http://www.sendspace.com/file/cnao08
REALLY BIG REVISION: Essential Spells updated again, Evocation mechanic (hopefully) finalized, ALL Encounter Spells are now included and (hopefully) complete
Ever since 4E came out, my friends and I have been unable to look at the wizard without a mix of pity and incredulity. We don't have the same problems that a lot of powergamer types seem to have with it. It has nothing to do with the damage it deals. It has nothing to do with its role as a "controller" (roles are an arbitrary and contrived mechanic in our opinion). It has nothing to do AoE or minion control or anything like that. In fact, I have stated before that I find the wizard to be extremely functional within the context of the other 4E classes.
Our problem is that it simply feels unimaginative. The wizard's powers are not spells as much as they are "magic-flavored" damage buttons. The class provides no clear methodology or approach to magic, and severs to many ties that the wizard once had to its collective mythology. This revision is for those who feel, as we do, that the wizard needs to feel magical again (if the wizard doesn't feel magical to you, that is). This is the wizard we are starting to use in our campaign world. It's a world that runs on pretty specific ideas about how magic works and what its place is amongst people and magic-users alike. Likewise, we have some pretty specific ideas about how the wizard approaches magic as a student, adept, and master. We want the mechanics of building a wizard to reflect the study of magic itself. This re-build of the wizard is designed to accommodate different approaches to spell-casting from player to player by providing a mechanical expression of the basics of spell-casting themselves, and building up from there. The class pdf can be downloaded from the sendspace link above.
OUR WIZARD, AND HOW IT WORKS
Design Notes from DMDave:
OH MAN! So cool to see people likin' the new system! I'm a friend of Jetzine, and a collaborator on the system he has been showing you all on the forum. Time for me to post some! I can't get the website to accept me as a new member, so Jetzine's doing me the solid of posting for me.
So, if you've read the class, you've noticed that we aren't just mushing around the math system for how magic affects the world. Our math had to follow and model a system of how the world works. For this, we needed to make a system of magic for the world. Just like math can model physics, our math would model magic.
Before we got to modeling, we had a LOT of questions to answer. What is magic? Where does it come from? How do i get more of it? Am i born with it? Is it an ever-present "weave", permeating everything? Or has the real magic been inside our hearts all along? Lets start with what it does.
Magic, in the world we were making (keep in mind, that you can totally agree or not with this. It's just the way we're workin it for our world) can perhaps be best understood by what it can do. Magic is an un-sensable (can't see it smell it, eat it, hear it, or touch it when it's raw) stuff that has the capacity to act as an interface for the will of an individual and the world around them. Hence, magic can be used to change the physical properties of a thing, or change the properties of physics itself.
How do i get it?
Learning to access magic is comparable to learning to speak. You must learn, but there is no right language to speak, so long as you can get the job done. Our druids access magic by learning to speak directly to material, and requesting help from them. Clerics are directly given power by their gods. Warlocks, similarly to clerics in our world, must be taught. You can't be a spontaneous warlock. A fey, or demon, or some beast with magic to teach must teach you, or give you power. Clearly, the relations between clerics and warlocks are strained.
WIZARDS. Wizards are taught by their peers. Mortals teaching each other. Who knows who the first wizards were? Maybe organized Warlocks? A lost clerical order? That's up to you. The important thing is that a person alone can never become a wizard. They need a master. And lots of studying. However, a wizard who has done their apprenticeship can learn new spells. They can observe magic in the world, and learn from it. They can kill a behir, and learn how to make lightning by studying its anatomy for weeks.
Mostly, wizards belong to guilds, which teach students for a price, prestige, and power. This gets important.
Whew. A good question is this: Why are there the schools of magic?
The schools are different ways of directing magic that have proved useful for wizards. They are also the ones that wizards know best. The secrets of necromancy and compulsion are secret even to wizards, for reasons we'll go over later.
So, if you've read the class, you've noticed that we aren't just mushing around the math system for how magic affects the world. Our math had to follow and model a system of how the world works. For this, we needed to make a system of magic for the world. Just like math can model physics, our math would model magic.
Before we got to modeling, we had a LOT of questions to answer. What is magic? Where does it come from? How do i get more of it? Am i born with it? Is it an ever-present "weave", permeating everything? Or has the real magic been inside our hearts all along? Lets start with what it does.
Magic, in the world we were making (keep in mind, that you can totally agree or not with this. It's just the way we're workin it for our world) can perhaps be best understood by what it can do. Magic is an un-sensable (can't see it smell it, eat it, hear it, or touch it when it's raw) stuff that has the capacity to act as an interface for the will of an individual and the world around them. Hence, magic can be used to change the physical properties of a thing, or change the properties of physics itself.
How do i get it?
Learning to access magic is comparable to learning to speak. You must learn, but there is no right language to speak, so long as you can get the job done. Our druids access magic by learning to speak directly to material, and requesting help from them. Clerics are directly given power by their gods. Warlocks, similarly to clerics in our world, must be taught. You can't be a spontaneous warlock. A fey, or demon, or some beast with magic to teach must teach you, or give you power. Clearly, the relations between clerics and warlocks are strained.
WIZARDS. Wizards are taught by their peers. Mortals teaching each other. Who knows who the first wizards were? Maybe organized Warlocks? A lost clerical order? That's up to you. The important thing is that a person alone can never become a wizard. They need a master. And lots of studying. However, a wizard who has done their apprenticeship can learn new spells. They can observe magic in the world, and learn from it. They can kill a behir, and learn how to make lightning by studying its anatomy for weeks.
Mostly, wizards belong to guilds, which teach students for a price, prestige, and power. This gets important.
Whew. A good question is this: Why are there the schools of magic?
The schools are different ways of directing magic that have proved useful for wizards. They are also the ones that wizards know best. The secrets of necromancy and compulsion are secret even to wizards, for reasons we'll go over later.
Maybe reflavor a few bits from other classes to fit (not show favoritism).
MOAR!
- Post it here, most people won't even bother going to the download site. And it'll be easier to get feadback on updates.
- The biggest prolblem with Blind would be the number of targets (but you still have to worry about friendly fire). Ideas: limit it to 1; by level; by tier; lasts until start of you next turn; remove damage; not "blind" but either -2 to defenses and attacks or they grant combat advantge.
- Magic missle shouldn't be an Essential, make it an at-will. The only time to use it would be if there is only 1 target. At 1st with 18 int 1d6+4 or 2d4+8. At 21 with 20 Int 2d6+5 or 4d4+20. Definatly not as a basic attack.
- Wizards Trap. I under stand its intent, but its not clear on the mechanics of how its created, set off. As writen it almost reads that I get to do an Immediate Reaction without any setup needed.
- Will. Using that name makes it a bit confusing sometimes.
- Critical Failures. If you either define it and call it optional, or don't mention it.
And the most important part: waiting for MORE!
...And the most important part: waiting for MOAR!
Fixed.
Also, Magic Missle counts as a basic attack already, so might as well keep it that way. I like the idea of being able to split the damage between multiple targets. The trade-off is that you have to hit them all. The issue with the intelligence bonus? Have it apply to one target only. Now, unless the wizard has crazy to-hit bonuses, it shouldn't be too bad.
Magic Missle: Basic attack, Range 10, 1d4+Int mod each, 2 targets at 1st, 3 at 11th, 4 at 21st.
It's not that I think magic missle is too powerful, just that it is so much better then the other options. It's also not clear if you can combine MM with other shapes or such.
Here are my responses.
To Grudge Onion:
I was pretty concerned about Burn and Blind as well. Ongoing 5 is a lot, and blinding is very debilitating. .5 * stat mod seems a little weird to me at first, but I think I like how that can scale up. Although you'd need 30 Intelligence to reach ongoing 5, it doesn't bother me because I don't think the wizard should be a big damage cannon. If anything Burn provides another effect to eat up the enemy's saving throw for the round, while laying down some pain. In that light, I have no problem taking the damage off of blind. That would probably balance it fine. It initially only blinded until the start of your next turn, as keynup suggested. Perhaps that would be necessary? If I do this, should I put the damage back? I feel like I might.
To Keynup:
- Magic Missile cannot be combined with other shapes. I should have definitely made that more clear. I will make it an at-will at your urging, but I think I'm going to make it mandatory in addition to two others. I'm not sure about how it's so much better than the other at-wills. Only wand wizards can hit single targets with their at-wills. It's the only selective targeting that every wizard gets. And shouldn't the iconic 1st level wizard spell be the king, if only in a small way?
- Wizard's Trap. Good catch. This should really be a standard action with a delayed trigger. Not sure on how I'd write this out properly yet. I'll work on it. Any suggestions are welcome.
- Will. I see what you mean. Perhaps "Force of Will" will suffice? Nice little MtG reference.
- Critical Failures. We will be defining them. They should be different for every Essential, and thematically appropriate as well.
- For Evoke Force and Evoke Elements, I think they should stay blast 3, modifiable by the implements. The first big reason is thematic. A wizard cannot control raw energy beyond this point without more refined training. The second reason has to do with addressing the controller role (at least from the combat standpoint). If the warlock's basic attack is single target, then it would only make sense that the wizard's basic attack is AoE. The friendly fire balance is obvious, and I like the idea that it's part of a wizard's responsibility and training to control his powers in order to protect his friends.
Again, thanks for the advice. I'll do my best to get more out to everybody within the next few weeks or so. It is my sincere hope that this will be an enjoyable, creative wizard to build and play, as the wizard always was.
Our next big challenge is figuring out the rest of the powers. I think you'll like what we're doing with utilities/rituals.
Only wand wizards can hit single targets with their at-wills.
All the Essentials list range 5 (one with an extra busrt 2), so why dosen't the wizard get them?
Also, dosen't this mean that you can Blind with range 5 Burst 2?
Wizard’s Trap Wizard Attack 1
Your spell springs when they least expect it.
At-Will: Arcane, Implement, Evocation
Standard Action Range: 1
Target: The square you are in or an adjacent one.
Effect: There is a faintly glowing sigil in the targeted square that becomes active at the end of your turn. Use your Stealth + 10 for creatures to notice. The sigil lasts until triggered or 5 mins. You may only have 1 sigil active per tier.
Attack: The sigil triggers when a creature moves (anything but teleportation) into an adjacent square of the sigil. Make a Conjuration check to evoke any energy type, or a Will check to evoke force, or an Enchantment check, or an Illusion check (use Charisma instead of bluff).
Special: As a minor action you may trigger any sigil that you have line of sight to.
Do you give Wizards all the at-wills at 1st? If you make Magic Missle an at-will that will be 10. That seems like too much. 2 at start + 1 every level or 2 would be better. How about you know 1 at-will for every Wizard attack spell you know and 2 for knowing a Paragon attack power.
2 at first, an extra 3 at 3rd, 4 at 5th, 5 at 7th, 6 at 9th, 8 at 11th, and 10 at 20th. Assuming you don't multoclass.
Burn needs a nerf, the first ongoing damage in PH is a level 1 daily and a level 3 encounter. Doing 0.5 * stat mod can work.
That's it for now, keep is going.
(Personally, I'd also like to see religion-specific rituals...)
I like what the poster has done with the wizard, however, and until the Arcane Power book comes out it'll do the trick in my campaign. However, as the above poster stated, I would avoid referring to witchcraft as a "dark art" outside the context of D&D (not saying you offended me as a neo-pagan, just trying to be politically correct for once in my life).
*I might let another one in for each tier, but that might not be necessary. The druid gets three at wills right now, four for a human, which is equivalent to this (although I'm making one of them mandatory). I'll give this more thought once the encounters and dailies are done.*
Burn is nerfed to 1/2 stat mod.
Blind is nerfed to blinding until the start of your next turn. The target closest to a wand wizard's point of origin is blinded until the end of his next turn. I've added several implement features onto the at-wills that you might like. I've also renamed it Dazzle for sentimental reasons.
Clarification for the Essentials: The range 5 applies to the mundane uses of the cantrip, but evocations all use an area of close blast 3.
Hopefully will be posting soon. My fellow designer should be joining the forum soon to help out. He has a very good answer for the whole "witchcraft as a dark art" issue. As a short answer, I was wrong to use the word "dark". It's more involved than black and white.
After screwing around with the Character Creator demo, I found out that bards are going to have exclusive rituals. Like wizards, they have a ritual book, but when they gain free rituals they gain 1 normal ritual and 1 bard ritual. In addition, bards can use one bard ritual per level per day for free (without expending components). A system like this for wizards would not only balance them a bit better, but also provide that edge of magical flavor the poster seems concerned with.
(Personally, I'd also like to see religion-specific rituals...)
I like what the poster has done with the wizard, however, and until the Arcane Power book comes out it'll do the trick in my campaign. However, as the above poster stated, I would avoid referring to witchcraft as a "dark art" outside the context of D&D (not saying you offended me as a neo-pagan, just trying to be politically correct for once in my life).
There are a lot of ifs concerning Arcane Power. I think the summoner wizard that they've written up is pretty lame, but we have to take everything into consideration. I'm really only expecting a larger amount of re-flavored damage buttons, to be honest, which is what the summoner basically is.
I like the sound of the Bard ritual system, but rituals don't automatically take care of the "magical flavor" edge concerning the wizard. Rituals are where WotC has shunted all of the "flavorful" magic outside of combat with arbitrarily long casting times. Our ritual system will be dividing the rituals into categories much like the Bard's, where there are rituals available to everybody, and then something simply called "spells". Spells include the utility spells and certain rituals that don't necessarily make sense taking 10 minutes to cast (silence, animal messenger, etc). All spells can be prepared in the utility power slots, although this doesn't increase the amount of utility power slots the wizard gets. This basically means that the wizard has as many spells as the DM lets him find, and he can cast them as slow rituals would normally be cast, in addition to casting a few of them more quickly or readily than normal. This brings back the feeling of preparing spells.
It's really not the flavor that's missing as much as the process. The process that a player goes through to learn and understand magic in the context of the class is of the utmost importance. Learning the wizard class and choosing his abilities should feel like the research of magic that a wizard himself would undertake. The goal of this wizard is multiple processes.
1. All adepts start with the Essentials. The things that every wizard knows that are part of working magic. Depending on his aptitudes (ability scores), he excels at certain essentials more so than others. Every wizard is a snowflake.
2. He learns At-Will and Encounter Powers as he advances. These are more focused and powerful manipulations of the essential spells that the wizard has internalized. They expend different amounts of energy (at-will vs per encounter usability) depending on the strength of the spell.
3. Daily Spells represent the results of time and study focused towards extremely complex combinations of essentials that cannot be internalized. This justifies the vancian "memorization" of a spell, as the wizard forgets it until he can prepare it again. Utility spells are also a part of this. A wizard can cast a daily/utility spell in the form of a ritual whenever he wants, but it takes an incredible amount of time. In order to use quickly enough in combat, he has to memorize it, represented by his daily and utility slots.
This is the kind of thought we feel WotC has not done with their wizard. It's not an issue of fluff and crunch. The two should be separate in a lot of cases, but this is a situation where those words are too vague. Non-combat spells ≠ automatic fluff. Combat spells ≠ automatic crunch. Flavor and function are both a part of process. And the process is what makes the wizard fun.
Thanks again for the continued feedback!
First problem I see is half your cantrips are standard actions and all the at-wills are standard actions. Unless you use an action point, you can't apply an at-will to all cantrips. Then I notice that apparently not all the at-wills can be added to all cantrips but the same problem still exists w/ some combos. All this to me makes the attack lines in the at-wills rather difficult to work with.
Second, some of the cantrips are pretty powerful like behavior:
Behavior: Standard Action. Influence the behavior of creatures or objects in the zone.
You can dictate one instantaneous, non-threatening action per target: walk, run, stop,
jump, stand, fall, drop, pick-up, hold, look, close/open, speak one word, etc. You cannot
force more than 3 squares of movement in any direction. If you use this spell to dictate
any action that would cause harm to the target or its allies, the target stops and the effect
is broken. This affects a number of targets equal to one-half your level.
Sustain Standard: The behavior persists.
Essentially, if you get control of all creatures in a zone, you could move them all around or better yet have them all drop their weapons if applicable.
I could be just missing something, but the whole thing lacks consistency and/or an inordinate number of steps to accomplish something. The premise seems ok but I think it needs a little more work or more definition.
The essentials are cantrips, and you can use that on thier own with attack lines, if you're adding an at-will onto that, then any attack line from the at-will overwrites anything from the cantrip.
jetzine: can you put the link at the top of your thread and add a revision # beside the link. That way it'll be nice and easy to see if there is any updates. Easy is good. (especially in a woman :D
)Keynup has the right idea about the actions. As he said, any attack line from the at-will overwrites anything from the cantrip. This is still rough. Things need a lot of clarification, but the concept is there. It looks tricky the way it's written, but the basic idea is that Essentials are like the wizard's weapons. It's how we feel the wizard's at-wills become more comparable to the something like the fighter's or rogue's, not in power, but in functionality. We want that flexibility in the builds.
I'm a pretty neurotic guy. You've confirmed several of my neuroses. One is about behavior. It is pretty powerful, in fact the most powerful sub-use of a cantrip. It may very well need balancing, perhaps nerfing it to a single-target use. I have potential concerns about warp, power word - move, and obfuscation. Still, keep in mind that all of these cantrips now involve a check. You still have to make an Enchantment vs. Will check for each creature in the zone. Any spell can fail. There will be consequences for failure as well. Low level wizards will be failing more frequently than high level wizards. Balance in this case is generally a matter of adjusting the DC. I want more flexibility over most things. It's not about making a new God wizard. It's about a wizard that feels like he has a process to his craft and a true understanding of the arcane.
The other neurosis is the complexity of the idea itself. We might have to be willing to accept that this might be a little too involved for some. If you're willing to delve into the process of building a wizard like this, I can only hope that you may find it to be rewarding. The wizard always was more complicated than the other classes because the nature of magic is more complex than hitting someone with a sword. Now everybody has powers, which is great, but the current wizard seems to have lost a lot in this move towards homogenizing the system of advancement. Our struggle here is to get that involvement back into defining your character's relationship to magic. That may be at the expense of simplicity, but it should not be at the expense of clarity. I'll get working on that.
And keynup, I'll see what I can do about that link.
Set it up so that all the ranges stack. You start with a base, get a bonus from your immplement, then the cantrips, at-wills, encounters, dailies will give a bonus onto that.
Here's an example of how it could work:
Choice of 3 at 1st level
Close Blast +1 (max 3 times)
Range +2 (max 2 times)
Area Burst +1 (max 1 time) using your normal range
Add more at 11 and 21.
Implements Add
Orb: Close Burst +1
Staff: Wall +3 using your normal range
Wand: Range +5
All cantrips would have: Range +1
When designing spells you can then dictate the shape with a bonus (or penalty) or allow the caster to choose. It would all depend on the powers of the spell.
ie:
Wall of Fire Wall+3 or Choice
Magic Missile Range +10
Burning Hands Close Blast +2
This is just a bunch of stuff of the top of my head. It all depends on what you've got planned.
Please sir. May I have some MOAR?
P.S. In compairing your spells with the ones from the PH, I realized that if I only had 4 at-will (no encounter or daily) from you that I would be better off then a standard wizard with normal spells. The only advantage the PH has is longer range, but your stuff has better effects. Something to think about.
I'm in complete agreement about the push button whiz-bang magic stealing the sense of magic and mystery. Also, I think it's only partially successful as a controller - so even what they set out to do they didn't do a great job.
I really like the idea of the basic attacks (essential spells) being a platform for other spells.
Have you considered adding 4 more essential spells like abjuration, divination, transmutation, or necromancy? I could see abjuration being lots of walls and banishing spells, divination good deny cover/concealment or allow you to see around corners to gain LOS or psychometry, necromancy causing deterioration/aging, and transmutation giving it characteristics not normally associated with its kind.
Another essential spell I thought off mimics vim (Ars Magica) or prime (Mage) - the manipulation/detection of magic itself, counter spells, permanency, triggers, etc.
So you could choose 4 out of 8-10 essential spells.
So, about the 4 over-powered cantrip uses....
Obfuscation: No way it's overpowered - it's basically palmistry, something any rogue would be competent at. In fact, I might even extend it to the wizard him/herself.
Behavior: Seems a bit powerful against a group of low Will opponents for a 1st level wizard, so you might make the DC +2 for every additional target beyond first?
PowerWord Move: Actually, I think it's perfect, because it emphasizes the controller nature of a wizard while allowing them to get some breathing room if the enemies break through the defenders. Very flavorful too. "Don't...lay...a hand...on me."
Warp: A bit powerful and kind of funny (i'm envisioning a perpetually charging foe
). I'd consider adding +2 DC as I suggested for Behavior. Does the target uses Reflex or Fortitude whichever is higher? Or are you specifically calling out Reflex?Just an observation, but Will and Conjuration both have scaling results (if you succeed by 5...), but Illusion barely does, and Enchantment not at all. I'd recommend adding some scaling at least to Enchantment to make it on par with other cantrips at higher levels.
While it's for your campaign, I think the changes you've made have improved the wizard enough not to warrant giving them magic missile as a bonus at will, but you be the judge.
Overall love it!
- File Reformatted
- Clarifications Added
- Still Working on the Encounters
On the other schools of magic:
We were originally gonna go with your idea of choosing 4 out of several, but we thought a lot about it, and not every old school is really its own type of magic. It's funny that you mention Ars Magica, because that was a big inspiration for our reworking of the cantrips. The main thing about Ars Magica's system that is so brilliant is that there is a division between techniques (implementations) and forms (actual types of magic). Our essentials are forms with open-ended implementation.
You could say that abjuration is more of a technique than a form. You could use Force of Will defensively to make a barrier as easily as you could use Conjuration to make a wall of fire, or warp someone away. Or illusion to distract a foe. If abjuration is just defensive magic, then it doesn't have any definition of its own as a school, which we're defining as a type of magic, as something like illusion clearly is. Also, rituals cover lots of neat warding effects, which will work their way very cleanly into our new wizard's arsenal now that we're letting him prepare a number of rituals in his utility slots.
On that note, all of divination seems to have gone entirely into that realm. I respect divination as being delegated to longer, more drawn-out processes. It also seems like something that all spellcasters always had access to. The more I think about divinations, the more they start to make sense to me as a generalized field of magic that every magic user has varying degrees of access to (depending on their focus), but no one really specializes in. I suppose if there are those who do, there's always the options of paragon paths, the starlock (potential master of fate and fortune) or entirely new classes. Actually, someone who we're working on right now who is definitely somewhat of a divination specialist is…
…The Necromancer. Necromancy is traditionally defined as the art of speaking to the dead. It literally is a form of divination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necromancy
I think this really deserves its own class. It was always the smallest school of magic in previous editions, and began to overlap with the cleric in 3rd. The class we're writing combines the whole "Dread Necromancer" concept with the undead and whatnot with more oracle-like, bone casting qualities. The dread part owes a lot to The Planeshifter's Dread Necromancer. I'll post it once I feel a little more confident about it.
The question of transmutation is a solid one. Enchantments are alterations (pumpkin to coach, prince to frog). Transmutations are alchemical and permanent. Enchantments are effects with durations where as transmutations are instantaneous processes. We had a transmutation Essential Spell written up, but it was almost impossible to make an at-will ability with permanent results anything but grossly overpowered. Especially when we want every aspect to accurately reflect what a wizard could do on a basic level with transmuting things. What we're ruling currently is that enchantments create alterations that can be dispelled. Transmutations cannot be dispelled because once the process is over, it's over. There's no lingering magical effect. In order to reverse a transmutation, an equally powerful inverse transmutation must be cast. This creates a lot of dangers for wizards, who can't detect their enemy who has polymorphed himself into his friend. Again, rituals. And again, I'm hoping that the whole utility slot thing will start smoothing over the functionality of casting slow ass spells more quickly in times of need.
All of these things have definitions that exist inside and outside the game, and it's tough because all we can do is come to subjective conclusions about them. The tricky thing about all this is trying to respectfully address the collective mytholgies of the arcane, all the while reconciling them with what D&D has been and where it is going. Homebrewing what we think a good wizard should be in the 4E environment is a pain while trying to be a step up on what WotC is thinking (or not thinking). 4E is a weird environment for magic. It's very streamlined, homogeneous, and rigid. All you need to do is take a look at how a spell reads on a power's attack line as opposed to how it reads in the more open format of a ritual to see what I'm getting at. Hopefully we're getting a little closer to getting it right. I hope that whatever comes out in Arcane Power, they'll start to fill in the gaps. For those of us who are untrusting, impatient, or both, we have this. And our imaginations.
Thanks for digging it! Check the update. More to come.
Because magic flows like water, spellcasters can attempt to manipulate it when they cast spells – this is called spell shaping and requires an Arcana check (or occasionally a different skill suiting the spell) against a Difficulty of 10 + the spell’s level + 2 for each additional manipulation beyond the first. The general rule of spell shaping is that no energy is created or destroyed. In game terms that means whatever modifier is changed has to equal out.
For example, the player of a fey pact warlock casting Otherworld Stride on a mighty dragon might say to the DM: “I’m turning into a stream of fey wind and blasting through the dragon. Can I give up my Charisma modifier bonus to damage and instead apply it as a penalty to his Fortitude defense? Oh, and I also want to change it to a ranged 3 power so I don’t get within his reach; I’m just targeting the dragon. Can I give up my +2 Intelligence modifier to the extra squares I could teleport cause of my fey pact and apply it increase the spell’s range instead?” The DM would decide whether this seems fair, and then calculate the DC 10 + 3 (the spell’s level) +2 (for an additional manipulation) = DC 15.
However if a PC fails a spell shaping check, a wild surge results as the magic slips out of their control.
Good points about transmutation, necromancy, and abjuration. However, I agree that divination would make a positive addition to the list of essential spells you've already got.
The divide between Illusion and Enchantment seems thin when Enchantment allows you to create sensations and atmosphere. Enchantment seems like a hodgepodge of effects (which it is in 2e and 3e), but it would be nice to have a tighter concept and similar theme to its effects.
Also the "glamer" use of Illusion seems on par with the 6th level wizard utility Disguise Self...that's probably too powerful for an at-will. It could be toned town to a "nondescript" type effect which allows you to slip by guards not specifically looking for you (and when not drawing undue attention to yourself) by blending into a crowd.
With the way you describe Conjuration the evoke elements/summon materia seems awkward. I would instead expect teleporting, creating difficult terrain (or some other way to dilate space-time) and time manipulation, for example delaying a spell.
What I can tell you for now:
- The damage dice will be dependent on the level encounter spell. It will go up or down depending on what you add or take away from the spell.
- The casting shape will be whatever shapes the wizard can cast. Increasing the area costs the loss of an effect of damage die. Single target spells free up for another addition, but you can also make them have secondary targets.
- One status effect can be added. Particularly strong status effects are only addable at certain levels. You can add a lingering effect (such as icy terrain or acid storm), but it vies for the same slot.
These are the components of every encounter spell, just broken apart. It's just these variables thrown around and re-flavored. It's just a matter of cracking the math of it all.
You're ultimately right about divination in that there's no good argument exactly for excluding it. My ideas for including divination were not in the form of an essential spell, but in the form of a mechanic that allowed you to add your arcana modifier to knowledge skill checks to discern certain things. It's mad vague right now:
- Arcana + Dungeoneering, History, Nature, or Religion: You glean important imformation long forgotten and lost by time. A powerful enough check allows you to glimpse into the near future.
- Arcana + Perception: Predict someone's movements or attacks, providing a +1 bonus to a defense (decided by the DM) per 5 over 15.
- Arcana + Insight: Gain knowledge about a particular individual, even secrets hidden from memory. A powerful enough check allows to glimpse into the near future.
Haven't figured out all the numbers. Should that be an essential to chosen from between the others, or just an additional ability, usable a number of times per day equal to your Intelligence modifier? If it's an essential, the orb will be changing for sure, and I'll be adding another implement.
Enchantment is super confusing. It's basically defined as "magic."
It's really a question of letting charm and mental/emotional manipulation back into the wizard. But I don't think we have to do that. As I said in my last post, Enchantment is alteration. I'm going to introduce alterations of old into the list, as well as an alteration keyword (alterations can be dispelled as conjurations and zones can). I understand that this might include some buffs/debuffs (leader style), but my respect for "role" in 4E is not particularly high. He won't have that many, and they'll be minor. Considering your comment on illusion, the line between doing something and pretending to do the same something is thin indeed when that thing is by definition making things appear into thin air. This is natural, and adds dimension to the illusionist. His powers rely on the ambiguity of whether he's conjuring a fireball or throwing a fake one at you. Resultantly, there are overlaps between illusion and conjuration/enchantment. And I'm fine with that.For glamer, would restricting its size as with Obfuscation be sufficient? With obfuscation, I didn't want an at-will invisibility until the wizard was stronger. The invisibility spell taken at 6th level, instead of adding the ability to become invisible, simply makes it much easier to do so. On top of all of that, even if you've never taken invisibility, there's no reason a 30th level wizard wouldn't be able to do it easily at-will. Same with changing his appearance. If it's a matter of scaling, I'm cool with that. I like how modular this is!
Your Conjuration comments will be noted. The summoning aspects of conjuration essentially come from opening up a portal, if that defines them any better. Hence warp being a part of that. Switching two people might be appropriate, if balanced correctly. Conjuration, with a high check, should allow you to focus your spells through portals (from different points of origin on the battlefield). You could extend the range of another cantrip, and blast from the opposite direction. You could delay a spell to the start of your next turn, farther for really high checks (this would require you to set a DC with your Conjuration check that you would have to cast the delayed spell against). You could also **** with gravity, affecting jump checks, forced movement, and speed.
Back to the drawing board!
At a first glance the encounter powers look ok, I'll study and compare them some more later.
Noticed the addition of shadow harm. Seems ok.
For the Violent Evocation you have the various types targeting different elements and doing different damages. Fortitude is usually the highest and should be doing the 1d8, Reflex should be 1d6, and Will do 1d4
Comparing: Treacherous Footing (encounter) vs Falter (at-will)
You're right about Falter. I was concerned that prone was just too good for an at-will. After more thought, I think it is. I have changed Falter's name to "Tremor" and it now has the target grant combat advantage (based on the druid's "Pounce"), keeping the staff power in place. I'll consider what you said about modulations for at-wills. I think that's a decision saved for much later once all the spells are fleshed out, and I have a better idea of how modulations scale with level.
Are there any other at-wills that seem overpowered to you? I suppose a lot depends on how the encounters turn out.
For the Violent Evocation you have the various types targeting different elements and doing different damages. Fortitude is usually the highest and should be doing the 1d8, Reflex should be 1d6, and Will do 1d4
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Are you asking that I change the damage die? I've currently assigned damage die based on the type of evocation used, not based on what defense is being attacked. If you think this is a necessary consideration for balance, I will change it. I'd just like to hear why. Right now, it makes more sense to me that certain types of energies target certain things and deal damage based on the kind of energy that they are. You'll be happy to know, however, that the only thing targeting Will is the psychic damage from Shadow Evocation, which deals 1d4.
Here's the breakdown for clarity's sake:
- Fire, acid, lightning, and water (for wand wizards) attack Reflex with 1d6.
- Cold, poison, thunder, and wind (for wand wizards) attack Fortitude with 1d6.
- Force attacks Fortitude with 1d8.
- Shadow (psychic damage) attacks Will with 1d4.
- Harm (affecting vitality with necrotic damage) attacks Fortitude with 1d4.
- Light (radiant illumination) attacks Reflex with 1d4.
Violent Evocations use their own attack lines. The idea is that you're using your ability to conjure light towards a different, more focused purpose. I will add text to the Essentials that clarifies this. So in short, using light as part of an attack does not create a zone, although it is written in Shadow Evocation that it produces a figment. I suppose in the case of deafen, it's a ghost sound, which is just an auditory figment anyway.
I'll be editing the OP with design theory and mythology as beautifully written by my collaborator, DMDave, describing the Essentials. Part of this will include the whole illusory attack concept.
Oh, and walls are cast at a range of 5 squares. Sorry for the oversight.
- Fire, acid, lightning, and water (for wand wizards) attack Reflex with 1d6.
- Cold, poison, thunder, and wind (for wand wizards) attack Fortitude with 1d6.
- Force attacks Fortitude with 1d8.
- Shadow (psychic damage) attacks Will with 1d4.
- Harm (affecting vitality with necrotic damage) attacks Fortitude with 1d4.
- Light (radiant illumination) attacks Reflex with 1d4.
Is the stat you use fixed by type? My only concern is that a particular type might end up being more effective than the others. Either from the defense targeted or Stat used. I don't have a problem that there is a difference, just as long as no one is obviosly better. I wouldn't want themed Wizard to be gimped, a little weaker is ok, just not too much.
For the at-wills: What about the thought of needing a target DC to get off some of the extra effects. ie: For every 2 points that you beat a DC of 15 1 of the targets grants combat advantage/slowed/burned/etc.
Keynup, your input has been hugely valuable. I hope to keep hearing from you.
As for the damage typing, I think at this point only time will tell. Things are evening out across the board in interesting ways as the encounters scale up. Wand wizards get are the undisputed masters of single targeted ranged spells (which makes sense to me). The Wand build in this framework is geared towards being the combatant. The Orb is your controller. The Staff is your close range heavy hitter with a lot of forced movement. The next step is to make sure that all of these roles are adequately provided for and balanced. The great thing about how the stats interact with the essential spells is that you can't really be good at more than three of them. If you want, you don't even have to have high Intelligence. You could go all the way Wisdom, pick up a sword, and now you're a killin' gish. Or you could 20 it in Charisma and go Illusionist with some minor Enchantment and Conjuration as backup. The competing ability scores seem to be doing their job.
I'm gonna keep thinking about the at-wills. It's gonna be a while before I can get back to this. I need to give it some space and start playing it more.
Your beginning maximum casting shape is a blast 3
So can I do blast 2 or 1?
Temporal Flux: One creature skips forward in the time stream, losing its next action.
Standard, Move, Minor, ALL?!?
Special: Targets receive a +5 bonus to their intuition checks to disbelieve an illusion that has already been cast in this encounter.
Which skill is this again?
I'll look more at the encounters later.
Does the extra +2 or +3 to hit overpower them?
The Arcane Implement Mastery class feature grants you a bonus to casting (usually 2-3). Wouldn't this seem to make wizards hit a lot more often. I realize they don't get proficiency bonuses usually, but this is generally offset by attacking NADs.
Does the extra +2 or +3 to hit overpower them?
This is a good question. The bonuses were originally +1 or +2 for this reason, but there's another factor. If a wizard doesn't hit 15, no matter what kind of spell he's casting, he'll fail. This makes lower level wizards a lot more limited in that casting a spell is a risk (you only start with a +5 or +6 bonus, so you're failing a little less than half the time). I'm debating whether to lower this DC and lower the bonuses, because as the wizard's power increases, he still is targeting NADs, and I suppose things could get unbalanced. There are a lot of little tweaks here and there that need to happen from a power perspective. I've already made a few. I'm gonna play it and see how things work out. Get back to y'all soon.
Color Spray Wizard Attack 3
Modulation: The target is dazed instead of stunned -> +1[E]; -1 to Area -> the target is blinded instead of stunned; no damage -> the target is knocked unconscious (save ends).
Isn't stunned better then blind? To note: PH has it as dazed which is weaker then stunned.
Forceful Thrust Wizard Attack 7
Modulation: +1[E] and 1 additional square for every 5 points by which your casting check exceeds the modulation DC.
should it not be: Modulation: +1[E] and push the target 1 additional square for every 5 points by which your casting check exceeds the modulation DC.
Blizzard Wizard Attack 7
Could you call it Swirling Cloud and use cold or shadow?
Shout Wizard Attack 7
Modulation: +1[E], and the target is instead deafened for a number of rounds equal to your Intelligence modifier.
I know deafened is not much of an effect, but shouldn't this be a (save ends)?
Frostburn Wizard Attack 13
Hit: 3[E] + Intelligence modifier cold damage + Intelligence modifier damage of the second evoked type.
If you have a 20 Int, then this will give you 5 more damage then the one in PH. BUT, the one in PH does all cold&fire, so you use the lower of the 2 resists.
Spell Lance Wizard Attack 13
Hit: 4[E] + ability modifier damage of the evoked type, and you push the target 4 squares.
Modulation: -1 to Area -> you instead push the target a number of squares equal to your Wisdom modifier
For the modulation: smaller area and you (probably) push less?
Elemental Storm Wizard Attack 23
Hit: 4[E] + Intelligence modifier damage of the first evoked type + Intelligence modifier damage of the second evoked type.
Is the total damge both types? or only the Int modifier damage?
Black Fire Wizard Attack 27
Hit: 6[E] + ability modifier damage of the first evocation’s type + (ability modifier damage of the second evocation’s type).
Is the total damge both types? or only the Int modifier damage?
For the most part the encounter powers seems balanced. Some of the modulations might be too much, but I haven't played enough to see it.
This is definatly better the the PH Wizard, so as long as your OK with makeing a better wizard, keep it up. This deffinatly feels like a better wizard, we'll just have to how balanced the final version is.