New tidbit about spells and hit points.

[Gentlegamer]

I have never had the aproblem with the constant need to rest after my wizard cast his spells. I simply reserved my spells for encounters that warrant them while the rest of the time I simply used mundane weapons to defend the character. When I do have him cast his spells I make sure I use spells that have durations of at least an hour per caster level for those are the spells that will carry my character through the day, not the fire and forget magic missiles.

A wise wizard conserves his power and only uses it when needed.

Using Charm Person on dumb humanoids was also a way to have semi-permanent bodyguards for the M-U.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

The people who want to constantly use their power in an unlimited fashion as you suggest makes me believe that the Wizard class is not for them, and they would be happier playing a Warlock.

Which is probably why they're taking a page from the Warlock's better-liked abilities, and roll them into the new wizard design.

 

[Sun Knight]

Which is unfortunate because wizards are not warlocks and vice versa.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The people who want to constantly use their power in an unlimited fashion as you suggest makes me believe that the Wizard class is not for them, and they would be happier playing a Warlock.

See, you're drawing a wider distinction than I'm talking about.

I didn't say they want to be able to use their spells in "an unlimited fashion." I said they want to be able to contribute more than what you're talking about. Fewer limitations, not no limitations.

Hence, I believe compromise solutions--like Reserve Feats in 3E, and the combination of per day, per encounter, and at will abilities in 4E--is the way to go.

And keep in mind, these people have been gaming since well before warlocks existed, and have managed to enjoy playing wizards or sorcerers most of the time, so it's not as though the class is completely abhorrent to them.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Checks and balances.

I believe very strongly in checks and balances.

I do not believe checks and balances should ever render a character useless. And let's be honest, a wizard trying to pick off foes with a crossbow is, if not useless, then at least darn close to it.

Hence, again, a solid mix of limited (powerful) and unlimited (less powerful but still useful) abilities is the way to go.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Which is unfortunate because wizards are not warlocks and vice versa.

Says who?

I mean, seriously? Wizards are what every D&D edition tells us they are. D&D is its own genre, and it defines its own roles. Wizards are the "guys who do arcane magic and who know a lot about mysterious stuff" in the context of roles. How they do that is, in the end, up to the guys who write the current edition. I bet if Monte Cook had gotten a bit more free reign with 3E, the magic system would have looked much more like that of Arcana Unearthed already.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I believe very strongly in checks and balances.

I do not believe checks and balances should ever render a character useless. And let's be honest, a wizard trying to pick off foes with a crossbow is, if not useless, then at least darn close to it.

Hence, again, a solid mix of limited (powerful) and unlimited (less powerful but still useful) abilities is the way to go.

Just out of curiosity...what's the BIG difference between a wizard using a light crossbow on opponents every round, and using a 1d4 damage once-per-round spell-like ability? Ranged touch attacks are not THAT much more a forte of a guy who can't hit the broad side of a barn with a crossbow either.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Just out of curiosity...what's the BIG difference between a wizard using a light crossbow on opponents every round, and using a 1d4 damage once-per-round spell-like ability? Ranged touch attacks are not THAT much more a forte of a guy who can't hit the broad side of a barn with a crossbow either.

Well, three points:

1) I've actually found, in 3E, that the difference between a ranged attack and a ranged touch attack is often huge.

2) Even if it proves not much more useful, at least the wizard's player feels like he's contributing more in his "idiom."

3) I'm not necessarily talking about a 1d4 attack. "Lesser" abilities doesn't have to mean "wussy" abilities. (Nor am I necessarily talking about direct attack spells. A wizard who casts a minor spell that imposes a -1 penalty on an enemy for a few rounds is probably going to feel--and prove--a lot more useful than one who does 2 points of damage.)

 

[Jim DelRosso]

Just out of curiosity...what's the BIG difference between a wizard using a light crossbow on opponents every round, and using a 1d4 damage once-per-round spell-like ability? Ranged touch attacks are not THAT much more a forte of a guy who can't hit the broad side of a barn with a crossbow either.

Off the top of my head:

• Mechanically, the fact that they're touch attacks means the wizard is at least somewhat more likely to succeed at them (assuming ranged touch attacks are how the hypothetical magical blasts will be adjudicated; it may be something completely different).
• Non-mechanically, shooting magical blasts is more wizard-y than shooting a crossbow.
• Semi-mechanically, it's also more wizard-y to spend character resources getting better at shooting magical blasts than at shooting a crossbow.

Which is not to say that you couldn't make a crossbow-slinging wizard, if you wanted, but it just wouldn't be the standard.

 

[Gentlegamer]

2) Even if it proves not much more useful, at least the wizard's player feels like he's contributing more in his "idiom."

"You kicked the bride in the stomach!"