If the mage spells are being weakened, what compensation is being given to the mage?

[DreamChaser]

My experience with No Magic systems is ... unique?

I have run campaigns in which disaster overtook the party in the form of repeated Fireballs, mass area attacks, breath weapons, and the like, which destroyed all (or nearly all) of the magical items and spellbooks possessed by the party.
Now, this could have led to some interesting play, but it invariably led to the ENTIRE group threatening to quit if said disaster was not withdrawn by the DM.
I would daresay players seem to become addicted to their magic items!

This is not a no magic game. This is having characters who have come to be used to magic and taking it away. If it is known to be a way from the gate, there is no such problem.

I have played 0 magic games, where no one had any magic of any kind. In one of them, we still faught magical creatures with no concern about whether it was fair. The GM was not good at what he was doing. We rebelled. It wasn't the lack of magic that bothered us it was the lack of magic coupled with the need for it.

In games where there was simply no magic (or so very little that it didn't matter) we still had fun. Our usual "blow it up wizard" chose something else--a rogue I think--to play. We didn't play for long because we enjoy the fantasy aspects that magic gives.

Based on the changes being made, that is how it sounds like it will be.
Again, I must wonder if that is the way WOTC wishes it to be ...

No, based upon the small number of changes you have seen and heard of, this is how you think that it will be. Saying "it sounds like it will be" presumes to speak for more than you and the 3 other people in this thread who believe that the wizard's life is over now.

Now lets a couple of things you forgot to take into account in the above post:

1) we have no idea how many other spells are being added and what their purpose is. There could be a dozen new support spells. We (and thus you) simply don't know.

2) wizards (and sorcerers, but it applies less to them) make scrolls and wizards make wands. With a bit of preparation, a wizard need never run out of any spell that he knows (unless you go and nuke her equipment). If a wizard doesn't want to cast bull's strength all day, then that's fine. She can make a wand of bull's strength and have 50 uses of it without needing to memorize it ever again.

DC

 

[Sejs]

I have run campaigns in which disaster overtook the party in the form of repeated Fireballs, mass area attacks, breath weapons, and the like, which destroyed all (or nearly all) of the magical items and spellbooks possessed by the party.
Now, this could have led to some interesting play, but it invariably led to the ENTIRE group threatening to quit if said disaster was not withdrawn by the DM.
I would daresay players seem to become addicted to their magic items!

It strongly depends on 2 things. One: did you tell your players AHEAD of time that it would be a low magic game, or was this just a random happening in a normal campaign? Two: this sort of surgical removing of magic REALLY penalizes some players - those who play characters whom magic is their primary focus. If there's 4 PCs; a Fighter, a Rogue, a Wizard and a Cleric and you totally destroy all magic items, spellbooks, holy symbols, etc - anything even remotely connected with magic.. 2 characters are reasonably unaffected (Fighter, Rogue), and 2 are neutered (Cleric, Wizard) - one of which is literally WORTHLESS (wizard). The wizard wouldn't even have the luxury of a decent BA, HP, and saves. Without magic, the wizard is just a scrawney nerd waiting to be victimized.

If there were a similar thing that happened, that made everyone in the world into incorporeal ghosts it would be just as bad. Instead the physical classes would be useless, and the magicians would still be okay.

It's not that they're addicted to their magic items, it's that you show yourself as willing to totally ruin the fun of players on a lark, just as a 'what if'. Frankly, I wouldn't play under a GM that did that either. I'd tell them in no uncertain terms - straighten your out, or find yourself some new players. The game is supposed to be fun for everyone, remember?

 

[Deadguy]

With a surprising number of changes affecting spells, and the promise of new spells too, I suspect that what we'll really see is the evlution of a new set of sorcerer/wizard constructions and tactics to maximise their effectiveness. Then again, we went through that with the release of Third Edition and came through okay. The only people with real complaint will be those whose characters are being converted over from 3.0 to 3.5. They may have to rely on a kind DM to let them rebuild themselves to account for changes. Otherwise, we ought to treat it as a whole new ballgame. And actually I am looking forward to that!

As an aside, the steady diminution of power in the 'save-or-die' spells department (not a bad thing I tend to believe personally) does potentially allow a further rebalancing of magic-using versus non-magic-using classes. Not, I hasten to add, in 3.5, but potentially in 4.0, we might see spellcasters with more uncertain magic (by that I mean with less certainty of being effective), but balanced by being more prevalent. In other words, it might be possible to build a spellcaster who has rather more spells available every day in return for them being less likely to hit home. That moves the spellcaster to be more like the fighter combatant - who can keep fighting all day, but has no way of knowing that any given blow will be damaging. It would be a significant change, but one thing that always struck me about D&D spellcasters was the way that they had to hoard their spells each day, never knowing if that extra spell now was a lifesave, or would later condemn the party to defeat for its lack. It's just a thought, and not a well though out one either...

 

[Brown Jenkin]

No, based upon the small number of changes you have seen and heard of, this is how you think that it will be. Saying "it sounds like it will be" presumes to speak for more than you and the 3 other people in this thread who believe that the wizard's life is over now.

Now lets a couple of things you forgot to take into account in the above post:

1) we have no idea how many other spells are being added and what their purpose is. There could be a dozen new support spells. We (and thus you) simply don't know.

2) wizards (and sorcerers, but it applies less to them) make scrolls and wizards make wands. With a bit of preparation, a wizard need never run out of any spell that he knows (unless you go and nuke her equipment). If a wizard doesn't want to cast bull's strength all day, then that's fine. She can make a wand of bull's strength and have 50 uses of it without needing to memorize it ever again.

DC

I've stayed out of this discussion until now in part because I feel that there is a hostile attitude towards those who do not like the changes that we have seen already. There are more than 3 other people who have a problem with the new system. Hopefully for WotC we will come around when we see everything or that they will bring in more people than they lose. I too fall into the wizard is being neutered camp and I don't even play a wizard.

As for the points not being taken into account.

1. All the spell changes we have seen are reductions in spell power, including the new spells we have seen. If there are new spells being added why haven't they released at least one to calm the emotions that people feel. You may be right that there will be good new spells, but so far there have been 0 indications that this is the case. I will be happy if they prove me wrong.

2. Making wands or scrolls of the new buff spells are just as useless as the spells themselves. The problem is that they are only good if cast at the beginning of combat and given the choice of spending 3 rounds buffing (by spell, scroll, or wand) or 3 rounds doing something useful like casting fireballs (or any other damage spell) buffing will rarely be chosen. If your going to craft a wand, create a wand of fireballs rather than bull's strength, it will be more usefull.

 

[Kalanyr]

2) wizards (and sorcerers, but it applies less to them) make scrolls and wizards make wands. With a bit of preparation, a wizard need never run out of any spell that he knows (unless you go and nuke her equipment). If a wizard doesn't want to cast bull's strength all day, then that's fine. She can make a wand of bull's strength and have 50 uses of it without needing to memorize it ever again.

DC

Why do people insist on saying this? The Wand thing is like saying a fighter can take Great Cleave to mow down foes, its a maybe, not all wizards have Craft Wands. Not to mention this costs XP! as well as gold. Wizards who spend as much time making wands as some people seem to think they should would be 15th level in a 20th level game and broke. Not to mention have DMs who conveniently give them enough downtime to do this. The scrolls are more viable but it still costs XP. Just because a wizard can make magic items doesn't mean they are all going to choose to, the drain on XP and gold can just be way to much sometimes, especially when the party fighter seems to expect you to deck them out in magic gear for cost price ignoring the horrendous amount of XP loss you through in the process.

 

[ForceUser]

Why do people insist on saying this?

Because it's true.

The Wand thing is like saying a fighter can take Great Cleave to mow down foes, its a maybe, not all wizards have Craft Wands. Not to mention this costs XP! as well as gold. Wizards who spend as much time making wands as some people seem to think they should would be 15th level in a 20th level game and broke.

A wizard or sorcerer who doesn't take at least one item creation feat is really shorting his potential. The easiest, and cheapest, way to find the magic item you need is to make it yourself. I've played 3E for years now and I can tell you, it takes a lot of time to burn through a single 50-charge item. The XP loss is so small as to be inconsequential as long as you just make what you need and don't turn yourself into an assembly line.

Not to mention have DMs who conveniently give them enough downtime to do this.

If your DM doesn't give you down time to make items and scribe scrolls, he's not running standard D&D. I'm not saying that's bad, but a good DM will have to compensate on the back end for a party with less-than-level-appropriate magic items, and that's a lot of work.

The scrolls are more viable but it still costs XP.

I have a 12th-level cleric who's had Scribe Scroll since 1st level and I have found the XP cost to be, as I said, inconsequential as long as you don't overdo it. Just make what you need.

Just because a wizard can make magic items doesn't mean they are all going to choose to, the drain on XP and gold can just be way to much sometimes, especially when the party fighter seems to expect you to deck them out in magic gear for cost price ignoring the horrendous amount of XP loss you through in the process.

I hear you. Yep, just because you have a craft feat your buddies shouldn't expect you to crank out everything at cost all the time. If you don't want to do it for them, don't. The druid in the campaign with my 12th-level cleric charges cost+ a percentage for each item, representing an exchange of time and XP for cash. Seems fair to me.

 

[William Ronald]

Edena_of_Neith wrote:
As for me, my characters have suffered disastrous losses of magic items and spellbooks.
It got so bad my characters finally gave up wearing clothing ... clothing was the first thing that went (up in smoke, typically) when the fireball, breath weapon, or area effect attack hit.

Hmm, maybe the nude characters quickly learned to overcome their embarassment. Or became much more intimate with each other than most adventuring parties.

Okay, let me be slightly serious. I think the new rules will focus less on bonuses from magic items and spells and more on bonuses from inherent ability scores, class abilities, and feats. If this is accurate (I have not seen the new books), this is a slight return towards the philosophy of previous editions.

I think that the guiding philosophy of 3.0 was stated to be options. I think some of the options still exist, but are less attractive. If I am playing a wizard, I might be hesitant to take a buff spell that lasts a few minutes as opposed to a damage spell. It has been tempting to take the buff spells when their durations are so long. (Edena and several other people have raised several good points and questions. We won't know the answers for a while yet.)

Will there be grumbling? Yes. If there was no grumbling, I would be worried.

 

[rangerjohn]

Maybe I haven't made myself clear. I don't play a wizard, I aluded to my username RANGERjohn. I was referring to the previous player who said he played one 9/10 times and wouldn't being doing so with the new rules. Even though I don't play one ,I do see his concern and I don't want an all warrior (read barbarian) party. They seem to be the only ones who can count on defeating the new monsters. Between the downgrading of spells, new DR and added hds of monsters.

 

[William Ronald]

Edena-of_Neith wrote:

I have run campaigns in which disaster overtook the party in the form of repeated Fireballs, mass area attacks, breath weapons, and the like, which destroyed all (or nearly all) of the magical items and spellbooks possessed by the party.
Now, this could have led to some interesting play, but it invariably led to the ENTIRE group threatening to quit if said disaster was not withdrawn by the DM.
I would daresay players seem to become addicted to their magic items!

I have been in games where I have played spellcasters who have lost most of their magic items. Occassionally, stripping players of their magic items can present an interesting challenge. (Anyone here remember A4 in the old Slavers series.)

When magic items are lost by chance, I have seen some grumbling by players. Some loss of equipment is to be expected from time to time.

There is no evidence that Edena intentionally targetted the magic items of his players, so I suspect people may have been grumbling over bad luck. (I hope there will be rules in 3.5 for signature items. Of course, there are signature items in the movies. How else does Indiana Jones manage to keep his hat? )

 

[Norfleet]

I have run campaigns in which disaster overtook the party in the form of repeated Fireballs, mass area attacks, breath weapons, and the like, which destroyed all (or nearly all) of the magical items and spellbooks possessed by the party.

If you're running into things which turn even magical items into useless junk, I'm surprised that those very same things haven't turned the characters into so much charred gristle. Realistically, it's far more likely that the wearer of the equipment perishes messily before the equipment does. Destruction of equipment is frankly not that common, realistically speaking. It's not indestructible, but it's a hell of a lot more indestructible than you are.