New tidbit about spells and hit points.

[Gentlegamer]

Ok, so what happens when the effectiveness of the wizards's minor magic blast is essentially the same as firing a crossbow? What then?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

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.

I'm not sure I understand this assertion. The addition of the crossbow was new in 3E -- suddenly, the wizard could use a powerful weapon that did 1d8 damage (same as a longbow). At 1d8 vs the fighter's 1d8+3 (for 4th-level, say), that's 60% of the fighter's damage. The wizard likely has a pretty good Dex score, and the feats Point-Blank Shot and Precise Shot are useful enough for ray spells that at least some wizards will have them. For the first few levels, the BAB difference is quite small.

At low levels, I don't think the wizard with the crossbow is *that* much behind in damage dealing. Sure, he's way behind the two-handed raging barbarian, but who isn't? At mid-levels and higher, Craft Wand comes into play, and the wizard probably should make himself a Wand of Acid Arrow or Ray of Enfeeblement or the like.

 

[Someone]

I don't always know if playing a wizard is about the resource management (is a wizard a real time strategy game?) or the suck management. When he's not casting, he sucks big time, and he sucks at low levels anyway (he must pay for later non-suckage by being a real sucker first). When you play your wizard you must be very careful: you only have so many chances to pwn, so you have to use those chances wisely so the cancel the suck you have to suck before and/or later. You can also minimize the suck by casting all your spells and forcing the party to rest. However, if you manage to instakill the BBEG with a save or die in the first round of combat, you can transfer all the suck to everyone else!

 

[ST]

Ok, so what happens when the effectiveness of the wizards's minor magic blast is essentially the same as firing a crossbow? What then?

Actually, even if it is exactly the same, if some people enjoy it more, then it'll increase enjoyment overall, right?

And people who still want to use a crossbow will be able to, right?

It also adds some interesting bits in that being out of ammo or having your crossbow broken by an axe doesn't take you out of the fight.

 

[blargney the second]

Ok, so what happens when the effectiveness of the wizards's minor magic blast is essentially the same as firing a crossbow? What then?

Sounds fine by me.

 

[Zimri]

Okay so 2 things I am confused about

1) If it breaks down to the "at will" ability being exactly or nearly exactly the same damage as a crossbow except magical in nature what the big hullbaloo about ? The wizard contributes magically rather than mundanely. It just feels "more right"

2) It's perfectly acceptable for Raistlin to a) be able to use a crossbow, and b) take feats to improve his crossbow use yet he should be unable to climb a tree to pick an apple without the aide of magic (yes I am bringing a point from the skills thread over here but it makes sense to include it in this example.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

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.)

Just taking this point because I perfectly understand and (for a lot of players I know, not me personally) agree on the other points you and Jim after you made. It's a lot of difference in flavour, which can mean the world in a roleplaying game after all.

But your last point...lets just say in that case, I'd prefer them to give the wizard a straight-out attack ability, and maybe some magical BAB advantage or something. Because otherwise, the wizard will go from being a second-best rogue to being a second-best BARD...and I clearly recall all the hate the bard got as a class concept around here.

And this was "tongue in cheek".

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Okay so 2 things I am confused about

1) If it breaks down to the "at will" ability being exactly or nearly exactly the same damage as a crossbow except magical in nature what the big hullbaloo about ? The wizard contributes magically rather than mundanely. It just feels "more right"

The phrase "it just feels 'more right'" is what the big hullabaloo is all about.

I started playing D&D with the Basic Set. The fundamental concept of a wizard was a human who had very powerful magic, but it was limited. He couldn't use it all the time. That was what "balanced" magic against combat skill. And it enhanced drama. Running low on spells in an under-pressure situation (where resting was not an option) made for great stories. The wizard in desperation finishing off an opponent with his dagger made for great stories.

So my idea of what feels "more right" is a wizard who conserves his magic for when it's needed, and it's quite impressive when he does pull it out. Other than that he throws daggers from a place of safety or just sits back and stays out of danger. The class was designed for players who could enjoy that style of play, which isn't everybody.

3E went to more-frequent less-powerful magic (more spells per day, and easier crafting of scrolls and wands, but nerfing things like Sleep). And they gave the wizard a more powerful backup weapon. A wizard who can do low-level magic all day might be great for a generic fantasy RPG system, but with 20+ years of gaming -- nearly always actively choosing to play D&D with its Vancian spell system -- I can tell you it just won't feel to me like a D&D wizard.

 

[Wormwood]

Ok, so what happens when the effectiveness of the wizards's minor magic blast is essentially the same as firing a crossbow? What then?

Then the 'overpowered' argument goes away, and those who want to play a truly magical character win a small but important victory.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Ok, so what happens when the effectiveness of the wizards's minor magic blast is essentially the same as firing a crossbow? What then?

I'd PREFER if this wasn't the case. It should be useful enough that it should be about the same as casting a spell about 3 levels below your max level spells. So, when you are capable of casting 4th level spells, you should be able to do a blast for "free" that does about as much damage as magic missile would.

However, if I was stuck with only being able to do a 1d8 blast for "free" it would still be a step forward. It just wouldn't make me feel useful. Neither would a -1 to an enemy ability(unless a minus one means a lot more than it does in 3.5e)