Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Falling Icicle" data-source="post: 5911711" data-attributes="member: 17077">Overall I'm pleased with what I read in this article. The greater emphasis on at-will cantrips and attacks, with fewer spell slots for the really big spells, makes vancian casting much more palatable for me. They seem to really understand both sides of pre-4e wizard's problems: that wizards were far too weak at low levels (solved by adding at-will spells) and far too powerful at high levels (solved by reducing the number of spell slots at high levels and not having spells scale with level). I'm very encouraged by most of what Mearls had to say here.I do have a few concerns though. First of all, if Wizards are going to be relying on at-will cantrips for so much of their power, I really hope they they are at least equivalent in damage per round to a fighter or other class making their at-will attacks. I have no interest whatsoever in playing a wizard who does insignificant damage compared to everyone else except for the scarce few times a day I can afford to do something "big." And no, I don't think it's unbalanced at all for wizards at-will spells to keep up with fighter damage on top of having a few powerful daily attacks, because wizards have many drawbacks that fighters do not, and I fully expect most of those drawbacks to be in 5e (such as having lower hit points, not being able to wear armor by default, having powers that can be countered or dispelled by other magic users, etc).Also, I think the idea of scrolls using a spell slot is a terrible idea, IMO. How are non-magic using classes like rogues supposed to use scrolls? I also am very concerned by the hint that we're going to be regressing to wands as spell-storage devices instead of implements. That was one of the things that 4e did right! Sure, let wands contain a daily use of a spell or some such, but their primary purpose should be to serve as a focus to a caster's spells, not as "50 scrolls rolled up in a disposable stick."I was also puzzled by the "Spellcasting is Dangerous" part. Casting always was dangerous, or is this a hint that maybe attacks of opportunity are going to be gone in this edition? And why should my spell screw up because I was hit by an attack earlier in the round? In reality, any type of action can be interrupted by hitting someone or inflicting enough pain. Fighters will get knocked off balance and be unable to complete their next sword swing, for example. Watch any real fight, or even dramatic ones in movies, and you'll see that this is a huge part of combat. If you aren't going to have rules for interrupting a fighter's attacks, it's silly to do it to wizards, especially when you've already addressed the issues that made them unbalanced before.And (to add to the chorus of other people who have already asked this question), what about rituals?</blockquote>

Verification