get a taste. My opinion of 4E is pretty straightforward: It focuses D&D on doing what it does best, hack 'n slash, kill 'em and loot 'em, dungeon crawling. If you want a gamest system, in which you primarily focus on killing monsters, gaining XP, and loot - then D&D (of any edition really) is the system for you. If you want a system that does the above, but strives for balance between the classes, then 4E D&D is for you.
I think a lot of hatred toward the wizard in 4E has to do with theme. It's definitely not the wizard of previous editions - which started out pathetically weak, and gradually moved to become one of the most powerful classes in the entire system. The power of the wizard was largely linked to its versatility.
That doesn't exist in 4E. Every single class has been balanced so that playing a fighter is just as fun as playing a wizard. Certainly, playing a non-casting class is much more fun than in previous editions. There is also much less class reliance than in previous editions: "In order to play we need a fighter-type, a caster-type, a rogue-type, and a cleric-type." For the most part, people can pick up and play what they want to play.
I don't think it's really fair to compare the 4E wizard to the 3E wizard. The system has dramatically changed between editions. It's a bit like comparing a D&D wizard to a mage in a system that embraces free form magic (letting the player decide what they want to do, then the GM determines the difficulty of doing it, and the player rolls the dice to see if they're successful.)
Although, I do understand entirely where people are coming from in terms of a 4E wizard. It can be a serious downer to go from 3E wizard to 4E wizard, thematically speaking. However, I think it helps if you think of it in terms of just combat powers / spells. You have your combat magic and then, outside of that, you have your magical rituals which can potentially allow you to do some of the awesome stuff you could do in previous editions.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the whole point of balancing classes for game play and not making any one class "overpowered" compared to the rest. But it also definitely makes magic less important on the literary / novel side of looking at the world.
So maybe killing Mystra didn't destroy magic, but significantly demoted it from its position as the most powerful thing in the crystal sphere. And now it's just another facet of life, no more or less important than any other power source.
I think that's true to some extent, which is why I focused on theme and balance. Certainly, if you were looking for the wiz-bang-pow that you got from the wizard in earlier editions during combat... yeah, that's not really there anymore. The wizard class is balanced in proportion to the other classes.
ON THE OTHER HAND, playing a non-wizard (such as a fighter type) is much more interesting and enjoyable than before.
However, it's not as if wizards have lost their ability to do a lot of things that they could in the past. It's just that it's largely been moved over to Arcane Rituals. Arcane rituals differ from combat magic in that they take more time to cast and are slightly more involved.
So for example you can still access: Comprehend Language, Magic Mouth, Make Whole, Secret Page, Silence, Tenser's Floating Disk, Knock, Hallucinatory Item, Magic Circle, Shadow Walk, Planar Portal, etc. All of those are listed as Arcane Rituals in the Players Handbook. Some of them are familiar as spells from earlier editions, and a lot of them work-more-or-less the same or are at least fairly similar to the original.
Do I think wizards lose a lot of epic awesomeness in 4th Edition? Yes. That doesn't mean they can't be fun to play, but like I said in my previous post - we're comparing apples and oranges. If we were used to arcane magic being free form, as I described earlier, where a player described what their wizard was attempting, the DM set the difficulty, and the player rolled to see if they were successful we would look at the wizards of previous D&D editions as constrained and boring.
I think it is a bit unfair to take a single element and judge an entire system by that element, especially when the two systems are very different from each other.
Like I said, while the wizard may not be as awesome or epic, some of the other classes are much more interesting and fun to play than in previous editions.
However, it's not as if wizards have lost their ability to do a lot of things that they could in the past. It's just that it's largely been moved over to Arcane Rituals. Arcane rituals differ from combat magic in that they take more time to cast and are slightly more involved.
Non-combat abilities for Arcane characters basically, in my experience of playing each of the Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock classes, boil down to Utility powers and Rituals. Utility powers are fun, but the fact that you can't swap those between non-combat and combat utility powers except when you level means that, in my experience, people go for effective combat powers as they get used more often and add a real bonus when used.
Rituals are a whole other kettle of fish, yes they add bredth to the role, but there are a few problems with them:
1) The cost to use. Using the previously listed Rituals as examples;
Comprehend Language now costs 10gp (in components) to cast, every time you cast it,
Magic Mouth = 10gp,
Secret Page = 10gp,
Silence = 30gp,
Tenser's Floating Disc = 10gp,
Knock = 35gp,
Hallucinatory Item = 25gp,
Magic Circle = 100gp,
Shadow Walk = 500gp,
Planar Portal = 5000gp.
Many of these spells didn't even have a material component in the previous edition, and almost all of those that do mention a component are counted as "negligible". And I for one have never used a Ritual in 4E without being damn sure that I needed to, because (certainly in during the early levels) that kind of money (in components) is seriously hard to come by. Conflating all of the material components into "Arcane Components" is useful, but upping the cost this much?
2) Getting them too holds its problems, in my experience (both with home-made modules and official ones) Ritual scrolls or books are few and far between as treasure, and there is a strong monetary limiting factor on how many you can pick up in settlements (not including any extra in-character factors).
3) The casting time. Rituals are supposed to be out-of-combat, we get it. No. Really. But an increase of the casting time for something like Comprehend Language from 1 standard action to 10 minutes? Really? That isn't so much out-of-combat as out-of-adventure... I have found the casting times preclude all but the situations where you have either no impending peril whatsoever, or you are stuck somewhere for a set period of time and need the Ritual to either escape... or to make life easier when you finally do get out.
In all aspects of actually applying Arcane abilities while playing an Arcane character, I have found that 4E is pretty hard on them. The above is, of course, only my own opinion.
But Combat abilities vs non-Combat abilities is the point, I think. ;)
I mean, I guess you could argue that running around on your wizard with mostly non-useful combat spells memorized is a "feature"... but it would certainly suck if you were caught alone, like that - and believe me, if you do it often enough you -WILL- be caught alone.
1. I'm not overly concerned with the component cost of rituals. They IMO shouldn't be things that you can just do whenever. Actually, to be perfectly blunt - it would have made more sense for things to work this way under the Weave with Mystra around. Why? Part of her whole persona was to only use magic as a last resort. Snippet from her dogma: "True wisdom is knowing when not to use magic. Strive to use magic less as your powers develop..."
Had Mystra re-worked magic into something similar to 4E she would have gotten her wish. 
However, more directly as a DM using something like Comprehend Language can be a tad annoying. If I go out of my way to place you in a position where those who can speak common are extremely limited, it's probably for a reason. It takes away an opportunity in which I could, for example, have the translator you hire actually be a spy for the enemy or something.
At higher levels the component cost of Comprehend Language is negligible. Besides, you can only pull the translator-is-really-a-spy-for-the-enemy trick once, before players suspect every potential translator as the enemy.
On the flip side of things, without component costs a wizard might become more wealthy than some other classes if you are distributing wealth equally.
2. I'd probably let an arcane PC research any arcane ritual they wanted to cast. It'd just take roughly 1d6 days + 1 per level of the ritual. Thus if you wanted to learn Eye of Alarm it'd take 3 - 9 days of research. The gold spent on the ritual would be things used up in experimentation. If there was a good roll I might even allow an additional roll to see if it would cost less to learn.
I'd also be willing to consider allowing the wizard to cast them whenever he wanted, provided he could cover the Cost of Components... and just consider them to be part of his Spellbook. Although, I think I'd have to actually play test that before making that determination.
3. Casting time in a lot of cases is a non-issue, unless your DM for some crazy reason is going to make you wait out that amount of time in real life.
In the end, unless you happen to be in a race against time, I don't think the time limit matters much unless you want to do it during combat or are imminent danger. However, in the case of a lot of arcane rituals... why would you want to do them DURING battle?
I don't disagree overall with your assessment of the wizard in 4E, I just think it's more of a thematic difference than anything else.
We've had the "Are mages more powerful now than before or have they been depowered?" discussion before and it's an interesting topic for all the changes 4E brought to the gaming table.
Take the 4E Magic Missile. It's biggest, most impressive change is that it's useable at will.
Think about that for a second. For the first time ever, a mage can have at least one ranged attack spell always available. For a couple decades prior to 4E, if a mage had run out of spells, he or she was screwed. No longer.
How many of us have been in that position before? Left to sit there at the table, making jokes about how useless our dagger or staff was while pointedly reminding the DM that our mage was doing his or her darndest to stay out of sight until the fight was over.
That's a huge difference. Whereas before a mage could (forgive me) "blow their wad" in a few short rounds, now a mage can make up the damage difference Illuvrien alludes to over subsequent rounds of play and therefore stay relevant just as long as a melee class still busy hacking away at a foe (and they can do it from a safe distance).
In my opinion the comparison made using Magic Missile and Fireball is flawed. It basically says, "Magic Missile and Fireball don't do what they used to. Since they don't, mages are not as powerful"—as though these were the only two spells in the whole game.
The problem with the conclusion is that it doesn't go on to examine how the 4E system actually works, by asking whether or not 4E's system makes up the "doesn't scale with level" difference in some other way.
First off: Magic Missile does 2d4+Intelligence modifier force damage. That's not paltry damage, especially at leary levels. This damage increases to 4d4+Int mod at 21st level. Not direct scaling, but it's still an increase.
Further, for every power that allows a Wizard to make a ranged basic attack (such as through and implement), he or she can opt to use this spell and add any bonuses to hit from that power (see the spell's description, page 159 of the 4E PHB).
Unlike starting mages in previous editions: 4E loads out a mage (properly: Wizard) with no less than six at-will spells at first level. It doesn't matter what your intelligence score is: you always get these starting six.
Wizards also gain an encounter spell and daily spells. These last do damage and either inflict a condition (dazed, weakened, knocked prone, etc...) or have a nice secondary attack like blasting every foe adjacent to the original target (see Force Orb).
In my opinion wizards have on average stayed the same power wise. They're much more powerful at early levels and have gained a huge boost in raw combat utility during encounters (and so are much more fun to play the game with), but have lost the immediate value of other spells that are now rituals in 4E (divinations come to mind).
For what it's worth the (now 6th level) Wizard in my 4E game hasn't been left behind by the other classes in the group.
How many of us have been in that position before? Left to sit there at the table, making jokes about how useless our dagger or staff was while pointedly reminding the DM that our mage was doing his or her darndest to stay out of sight until the fight was over.
Obviously, you never played a pre-4e Wizard, or you would know that DART was the weapon of choice!
I don't mind that someone else finds it a vast improvement, for them I'm sure it is, what I do mind is being told that if it wasn't a problem for me I must have been cheating or doing things wrong. Of course I find a lot of the interpretations of 3e rules I've read around here as just bizarre and exploitive, that I would never even remotely interpret things as... so that could explain some stuff as well.
Let's first remember that what prompted my analysis was not a question of "Is a Wizard too strong/weak now?" but "Has the change to 4E made the Magic a Wizard uses stronger/weaker"
1. I'm not overly concerned with the component cost of rituals...
On the flip side of things, without component costs a wizard might become more wealthy than some other classes if you are distributing wealth equally.
On the first part, we will just have to agree to disagree, because I have found it a sticking point in several games where I would have liked to use a ritual, but would rather not gimp myself later by doing so. I am not sure how a Wizard would become more wealthy by not using Rituals much. Other classes, as far as I know, do not incur this extra cost and yet the other items a Wizard may wish to by with hir ill-gotten gains are the same price (enchantment levels for various items scale at exactly the same cost rate irrespective of who is buying them).
2. I'd probably let an arcane PC research any arcane ritual they wanted to cast.
But doesn't this feed into an Oberoni-esqe situation? That just because it can be fixed by rule-zero, doesn't mean it wasn't broken in the first place.
3. Casting time in a lot of cases is a non-issue, unless your DM for some crazy reason is going to make you wait out that amount of time in real life.In the end, unless you happen to be in a race against time, I don't think the time limit matters much unless you want to do it during combat or are imminent danger. However, in the case of a lot of arcane rituals... why would you want to do them DURING battle?
In the case of Comprehend Language, to catch something of the shouted orders to a group of enemies, or the conversation between them before it ended. Make Whole might be cast in haste to repair a door you just burst through, to buy you a few seconds before your pursuers do too. Magic Mouth cold leave a message for party members, relief forces or even enemies to find that might tell them where you have gone, explain the situation or send them scurrying back to their master. Silence could be used to allow you to sneak up on the sleeping guards in the guard room without having to worry about being surprised by the patrol while you prepare it, or to muffle the splashes of the hostages as you help them escape across the moat so the guards don't notice they are leaving. Hallucinatory Item could be used to create a copy of the item you are being forced to hand over at crossbow-point while you are messing about in the back of the cart making lots of noise, ostensibly looking for it.
These are just a few examples that I can think of... and I can think of dozens more than the casting time now precludes. Aren't some of those entertaining enough to keep?
Take the 4E Magic Missile. It's biggest, most impressive change is that it's useable at will.
Yep, and I love the fact that this has been changed and that it means I won't be left twiddling my thumbs at the table, or hauling a crossbow everywhere. This is a Good Thing.
That's a huge difference. Whereas before a mage could (forgive me) "blow their wad" in a few short rounds, now a mage can make up the damage difference Illuvrien alludes to over subsequent rounds of play and therefore stay relevant just as long as a melee class still busy hacking away at a foe (and they can do it from a safe distance).
Indeed, as long as the Mage in question is happy to spend round after round doing the 3.5E Fighter equivalent of "Hit thing with sword". The damage for Magic Missile in 4E is demonstrably better than Magic Missile in 3.5E from levels 1-4, for a character with decent intelligence (+2 mod or better). In levels 5-9 it is demonstrably worse. I have calculated the average damage values and will share them with people by PM if they want them. One thing this also does not take account of was that in 3.5E, MM didn't miss, in 4E it does.
In my opinion the comparison made using Magic Missile and Fireball is flawed. It basically says, "Magic Missile and Fireball don't do what they used to. Since they don't, mages are not as powerful"—as though these were the only two spells in the whole game.
Indeed it would be flawed, if that is what I was saying. I selected MM and Fireball as they were example spells that other posters had talked about in the posts before mine.
I can do this with other examples if you like? I have done the maths, and it backs up my general point. Mages have been made a damn sight more useful from levels 1-4, but as the levels increase they start to lose out.
The problem with the conclusion is that it doesn't go on to examine how the 4E system actually works, by asking whether or not 4E's system makes up the "doesn't scale with level" difference in some other way.
First off: Magic Missile does 2d4+Intelligence modifier force damage. That's not paltry damage, especially at leary levels. This damage increases to 4d4+Int mod at 21st level. Not direct scaling, but it's still an increase.
It is indeed. But when you compare 4d4+Int at 21st level to the 5d5+5 that you would have been doing with the old MM since 9th level it isn't so impressive. I will certainly agree it is an increase, but let's face it, after about 12 levels of doing about half the damage of the old version, it needed one.
Further, for every power that allows a Wizard to make a ranged basic attack (such as through and implement), he or she can opt to use this spell and add any bonuses to hit from that power (see the spell's description, page 159 of the 4E PHB).
I’ve had the 3.5E and 4E PHBs open in front of me this whole time. And it is indeed a useful ability to be able to use MM as a ranged basic. It is an excellent point, albeit an extremely situational and party dependent one, it would stand up better in my mind if I had ever met anyone in any of my games who had taken it over its compatriot, Scorching Burst. Although MM is a ranged basic there will almost always be a better member of the party to give the ability to make that shot to, SB does slightly less damage (1d6+Int instead of 2d4+int) to a much larger area.
This is pretty much the crux of the whole matter, with the change in the role of the Wizard from what seemed to have been a Striker/Controller role to Controller/Controller, unless you are solo-ing a dungeon there will always be a reason to not be relying on your damage dealing potential, because comparatively (Ranger, Warlock, Rogue, Sorcerer, Avenger etc.), you really don't have much. On this basis it is probably fair to admit that by talking about the weakening of Magic, I am referring to the weakening of Wizardly Magic. Of course, in 3.5, Sorcerers and Wizards used the same spell set, the difference being in the way they wielded them. This is no longer the case.
Unlike starting mages in previous editions: 4E loads out a mage (properly: Wizard) with no less than six at-will spells at first level. It doesn't matter what your intelligence score is: you always get these starting six.
Not counting cantrips, I count 2 at-wills, 1 encounter and 2 dailies (1, prepared from the 2 in your spellbook), and yes, you can add to that 3 rituals that you may or may not have the components (or time) to cast. That is all of the spells you know. In 3.5E the starting Wizard was a pretty paltry figure, preparing only 1 spell at 1st level. However, that Wizard could have access to almost any number of spells in their spellbook. A flexibility I do miss. As I have said before, my argument that Magic (Wizardly) has become weaker is formed on the basis of the whole role, not the (very much needed) fix to their initial usefulness and survival ability.
Wizards also gain an encounter spell and daily spells. These last do damage and either inflict a condition (dazed, weakened, knocked prone, etc...) or have a nice secondary attack like blasting every foe adjacent to the original target (see Force Orb).
Unlike, for example, Grease, Color Spray, Glitterdust, Web, Daze Monster, Tasha's Hideous Laughter...etc? Status effects to Wizard spells are nothing new in 4E, they may just more widespread because they are role focussed... and I am not even certain they are more widespread.
In my opinion wizards have on average stayed the same power wise. They're much more powerful at early levels and have gained a huge boost in raw combat utility during encounters (and so are much more fun to play the game with), but have lost the immediate value of other spells that are now rituals in 4E (divinations come to mind).
And for the reasons described above, I am afraid I cannot agree with you.
For what it's worth the (now 6th level) Wizard in my 4E game hasn't been left behind by the other classes in the group.
And for what it's wi\orth, I agree with this. I have personally played multiple characters in many of the Arcane classes, including Warlocks up to 6th level (Brok Nadsnibbler - Gnome), Wizards up to 9th (Kelun "Smo" Khi - Cindersoul Genasi) and Sorcerers up to 3rd (Tris - Human). I have also played in groups where other players were running them at higher levels too... and you know what? They weren't left behind and were fun to play... and that point has nothing whatsoever to the discussion of whether Wizardly Magic is stronger or weaker after the effects of the spellplague.
Apologies to all for the wall of text.
I don't necessarily think that wizards are less powerful after the Spellplague. I just think they've lost a lot of their versatility, which has been shifted into rituals for all the reasons you've mentioned.
On the other hand, if I were to actually run a 4E D&D game I don't think I'd have much trouble accommodating a player with your tastes. Yes, I'd likely make very strong use of Rule Zero - I'm the type of person who favors narrative storytelling over game mechanics - the only exception being that such actions were INSANELY unbalanced or something.
If you wanted to cast a ritual faster, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I'd just have you roll an arcana skill check based upon how quickly you want to cast it and whatever else happens to be going on at the moment. Provided you knew the ritual and could cover the component cost I don't think it would be a large problem.
As for the Component Cost, it doesn't seem unfair to me for a wizard to ask for other party members to chip in to cover it. Especially if the ritual being cast benefits the entire group.
I'm not dismissing your points - it's entirely based in opinion, and we aren't really in disagreement per-say. I just happen to think that if you have a hard-ass rules lawyering DM who is focused on the mechanics over the story that you should dump said DM. After all, a computer could do the same thing.
I've never met a rule that wasn't meant to be broken in the right circumstance.
WHEN did the Living Gate get Shattered to create the Shardminds? Ive been trying to pin that down for a while now and no luck
I thought the wildens were a reincarnation of a previous edition race
That was Silver Sword's theory. Unless I was mistaken.
Right, you are not misstaken. I think the Wilden would work rather well for the Volodni. They were a forgotten tribe of humans who traded their humanity in exchange for shelter from their enimies. Theyre from the 3.5 Unapproachable East sourcebook. Basically theyer the samething as a Wilden, plant people, but using them as Volodni makes them more Realmsy.
The Shardminds could be living crystal constructs from the ancient psionic empire of Jhaamdath.
One could add them in as made from this crystal given sentience, either as a twisted result of the Spallplague or perhaps the absobed essence of someone trapped within the crystal gave it sentience and birthed the Shardmind.
Mystra was the goddess of magic so...
Dark Sun they are retaking the setting to it'S beginning so nothing has changed really.
Eberron I don't know. Very good question.
Eberron always worked that way. The source books just present the game setting with 4E rules, so from the perspective of the game Eberron never changed.
www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d...
Effects on the Weave
For eons, the use of magic in Faerûn was focused through a god of magic, most recently Mystra. Except for certain Netherese wizards of ancient days who learned the truth, most believed that no magic would be possible without such a deity. However, with the death of Mystra and jealous Shar suppressing the ascension of a new deity of magic, it became common knowledge that magic is accessible without a god to control and codify it. Now when a spellcaster speaks of the Weave, she is just using another term for magic.Effects on the Shadow Weave
Just as Mystra controlled the Weave, the goddess Shar controlled the Shadow Weave. Not satisfied with her portion, Shar plotted to seize control of both. She miscalculated. When Cyric murdered Mystra, the Weave collapsed so completely that Shar not only failed to gather up the fraying threads, she also lost control over the Shadow Weave.Just as magic persists without Mystra, so does the dusky power of shadow endure without Shar acting as an intermediary. Powerful necromancers have developed their own unique methods for accessing the dim energies of the Shadowfell.
Effect on Spellcasters
Many creatures that learned to cast spells and channel magic with Mystra’s Weave found themselves powerless in the Spellplague’s wake. Some never regained their power. Others worked to attune themselves to the new magical environment. Many required years to regain this facility, while others never regained the knack. Others took shortcuts to reaquire the power they’d lost, swearing questionable pacts to enigmatic beings in return for the ability to utilize arcane powers.Today, spellcasters access magic through a dizzying array of methods. Some murmur spells and incant rituals, some forge arcane bargains, and others pray for intervention. In truth, it seems that magic can be accessed in more ways than ever before, fueled by newfound knowledge of arcane, shadow, primal, and other sources of power.