General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Precisely the kind of narrow focus I would like to remove. Thank you, you illustrated this well. Really this boils down to flavor, in previous editions this was a "feel" of the game and the at-wills have shifted that "feel". You may prefer that new "feel", I personally don't not prefer that "feel" I just would like the game to give me that "feel" if I want it. By removing at-will powers I think I get there.
And as far as all classes having to buy STR and DEX at character creation. This is just ridiculous. Every wizard or warlock would not buy STR and DEX. Give me a break. The wizard would likely buy some DEX and not dump it to 8 like it currently gets done in most cases. Instead they grab a 14 or so and throw some daggers in combat or something at low-level, and as they level up and get more encounter powers and daily powers they do the dagger thing less and less.
Also there seems to be some confusion about what these two bonus encounter powers are. They are exactly that two bonus encounter powers not at-will powers treated as encounter powers.
I have some ideas on how to convert all the current at-will powers into encounter powers, namely, give them the 21st level damage bonus and be done with it. I think twin strike is the only one that would have to be deleted or modified.
The question isn't really what we on this board think of your system. It's pretty clear that most of us think we wouldn't enjoy it, but that's really beside the point.
You have a vision of how you want the game world to "feel" and you want to change the mechanics of the game to better suit your vision.
The real question is: who is going to be playing your game and do they share your vision? Do you have any prospective players, and have you asked them how they feel about such wholesale changes to the rules?
As I understand it, you would rather that characters used more encounter & daily powers, and would give more of them to suit that purpose. As a trade-off, all characters would lose their At-Will abilities and instead just use Basic Attacks when Encounters and maybe Dailies are gone.
That's the crux of it, yup, with the added benefit of a couple more encounter powers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryn
So, let's look at games that basically work that way, see why they work, and see if the situation is comparable in 4e.
3e is a great example, IMHO. Simplified: Your fighters/rangers/paladins basically fight the whole time. Your wizards will cast some very impressive blammies, and maybe plunk with a crossbow when they're done. Your Fighters will max out their Strength, likely boosting it more than anything else. Your Wizards will max out their Intelligence, since it's huge for them.
This works for 3e, and for prior editions as well. What makes this work, imho, is that the wizard's blammies are far more impressive than any normal attack from a fighter/ranger/paladin/etc. They can do things fighters just can't, and often their spells have rider effects that could be very impressive. What's more, they often deal a lot of damage to a lot of characters.
That is very accurate by my estimation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryn
Now, let's look at 4e and see if the situation is comparable.
Right off the bat, imho, we have problems. Wizards' blammies are not significantly more effective than anyone else's. In fact, while everyone's powers do different things, they are fairly even, potency-wise. A Level 7 Encounter power will have similar potency from a Fighter or from a Wizard.
Ah but they do effect an area and one of the things that a "controler" is supposed to do is affect more area and so, by that they become more powerful - even though the damage is comparable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryn
Both Fighters and Wizards will have, of course, maxed out their bread & butter stats. This isn't 4e-specific; it just happens in every edition. When a Fighter's powers run out, they're still using their prime stats and have only slightly dropped in effectiveness.
I also agree, wizards will be less effective with a bow and a sword than a fighter. This is how it should be by the way. Conceptually I don't think that magical powers should be as at-will as regular sword swings or bow shots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryn
When a Wizard's powers run out, they are basically done. Unless, that is, the Wizard has decided to seriously boost their Dexterity for missile attacks. They can do this, of course, but it's not as helpful as most other stats. It won't help their defenses, and really they're probably better off getting a few more HPs, taking a hit on their basic attacks, and hoping the bad guys die before they need to pull out the crossbow. On the other hand, Fighters are still using Strength, so there aren't any MAD issues.
A wizard can be pretty good with their staff in the game. They just need to have a 12 to 14 strength and that will make them -2 to -3 to hit from where a fighter might be with a staff. Will they be less effective than the fighter still in a fight? Hell yes, but that is not the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryn
So that's why I think this solution, as you've written it, won't work well. It takes a lot away from casters, while taking very little away from weapon-users. And casters don't get anything back from this; they're sizably nerfed.
I agree it makes the:
Warlocks, Wizards, Lazer Clerics and Charisma Paladins them arguably worse.
Honestly I think that really it only makes the Warlock and Wizard worse because the cleric and paladin both have strength powers that they can easily take so they are already spending stat points in those areas anyway!
The Wizard has a lot of area of effect powers that can do a lot of damage to a lot of guys, this makes them pretty powerful anyway. So if they specialize in INT only they can be pretty effective at their relatively few encounter and daily powers. They could possible use a boost in damage though, I don't know for sure.
The warlock is a different beast all together, they have a curse ability and it works with basic attacks so they are still very viable and interesting strikers. In fact I think they become MORE interesting without the auto eldritch blast.
I think I would also add some "reserve" feats that allow multiple uses of a power during the combat, eldritch blast would be a perfect fit for that feat. I was thinking of using the limitation of the healing word ability (2 times for levels 1-15 and 3 times for levels 16-30).
* Consider a class ability (or at least a feat) that allows rogues to make basic attacks with the rogue weapon list using DEX for melee. (akin to weapon finesse). Otherwise, you're effectively swapping STR with DEX for primes, limiting rogues to archers (well, crossbowmen, since they can't use bows with their powers) or making brutal scoundrels THE ONLY class ability worth taking (goodbye artful dodgers).
This is a good idea. Possibly off-hand melee weapons can be included in the light thrown weapons bracket and be used with DEX instead of STR or interchangeably with either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
* Consider making Twin Strike a power any class can use when fighting with two weapons (replacing the current TWF benefit with it; two attacks, not bonus to damage). This will keep rangers as twf people and open it back to fighters, rogues, warlords, and such.
This is also a good idea, in this way you don't remove the ability of the ranger to make two attacks "at-will". You also make fighters who want to fight with two weapons more powerful and so on. There is a hitch though should everyone basically get "rapid-shot"? Not sure about that one. It may be too big of a change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
*Figure out what you're doing with Intelligent Blademaster and Swordmages (Swordmage only: use Int for basic attacks) or you've just made the best fighter in the game.
I don't have the FR book and am not too familiar in with the swordmage or that feat (it is also not available in our game for use). What I gather though is that there is a feat that allows you to use your INT bonus for your basic attacks. This feat would have to be dropped, it might be too advantageous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
* Keep Eldrich Blast as an at-will power. Warlocks in 3.5 could use it all day, so should 4e ones. We're keeping the theme of previous editions and not limiting archetypes, right?
Did you notice it is actually a class feature? This could be doable, it is the only at-will attack power that is actually cited as a class feature. Perhaps it is an artifact from an iteration where classes did not have at-will powers. Before the "siloing".
This is bad game design. The players would rebel against it.
No one likes investing character resources in something that only matters for a few levels, and then stops being important, especially when those resources can't be regained, and trade off with resources that will be useful forever, and more and more as you level up.
I don't know what to tell you except that countless video games have made this error, and players always find a way around it. The quickest solution for most people will simply be to start playing at a higher level, and bypass the whole matter.
Good point, so the wizard has the choice of being good with their Powers or good with their basic attacks, at low levels it is a tough choice but the way around it is that they choose the powers knowing that they will be weak early on anyway and hopefully be better later on.
The wizard is by far the worst hit class with these changes as I illustrated a few posts back. Wizards are already kind of sub par anyway. Possibly upping their damage by a die on every power might give them more a "boom" that makes them worthwhile. Still though, when I am a player I generally play wizards and I still would under these rules even without the "boom" damage bonus. So it just depends on why the player plays. Have the most powerful character? Don't play a wizard then.
I agree it makes the:
Warlocks, Wizards, Lazer Clerics and Charisma Paladins them arguably worse.
Honestly I think that really it only makes the Warlock and Wizard worse because the cleric and paladin both have strength powers that they can easily take so they are already spending stat points in those areas anyway!
Well, that's kind of the point... If you're making half the classes worse, and making it so half the builds of existing classes are pointless, well... Why play those classes? A group of fighters, rangers, rogues, and warlords will be more potent than a mixed group.
And as for concentrating in a single stat, which was one of your concerns... Str/Dex classes would continue to be able to buff up their main stats without restraint. It's everyone else who gets a dose of MAD.
Quote:
The Wizard has a lot of area of effect powers that can do a lot of damage to a lot of guys, this makes them pretty powerful anyway. So if they specialize in INT only they can be pretty effective at their relatively few encounter and daily powers. They could possible use a boost in damage though, I don't know for sure.
I think you'd find that the Wizard is probably the least-powerful character class right now. Those bursts & blasts can just as easily hurt enemies as friends, and overall their damage output is sub-par. What's more, although they do have area effects, those area effects generally do less damage to each creature than single-target effects. You're nerfing an already-weak class.
So yeah. Basically, if you have no problems making the existing caster classes significantly underpowered (until the Sorceror comes out, whose spells use Strength and Dex), and more or less making them second-fiddle to the frontline, go ahead. It's your game. It's not a game I'd ever play in - especially not as anything other than a fighter - but you seem pretty convinced this is a brilliant system, and I don't think I can dissuade you.
Wizards are already kind of sub par anyway. Possibly upping their damage by a die on every power might give them more a "boom" that makes them worthwhile.
You'd need to make wizard's encounter/daily powers a lot more powerful than the martial class's counterparts. Which is using 4e to recreate 3e/2e/1e. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Quote:
So it just depends on why the player plays. Have the most powerful character? Don't play a wizard then.
And the benefit of creating deliberately unbalanced classes is?
edit: maybe you're looking for something like a mash-up between 4e and 3.5e's Book of Nine Swords? Characters would have no at-wills but more and broader encounter powers.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Well, that's kind of the point... If you're making half the classes worse, and making it so half the builds of existing classes are pointless, well... Why play those classes? A group of fighters, rangers, rogues, and warlords will be more potent than a mixed group.
Well lets be clear, clerics and paladins are still very viable and are only slightly affected, I see no reason why you could not do a 14 or 16 STR and 18 WIS for a cleric and an 14 or 16 STR and an 18 CHA for a Paladin. Or vice verse on those stats. These are still very viable.
Quite honestly from a design perspective, I really don't care for the design on the classes that have two primaries and one secondary (cleric, paladin, ranger and warlock). It is almost like they have placed two classes into one class. But that is neither here nor there.
Back to the point Wizards and warlock are both the heaviest hit by removing at-wills. Warlocks less so than wizards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryn
And as for concentrating in a single stat, which was one of your concerns... Str/Dex classes would continue to be able to buff up their main stats without restraint. It's everyone else who gets a dose of MAD.
Luckily in 4e you can bump up 2 or all of your stats. So this is not that bad because you can bump up what you need. A very nice core feature of 4e.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryn
I think you'd find that the Wizard is probably the least-powerful character class right now. Those bursts & blasts can just as easily hurt enemies as friends, and overall their damage output is sub-par. What's more, although they do have area effects, those area effects generally do less damage to each creature than single-target effects. You're nerfing an already-weak class.
This does concern me some but the added boom of more encounter powers at their disposal may be what the doctor ordered. It may not be enough. If not I only have to up an already weak class, that I have been thinking of boosting anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryn
(until the Sorceror comes out, whose spells use Strength and Dex),
edit: maybe you're looking for something like a mash-up between 4e and 3.5e's Book of Nine Swords? Characters would have no at-wills but more and broader encounter powers.
Absolutely, I mentioned a couple pages back that Bo9S and later development cycles were moving 3e into a more encounter based system from the day based systems. I really like that design. [SARCASM]And hey when you used Bo9S, martial characters truly were more powerful than casters.[/SARCASM]
I would also like to get rid of daily powers and make them encounter powers for a number of reasons. This one is more difficult to adjust though.
Precisely the kind of narrow focus I would like to remove. Thank you, you illustrated this well. Really this boils down to flavor, in previous editions this was a "feel" of the game and the at-wills have shifted that "feel". You may prefer that new "feel", I personally don't not prefer that "feel" I just would like the game to give me that "feel" if I want it. By removing at-will powers I think I get there.
I understand that. I even thought about doing the same thing myself when I first looked at the rules. What you want is weak casters at low level who become more powerful at high level, same as 3e. You can do that, but no one will want to be a wizard. You are taking an already weak class and making them weaker. Basically, giving your players the option to choose a martial class or suck. But at least you are leaving it up to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrik
And as far as all classes having to buy STR and DEX at character creation. This is just ridiculous. Every wizard or warlock would not buy STR and DEX. Give me a break. The wizard would likely buy some DEX and not dump it to 8 like it currently gets done in most cases. Instead they grab a 14 or so and throw some daggers in combat or something at low-level, and as they level up and get more encounter powers and daily powers they do the dagger thing less and less.
I certainly wouldn't bother putting a 14 into a melee stat, even with your rules. It's still better to throw all my encounter powers then delay the rest of the combat. Because attempting to hit with +5 to hit at first level for 1d4+2 damage is kind of dumb. Against creatures with 16 AC, you only have a 50% chance of hitting for an average of 4 damage.
That's the problem with using the core of 4e to do what you want. The core of 4e assumes EVERYONE is attacking with a stat that is 16+. The average actually assumes an 18 with + or - 1 being acceptable.
And that's at 1st level. Unless you put a point into strength every time you get a choice for leveling, any attacks you make with strength fall farther and father behind.
The math is so well balanced that anything more than a point or two off the average and you might as well not bother. That's why Druids and Avengers in the PHB2 make melee attacks using their Wisdom. Of course, only some of their attacks could really be considered "magical", so how do you deal with these classes? Wardens get magical attacks that use their strength to attack, making them focus in strength with no disadvantage.
I actually think it would be easier to house rule 3e to do what you want than to force 4e to go there. It was a project I was briefly working on before 4e came out. I figure you could use the Bo9S as a template. Allow only Bo9S classes and caster classes. That pretty much gives you the "core" of 4e while encouraging the feel you want.
Unless you mean something different by "core". Do you mean the math behind all the monsters and players? In which case, I propose a quick patch to 3e to act more like it:
-Remove BAB, Save Bonuses and Skill Ranks as a mechanic, give everyone half their level to AC, Attacks and Skills, and Saves.
-Let them choose trained skills(their number of skill ranks divided by 4, can only choose class skills)
-Remove stat enhancers, enhancement bonuses on shields, and all items that give a bonus to AC other than armor.
-Change the AC, saves, and attacks of all monsters to the table listed in the 4e DMG based on what you think their role is. Don't change their hitpoints.
-Remove iterative attacks
-Allow people to add the better of their Dex or Int modifier to AC in light or medium armor, make the max Dex of all heavy armors 0. Remove the max Dex of all light armors.
-Make taking a 5-ft step a move action instead of free
And there you have an entire game that lacks at will attacks, has the core of 4e, but still has powerful encounter based powers for spellcasters and melee types without heavily favoring one. It requires a bit of work, but I think it actually could be a pretty cool hybrid.
__________________ Majoru Oakheart
Secret Attorney of the Guidelines for the <Sorry, you didn't make the DC 20 Perception check, and you don't have another minor action to try again. Next time try finding an Elf to stand nearby you.>
At-wills are not a core mechanic they are a sub-system thrown on to the core mechanics.
The At-Will/Encounter/Daily seperation for powers are part of the core mechanics for 4e. It involves:
(a) Each class is able to use it's primary stat for it's attacks
(b) Characters always have something useful they can do
(c) There isn't an ability score that every class "needs"
There is no longer (many) auto-hit powers. They eliminated the gap created by BAB and saving throw modifiers. They eliminated save or die. They eliminated the 'long' durations, replacing with save end. Each defense has a choice of two different stats.
Your changes forces every class to have STR or DEX as a secondary or primary stat (making classes without STR or DEX as a primary lose any builds other than X + STR or X + DEX, and you pretty much HAVE to go with 16/16 for those stats so they can both be decent attack stats).
So you have characters of the same class being extremely similar, even characters outside of the class being different.
Also, on book of nine swords: They all had ways of regaining their powers. They had a number of encounter powers, but they always had a way of getting back all the encounter powers. It basically meant 1 turn of "basic attacks" before going back to encounter powers again. The one thing you may like about it is that it forces each character to use EACH of the powers before they can use the same one again.
So having 3 to 6 encounter powers, with the ability to regain the encounter powers only after you've used them all, would approximate the Book of Nine Swords. Or perhaps have 3 "at-wills" but with the similar restriction that you need to use each one once before you can use another one again.
Late to the party as usual, and having just waded through all this, a few random thoughts leap to mind:
1. It's an extremely valid point that something special made ordinary isn't special any more. Example: Magic Missile. In all previous editions it was at least somewhat special, as it could only be cast so many times a day. Now, it's ordinary - a Wizard has a limitless number of bullets in her gun and never has to reload.
2. I'm going to hazard a guess that one of the things behind the OP's original ideas is that having magic-based at-wills e.g. Magic Missile simply puts too much magic in the game; hence, a desire to reduce such. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this. But the archetype of the full-time Wizard who can only cast so many spells of any type over a day and the rest of the time has to rely on weapons (example: Gandalf) falls apart when they can cast all day.
3. If removing at-wills causes concern that combats will grind even longer, there's a simple solution: reduce everyone's hit points - character, monster, whatever; except of course minions - by a blanket percentage. Let's say, a 50% reduction. That will make combats on average last half as long (probably less, in fact, as the ratio of encounter powers to at-wills/basics will be higher), and add some randomness and swinginess back in.
4. If the math really is as finely-tuned as is suggested a few posts upthread, such that a character is essentially useless (as opposed to slightly less effective) without one high stat, that to me is a serious problem of overdesign.
5. I'm not sure if this came from a long-ago article in Dragon, or whether it's a homebrew from the dark ages, but the Elvish deity of the bow has always to us been Rillifane. Her consort, Corellon, uses the sword.
1. It's an extremely valid point that something special made ordinary isn't special any more. Example: Magic Missile. In all previous editions it was at least somewhat special, as it could only be cast so many times a day. Now, it's ordinary - a Wizard has a limitless number of bullets in her gun and never has to reload.
I agree with this. And I admit that reducing the magic in a campaign is a valid goal. Just not one I would want in my game. As I said previously, I understand the desire. I just think it'll have unforseen side effects if you just remove at wills. If you turned all the at-wills into mundane attacks and left the rest of the class as it is, I wouldn't see a problem with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanefan
4. If the math really is as finely-tuned as is suggested a few posts upthread, such that a character is essentially useless (as opposed to slightly less effective) without one high stat, that to me is a serious problem of overdesign.
Since this is me, we are taking about, I should respond. The problem is, as it usually is, in the math. While using a d20, even a small difference affects it a lot. The difference between a 14 Strength Battlerage Vigor Fighter with a hammer(+4 to hit) vs the 20 Strength longsword fighter with one handed weapon focus(+9 to hit) is +5. Which is a 25% difference in hit chance.
Against an AC 17 opponent, the first fighter hits 40% of the time. The second fighter hits 65% of the time. Even with his class bonus for having temporary hitpoints, the first fighter is doing an average of (9.5*0.4=)3.8 damage per round. The second fighter is doing (9.5*0.65=)6.175 damage. That's a 61% increase in damage. But he also has a 25% greater chance to stun, daze, knock prone, push, or whatever his opponent. And the difference becomes even larger when you use encounters or dailies.
This is a fairly reasonable range. 25% difference is about the greatest difference you should see in one class if you want to plan out the defenses of your enemies. I'd say it's designing just enough.
So, I'm saying that at first level, being a wizard with a 14 in your strength seems like it is plausible to hit in melee. However, at 30th level the Fighter who started with a 20 strength puts all his points into strength and takes Demigod and ups his strength 2 more has +28 to hit. The same wizard who put all his points into Int and Wis(since he's an Orb wizard) and doesn't buy a magic melee weapon(since it cost him all his money to get armor, implement, and neck item) has +20 to hit. If the standard chance to hit is 55% for the fighter, then the wizard has a 15% chance to hit. Or, not really worth trying.
The math actually works pretty good, in that, if you absolutely have NOTHING better to do than attack with that dagger, it might work. Unlike 3e, where you'd only hit on a 20. But, then again, 4e is designed so you ALWAYS have something better to do that has a GOOD chance of success. If you remove at wills, then you actually have to resort to that useless attack.
I'd just like to add that the difference was always that big. In 3e, if you had a 10 strength wizard and were attacking with a dagger vs the 18 strength fighter with Weapon Focus attacking with his weapon, it was a huge difference which only got bigger and bigger. The only thing that made it even somewhat tolerable was that enemies AC varied so much that you might run into a 9 or 10 AC opponent that you could hit, and that the game forced you to by giving you no other way to attack.
__________________ Majoru Oakheart
Secret Attorney of the Guidelines for the <Sorry, you didn't make the DC 20 Perception check, and you don't have another minor action to try again. Next time try finding an Elf to stand nearby you.>
If "Magic Missiles" and similar obvious magic is too magical and makes magic seem trivial and boring, why not change the at-wills of wizards (and warlocks and other casters too, I guess, but I'll focus on wizards for now) to make them less blatantly magical?
How about:
True Strike
Standard; at-will * Weapon
You use magic to guide your arm and strike with ultimate accuracy.
Int vs. AC; [w]+Int damage.
You can use this attack as a basic ranged or melee attack.
Upgrade to 2[w]+Int at level 11, 3[w]+Int at level 21.
Mage Armor
Standard; at-will
You create an invisible magical armor of force around you.
You gain +2 to AC until the end of your next turn.
Sustain minor.
Shield
Minor; at-will
You create an invisible magical shield of force floating in the air next to you.
You gain +1 to AC and Reflex Defense until the beginning of your next turn or until you are attacked, whichever comes first.
There, now the wizard can run around making ranged and melee weapon attacks all day long without feeling sub-par, and without trivializing the feel of magic in your game. If he sacrifices one or two actions per round he can also gain some much-needed defense to survive such activities. None of these "spells" have obvious effects (but if you want you can house-rule the Mage Armor and Shield to be visible, of course) so they can be explained away as superior magical training or whatever if you prefer.
Similar at-will powers can be created for clerics, warlocks, sorcerers, etc, to make them seem less magical and make them more combat-worthy, but based on their respective preferred abilities of course. In fact I wouldn't mind playing a wizard with at-will powers like this. It would not be very good at its intended role but it would make for some interesting concepts.
You'd need to make wizard's encounter/daily powers a lot more powerful than the martial class's counterparts. Which is using 4e to recreate 3e/2e/1e. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
from the preview books it seems that once upon a time in development, martial classes had more powerful at wills when the wizard had weaker at wills, good encounters and very powerfull dailies...
This has changed to: every class should be able to fullfill its role with their at-wills...
This could also have lead to the "powers of all classes are similar" feeling...
actually i could live with a class with very weak at-wills which are solely used to fullfill its role and relying on base attacks and strong encounter/dailies...
(imagine a warlord chosing commanders strike and the str = damage attack)
Normally, when you make something bigger, you make it more awesome. For example, everyone is pretty much in agreement about the awesomeness of the opening scene of 'A New Hope' when the Star Destroyer comes into the frame and just keeps coming and coming. There is a limit to this though. It's hard to define, but there is a tipping point beyond which bigger is less cool, less dramatic, and less overwhelmingly awesome than smaller.
A Star Destroyer is cool, but for many people a Super-Star Destroyer is less cool and even destroys the coolness of a Star Destroyers.
If the existence of the Executor in TESB reduces the coolness of Star Destroyers by being to big, how come the existence of the Death Star in ANH doesn't?
I don't necessarily need an answer, I just pointed out that what makes awesome is not always consistent when you are talking about one person, let alone from one person to the next.
If "Magic Missiles" and similar obvious magic is too magical and makes magic seem trivial and boring, why not change the at-wills of wizards (and warlocks and other casters too, I guess, but I'll focus on wizards for now) to make them less blatantly magical?
How about:
snip
Also late to the thread but reading through it this also occured to me. If the at wills are a problem then why not change the at wills to something more acceptable?
If that is no good then I think an encounter power recovery should be considered to encourage people to play caster types. Otherwise, it would be better to play a fighter/caster multiclass and dip into the caster encounter and dailies via feats than go for a straight caster, especially wizard.
Possibly upping their damage by a die on every power might give them more a "boom" that makes them worthwhile. Still though, when I am a player I generally play wizards and I still would under these rules even without the "boom" damage bonus. So it just depends on why the player plays. Have the most powerful character? Don't play a wizard then.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
