Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3759938" data-attributes="member: 4937">By an evolutionary change rather than a revolutionary one.  Right now the problem is that all of a wizards magical abilities are linked to 'per day'.  But, the current d20 system supports 'at will' powers just fine.  Since you are worried about wizards running out of wizardly things to do in combat, simply give them a built in 'wand' which never runs out of charges.  No 'per encounter' powers are then needed.  For example, using terms that should be familiar from the current rules set:1st-5th level: Can use 'ray of frost' (1d3 elemental damage) as an attack action.6th-10th level: As above, plus can fire a 'magic missile' (1d4+1 force damage) as an attack action.11th-15th level: As above, plus can fire a scorching ray (4d6 elemental damage) as an attack action.16-20th level: As above, plus can use a lightning bolt (5d6 elemental damage, reflex for half) as an attack action.There, I've fixed the problem.  A full write up would probably take a page or two.  A slightly more flexible system might allow you to substitute out certain non-blaster type spells, and basically any minor variation on the warlock class features would work here.No need for 'per encounter', major revisions of the vancian system, or an approach that would render translation from the prior editions versions of a 'Wizard' to 4e difficult.The biggest complaint I think you'd see with something like the above is that except at 1st 2nd, or 3rd level, the fall back spell option I described would be used very rarely in most peoples games.  At latter levels, you'd almost always have better options.  So, simple as it is, its a lot of complexity in the class description for the simple goal that it achieves.Even hard core 'grim and gritty' types like myself who look at magic shops as if they were steaming dog turds tend to classify limited use magic items like potions, scrolls, and wands quite differently than magic items in general.  After reading this discussion, I think you can probably guess why.Even wizards?  This is going to sound snarky, but if a wizard doesn't have magic potions, scrolls, wands, or staffs and assorted wizardly trappings, then he's doesn't strike me as being very 'wizardly'.  The ability to make and use these items is very wizardly indeed, and quite rightly has _always_ been considered part of a wizards character abilities.Besides which, we aren't talking about gaps in the character abilities.  We are talking about allowing the wizard to act wizardly all the time.  That's the goal right?  You don't think a wizard needs his magic wand to be wizardly far more than a fighter needs a magic sword?</blockquote>

Verification