Wizard Spell Progression Per Level in The New System...

[DreamChaser]

Sounds reasonable... I'm interested to see what Monte Cook posts in the next few weeks... (when he posts his 3.5 rukles for 20 spell levels...)

I did a rough progression keeping the same overall number of spells per level... But I couldn't get up to 2 spells per level (4) for all levels...

the last 2 levels only topped out at 1 spell each (2 ninth level spells...)

Then again I didn't try to many patterns...

*sigh* am I the only one who would like to see fewer levels of spells rather than more. I think Least, Lesser, Greater, High, and Epic (roughly equivalent to 0-1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-7, and 8-9).

DC

 

[Irda Ranger]

They have already said how wands will work. Charged magic items no longer exist because they aren't needed considering mages will now have at will magic blasts. Rather a wand, will provide a bonus to a wizard's magic attack the same way a +5 sword helps a fighter's attack. So for example, there will be +5 wands.

This makes a lot of sense considering that saves in 4e are now flipped and work like defenses. For example, a Ref +5 is now Ref Defense 15. And it has the added benefit of making D&D casters more like Harry Potter.

Link? I just read Morrus' 4e page end to end, and he doesn't have this info. It does sound cool though.

I'm guessing (since we know that memorized slots are ~20% of a wizard's power), that a wizard has one spell slot per caster level, one for each level of spell. I'll further guess that you can combine and split slots in some way if you want more than one spell of a certain level, so (e.g.) you could at 3rd level add your 1st and 2nd level spell slots together to memorize two 3rd level spells instead of one of 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Or you could split your 3rd level slot into a 2nd and 1st so that you'd have 1,1,2,2 instead of 1,2,3.

Lastly I'm guessing that some elements of spell effectiveness (the save DC at minimum) are based on either your total character level (not caster level) or some trait that advances with all classes, such as BAB, Ref or Fort. The reason I say this is that the designers have hinted that taking a level of wizard or cleric as a high level Fighter is a "useful" choice, which means that 1st level spell has to be effective against the 16th level Monsters that Fighter is facing.

Read Magic, Detect Magic and such should be at will powers, or even just a Spellcraft check.

 

[robotron666]

*sigh* am I the only one who would like to see fewer levels of spells rather than more. I think Least, Lesser, Greater, High, and Epic (roughly equivalent to 0-1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-7, and 8-9).

DC

What I think is going to happen is that a spell will be levelled according to the modifiers applied to it and the spellcasters level.

For isntance, a 25th level spell might start out as a say 3rd level spell, but the caster can also prepare that spell with a range of condtional modifying effects to it that raise it's spell level from 3rd to 25th. This might be additional damage, change of energy type, modifiers to spell penetration, or whatever, but it still sticks with the vancian fire and forget slot system.

This still sticks with your idea of least, lesser, greater, high and epic but that it fits the range of heroic parameters Wizards has outlined for us (the three sweet spots) and matches, maybe, your characters actual spellcaster level as a maximum. Of course, I don't know if any of that makes sense since I've just had a few beers. Word to the wise, don't dink and post like me.

 

[grimslade]

So you're seeing spells like 3.x psionics. One spell modified by points/spell levels to add damage dice, DC or effect. I like that. It makes spellcasters much more flexible and possibly flavorful.
The use of 25th level spells though makes me think that there will be no point-like or level splitting system. I think we might get more of a progression as spell level moves up. Take teleport. At low spell levels it acts like a limited Dimension Door for the caster, with greater levels a spell caster can add passengers or lengthen the distance traveled. It might work like Animal companions do Level -3 for the added effect. Up to 30th level when you are moving real estate through the planes.
I think spellcasters will only have their character level spell slots. Maybe 3 or 4. Wizards might have more than Sorcerors. The number of Vancian spells to choose from will be small though. The 'game-breaker' magic scry, teleport, most good divinations will be per day spells. Old Save or Die spells will probably be Vancian as well. Fireball, buff spells and minor utility spells will be the per encounter maneuvers. Will these be considered spells? or will a spellcraft roll resolve them like Use the Force in SWSE?

 

[Dragonblade]

Posted by James Wyatt on his blog:

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=906388

When you push my "Ask me about 4th Edition" button, I say, "+6 wands." It turns out that's really hard to say clearly in a loud exhibit hall. You just can't make an ND sound loudly enough to be clearly understood above the noise of several thousand excited gamers. Go figure.

I read some more stuff about it somewhere too, where Logan or one of the other WotC guys pretty much confirmed that Saves will be flipped into Defenses (SW Saga style) which explains why +6 wands suddenly makes sense in light of the fact that wizards now have a magical attack roll against the appropriate "save" defense of their foe. Unfortunately, I can't find that other information. I think its buried somewhere in one of the WotC threads on their boards.

 

[Visceris]

What the hell is a freakin' +6 wand? Is that a wand that you hit someone with that has a +6 to hit, and if so what is the damage? Is it a wand that gives you a +6 bonus to the save DC of your spell? WHAT?!?!?

Just saying "+6 Wand" is absolutely and completely inane and useless.

 

[Dragonblade]

What the hell is a freakin' +6 wand? Is that a wand that you hit someone with that has a +6 to hit, and if so what is the damage? Is it a wand that gives you a +6 bonus to the save DC of your spell? WHAT?!?!?

Just saying "+6 Wand" is absolutely and completely inane and useless.

There are no more spell DCs in 4e. Saving throws are "flipped" into defenses like in SW Saga.

So a monster (and PCs) has a Ref Defense, Fort Defense, and a Will Defense. The wizard rolls their magic attack roll vs. that defense when casting a spell against them. A +6 wand would boost the wizard's attack roll.

 

[Dragonblade]

Also since Vancian magic has largely been removed from the game and since wizards now have at-will magical attacks, there is no more need for "charged" magic items. They have likely been removed from the game. A magic wand now boosts a wizards magical attack the way a magic sword boosts a fighter's attack.

 

[Visceris]

There are no more spell DCs in 4e. Saving throws are "flipped" into defenses like in SW Saga.

So a monster (and PCs) has a Ref Defense, Fort Defense, and a Will Defense. The wizard rolls their magic attack roll vs. that defense when casting a spell against them. A +6 wand would boost the wizard's attack roll.

Three defenses? Well, that is making it simple... NOT!

The more I hear about 4e... :\

 

[WhatGravitas]

Also since Vancian magic has largely been removed from the game and since wizards now have at-will magical attacks, there is no more need for "charged" magic items. They have likely been removed from the game. A magic wand now boosts a wizards magical attack the way a magic sword boosts a fighter's attack.

But... why... wands? I hope that staves are even better than wands, because I hate wands with a passion - I can barely accept them in 3.5E, because I'm thinking magical batteries, while I replace staffs with MIC-style runestaves (which are pretty cool and should find their way into 4E Core-D&D!).

Three defenses? Well, that is making it simple... NOT!

How is that different from three saving throws? And for saving throws, you have to roll once per target, for defense once per caster!

Cheers, LT.