Complete Mage - Is it out yet?

[Knight Otu]

Umm... yeah, they are. Hence the reason making an item fit in a non-standard space makes it more expensive.

In normal (non-epic, non-psionic) games, there are eleven item slots that can be filled and changed as money allows, and the possibility of slotless items. Contrast that to a maximum of thirteen feat slots for a wizard that can never be changed once chosen. Item slots are a limited, but not a receeding resource. Feats are limited and receeding. Money is close to a self-replenishing resource in D&D.

But, it's not better. One a rare occaision (almost completely at the whim of the DM) the spell does an average of an extra 6 points of damage. The feat can also do more damage the more potent spell held in reserve, so both are potentially more damaging under different circumstances. And Call Lightning doesn't effectively have a larger area. I was mistaken about it's area:

I said myself that the area is harder to use to good effect. And if you keep a higher spell slot in reserve, then call lightning is no longer the direct comparison that you wanted. That would be lightning storm, 5th level, deals 5d6 damage (or 5d10), and has a long range.

So far, the only way Call Lightning is better is at range, everything else is worse.

In some aspects, it is worse. In many aspects, it is a wash. In some aspects, it is better. And range is a critical aspect. The farther away you get from your enemies, the better. You have to nearly get into melee to use this feat.

Is it really any different if we compare Scortching Ray and some of these feats? 4d6 fire, ranged touch, no save, vs xd6 at will?

Scorching ray makes it even clearer that the spell is generally better. 2d6 fire, against a minimum of 4d6 fire, and upwards to three times 4d6 fire.

You mention bows and crossbows, but they can be sundered, they can be disarmed, they require ammunition

If the first two things happen, then the archer is too close to his enemies. And the feat also requires "ammution" - namely to keep a better spell uncast.

Putting a fighter and a wizard 20' apart and letting them slug it out always plays to the fighter, even in previous editions.

See? Range is important. A spellcaster doesn't like to get that close to his enemies, which this feat requires. It's nice against mini-threats, but absolutely horrible against anything that survives your first attack.

Comparing zappy feat damage output to mundane combat is apples and oranges, hence the reason I compared them to other spells.

That wasn't a comparison between spells and mundane damage, though - that's how the feat will play out in actual play. The feat is absolutely not a substitute for a spell of the level kept in reserve. Its either a mook-killer, or a finisher after you pounded the opponent with better-range and/or better-damage spells. At any other time, using the feat is no good.

my objections to these feats.

What are your objections, honestly? So far, I've only seen that you consider them "video-gamey," which really doesn't mean anything. You seem to equate it to a lack of resource management, or perhaps taking away the need of thinking. The faux-spell portions of the feats however require good thinking to make them effective, and only shift the resource management. The faux-spell portions are always weaker than a spell of the held level, after all.

 

[BryonD]

GandAlf didn't throw a lot of spells, no. But like I said, Gygax drew on multiple settings and threw them into a blender. At any rate, that is totally beside the point.

The point is whether or not D&D wizards were ever like the wizards in these settings.

d20Dwarf said D&D was not fantasy literature, and I said it was inspired by literature. Tell me again how I'm wrong about that because some aspect of the magic system doesn't reflect every wizard archetype in fantasy literature? Where did I say that arcane casters weren't "blaster mages"? Stop putting words in my mouth and read what I actually said.

OK, here is what you ACTUALLY said

So, now the paradigm is "Diablo III: The Tabletop"? That's exactly what I see the Warlock and these Reserve feats as doing; turning D&D into a simulation of a computer game.

Let's just say I'm less than pleased with the direction the guys at WoTC are taking the game as we head toward the eventuality of a 4th ed somewhere down the line.

It is very clear to me that you are saying that arcane casters are becoming something that they use to not be. And the blantant implication in your references to warlock and reserve feats, storm bolt in particular, is the "at will attack abilities" is the concern you are referencing. I'm not putting words in your mouth to say that moving from Gandalf to Diablo implies they were once not blaster mages.

Actual examples of how 1st ed or other editions were like Conan? Pretty much the whole concept of a fighter with a pile of hit points not being affected by his wounds, despite being hacked at by hordes of opponents? How about halflings being hobbits with the serial numbers filled off. Do you really mean to suggest that D&D wasn't inspired by Tolkein, Leiber, Howard, Vance, Anderson, Lovecraft, et al?

Dodge the point much?

Please show me an example of where arcane casters functioned in early systems in a way consistent with any of these authors other than the simple fire and forget Vance part.
You are claiming that arcane casters are becoming more like Diablo and yet you have still yet to provide a SINGLE example to support that claim. It is interesting that you have go around the block to talk about Conan's HP, but can't seem to speak to your own initial point.

What, exactly, are you trying to say here? Are you actually insinuating that D&D was NOT based on fantasy literature?

If I meant that I'd say that instead of saying exactly the opposite, as I already did.
(You wouldn't be trying to put words in my mouth now would you?)

What, exactly, I'm trying to say here is that the D&D wizard is no further from typical literature wizards than it ever has been before. And I further saying that your claim to the contrary remains completely unsupported by a single example of a EITHER how they were more like literature in the past OR how they have substantively changed.

 

[Psion]

Got my copy yesterday. So far pretty decent. I like that it focuses on concept building sort of PrCs instead of schticks you just plug into.

Not being a big fan of the warlock, a bit too much space was squandered on supporting it for my needs, but I am sure all the warlock lubbers should be pleased.

A few things I can see probably won't make it into my game. I really raised an eyebrow over the heritage feat that grant multiple spell like abilities.

I really don't see what all the bruhaha is over the reserve feats. Really, I think it has nice flavor and helps mages scale better. As noted in the behind the scenes, they represent powers quite a bit lower level. At low levels, after a mage runs out of spell slots (or are "holding back the big guns", they are basically useless, and fall back on the old light crossbow. I don't want my mage to be a crossbowman. I'd rather the mage pump a few crackling bolts of electricity out to support the combat.

It will add some endurance to mages, but I don't see that disrupting the flow of my games in a bad way.

 

[Psion]

I think the Abjurant Champion is a bit overpowered. I'm not sure why any elf wizard10 would ever bother to take Wiz11 now unless they have abjuration as prohibited. (Yeah, combat casting is over-rated, but for this class I'll live with it)

Yeah, it seems like they assume you'd take a few combatant levels, but you really don't need to. Me, I see it as a nice mix-in or follow-on class for an eldritch knight.

 

[Psion]

That's sidestepping the issue somewhat. The comparison was: why take a spell that does x for a limited number of times per day, when you can take a feat and do it all day long? Why not a Reserve feat that let a cleric heal 1d8/level of a reserved Conjuration[Healing] spell at will? Would everyone still think this was balanced?

No, because that's different. That would be a substantial boon to party resources. The whole party could be healed after every fight with no expendiature of the healer's spell slots.

"Weak but enduring combat resources" as reserve feats seem to be largely balanced by opportunity cost. Sure, it's nice to pump out effects during combat and not lose any resources over it. But it will take you multiple rounds to do as much damage with fiery bursts as you could do with the one fireball you have in reserve to power them. In the time that is happening, your party (and potentially you) are taking damage from the foes you haven't slain because of it.

 

[Kaodi]

Hmmm...

I wonder what would happen if you combined a druid with Aquatic Breath, Borne Aloft, Clutch of Earth, Drowning Glance, Fiery Burst, Hurricane Breath, Summon Elemental and Wind Guided Arrows... Muahaha... hahahaha... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Well, you couldn't have *ALL* of those feats, but as long as you always kept one of your highest level spell slots open, I imagine, it might, just might, be possible to have the benefit of every single one of those feats from being able to spontaneously cast summon natures ally.

 

[Rolzup]

That's sidestepping the issue somewhat. The comparison was: why take a spell that does x for a limited number of times per day, when you can take a feat and do it all day long? Why not a Reserve feat that let a cleric heal 1d8/level of a reserved Conjuration[Healing] spell at will? Would everyone still think this was balanced? Charm effect at will? Invisibility? Remove Disease? Dispel Magic? There are monsters have hefty LA modifiers for at will abilities that are far less useful than this.

Charm? Invisiblity? Dispel Magic? All available to the Warlock, albeit with limitations.

(Charm, for example, can only have one subject at a time. If you Charm someone else, your previous victim is freed.)

Healing? Play a Binder, Bind Buer, and you can heal 1d8+level damage all day long. Only once every five rounds, mind, but still. Alternatively, he can heal one point as a astandard action every single turn. Same Vestige also renders everyone within 30' of the Binder immune to poison abd disease as long as they *remain* within 30'. Doesn't cure 'em, but suppresses the effects of their illness.

And I have no problem at all with any of these abilities.

I like seeing the paradigm change. It's a far cry from AD&D, where your magic-user had a grand total of one spell/day at first level. If recource management falls by the wayside entirely, I shan't mourn it.

 

[Particle_Man]

I wonder what would happen if you combined a druid with Aquatic Breath, Borne Aloft, Clutch of Earth, Drowning Glance, Fiery Burst, Hurricane Breath, Summon Elemental and Wind Guided Arrows... Muahaha... hahahaha... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Well, you couldn't have *ALL* of those feats, but as long as you always kept one of your highest level spell slots open, I imagine, it might, just might, be possible to have the benefit of every single one of those feats from being able to spontaneously cast summon natures ally.

Not quite. some of the reserve feats require you to hold back a high level "electricity" spell, while others require you to hold back a "teleportation" spell, while others require you to hold back a "polymorph" spell, etc. I think you might be able to "link" two or three feats to the same uncast spell, but that is about it.

Now if the druid were a spontaneous caster, that might be a different story...

 

[Psion]

A snippet of flavor text, of all things, has caught my ire.

The description of a wizard preparing a spell on page 34 sounds a bit too much like the outdated concept of "memorizing" a spell.

 

[Twowolves]

The point is whether or not D&D wizards were ever like the wizards in these settings.

No, you are misquoting me. d20dwarf said that D&D wasn't literature. I said it was based on literature. Peroid. You asked for an example of how D&D was like Conan or LotR. Not once was the specifics of the magic system involved in this particular part of the thread. So now your point is that the original magic system wasn't like the magic seen in Howard or Tolkien's books, when everyone already said it came from Jack Vance? So what? The original magic system was more like one of the sources of inspiration than any of the others. The 1st ed ranger was Aragorn, period, straight down to the fact that they could use crsytal balls, aka pallantirs. Regenerating, fire-loathing trolls came straight from Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions". I have clearly shown how 1st ed D&D was based on the works of a handful of authors, and that's what you asked for. Next time ask for examples of how the magic system is the same, instead how the entire game is the same.

OK, here is what you ACTUALLY said

So, now the paradigm is "Diablo III: The Tabletop"? That's exactly what I see the Warlock and these Reserve feats as doing; turning D&D into a simulation of a computer game.

Let's just say I'm less than pleased with the direction the guys at WoTC are taking the game as we head toward the eventuality of a 4th ed somewhere down the line.

It is very clear to me that you are saying that arcane casters are becoming something that they use to not be. And the blantant implication in your references to warlock and reserve feats, storm bolt in particular, is the "at will attack abilities" is the concern you are referencing. I'm not putting words in your mouth to say that moving from Gandalf to Diablo implies they were once not blaster mages.

Let me make it extra special clear to you. I think these feats take the hard decision making out of the class, not that they make blasters into better blasters. There is no tough decision between casting Call Lighting or using the Stormbolt feat, except certain specific situations. I never even said anything about D&D wizards being like Gandalf, that IS putting words in my mouth.

Once again, making the blasters able to blast away at will without losing out on their built in per day limits WILL reduce the ammount of resource management in the game now. That makes the game more like Gauntlet than like D&D. To me it's the same as making a feat in the Point Blank Shot chain that lets the user have infinate arrows, or feats that let you survive without breathing or eating.

Dodge the point much?

No, actually, I don't. But hey, thanks for the attitude.

Please show me an example of where arcane casters functioned in early systems in a way consistent with any of these authors other than the simple fire and forget Vance part.

Since he lifted the magic system straight from Vance, why would anyone have to show any other examples than Vance himself?

You are claiming that arcane casters are becoming more like Diablo and yet you have still yet to provide a SINGLE example to support that claim.

How about the fact that instead of casting a spell, they can just not cast it and have the ability to zap something all day long. Don't like the diablo analogy? Then how about Gauntlet. Zap zap zap little balls of fire as fast as you can hit the button. The Wizard in Gauntlet had to "resource manage" his nuke-the-board Magic Potions, and now that's pretty close to what D&D blasters will be like in the future, zap zap zap until the fit hits the shan and they actually cast a spell.

It is interesting that you have go around the block to talk about Conan's HP, but can't seem to speak to your own initial point.

I was commenting on the fact that D&D as a whole did indeed have it's roots in fantasy literature. You asked for examples of such. You didn't ask for magic system examples. I gave you examples, and I've given you more. Shall I pick out the original cleric spell list and show you chaper and verse in the Bible that inspired these things? The Bible doesn't have prophets zapping people all day long, does that mean it's any less of a source of inspiration for the game?

What, exactly, I'm trying to say here is that the D&D wizard is no further from typical literature wizards than it ever has been before. And I further saying that your claim to the contrary remains completely unsupported by a single example of a EITHER how they were more like literature in the past OR how they have substantively changed.

Not a single example, except the only one that matters: Vancian magic. The magic system came straight from there, fire'n'forget. Now, they fire a little bit all day long, and don't have to forget. Sounds like a substantial change to me.