Monte Cook's Design Thoughts On Spellcasters

[Olgar Shiverstone]

While I think Monte makes some good points, I don't agree with him in the main -- I don't think the spellcaster system needs that drastic of an overhaul. I think the differences in play style between the casters and non-casters, which are much smaller now given caster variants like the sorcerer, warlock, spontaneous casting druid, etc, add value and variety to the game. He neglects to discuss the role of wands and scrolls, to which casters have easy access by the default game assumptions, in resource management. By giving wizards Scribe Scroll at 1st level, the game by default gives the wizard a wide range of options to extend beyond when "prepared" spells run out.

If you want to give the wizard a defense (+4 AC) and an attack (ranged 1d6 magic blast) that he can use all the time in addition to his spell range, I think you begin to upstage other roles. Now if you do that through a couple of feats under the current feat progression, I think that's a reasonable trade-off.

One more thing ... his essay seems to assume that a caster becomes useless when all the spells are used, and less fun. Last I checked, wizards and sorcerers could still choose to use weapons and armor, and can always fall back on the old staff or crossbow. And they have the hardest time -- clerics and druids are pretty capable even when they stop casting.

 

[wayne62682]

I'll be honest in that I only skimmed the article, but the issue I come across is that either the whole party has to rest when the Wizard is out of spells (well they don't HAVE to, but you get what I'm saying), or the Wizard is so afraid of running out of spells when there's a chance we might not be able to rest that they won't use any. Ex: In my current game we're in a castle controlled by an evil Wizard with a lot of goblinoid thugs; the party Wizard wants to save her spells for the BBEG so she's cast maybe one spell in two sessions, because we have no guarantee that we can rest before facing him. AND that's using a modified magic system where Wizards only need to memorize a spell once and can cast it as many times as they have slots, not the traditional "fire and forget" method.

So.. yeah, something that let a wizard be effective ALL of the time would go a long way to help IMO; I don't like us losing our offensive blasting power because the Wizard player doesn't want to waste the spells against mooks.

 

[Thomas Percy]

I like this idea and I'll be waiting for more details in future articles.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

Wow. I've thought for a long time that I want 4E to be as similar as possible to 3E, but if spellcasters changed like that, it'd be worth the hassle of converting all my 3E stuff.

i agree- the ideas he is posting are some that I think would be cool. If anything, there is already a precedent for it in existing 3.5 rules- the Warlock, as you point out, and Psionic Feats (which are similar to some of the other ideas in the first paragraph he has, such as the permanent Mage Armor effect).

I think allowing a wizard to have an "always on" magical blast sort of ability (him just throwing raw eldritch energy around, not taking the time to form and meld it into an actual spell effect), and allowing some sorts of "Eldritch Feats" (even up to using a form of the Psionic Focus concept) would be really cool.

Was there a Feat that allowed a Warlock to sacrifice one of his invocations to gain additional damage to his eldritch blast? I could see something like that for a wizard, using one or more spell slots to create a really powerful raw energy blast. (The more I think about it, the more I like it- it seems a lot like the way magic was depicted in the second Chronicles of Amber).

 

[Cthulhudrew]

This sounds like a very cool idea, actually. The "disciplines" could be simulated using something like psionic focus from the XPH. Some disciplines would require 'arcane focus' while others would expire you expend that focus.

D'OH!!!

This is why I should read through the thread before replying!!!

 

[TheBladeOfEilistraee]

I'll be honest in that I only skimmed the article, but the issue I come across is that either the whole party has to rest when the Wizard is out of spells (well they don't HAVE to, but you get what I'm saying), or the Wizard is so afraid of running out of spells when there's a chance we might not be able to rest that they won't use any. Ex: In my current game we're in a castle controlled by an evil Wizard with a lot of goblinoid thugs; the party Wizard wants to save her spells for the BBEG so she's cast maybe one spell in two sessions, because we have no guarantee that we can rest before facing him. AND that's using a modified magic system where Wizards only need to memorize a spell once and can cast it as many times as they have slots, not the traditional "fire and forget" method.

So.. yeah, something that let a wizard be effective ALL of the time would go a long way to help IMO; I don't like us losing our offensive blasting power because the Wizard player doesn't want to waste the spells against mooks.

I must agree here. The Wizard class has no particular merrit for me, unlike the Sorceror, but eaven he/she has plently of disadvantages.
The Wizard is supposed to be the "Arcane Shield" that helps to back up the party when times get rough. But the fact that they have only so much spells memmorized (like those two Fireballs you hide in your sleeve) is not a wery good idea. And the fact that the adventure sometimes cannot let you rest (let us remember the early days when we used to play Eye of the Beholder 2 and the "no rest" levels) is far to dangerous.
The Wizard in my role-playing experiances saved my figher ass on more then one occasion. And then got they're throats slit after that by a three inch tall kobold.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I very much like the idea and I think that this style would even fix what parts of the Warlock I don't like.

Having the 'always on' attack will help the wizard alot. The "New Magic Missile" (if you will) will (almost) always give the spellcaster something to do. The fighter, when they run out of other options, can walk up to the bad guy and hit them over the head. The wizard, on the other hand, goes to the back wall and twiddels their thumbs when they run out of other options - or, if the player is prepared, the wizard pulls out a sling or crossbow and sharts hopeing to roll 20s. The Warlock can at least still shoot things and has a chance at hitting them.

The problem I have with the Warlock is their other abilities (this isn't quite the tangent it may seem at this point). They seem to be a hodgepodge of Fun Stuff that just doesn't fit together. Flight, See Invisability, Undead Minions and a touch that eats magic. What? While each one is fine by itself, and some pair off okay, what makes someone aquire that set of abilities? How does controling undead fit with eating magic (not life - but magic)?

If these were a set of spells; something that would change everyday, it would be okay. The wizard looking into sucking magical energy today for some reason instead of aquiring a new always-on ability that has nothing to do what they could do before. That makes much more sense to me.

My question for Monte's design is if he would be thinking about a spell system like we have currently (maybe scaled bakc a bit since they would always have Mage Armor and the New Magic Missle - no reason for those slots) or a system like Tome of Battle (a number of 'spells/abilities' that are usable X number of times per encounter/day/whatever)?

Each has it's own pros and cons that I can see. A style similar to the vancian system allows for greater versatility (Wall of Fire one day/a wacked out cold spell the next) but requires a greater knowledge of what is available and a longer setup time to prepare the spell lists. The x/time system would limit the versatility but help the wizard keep a supply of options available for the whole adventure.

Maybe there is room for a hybrid of these two styles. Perhaps something like this: The wizard can memorize a certain number of spells per level. Say - four first level spells and two second level spells (arbitrary numbers for purposes of discussion). They can cast 3 first level spells and 1 second level spell per encounter. This would combine the versatility of the Wizard, limit the prep-time and keep the spontinaity of the Sorceror and keep the caster able to do stuff (besides Magic Missle) for the entire day.

 

[Zaukrie]

I think Monte has some great concepts, but I gotta ask,

why do new ideas always come down to comments from some of you that changes prove that those of us that like them are too stupid to play the right way? Why do some of you always insist on calling people idiots for not playing the way you think the game should be played? Why do some of you insist on continuing to state that there are right and wrong ways to play, and other people are not even yet kindergartners for disagreeing with you? It is a game, and not played for money/rankings. We should all be able to play in such a way that we are having fun, shouldn't we?

Here's what I like about Monte's idea (my opinion, not a fact): it makes spellcasters more involved in every encounter if they want to be. This should, imho, make the game more enjoyable. If you like to play a spellcaster that reserves her power for later, you can. If you like to play a spellcaster that participates in every encounter, you can. It seems obvious that a spellcaster should get a power/feat that allows them to have mage armor. Why wouldn't a spellcaster cast that most days?

Here's where I'm not sure I agree: I'm not sure how the attacks would work. I'd like them to be no more effective than a fighter - so there ought to be an attack roll or some other mechanic required. Also, the damage should be less than what a fighter/rogue can do, as the spellcaster also gets to cast high damage spells.

I like some of your suggestions for mana, this increases the flexibility of the class.

 

[satori01]

Having just read Tome of Battle recently, I have been think the Maneuver system could also work pretty well as a spell casting system. Thus a Wizard that has Magic Missle prepared could cast a Magic Missle once per encounter...like a SwordSage using a martial manuever.

Restoration and the Cure spells would be difficult to simulate in that type of system, as being able to use even Lesser Restoration at will, kinda throws things out of balance. Monte's idea has merits.

 

[wayne62682]

FWIW I would not mind seeing something along the lines of a Warlock, with a finite number of "Disciplines" that can be used at will, and then a larger selection of spells that follow the normal memorize rules.

For example:

1st level "Wizard" would have, say, one Disicipline as a spell-like ability. They could pick from a narrow list that could include Magic Blast which is essentially a never-modified Eldritch Blast (i.e. Ranged touch attack, 1d6/three levels or something), Mystic Armor (Mage Armor) and the like (possibly tie this into a theme for specialist Wizards? So an Evoker would take Magic Blast, an Abjurer would take Mystic Armor, etc). They would then also get a spellbook with some spells in it and be able to memorize these as per the current rules. At certain levels they could increase their number of Disiciplines known (and possibly the level/grade of them as well) and every level would see a small increase in regular spells as well. Basically, as others have mentioned, a hybrid Warlock/Wizard.

The idea has merit, I think.