Revised wizard

[Hawken]

The thing is, magic in all editions of D&D has been a finite resource when it comes to classes. Everyone runs out. If you don't want to run out, then you play 4th edition. I'm starting to see where you're coming from, but you're basically wanting a 4th edition "at will" power in a system not made for at will anything.

The Warlock, Beguiler and the PHB II stuff were all 4E precursors. The 3.X system is not set up for any character to have unlimited attacks unless it involves a weapon. Especially not an attack designed the way you did.

If you use the guidelines I set up, a 1st level Wizard is going to get it at least 5 times a day (3 + at least an Int mod of +2). That's five attacks. That's five times the amount of spells per day the Wizard gets. And then, he has his crossbow to fall back on. At 1st level, characters can't handle more than 2 encounters a day. That lets you use your 1 spell per day, 5 blasts per day, and then your crossbow or sling whenever else you want. That's even way better than a sorcerer, who would be even more potent or the bard who has other skills and powers to rely on.

In your lower levels, you're not likely to encounter a creature with ANY damage reduction and likely no energy or spell resistance because the damage output at those levels is not really enough to significantly overcome that kind of resistance and still put up a fight without getting you butt severely stomped. Its not that 3.5 DR is broken, it works just fine with the 3.5 rules, but the problem you're running into is that you're essentially wanting to bring in a 4E goody and play by 3.5 except when it comes to your goody.

You want a 4E goody in a 3.5 game, fine, adapt it to the existing 3.5 rules: there are no unlimited magical attacks except by monsters; physical attacks can be mitigated by DR, energy attacks by energy resistance and magic by SR; any spell or sla incurs an AoO; magical effects either allow a saving throw or there is no save but an attack roll is required. There has to be a foil, something to counter it. Despite Venger from the D&D cartoon, wizards don't shoot lasers out of their hands. Magic is either foiled by SR or by ER (energy resistance) and its either hit/miss or allows a save.

So, your Wizard has burned through all his spells and blasts and you've got a DM who is a 1st class butthole who gives you an encounter at night while you're resting. You need something, but nothing's handy. Well, burn a point of Constitution for those emergencies to 'power' another blast. It'll keep you alive long enough to run away or get behind your companions. Go back to resting and get your point of Con back the next day.

That's your attack. I'd strongly suggest keeping it as a standard action to prevent the abuse I've already outlined. Even at mid-level (10th, give or take), a combat master dipping into wizard for this effect alone could turn your game on its head.

And then, you've got to think about the bad guys. If the PCs can do it, the bad guys can too. You get a gang of 10 or 15 goblin wizards cutting loose with those blasts and they will rip your party to shreds, muchless a rival group of mercenaries seeking to get the PCs off their backs or out of the way. And rogues or assassins with that power would be even more dangerous!

A dagger has the same base damage and range you list (a club or shortspear for my suggested damage). However, you're basically wanting unlimited ammo which is something no low level character gets. DMs usually stop tracking ammo (unless its magical) somewhere around 5th-8th level, but there isn't one that I know of that doesn't track it in your first few levels.

And you're wanting to inflict damage with your Int instead of Str. There's nothing in 3.X core that lets you do anything but Str for damage. 4e is designed for that, 3.X is not. If you start shifting ability scores around for damage, everyone is going to want to choose something or come up with something that lets them use their highest stat. Damage output is the number one thing about Str and why its one of the most important stats. In 4e stats aren't as important, but that's the way that system is designed.

 

[Sylrae]

The thing is, magic in all editions of D&D has been a finite resource when it comes to classes. Everyone runs out. If you don't want to run out, then you play 4th edition. I'm starting to see where you're coming from, but you're basically wanting a 4th edition "at will" power in a system not made for at will anything.

The Warlock, Beguiler and the PHB II stuff were all 4E precursors. The 3.X system is not set up for any character to have unlimited attacks unless it involves a weapon. Especially not an attack designed the way you did.

The fact that I assumed the use of 3.0 DR doesnt mean you need to insult me.

If you use the guidelines I set up, a 1st level Wizard is going to get it at least 5 times a day (3 + at least an Int mod of +2). That's five attacks. That's five times the amount of spells per day the Wizard gets. And then, he has his crossbow to fall back on. At 1st level, characters can't handle more than 2 encounters a day. That lets you use your 1 spell per day, 5 blasts per day, and then your crossbow or sling whenever else you want. That's even way better than a sorcerer, who would be even more potent or the bard who has other skills and powers to rely on.

The sorcerer and bard would have the same power, with CHA instead of INT. The point is a generic use arcane attack. I'm starting to see why youre saying to limit it the way you are, but If I'm going to do it this way, I may as well just ditch it and keep the cantrips at will. If I can acid splash at will as a spell, and the 'attack' I was trying to make is being turned into a spell anyways, whats the point in having it.

In your lower levels, you're not likely to encounter a creature with ANY damage reduction and likely no energy or spell resistance because the damage output at those levels is not really enough to significantly overcome that kind of resistance and still put up a fight without getting you butt severely stomped. Its not that 3.5 DR is broken, it works just fine with the 3.5 rules, but the problem you're running into is that you're essentially wanting to bring in a 4E goody and play by 3.5 except when it comes to your goody.

The goal is to have everyone have at least some small thing they can do at will. The fighter can swing a weapon at will. I was thinking for the non-fighters, they could have some other attack at will. the druid and priest would have ended up with some other at will attack, so would the battlepriest, but it would likely be advantageous to use a melee attack in that case..

You want a 4E goody in a 3.5 game, fine, adapt it to the existing 3.5 rules: there are no unlimited magical attacks except by monsters; physical attacks can be mitigated by DR, energy attacks by energy resistance and magic by SR; any spell or sla incurs an AoO; magical effects either allow a saving throw or there is no save but an attack roll is required. There has to be a foil, something to counter it. Despite Venger from the D&D cartoon, wizards don't shoot lasers out of their hands. Magic is either foiled by SR or by ER (energy resistance) and its either hit/miss or allows a save.

I've never seen the cartoon. I dont really see why it would matter if the 'attack' is magic based or not if its not supposed to be a spell, but whatever.

So, your Wizard has burned through all his spells and blasts and you've got a DM who is a 1st class butthole who gives you an encounter at night while you're resting. You need something, but nothing's handy. Well, burn a point of Constitution for those emergencies to 'power' another blast. It'll keep you alive long enough to run away or get behind your companions. Go back to resting and get your point of Con back the next day.

ech. I guess. that sounds like it really blows.

That's your attack. I'd strongly suggest keeping it as a standard action to prevent the abuse I've already outlined. Even at mid-level (10th, give or take), a combat master dipping into wizard for this effect alone could turn your game on its head.

A combat master dipping into wizard would give him the ability as a regular attack, usable a limited number of times per round, (IE, some limit based on his levels in wizard)

And then, you've got to think about the bad guys. If the PCs can do it, the bad guys can too. You get a gang of 10 or 15 goblin wizards cutting loose with those blasts and they will rip your party to shreds, muchless a rival group of mercenaries seeking to get the PCs off their backs or out of the way. And rogues or assassins with that power would be even more dangerous!

A dagger has the same base damage and range you list (a club or shortspear for my suggested damage). However, you're basically wanting unlimited ammo which is something no low level character gets. DMs usually stop tracking ammo (unless its magical) somewhere around 5th-8th level, but there isn't one that I know of that doesn't track it in your first few levels.

.. 10 foot range. its essentially a reach weapon with low damage.

And you're wanting to inflict damage with your Int instead of Str. There's nothing in 3.X core that lets you do anything but Str for damage. 4e is designed for that, 3.X is not. If you start shifting ability scores around for damage, everyone is going to want to choose something or come up with something that lets them use their highest stat. Damage output is the number one thing about Str and why its one of the most important stats. In 4e stats aren't as important, but that's the way that system is designed.

Swashbuckler gets Int to Damage. its a base class.

I AM changing more than just the wizard btw. I've got game mechanic changes, and THE classes are all being altered. Sorcerer will be similar to the pathfinder sorcerer, druid is kerricks druid, the cleric is being replaced by the priest and battlepriest, the swashbuckler is getting revised, the paladin doesnt exist, arcane spell failure is working off of skills, stats are being used differently (dex is rolled for all attacks to hit, unless you take the new equivalent to the old weapon finesse to use really big weapons with str to hit.) Cha is used for will saves, skills come from wis + int + 1/2 class bonus. There are more BAB categories (normally only has 1/2, 3/4, 1, now has 1/2 5/8 3/4 7/8 1 9/8, as well as intermediate saves.) There will be some version of the blue mage available as a base class (also with some short range non powerful at will attack, etc. Oh, and Weapon Finesse allows you to add dex to damage with finesse weapons now.

I dont like how 4e does alot of things, but I do agree that there should be at least something you can do any given round (with any character). and I like the idea of revising some of the mechanics that are stupid in 3e. dying sounds like one, drowning, arcane spell failure, falling damage, and some other things.

I can agree that as I first described it above, the power is too good, particularly with 3.5e dr. but you should look at it from the standpoint that I intend to do something similar to all the classes so they can always have at least some small thing they can do. and that its not meant to stand alone, but as part of a 3.5 revision (which is obviously not for profit). ! if everyones going to have some small thing they can always do (without the idea of per-encounter powers and all the stuff in 4e i dont like) then the issue isnt "the wizard is gonna have this and the sorc, bard, priest, and druid are getting screwed." cause everyone will have _something_ they can go thats small, if they arent a melee class.

 

[Hawken]

The fact that I assumed the use of 3.0 DR doesnt mean you need to insult me.

I'm not seeing where the insult was.

I may as well just ditch it and keep the cantrips at will. If I can acid splash at will as a spell, and the 'attack' I was trying to make is being turned into a spell anyways, whats the point in having it.

The guidelines I thought up for your power didn't change it to a spell, didn't provoke AoOs like a cantrip would, and still did basically all the things you wanted.

The goal is to have everyone have at least some small thing they can do at will. The fighter can swing a weapon at will. I was thinking for the non-fighters, they could have some other attack at will. the druid and priest would have ended up with some other at will attack, so would the battlepriest, but it would likely be advantageous to use a melee attack in that case..

Everyone does have some small thing they can do at will. That's where weapons come in. Or wands or rings or wondrous items. This sounds definitely very 4E. Are you trying to revise 3.5 rules or are you just wanting to convert 4E material to 3.X edition? Everyone's "at will" is to attack with their weapon unless they want to use a spell or class ability. You're just thinking that because the fighter attacks with a weapon no one else should have to. That's wrong. Everyone has a weapon, the fighter is just much better with the weapon while rogues have more skills and wizards and clerics have spells. A couple of buff spells and the cleric or druid are going to be attacking right alongside the fighter. The thief is going to be stabbing someone in the ass and the wizard is going to be lightning bolting or scorching raying things.

I've never seen the cartoon. I dont really see why it would matter if the 'attack' is magic based or not if its not supposed to be a spell, but whatever.

My point was, there are no at will anythings, spells or not. You've seemed to decide on adjusting your blast, however, the at will thing does alter game balance. And even if you do limit it to 4-5 shots per round, that's still 4 or 5 d4 + 60-100 damage unable to be blocked, avoided or resisted. Its very possible for fighter types to do that kind of damage, but typically that requires a specific weapon or specific enchantments on a weapon and the selection of specific feats, while the wizard doesn't need to invest in a weapon, enchantments, or feats.

ech. I guess. that sounds like it really blows.

As unpalatable as that sounds, that's one of the only mechanics I've seen for being able to use a spell or ability more than the daily limit, and typically a feat is needed to be able to do it.

A combat master dipping into wizard would give him the ability as a regular attack, usable a limited number of times per round, (IE, some limit based on his levels in wizard)

Maybe, but as long as its an attack and not an action, its ripe for abuse. Even going 50/50 in a caster and fighting class, you'll hit the problems I outlined. Why would anyone bother progressing in other classes when they could pick up that power, develop it, and then develop other skills to augment that blast!

.. 10 foot range. its essentially a reach weapon with low damage.

10' increment, 20' range--as you stated. Which can be increased by the Far Shot feat, and possibly other feats or even spells, with Weapon Focus and Point Blank Shot completely mitigating the range penalty. Low damage at face value, but it encourages players to max out their casting stat and find some other ways (as I outlined) to increase the damage even further.

Swashbuckler gets Int to Damage. its a base class.

Its a base class, not a core class like I mentioned. Also, it doesn't substitute Int for Str, it adds Int to the damage inflicted and operates just like a Rogue's Sneak Attack, it's very different from what you're inferring here.

I can agree that as I first described it above, the power is too good, particularly with 3.5e dr. but you should look at it from the standpoint that I intend to do something similar to all the classes so they can always have at least some small thing they can do. and that its not meant to stand alone, but as part of a 3.5 revision (which is obviously not for profit). ! if everyones going to have some small thing they can always do (without the idea of per-encounter powers and all the stuff in 4e i dont like) then the issue isnt "the wizard is gonna have this and the sorc, bard, priest, and druid are getting screwed." cause everyone will have _something_ they can go thats small, if they arent a melee class.

Yeah, but why do you have to give everyone "something" to do. If you give them a blast, that either stifles or eliminates their ability to creatively come up with something to do.

DM: Ok, Joe, it's your Wizard's turn.
Joe: I don't know what to do. None of my spells are good for this situation right now. I don't want to use my crossbow and I don't want to get close enough to attack with my staff.
DM: Use your blast.
Joe: Ok.
Fred: Hey, I wanna do that. Why can't my fighter get that. His stuff goes through everything.
Joe: Yeah, but it doesn't do a lot of damage.
Fred: If I had it, it would!
DM: That's why Joe's wizard has it.
Fred: He's good at spells, I'm good at fighting. He gets a blast, but what do I get?
DM: Nothing. You're a fighter. You don't need anything. All of your attacks are already at will.

See where I'm going with this?

Why does someone have to have an at will? Just because a wizard may not WANT to use a crossbow doesn't mean he deserves a blast. Just because he doesn't want to throw a dagger or handaxe or shoot a crossbow doesn't mean he doesn't have anything to do. It means he's choosing not to do something. That's not a reason for powers. And if he's not casting a spell or attacking, then he should be doing something else. Moving--get a double move, so he can cover 60' which should be just about anywhere in the combat. Skills--he could be Hiding, actively using Spot or Listen to check for hidden attackers or anyone else coming along. He could be making a Knowledge check to see if he can recall anything relevant about their current challenge that may help. There is a host of things he could be doing instead of just falling back on a blast.

You're giving away powers (like 4E does) and turning people into super heroes. If every 1st level person can do something like that, then villages won't need heroes to help them out, they just get together and go blast things away. And if something IS tough enough to scare an entire town of people that can blast (or something equivalent for non-wizards), then the PCs are definitely going to be outgunned.

Its a neat idea you've got, but it will totally mess up your game unless you just ignore little things like what I just mentioned. What town is going to be scared of goblin bandits when a dozen of them can get together and blow the bandits to hell? Bigger monster? No problem! Just get more villagers in on the action. A dozen bad guys aren't going to mess with a town of 500, or even 100, potential blasters that would be gunning for them if they pissed 'em off!

If your players are stumped and whine about not having anything to do, start giving them suggestions. Remind them of their weapons. If they don't want to use their weapons, fine. That's their choice, but its a choice--meaning they are choosing not to do something; not that they have nothing to do. If they don't like having weapons, tell them to invest in wands. A wand of 1st level magic missiles is going to do what your blast does without changing the power dynamic of your entire campaign world.

 

[Kerrick]

If it's a supernatural power, then it should be usable 1/round, at most. There are no supernatural powers (even monster powers) that are usable more than once per round - they're usable as a standard action. The rest of it is fine - they don't provoke AoOs, they aren't subject to SR, and don't require Concentration checks. It's basically what I did with the sorcerer - each heritage (bloodline) gets a bolt attack usable 3 + Cha bonus times per day.

I have to agree with Hawken, though - this is very close to an at-will power, and 3.5 isn't really set up to deal with those. The closest thing I can think of is a dragon's breath weapon (usable every 1d4 rounds) or a gaze attack (every round against a single target), though we do have the warlock and his eldritch blast. Also, you could easily fall into the trap hawken (and many people who have played 4E and warlocks) mentioned - the PC will blow his spells and just "eldritch blast!" over and over again.

On the practical side, wizards should generally not get within 10 feet of an enemy except in unusual situations (ambush, tight quarters, or someone grapples the wizard), because he'll get torn apart. I would change it to a single use/round blast, maybe 1d4+Int (just magical damage - there's no real need for a type), and a 30-foot range. Thus:

• It follows the guidelines for Su abilities;
  
• It enables the wizard to be useful, but doesn't allow him to deal out absurd amounts of damage
  
• You can't apply any feats to it, since it's a supernatural ability (well, okay, you could use Ability Focus, from the MM).

Oh, and being a Su power, there has to be a save for half damage - 10 + 1/2 level + Int or Cha. It can't be used as an attack (like what you want) in any case - there's nothing in any edition (that I've seen, at any rate) that allows you to do something like that.

 

[Sylrae]

hmm. actually, the power exists because my group of 7 wouldnt play a caster class besides cleric because they said they couldnt do anything useful before level 6 or so. I thought that was a bit of an exaggeration, but since they all agreed I figured maybe it warranted attention.

Their thoughts were : "Caster classes are really powerful at high levels, but we can't put up withthe crap we have to go through at low levels so we never get to where they become fun." And I figured maybe this was the problem. the straight wizard seemed to like this solution, and he didnt multiclass, so it was just a single 1d4 attack 1/round, that did low damage but worked against the low power demons i throw at them like goblins. lol. manes. but I guess maybe youre right...

But I'm thinking maybe an Su is a better Idea, yeah.

As I mentioned, the Sorc, Bard, Priest, and Druid would all have something similar.

 

[Hawken]

The laziness and lack of creativity of your players is their own fault and not a reason to merit such an overarching change to the game. Your situation does explain a lot though. If your players don't want to play any caster class before level 6, that is just a little too immature.

What 'crap' exactly are they having to put up with at levels 1-5? By non-cleric I'm assuming you mean bard, druid, sorcerer and wizard. Bards at any level have plenty of skills and special abilities they can use, druids have their special abilities, sorcerers have a lot of spells and wizards, admittedly 'plain' in comparison, have access to the largest selection of spells of any class. If they whine about not enough spells for a wizard, they get bonus for higher Int scores and could specialize in a school of magic, and maybe pick up a pearl of power or two.

I'm willing to bet they treat mid/high level casters as artillery pieces and choose their spells as if they were preparing for gladiatorial combat--one fight after another--and they want an 'at will' power because they want to blast something every round but don't want to 'waste' their spells doing it and don't want to resort to mundane weapons or invest some gp in wands to be able to do it. Maybe I'm off, but from what you came up with and what you mentioned about their play style, that seems pretty close to it.

Just because they all agreed and opposed you doesn't mean they weren't exaggerating. And even if they all were against you, remember, the DM is never outnumbered! If they don't want to play a non-cleric caster, then make them go through the adventure without it. If they are going to need magic, bring along a wizard or whatever as an NPC and have him charge them through the nose for his services!

Really, their attitude is just plain lazy. It seems like they would be happier with 4e which is throwing a lot of dice and blasting stuff! And they could play wizards that Magic Missile anything that breathes without worrying about 'wasting' spells since there aren't spells anymore, everything is a power.

 

[Sylrae]

The laziness and lack of creativity of your players is their own fault and not a reason to merit such an overarching change to the game. Your situation does explain a lot though. If your players don't want to play any caster class before level 6, that is just a little too immature.

What 'crap' exactly are they having to put up with at levels 1-5? By non-cleric I'm assuming you mean bard, druid, sorcerer and wizard. Bards at any level have plenty of skills and special abilities they can use, druids have their special abilities, sorcerers have a lot of spells and wizards, admittedly 'plain' in comparison, have access to the largest selection of spells of any class. If they whine about not enough spells for a wizard, they get bonus for higher Int scores and could specialize in a school of magic, and maybe pick up a pearl of power or two.

I'm willing to bet they treat mid/high level casters as artillery pieces and choose their spells as if they were preparing for gladiatorial combat--one fight after another--and they want an 'at will' power because they want to blast something every round but don't want to 'waste' their spells doing it and don't want to resort to mundane weapons or invest some gp in wands to be able to do it. Maybe I'm off, but from what you came up with and what you mentioned about their play style, that seems pretty close to it.

Just because they all agreed and opposed you doesn't mean they weren't exaggerating. And even if they all were against you, remember, the DM is never outnumbered! If they don't want to play a non-cleric caster, then make them go through the adventure without it. If they are going to need magic, bring along a wizard or whatever as an NPC and have him charge them through the nose for his services!

Really, their attitude is just plain lazy. It seems like they would be happier with 4e which is throwing a lot of dice and blasting stuff! And they could play wizards that Magic Missile anything that breathes without worrying about 'wasting' spells since there aren't spells anymore, everything is a power.

Well actually weve been playing since like 2004 and only one of them was willing to play a non-cleric caster. That would be my best friend: however we live in different cities now, and he is no longer part of the group.

I've recently gone through group member switches, and the new group I'm not sure about. maybe they wont be as bleh about casters as the last one.

 

[Kerrick]

hmm. actually, the power exists because my group of 7 wouldnt play a caster class besides cleric because they said they couldnt do anything useful before level 6 or so. I thought that was a bit of an exaggeration, but since they all agreed I figured maybe it warranted attention.

It's definitely an exaggeration. The biggest problem spellcasters (besides the druid, who actually has class abilities) have before L6 is that they're forced to budget their spells if they want to remain useful. Clerics, at least, can fall back on their combat ability, but mages are pretty well screwed with their low HD and BAB.

Their thoughts were : "Caster classes are really powerful at high levels, but we can't put up withthe crap we have to go through at low levels so we never get to where they become fun."

Your players need to exercise their brains a little. There are tons of useful spells at L1-3 which, combined with planning and tactics, can wipe out any encounter the DM wishes to toss at them (assuming it's balanced for their level). If I were you, I'd try throwing some humanoids using tactics at them. Show them what a low-level mage (a goblin shaman, e.g.) can do with grease, web, darkness, and a couple summon spells. If they see that it can be done, maybe they won't be so reticent to try it themselves.

 

[Sylrae]

It's definitely an exaggeration. The biggest problem spellcasters (besides the druid, who actually has class abilities) have before L6 is that they're forced to budget their spells if they want to remain useful. Clerics, at least, can fall back on their combat ability, but mages are pretty well screwed with their low HD and BAB.


Your players need to exercise their brains a little. There are tons of useful spells at L1-3 which, combined with planning and tactics, can wipe out any encounter the DM wishes to toss at them (assuming it's balanced for their level). If I were you, I'd try throwing some humanoids using tactics at them. Show them what a low-level mage (a goblin shaman, e.g.) can do with grease, web, darkness, and a couple summon spells. If they see that it can be done, maybe they won't be so reticent to try it themselves.

I think I just may have to try that. The group is recycling itself with new players over the past two weeks, and I may be starting up a new campaign this weekend (3 out of 5 players in the campaign that we Have been playing arent able to play anymore).

 

[StormingMarcus]

Is the strict vancian system necessary?
I mean, is this a retrocompatible revision or a simple revision (i hope)?
We can try a power point (psionic-like) system for magic, which retains a bit of compatibility but it's not as strict as the vancian-as-is.
The wizard should have then some kind of bonus when preparing spells from a book (or something like this).