Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 4716897" data-attributes="member: 59082">Is it just me or do wizards suck? I have been underwhelmed with their combat utility--the burst spells are nice, but the max HP damage seems rather small, especially compared to strikers. Then you have a 7th level spell like Lightning Bolt only being worth 2d6 + INT...sounds more like Static Electricity That Kinda Hurts a Bit. But seriously, why is a major attack spell of a 7th level wizard no better--in some sense, worse--than 1st level attack powers of strikers? Or am I just missing something? If it isn't just me, has anyone house-ruled this? For example, attack spells cause +1HP of damage per caster level, or +d6 per three levels. Or there are Heroic, Paragon, and Epic tier versions of different spells, so that Fireball does 3d6 from a Heroic caster, 6d6 from a Paragon caster, and 9d6 from an Epic caster. Of course the problem with this last one is that it makes the difference between a 10th and 11th (or 20th and 21st) level character quite striking.My sense is that the &quot;power curve&quot; in 4ed is much more gradual in previous editions; while 1st level characters are much more powerful in 4th edition, 30th level characters are much less--it is almost as if the curve is, in 1ed equivalencies, 3rd to 15th. I kind of like this (it is more realistic, after all), except for the fact that the level scale is not open ended and 30th level is the highest you can go--and it just isn't that powerful anymore.On a side note, are there any rules for multiple attacks in 4ed? The rogue in the party I've been DMing for a few sessions has been attacking twice per round and I just assumed he had some feat for it, but upon investigation I couldn't find anything.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 4716897, member: 59082"] Is it just me or do wizards suck? I have been underwhelmed with their combat utility--the burst spells are nice, but the max HP damage seems rather small, especially compared to strikers. Then you have a 7th level spell like Lightning Bolt only being worth 2d6 + INT...sounds more like Static Electricity That Kinda Hurts a Bit. But seriously, why is a major attack spell of a 7th level wizard no better--in some sense, worse--than 1st level attack powers of strikers? Or am I just missing something? If it isn't just me, has anyone house-ruled this? For example, attack spells cause +1HP of damage per caster level, or +d6 per three levels. Or there are Heroic, Paragon, and Epic tier versions of different spells, so that Fireball does 3d6 from a Heroic caster, 6d6 from a Paragon caster, and 9d6 from an Epic caster. Of course the problem with this last one is that it makes the difference between a 10th and 11th (or 20th and 21st) level character quite striking. My sense is that the "power curve" in 4ed is much more gradual in previous editions; while 1st level characters are much more powerful in 4th edition, 30th level characters are much less--it is almost as if the curve is, in 1ed equivalencies, 3rd to 15th. I kind of like this (it is more realistic, after all), except for the fact that the level scale is not open ended and 30th level is the highest you can go--and it just isn't that powerful anymore. On a side note, are there any rules for multiple attacks in 4ed? The rogue in the party I've been DMing for a few sessions has been attacking twice per round and I just assumed he had some feat for it, but upon investigation I couldn't find anything. [/QUOTE]

Verification