A side note-
Here's why the wizard changed:
Damage per attack equals damage per target hit times number of targets hit.
Most characters hit one target at a time. But a wizard often hits multiple targets.
3e balanced the game on the assumption that a wizard would "spike" at times, and deal very high damage, while dealing lower damage at other times. This meant that the wizard was sort of an "ace in the hole" for the party- he was sub par at combat most fights, but could rock one or two per day. So that equation wasn't very important in 3e- if a wizard blasted ten foes with an attack even more powerful than the one launched by a fighter against a single foe, that was ok because the wizard couldn't do it very often, and the fighter could attack all the time.
That approach had positives and negatives. Positives were that it was fun to be the ace in the hole guy when it was time to blow stuff up. Negatives were that this sort of power balance was fragile and vulnerable to a lot of manipulation.
4e doesn't balance on a "balance across the course of a day" regime. Its balance is more round by round.
This means that a wizard who blasts multiple foes has to do lower damage per target than a fighter, or else he exponentially surpasses the fighter's damage as the number of targets increases.
The wizard's damage is still high, overall. Just recently our party wizard launched her first fireball- it did 17 damage per hit (3d6+7, rolled a 10, as close to average as you can roll without rolling a 3.5). But it hit three enemies and missed a fourth, for a net total of 59 damage. This was the most damaging single attack launched by any character in our entire campaign, and it didn't involve critical hits or high rolls.
If you're desire is for wizards who use mighty spells to devastate armies, well, you probably want 3.5s power distribution. On an aesthetic level, this one is very different. But if your overall concern is for whether wizards are powerful and can do lots of damage, believe me, they can. The math is on their side.
Here's why the wizard changed:
Damage per attack equals damage per target hit times number of targets hit.
Most characters hit one target at a time. But a wizard often hits multiple targets.
3e balanced the game on the assumption that a wizard would "spike" at times, and deal very high damage, while dealing lower damage at other times. This meant that the wizard was sort of an "ace in the hole" for the party- he was sub par at combat most fights, but could rock one or two per day. So that equation wasn't very important in 3e- if a wizard blasted ten foes with an attack even more powerful than the one launched by a fighter against a single foe, that was ok because the wizard couldn't do it very often, and the fighter could attack all the time.
That approach had positives and negatives. Positives were that it was fun to be the ace in the hole guy when it was time to blow stuff up. Negatives were that this sort of power balance was fragile and vulnerable to a lot of manipulation.
4e doesn't balance on a "balance across the course of a day" regime. Its balance is more round by round.
This means that a wizard who blasts multiple foes has to do lower damage per target than a fighter, or else he exponentially surpasses the fighter's damage as the number of targets increases.
The wizard's damage is still high, overall. Just recently our party wizard launched her first fireball- it did 17 damage per hit (3d6+7, rolled a 10, as close to average as you can roll without rolling a 3.5). But it hit three enemies and missed a fourth, for a net total of 59 damage. This was the most damaging single attack launched by any character in our entire campaign, and it didn't involve critical hits or high rolls.
If you're desire is for wizards who use mighty spells to devastate armies, well, you probably want 3.5s power distribution. On an aesthetic level, this one is very different. But if your overall concern is for whether wizards are powerful and can do lots of damage, believe me, they can. The math is on their side.
