Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GrinningBuddha" data-source="post: 5976628" data-attributes="member: 56615">I want wizards to feel distinct from one another, moreso than what was the case in 4e. If someone wants to run a non-specialist wizard, that's fine too. They will sacrifice specialized knowledge for breadth of knowledge. As for low level wizards dealing damage, I don't believe that should be their forte as compared to low level fighters and rogues. Their forte should be related to their area of study, all of which can contribute to combat in useful ways.See above. A generalist wizard in a world of specialists is not generic, it's just another flavor: vanilla.Wizards should have at-wills that allow them to contribute the entire day. I can even see an Evoker having a damaging at-will, since that's their specialty. I never said they shouldn't have ranged weapons, I was acknowledging many people's dislike of the 3e crossbow-toting wizard. I don't mind them having crossbows, but I think it would make more sense for them to use their magic whenever possible.No, I don't really see any additional checks needed for at-wills needed. In my system, at-wills are cantrips at 1st level and aren't overpowered to the point where they need a drawback. The daily/vancian spells are more powerful and have the obvious drawback of being used up through the day. Once the wizard has used all of his daily powers, he will fall back on his magic items (wands, rods), his weapons (thrown daggers, light crossbow) and his at-wills, which in a perfect system will be able to affect each combat in meaningful ways. As long as the at-will damage spells aren't overpowering in a societal context and make sense, I'm not completely opposed to them.  Being able to cast 2d4+6 magic missiles at will until the cows come home just seems a bit much for a level 1 character.</blockquote>

Verification