Why is it so important?

[SteveC]

To be honest I don't read much fantasy. I much rather game fantasy than read fantasy. I am pretty much the opposite when it comes to science fiction.

I don't really get this obsession about balance. Every class has its strengths and weaknesses, but trying to balance them all to have the same strengths and the same weaknesses at all levels seems a bit... bland to me. :\

I hope that you don't take this as an insult, because it isn't intended that way: if you don't read the source material for the game, and you don't get the importance of balance, you are really in no position to make arguments about how the wizard class should be designed.

The current D&D Wizard fails on the "emulates the genre" test, and it also fails at both high and low levels at the "is it balanced" test. It is better at both of those things than previous editions of the game to be sure, but there is still a lot that can be done. To me, those are two very good reasons to make further changes to the class. I don't know if the new wizard will be better in 4E, and I won't until I see it, but it sounds like they are working to address some problems that I see in the game. To me, that's a good thing

--Steve

 

[Sun Knight]

My problem is 25 spell levels. Am I the only one who sees that as a bit excessive?

 

[WhatGravitas]

I my ever so humble opinion I think that the Vancian Spell System is what gives DnD its unique flavor with all the other systems out there. There are many many RPGs that uses spell points/mana rules and such. Only one I know of that uses the Vancian system is DnD/d20.

Hmmm... thinking 'bout that... what about a "Tome of Vancian Magic" released shortly after 4E, perhaps even by a 3rd-party-publisher (assuming quality work)... perhaps from Necromancer Games (with the new tagline: "4th Edition rules, 3rd edition feel!")?

I see the possibility that such a product will pop up soon after 4E. Would you buy and use it? (sheer curiosity)

Cheers, LT.

 

[Merlion]

My problem is 25 spell levels. Am I the only one who sees that as a bit excessive?

I dont see how the number of spell levels is relevent, if the spells are balanced.

 

[Sun Knight]

Would you buy and use it? (sheer curiosity)

Probably not because I am not going to buy 4e if things what I have heard about it stay true.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Read through these and the wizard forums. Complaints about Vancian magic etc are pretty commonplace and widespread. But I dont think anything I say or that you see will affect your view. And thats fine, but just as several people have said to Sun Knight, the change wont prevent you from playing Vancian wizards, but will allow those of us who have issues with it to have even more options, so whats the problem?

The onus of proof is in fact on you, not me. In other words, if you make a claim, it only helps your case to back it up.

I *have* "read through" (and posted at) these and other forums - but not WotC's - for years now. In various subforums. At some stages, almost daily. Like lately, for example.

I *am* honestly willing to believe that those aggrieved masses slipped my attention somehow. All you need to do is prove it.

And again, you should probably steer clear of such charming (and again, false) statements as the part I have bolded in the quote above. They are not widely considered to be "good form", and all that. I haven't reported either of them to a moderator. But if you wish to continue down that road, I don't have any other (board-friendly) option available to me.

 

[Merlion]

The onus of proof is in fact on you, not me. In other words, if you make a claim, it only helps your case to back it up.

I *have* "read through" (and posted at) these and other forums - but not WotC's - for years now. In various subforums. At some stages, almost daily. Like lately, for example.

I *am* honestly willing to believe that those aggrieved masses slipped my attention somehow. All you need to do is prove it.

And again, you should probably steer clear of such charming (and again, false) statements as the part I have bolded in the quote above. They are not widely considered to be "good form", and all that. I haven't reported either of them to a moderator. But if you wish to continue down that road, I don't have any other (board-friendly) option available to me.

Well, since you don't wish me to express my feelings to you, and I really have no way to "prove" what I am saying other than going and posting links to the various ubiquitious threads on the subject, and cant really see how you could never have seen such posts before, and since you're now resorting to threats (and also failed to answer my question), I think the only solution is this. You think what you think...and how things are are fine for you. Great. I have issues with how it is now and think the changes will be an improvement. And that is the last I will be saying toward you.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Then why do so many people who play it complain about it and/or change it in their own games?

And why then did the designers feel it was finally time to if not remove it, make it less central to the use of magic in the game?

Same reason they decided that you should have to create monsters using the same rules as PCs, or made AoOs requiring a list of what provoked them, or any of the other things they are now "fixing" with 4.0: because they thought it sounded good at the time.

 

[WhatGravitas]

My problem is 25 spell levels. Am I the only one who sees that as a bit excessive?

Yes and no. I see the need for a more fine-grained system. But I also see the possibility of over-complication.

But if they do it right...

Let's see: Imagine each spell is a package, consisting of one at will-ability, one per encounter-ability, and one per day-ability. Now you can memorize one spell package for each level you have, each from the appropriate level... so for a 5th level mage: One 1st-package, one 2nd-package, one 3rd-package, one 4th-package, and one 5th-package.

That's five packages on fifths... meaning 25 on 25th. Compare to the sorcerer and his known spells, and most people don't call the sorcerer complicated. Sounds reasonable?

But if they do it wrong, they'll get a mess. But I don't think they'll be that stupid.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Merlion]

Same reason they decided that you should have to create monsters using the same rules as PCs, or made AoOs requiring a list of what provoked them, or any of the other things they are now "fixing" with 4.0: because they thought it sounded good at the time.

So you dont think they are making any of the changes because theres mechanical reason to believe it will improve the game?

And/or because it is inline with what players have expressed a desire for?