Displacement - a bit wussy eh? Mirror image too...

[Dausuul]

A reroll is equally powerful regardless of character level.

Very true. One thing we've gotten used to with 3.5 is the idea that spell effectiveness increases level by level, relative to opponents at the same level. At 3rd level, an opponent who fails a Fort save against your spell is blinded; at 13th level, an opponent who fails a Fort save against your spell drops dead.

This seems natural at first, and helps create the sense of progress as you gain levels--you're not just increasing your numbers, you're doing cooler stuff. Unfortunately, it also inevitably leads to the high-level uber-wizard... because the wizard is getting more and more powerful relative to his opponents at each level. Ten or twelve levels of that and you can't help but be overpowered.

(It's worth noting that editions before 3E had a solution to this problem. All saving throws were fixed difficulty--whether you were a 1st-level wizard or a 20th-level one, it didn't get any harder to save against your spells. High-level monsters had better saving throws, so the increased effect was compensated for by the decreased chance of success. Unfortunately, this makes the game increasingly "swingy" at high levels and has verisimilitude issues.)

4th Edition has clearly recognized this. Consequently, I don't think we're going to see much of the old "bigger status effect" approach to magic. Spells will do more damage, commensurate with monsters' higher hit points, but if a 1st-level spell dazes one monster for one round, you won't see a 20th-level spell that dazes ten monsters for ten rounds. The sense of progress will largely result from increased tactical options--fly and the like.

 

[Wormwood]

You're seeing a symptom of why I wouldn't touch 4E with a 10-foot pole.

The spells in 3E took up, what, half the PHB? And those spells have been refined and playtested over literally 30+ years. You can pick out lots of specific language that was copy-and-pasted from 1E all the way through to 3E, with desired refinements.

And that's why I won't touch 3e with a Reach 2 pole.

I'd rather see spells completely redesigned with the new system in mind rather that shoehorned 'as is' into 4e because they kindasorta worked in previous systems.

 

[Cadfan]

Dausuul- Exactly.

My thoughts in short-

I'd use Displacement. I'd definitely use it. Why? Because monsters have nasty per encounter abilities, and Displacement is per encounter. I'd wait for an enemy to do something really, really nasty, and then I'd toss Displacement on the target of the attack. If a particularly nasty enemy is hitting about half the time, that means Displacement gives me a 50% chance of negating the best ability of each big monster I meet.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Mirror Image was incredibly powerful for its spell tier.

It pretty much needed the nerf.

I agree. What a lot of people seem to be forgetting about Mirror Image and Minor Retcon... er, "Displacement" is that they're Utility spells, and thus siloed differently from normal encounter spells. You never have to pick between Mirror Image and Fireball.

This wasn't the case in 3.5, where all the combat "utility" spells had to be ridiculously overpowered to stand a chance of competing with Fireball and other nuking spells.

 

[satori01]

Isn't the 3.X wizard considered the most powerful class? Isn't the wizard considered so powerful he rendered the fighter and rouge useless? Wasn't there people who believed that the wizard needed to be nerfed?

Now that wizards are getting nerfed, people are complaining that it's a bad thing? Did you perfer the 3.X wizard?

Simply put the Wizard is not the most powerful class. In 1e & 2e, yes...once you got past low levels. In 3.5 the Meeleist is the the sure fire way to deal damage. At high levels the high saves of the monsters negates damage. The thing about 3.5 Wizards, and the Wizard class in general is the range of powers, that with good forethought can change a battle. The use of Dimensional Anchor to stop a key advesary from retreating....or casting Mass Fly, etc.

I have severe doubts about the Magic system, I have severe doubts about the utility aspect of magic. For alot of players I suspect if the magic does not feel right...people will not play.

 

[Cactot]

the power gamer in me sheds a tear at the plight of the wizard/druid/cleric, but every other fiber of my being rejoices. The power level of the 4e wizards will still be extremely competitive, unlike most melee classes that have suffered for the past 8 years under the reign of 3/3.5e. This might actually allow EVERYBODY to have fun... crazy idea eh? Being the fountain of "RealUltimatePower" was awesome for a time, but that time has come to an end and its time to share the fun with the rest of the classes.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

For alot of players I suspect if the magic does not feel right...people will not play.

Example number 1 here, changes to the magic system are the primary reason I want nothing to do with 4e. The magic just doesn't feel like D&D to me, in any other system I would've accepted it because it's not a BAD system, but to me it's not D&D magic

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Dausuul- Exactly.

My thoughts in short-

I'd use Displacement. I'd definitely use it. Why? Because monsters have nasty per encounter abilities, and Displacement is per encounter. I'd wait for an enemy to do something really, really nasty, and then I'd toss Displacement on the target of the attack. If a particularly nasty enemy is hitting about half the time, that means Displacement gives me a 50% chance of negating the best ability of each big monster I meet.

Another easy use is as a "critical negator." First time a monster criticals a party member, make it reroll. There's a 95% chance of negating it.

Displacement is a really handy power IMO.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Also the wizard's shtick was versatility and status effects. Fighters didn't just keep up they OWNED damage dealing at higher levels. I've played in campaigns to 25 and DMed to 39. By the time fighters in our 3e campaigns hit level 20 they could easily make 300 damage a round at the high end they could top 1000 without overspecializing.

 

[Dragonblade]

Also the wizard's shtick was versatility and status effects. Fighters didn't just keep up they OWNED damage dealing at higher levels. I've played in campaigns to 25 and DMed to 39. By the time fighters in our 3e campaigns hit level 20 they could easily make 300 damage a round at the high end they could top 1000 without overspecializing.

I don't think 1000 hitpoints of damage a round from a fighter is possible, even at 39th level. How would that be done?

I have played in a 40 level game, and if you weren't a caster you were pretty much dead.