PDA

View Full Version : Where's my 3 million page spell list?



Ivellios
2008-06-24, 12:19 AM
I just got the PHB for 4e. It seems like a completely different game from 3.5, but I guess I expected that. There are several changes made that I really like, and one or two crippling changes, specifically to the magic users, that I really didn't like.
First off, there's only wizard and warlock classes if you want to deal serious damage with magic. Second, taking a look at their spell lists (or power list now) there seems to be a surprising lack of customization available compared to the other editions. Not just less, I mean WoW offers more options. Third, all of the spells that are available are extremely weak, and can only be cast either once per battle or once per day. 'Course, there's the "at will" spells, but those are even worse, and don't increase damage until lvl 21.

I didn't create a thread to complain, I'm hoping someone out there knows about an upcoming or existing 4e book containing bards, druids, and sorcerers, and that at least one of those classes can do decent damage using a wide variety of magics and can cast said magics several consecutive turns. Alternativly, if I missed something and it's not really as bad as I think it is, I'd like someone to point that out too.

Behold_the_Void
2008-06-24, 12:33 AM
You should have a reasonable amount of encounter abilities, so you aren't wholly reliant on the at-wills. The magic system has been completely revamped, though, so you'll never have the ability to cast like you did in 3.x.

There ARE rituals that you can access to give you some extra utility abilities, and they'll be releasing more sourcebooks eventually. There are some online supplements, one of which was a list of Illusion-based powers. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/dragon/364_ClassActs.pdf)

RTGoodman
2008-06-24, 12:35 AM
First off, there's only wizard and warlock classes if you want to deal serious damage with magic.

It's just the PHB. There'll be more later, but you've got to wait. Also, Wizards are not damage-dealers in 4E. They're Controllers, meaning they're more about battlefield control, anti-mook tactics, and such rather than damage to single foes. Warlocks are Strikers and can do damage (since that's their purpose).


Second, taking a look at their spell lists (or power list now) there seems to be a surprising lack of customization available compared to the other editions. Not just less, I mean WoW offers more options. Third, all of the spells that are available are extremely weak, and can only be cast either once per battle or once per day. 'Course, there's the "at will" spells, but those are even worse, and don't increase damage until lvl 21.

Two reasons for those - first, we're still in core, and second the big "goal" of 4E over 3.x is class balance. Instead of Wizards having fifty bajillion "win buttons," spellcasters are limited to the same number (generally) of at-will, encounter, and daily powers just like everyone else.


I'm hoping someone out there knows about an upcoming or existing 4e book containing bards, druids, and sorcerers, and that at least one of those classes can do decent damage using a wide variety of magics and can cast said magics several consecutive turns.

All three are planned for future releases, but none have a definite date. Also, I think you're trying to hard to make spellcaster = blaster, and that's not always the case. Bards will probably be Leaders, Sorcerers Controllers or maybe Strikers (with a focus on Elemental powers), and no one knows about Druids.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-06-24, 12:35 AM
Yes, Im pretty certain Bard, Druid, and Sorc will be available in later supplements. But I think that the druid will be more focused on shapeshifting rather than spells (really interested on how they will do this).

And yeah, when I first look at the spells I thought "Damn, when they nerf magic, they REALLY nerf magic!" But after reading a bit more and playing a couple of sessions, it really does work well. I just realized that when I first looked at it, I was sub-consiously comparing it to 3x spells, which I shouldent have done.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-24, 12:40 AM
So yeah, Wizards got seriously downgraded from 3e (it's arguable that Warlocks were actually upgraded... at least relatively) but they still kick a fair amount of butt.

1) Area of Effect attacks: nobody else is able to hit as many baddies as wizards can. In a world with Minions running around, this can be extremely helpful.

2) Versatility: nobody else can customize the bulk of their powers on a Daily basis. This is huge.

3) Ritual Casting: they can train in almost all of the skills they need to cast rituals, and they get the Feat for free. Rituals are where the bulk of the "utility" spells appear, and it's nice having one guy who can take care of that neatly.

4) Cantrips: No, they're not as flashy as the super-nukes, but the ability to cast prestidigitation or mage hand all day should not be overlooked.

Also, Wizards are now controller-types, so they have had most of their mega-damage powers moved over to the Warlocks. This is to head-off the risk that any given class (or character) will become the Swiss Army Knife for the party. That said, Warlock powers kick an enormous amount of butt, and the Pact Powers are extremely nice.

Finally, it should be noted that Encounter Powers actually get used very frequently. Unlike 3e, where you could quickly find yourself out of spells for the day, dropping an Encounter in with your At Wills gives you more than enough arcane might to get through most battles?

How's that for you? Help at all?

EDIT: Jeez, a triple ninja? I didn't think I took that long to post!

The Mormegil
2008-06-24, 12:45 AM
The 3 bajillion spells in 3.5 are gone, and that's one of the things I like best in this edition. Oh, don't get me wrong, I like variety, and I think it will come, sooner or later; what I didn't like was the fighter and melee classes to have MUCH variety less than casters... and this is gone. The price is not having a thousand spells ready.

Ivellios
2008-06-24, 01:02 AM
The obvious solution that I would see there is increase customization in the other classes, don't decrease it in the magic classes.

Farmer42
2008-06-24, 01:16 AM
The obvious solution that I would see there is increase customization in the other classes, don't decrease it in the magic classes.

So we have a book that has over a hundred pages dedicated to each. Individual. Class? That's 800 pages, for just the POWERS. I love HERO, but I could kill someone with the CRB. I don't even want to imagine what a PHB with your idea would look like.

Ivellios
2008-06-24, 01:23 AM
Well, you'd allow for customization where appropriate. You can only hit someone with a sword so many different ways, but if you're altering the fabric of the universe, it makes sense that more options are open to you. Not all classes would get 100+ pages.

Actually, by setting up good spell creation or spell customization rules, I don't think spellcasters would even need the few hundred pages either.

Farmer42
2008-06-24, 01:27 AM
Well, you'd allow for customization where appropriate. You can only hit someone with a sword so many different ways, but if you're altering the fabric of the universe, it makes sense that more options are open to you. Not all classes would get 100+ pages.

Actually, by setting up good spell creation or spell customization rules, I don't think spellcasters would even need the few hundred pages either.

Yes, but then you're changing the core concept of D&D into something more along the lines of GURPs and HERO. D&D is focused on being playable out of the box and easy to understand while offering options to players. Hence, the god awful spell lists of days past and the thorough power list of 4E. you can homebrew, but the system is robust out of the box.

Behold_the_Void
2008-06-24, 01:31 AM
And it also comes back to the balance factor. Giving Wizards thousands of options and giving fighters less means that fighters in general will suck and wizards will dominate everything. That's only fun for one person, and D&D's set up to be cooperative. 4e's equivalent number of powers for everyone is specifically intended to allow everyone to be useful, which was a real problem in 3e.

Ivellios
2008-06-24, 01:53 AM
I had posted an argument, but now I'm editing my post and getting rid of it. I didn't start a thread with the intention of arguing, and I'm not gonna do it. So, 4e is based more around group balance than 3e was, and that means knocking spellcasters down a peg. Guess nobody's forcing me to play 4e, there's still 3.5 if I don't like it.

Thanks to everyone that posted here, you've been very helpful.

Edit (again) Wow, two people posted while I was typing this. That was fast.

Aquillion
2008-06-24, 01:55 AM
So we have a book that has over a hundred pages dedicated to each. Individual. Class? That's 800 pages, for just the POWERS. I love HERO, but I could kill someone with the CRB. I don't even want to imagine what a PHB with your idea would look like.
Technically it wouldn't have to be that bad. If you look at the 'hundreds of pages of spells', it really covers the abilities of four classes (druid, cleric, both flavors of mage) -- in other words, all arcane, all divine. You'd just need about 50% more pages than those devoted to spells in 3.5 to cover 'martial' techniques, by that measure. (Which not-so-coincidentally is about about the number of pages devoted to maneuvers in the Book of Nine Swords.)

You wouldn't have unique lists for each individual class, but I'm not sure that's needed.


But players in 3e could solo battles if there was a need. If 4e is based around balance, that can't really happen anymore. You're kind of required to have a good sized group to be effective.4e is not so geared towards solo adventures, but I don't think you need a particularly large group -- anyone can grab most of the really important rituals with the right feat or two (you don't even need a skill check for raise dead, while the new teleportation line works with a really low arcana check -- the gate just doesn't stay open as long.) Most classes can fulfill two roles if you pick their powers right (whereas before, the fighter had to struggle and optimize to fill one highly specific role.)

RTGoodman
2008-06-24, 01:58 AM
But players in 3e could solo battles if there was a need. If 4e is based around balance, that can't really happen anymore. You're kind of required to have a good sized goup to be effective.

You can still "solo" a battle if need to, but the DM will just have to adjust the encounter difficulty. One player should probably be able to take on a creature or two of equal level, or a handful of minions, or maybe even an Elite monster of his level (based on the fact that encounters are based on 5 monsters of the party level and an average of 5 party members). With this system, it just means you just can't have a mid-level Wizard solo a Great Wyrm Red Dragon or something like that.

Farmer42
2008-06-24, 02:03 AM
But players in 3e could solo battles if there was a need. If 4e is based around balance, that can't really happen anymore. You're kind of required to have a good sized goup to be effective.

If there is a need for a character to solo, nine-times out of ten you aren't playing a good game. D&D ultimately is a team effort, and if one guy is sitting there doing all of the fighting, there are problems. The DM should tailor encounters based on the party, not on what they want to throw at the party. So if only one member of the party is capable of fighting, the challenge should be appropriate. this is true regardless of the system or edition.

Bryn
2008-06-24, 03:07 AM
In addition, if you do run a solo game, since 4e is designed to have several monsters in each encounter you can easily reduce the number of monsters to accomodate the number of players you have.

Crow
2008-06-24, 03:10 AM
Players in my group solo sometimes...after the rest of the party has been killed.

_Zoot_
2008-06-24, 03:14 AM
This coment is very biased because i aways played the caster, but how am i ment to burn doun a village with 1-2 fire balls?

Blackdrop
2008-06-24, 03:18 AM
Your not. I think that was another point of "nerfing" the spell list. So that a wizard couldn't randomly kill a village whenever they wanted too with their super spells.

JaxGaret
2008-06-24, 04:04 AM
This coment is very biased because i aways played the caster, but how am i ment to burn doun a village with 1-2 fire balls?

Scorching Burst.

It's an endless supply of mini-fireballs :smallsmile:

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-24, 04:22 AM
I didn't create a thread to complain, I'm hoping someone out there knows about an upcoming or existing 4e book containing bards, druids, and sorcerers, and that at least one of those classes can do decent damage using a wide variety of magics and can cast said magics several consecutive turns. Alternativly, if I missed something and it's not really as bad as I think it is, I'd like someone to point that out too.

Bards, Druids and Sorcerers will all be out in due time. Sorcerers will probably get decent damage (warlocks also have decent damage).

As for casting on consecutive turns. No, that's gone, sorry. You no longer get to spam your powers.

Klose_the_Sith
2008-06-24, 06:57 AM
This coment is very biased because i aways played the caster, but how am i ment to burn doun a village with 1-2 fire balls?

Lets just apply our knowledge of science! :smallbiggrin:

It took down the centipedes, good 'ol thermodynamics

Starbuck_II
2008-06-24, 09:42 AM
This coment is very biased because i aways played the caster, but how am i ment to burn doun a village with 1-2 fire balls?

Fireball is a 3rd level encounter spell. So use it and just wait 5 minutes (take a nap or eat lunch) than blast the village again.

kc0bbq
2008-06-24, 01:12 PM
I think there are some really neat abilities for 4e wizards. Legion's Hold (yes, it's level 29) covers 1681 squares in area, built in friendly fire filter, and at the very least dazes everything.

Sure, it doesn't kill minions on a miss, but it still dazes them. Dead or dazed.

Walk into a small village and kill everyone with your mind. It's not like you'll miss against low level minion types if you're 25 levels higher than they are.

Roderick_BR
2008-06-24, 03:25 PM
And it also comes back to the balance factor. Giving Wizards thousands of options and giving fighters less means that fighters in general will suck and wizards will dominate everything. That's only fun for one person, and D&D's set up to be cooperative. 4e's equivalent number of powers for everyone is specifically intended to allow everyone to be useful, which was a real problem in 3e.
I'd say that the ammount of abilities the non-casters currently have are fine enough now, so wizards could have a few more options (that's their main feature). What got 3.x bad was not that casters had more options, was the fact that non-casters had almost nothing, and casters could use almost all their options at once. Since wizards (and clerics, and others casters) are limited on how many stuff they can do at once, I think more options would be alright now.

Antacid
2008-06-24, 04:16 PM
Bards, Druids and Sorcerers will all be out in due time. Sorcerers will probably get decent damage (warlocks also have decent damage).

I'm hoping Sorcerers are going to be Arcane Defenders. I'm hoping that because I can't personally imagine how a caster could fit into the role (lots of damage buffs, damage triggered nerfs and immobilization effects?), and it will be very, very interesting if WotC can pull it off. Plus, with a Bard we can have balanced parties made up entirely of arcane casters without breaking the game :biggrin:

Dhavaer
2008-06-24, 04:18 PM
I'm hoping Sorcerers are going to be Arcane Defenders. I'm hoping that because I can't personally imagine how a caster could fit into the role (lots of damage buffs, damage triggered nerfs and immobilization effects?), and it will be very, very interesting if WotC can pull it off. Plus, with a Bard you can have a balanced party made up entirely of casters without breaking the game :biggrin:

The Swordmage will be the Arcane Defender. The Sorcerer is probably going to be an Elemental Striker or Controller.