Seriously? Spellcasters will not be able to have many spell choices?

[Wolfwood2]

I feel exactly the opposite. The size and breadth of the spell lists is what makes the game for me.

I like breadth, but I could do with a reduction in size.

I love quirky, fun spells like Unseen Servant, Shrink Item, and Rope Trick.

But do we really need 70 different spells that do damage to opponents with slightly different special effects? Do we really need 30 different ways to give allies bonuses to hit and damage?

 

[helium3]

But do we really need 70 different spells that do damage to opponents with slightly different special effects? Do we really need 30 different ways to give allies bonuses to hit and damage?

Ah yes. Very good point. The answer is "no." But then, I wasn't thinking of damage dealing spells in the first place. I'd be perfectly happy if they replaced all the damage dealing spells with something like what's in the XPH, where there are a number of spells that have different "forms" and it's up to the caster to modify the details about what form of damage is done and the like.

It's always seemed to me that damage dealing spells are the one place in the magic part of the system that would be easiest to balance over all levels and allow for spells that scale from caster level one to 20+.

 

[Set]

Heh, that describes the 3.x sorceror completely. Wow. I got blind sided by this one. Talk about extreme change?

Sorcerers in your 3.x game have at will and per encounter powers? That's interesting.

 

[FourthBear]

I am rather hoping that the wizard can learn infinate spells (if he can find them) but has per encounter/per day slots that must be prepared for the day.

This is definitely where we see that design preferences can differ enormously. I'm really hoping that they have some kind of restriction so that the spells a wizard picks actually mean more than "these are the spells that I don't want to hunt for." It just drives me nuts that not only can wizards learn nearly unlimited numbers of spells in a game where all the non-spellcasters are limited to whatever they pick when they level, but their power source is so broadly and poorly defined that you can justify arcane magic doing *anything* at all. Fighters can't just pick up new feats from a trainer or dojo. Rogues can't get new special abilities by hitting up the local thieves' guild. Not only that, but those classes are enormously *more* restricted in what their options can provide, since they didn't pick the power source that does everything. What a double whammy!

 

[kennew142]

I find the Big Lists out of place in a system that's supposed to value niche protection. Sure, large and varied spell lists make the game... for the people playing casters... but for everyone else it's not so good.

I agree with sentiment. I play at least one wizard at all times in once of the many campaigns I am involved in. On one level, it's cool that I can do anything with the right spell. On the other hand, I've seen how my characters can overshadow all of the other PCs at the table. Most of the problems in this regard are due to the quick casting of spells that intrude on the niche of other classes. I'm looking at spells like knock.

I think moving most of these types of spells to rituals will make a difference. I also think that more specialized wizards is the answer. All wizards have access to spells of different "schools", but the most powerful spells are reserved for the specialists. Even if there is a feat similar to the Expanded Knowledge feat, allowing a wizards to add spells to their lists, it will be an improvement.

Luckily, these two issues seem to be addressed in 4e.

(What I really prefer are games with "toolbox" character creation mechanics like Mutants and Masterminds.)

On this point, I would disagree. I ran Runequest and GURPS for years. It was my experience that given time in the campaign, all characters began to look alike. When there are no clearly defined roles, characters tend to pick up the most useful abilities (martial, skill and magic), making for optimal builds of bland jack-of-all-trades characters.

 

[jaer]

I am rather hoping that the wizard can learn infinate spells (if he can find them) but has per encounter/per day slots that must be prepared for the day. He has many to choose from in what to use for the day but a limited number that he can keep in mind for the day and use effectively. Or perhaps he can change them during play if he can find enough time to review his book and switch them. Bo9S chars could only have X number of powers readied for any given time but knew more than they could have ready. They could also switch what they had ready if given 5 min or so to refocus.

If wizards can switch and swap their abilities every day, than those abilities had better be weaker or more situationally dependant than people stuck with the abilities they pickper level and are stuck with.

While I have always liked the idea of wizards preparing their spells to meet the challenges of the day, it seems a poor design decision to make a class that is only useful when they know what they will be fighting and prepare for it rather than making them general purpose. Requiring forethought and proper preparation might make for good roleplaying, but it could box out some players who don't play that way but want to play a wizard.

I agree that too many spells overlapped each other unnecessarily or had bad scaling. L-bolt vs cone of cold. At 9th and 10th lvls, the 3rd lvl spell is often surperior: they do the same damage and a line effect is often easier to aim and use than a cone effect. The only difference was damage type (which more often than not made no difference) and the DC (which could be alted with a Heighten Metamagic). I really don't think a 3rd lvl spell should ever be equal to or even better than a 5th lvl one, but in 3e, that's what we had. I hope by limiting the number of redundant spells they eliminate this particular problem.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

On this point, I would disagree. I ran Runequest and GURPS for years. It was my experience that given time in the campaign, all characters began to look alike. When there are no clearly defined roles, characters tend to pick up the most useful abilities (martial, skill and magic), making for optimal builds of bland jack-of-all-trades characters.

That's interesting, because that's never been what I've seen using such systems. Indeed, quite the contrary.

 

[kennew142]

That's interesting, because that's never been what I've seen using such systems. Indeed, quite the contrary.

I just have anecdotal evidence to go on. I ran Runequest from the 1980s until about 2000. I ran demos of GURPS at conventions from 2000 until about 2004. Players always began with varied character builds, but as the xp accumulated they began to achieve a sort of munchkiny blandness. The situation became worse, the longer the campaign lasted. I have heard the same complaint from other GMs, but can only quote my own experiences.

I have had similar experiences (mainly as a player) in HERO games.

 

[Lizard]

I just have anecdotal evidence to go on. I ran Runequest from the 1980s until about 2000. I ran demos of GURPS at conventions from 2000 until about 2004. Players always began with varied character builds, but as the xp accumulated they began to achieve a sort of munchkiny blandness. The situation became worse, the longer the campaign lasted. I have heard the same complaint from other GMs, but can only quote my own experiences.

I have had similar experiences (mainly as a player) in HERO games.

I'll stick up for this as well; in most point-based games, there is a strong tendency to lose distinctiveness over time, since the 'good' abilities are all easily had. This is doubly true if there's caps on power levels, because players hit the max caps and then 'broaden'.

 

[Rechan]

In one of the playtests, the wizard PC said he would have to hunt down new rituals.

I fully expect that Rituals are the "Get from the enemy's spellbook". But it's not limited to Wizards, because Clerics and Warlocks will be casting rituals. Maybe anyone can.