Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Milambus" data-source="post: 4513357" data-attributes="member: 74238">Awesome can be a function of interesting and versatility, but thats nitpicking so lets move on.See this is where your argument always falls apart for me.&nbsp; The Wizard can still do many other things than just damage.&nbsp; In fact I would say that he is supposed to do other things than just pure damage.It seems like if a spell does some damage then you completely dismiss it as just a &quot;damage&quot; spell.&nbsp; While I look at the spell and see the other cool effects it may do in addition to the damage.&nbsp; For many powers the damage is a secondary effect in my mind.&nbsp; &quot;Summon a big wall of fire... oh and do some damage if things get close to it.&quot;How many spells did you normally have a level 1 in 3.x?&nbsp; At level 5?&nbsp; (I use those levels since they are ones you have used as a comparison before.)Maybe its just me, but I haven't seen 4e being any more repetitive than 3.x was.&nbsp; Yes, the wizard can no longer learn an unlimited number of spells now.&nbsp; I agree with you there.&nbsp; But he does learn more than any other class, and can take a feat to learn even more.&nbsp; I personally wouldn't have a problem with a house rule allowing Wizards to be able to have all of the Wizards spells in their spellbook, and just being able to memorize the normal amount per day.However, one of the main design goals for 4e is to streamline play.&nbsp; Making rounds go faster and making it so that all of the players were equally involved.&nbsp; At higher levels of 3.x a round could be:Fighter: Umm, I attack the guy in front of me.&nbsp; *rolls dice*&nbsp; (30 seconds elapsed)Rogue: I sneak up on that guy.&nbsp; *rolls dice*&nbsp; Now I stab him!&nbsp;&nbsp; *rolls dice*&nbsp; (60 seconds elapsed)Monk: I run up to that guy and Flurry of Blows for 80 attacks! *rolls many dice* (120 seconds elapsed)Cleric: I heal the fighter... again.&nbsp; *rolls dice* (30 seconds elapsed)Wizard: Well, I could use this spell... no, wait I could use this spell... no this one is really only good against things that are flying... ok, how about this... (eventually the wizard decides on a spell, 5 mins elapsed)DM: Fighter its your turn.Fighter: ZzzzzDM: *throws something at Fighter*(Full disclosure, monks are my favorite class which is why he makes an appearance here.&nbsp; In 4e, his place would be taken by a Ranger using the the new quarterstaff feat from the Gladiator article from this months Dragon.)And I say that he still has options, but yes they have been reduced.&nbsp; Part of that is that we are early into the release of 4e.&nbsp; More Spells will come out for a Wizard.&nbsp; In fact, have you looked at the dragon article a few months back that had new Wizard spells?I have to wonder if it was the encounters that you were facing that forced each of them of them to be solved in the same way.&nbsp; If each encounter is &quot;hit this nail&quot;, then all powers look like hammers?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Milambus, post: 4513357, member: 74238"] Awesome can be a function of interesting and versatility, but thats nitpicking so lets move on. See this is where your argument always falls apart for me. The Wizard can still do many other things than just damage. In fact I would say that he is [B]supposed[/B] to do other things than just pure damage. It seems like if a spell does some damage then you completely dismiss it as just a "damage" spell. While I look at the spell and see the other cool effects it may do in addition to the damage. For many powers the damage is a secondary effect in my mind. "Summon a big wall of fire... oh and do some damage if things get close to it." How many spells did you normally have a level 1 in 3.x? At level 5? (I use those levels since they are ones you have used as a comparison before.) Maybe its just me, but I haven't seen 4e being any more repetitive than 3.x was. Yes, the wizard can no longer learn an unlimited number of spells now. I agree with you there. But he does learn more than any other class, and can take a feat to learn even more. I personally wouldn't have a problem with a house rule allowing Wizards to be able to have all of the Wizards spells in their spellbook, and just being able to memorize the normal amount per day. However, one of the main design goals for 4e is to streamline play. Making rounds go faster and making it so that all of the players were equally involved. At higher levels of 3.x a round could be: Fighter: Umm, I attack the guy in front of me. *rolls dice* (30 seconds elapsed) Rogue: I sneak up on that guy. *rolls dice* Now I stab him! *rolls dice* (60 seconds elapsed) Monk: I run up to that guy and Flurry of Blows for 80 attacks! *rolls many dice* (120 seconds elapsed) Cleric: I heal the fighter... again. *rolls dice* (30 seconds elapsed) Wizard: Well, I could use this spell... no, wait I could use this spell... no this one is really only good against things that are flying... ok, how about this... (eventually the wizard decides on a spell, 5 mins elapsed) DM: Fighter its your turn. Fighter: Zzzzz DM: *throws something at Fighter* (Full disclosure, monks are my favorite class which is why he makes an appearance here. In 4e, his place would be taken by a Ranger using the the new quarterstaff feat from the Gladiator article from this months Dragon.) And I say that he still has options, but yes they have been reduced. Part of that is that we are early into the release of 4e. More Spells will come out for a Wizard. In fact, have you looked at the dragon article a few months back that had new Wizard spells? I have to wonder if it was the encounters that you were facing that forced each of them of them to be solved in the same way. If each encounter is "hit this nail", then all powers look like hammers? [/QUOTE]

Verification