Quote from: James McMurrayI'm not asking for constantly reusable earth shaking power, just something that lets me contribute to the combats, and doesn't result in me wanting to take a nap at 9am to refill my excitement tank.

But at first or second level, seriously, how many combat encounters is a fighter good for?  Or any other character class?  Granted, I haven't played third edition, but I can't imagine that this has changed very much from the previous versions of the game.  You're not much beyond a commoner at first level.

I'm not sure how having one spell at first level is a huge weakness compared to other classes at low levels.  By the time you have to take your nap, so does everyone else in the party.

Quote from: CabThen you're expecting a low level mage to have a capacity for doing things again and again in a way that no other low level character can reasonably expect. Take a low level rogue; sooner or later, if you expect to disarm a trap in every encounter, you'll die because you're not that good at it yet. Take the fighter, if you expect to survive encounter after encounter as a low level character you'll need to be more creative than just standing there at the front slugging it out with your foes. Why do you expect mages to suddenly be different?

Although we don't know exactly how this will turn out, I don't see how a 1st level wizard being able to cast magic missile or burning hands once or even twice an encounter will be that game or emulation breaking.

Though I am still up for convincing otherwise.

Quote from: KenHRBut at first or second level, seriously, how many combat encounters is a fighter good for?  Or any other character class?  Granted, I haven't played third edition, but I can't imagine that this has changed very much from the previous versions of the game.  You're not much beyond a commoner at first level.

I'm not sure how having one spell at first level is a huge weakness compared to other classes at low levels.  By the time you have to take your nap, so does everyone else in the party.

It hasn't changed much in that respect to be honest. You're a little bit less fragile at first and second level in 3rd ed, and the spellcasters already have distinct advantages over those in, say, Basic. In 3rd ed, as in every other edition, a low level party has to survive on its wits.

Quote from: JamesVAlthough we don't know exactly how this will turn out, I don't see how a 1st level wizard being able to cast magic missile or burning hands once or even twice an encounter will be that game or emulation breaking.

Though I am still up for convincing otherwise.

Give him magic missile in every encounter and no, its not that big a deal. Give him sleep per encounter and it could makea much bigger difference. Give him charm person per encounter and he may just break your game. Depends very much on how you power the spells; many mage spells were already downpowered in 3rd ed, if you give them more access to them again you'll either have to make the encounters more difficult or downpower the spells further. Personally, I'd rather keep the game with less spells but more power to each spell, seems more 'magey' to me. And I don't believe that a mage with only a few useful spells runs out of interesting or useful things to do.

QuoteAnd I don't believe that a mage with only a few useful spells runs out of interesting or useful things to do.

This I agree with. Just because you can't coat every goblin with mystic napalm doesn't mean you're useless, but that more of an in play group deal than a rule deal IMO.

QuoteGive him magic missile in every encounter and no, its not that big a deal. Give him sleep per encounter and it could makea much bigger difference. Give him charm person per encounter and he may just break your game.

This I also agree with, but in this new method I can see how spells can now be power balanced by not just their level, but by their frequency. Magic missile can be a once an encounter deal, while sleep or charm can be once a day.

I know of at least a couple OD&D dungeonmasters you use a houserule Zap class ability for all magic-users.  The Zap has the same range and damage as a thrown dagger but can be used as often as desired.  One of the fellows who allows his MUs this ability ties it to a simple wooden wand that can be taken away, blasted, broken, etc.

Quote from: jrientsI know of at least a couple OD&D dungeonmasters you use a houserule Zap class ability for all magic-users.  The Zap has the same range and damage as a thrown dagger but can be used as often as desired.  One of the fellows who allows his MUs this ability ties it to a simple wooden wand that can be taken away, blasted, broken, etc.

Thats quite nice actually. Less useful than a magic missile, balanced such that its rather like throwing a dagger, but has the whole 'magic' thing going on. Shouldn't be unbalancing in itself, but I wouldn't allow the mage to use it every round, and I'd restrict the mage from casting it at an opponent in melee. But its a nice idea in itself.

Quote from: SettembriniDid I ever mention that I think the Warlock sucks in actual play?
I mean I know people digging it. But it´s positively uninteresting.
Warlocks are balanced, can contribute every round.

But in a boring way.

We've had a few warlocks in our games. They always end up retiring soon because of the boredom factor. The first few times you turn into a swarm or coat some poor schmuck in acid are great. By the 38th time you do those things it's gotten pretty old.

Quote from: CabTalk your DM into allowing you to generate high level characters, max out on combat spells, and go trawling for monsters to blat.

No thanks. I like the character development you get by starting at 1st level.

Quote from: CabThen you're expecting a low level mage to have a capacity for doing things again and again in a way that no other low level character can reasonably expect. Take a low level rogue; sooner or later, if you expect to disarm a trap in every encounter, you'll die because you're not that good at it yet.

I'm talking about combat here, not trap disarming.

QuoteTake the fighter, if you expect to survive encounter after encounter as a low level character you'll need to be more creative than just standing there at the front slugging it out with your foes.

Not if you've got good armor, a shield, and a cleric buddy nearby. The Fighter is also dishing out a lot more damage than this hypothetical mage.

QuoteWhy do you expect mages to suddenly be different?

I don't. I'm not saying that the wizard should be invincible in combat. What I'm saying is that he should be magical in combat.

I'm also not saying that he should outlast the fighter. After all, they share the same trait that measures how long they'll last: hit points. And the wizard has a lot less.

Quote from: KenHRBut at first or second level, seriously, how many combat encounters is a fighter good for?  Or any other character class?

4 per day, according to the 3.x rules. The problem arises when your fighter's 4 combats all involve fightery things. The rogue's 4 encounters all involve being rogueish. The wizard however, gets one wizardly encounter and then turns into a crappy crossbowman or sits down and scratches his balls for a while.

QuoteI'm not sure how having one spell at first level is a huge weakness compared to other classes at low levels.  By the time you have to take your nap, so does everyone else in the party.

Not in a rule set that assumes 4 encounters per day. Granted, they typically hang out and rest with you, because people don't like to be without their wizards and clerics.

Quote from: jrientsI know of at least a couple OD&D dungeonmasters you use a houserule Zap class ability for all magic-users.  The Zap has the same range and damage as a thrown dagger but can be used as often as desired.  One of the fellows who allows his MUs this ability ties it to a simple wooden wand that can be taken away, blasted, broken, etc.

That's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. I'd want it to scale more with level, but being able to consistently magick my way through the bad guys instead of having to reach for a crossbow is what I'm after.

Quote from: James McMurrayNo thanks. I like the character development you get by starting at 1st level.

Then forget about being an amazing mage at the beginning of the game, because you're not. You're not much more than a normal person, you're a novice. You're not going to be capable of casting spells all day.

QuoteI'm talking about combat here, not trap disarming.

So you believe that a mage should get his class abilities to use at will all day in every fight, whereas a rogues main class abilities should of necessity be restricted? And, more to the point, why are you only concerned with combat? Combat is only part of the game, it isn't (and shouldn't be) your only concern.

QuoteNot if you've got good armor, a shield, and a cleric buddy nearby. The Fighter is also dishing out a lot more damage than this hypothetical mage.

The cleric has more to do than keep the fighter healthy; if you take the attitude that healing the fighter is his prime job then its the cleric who runs out as fast as the mage, and you've still got a party crippled (as you would see it) by lack of spellcasting. And you can't assume that the armour a first or second level fighter will possess will be all that good.

You've still got very vulnerable characters of all classes, the assumption that everything stops 'cos the mage runs out of spells is no more true than the rogue sustaining an injury in a trap so the party has to stop, or the fighter running on wounds.

QuoteI don't. I'm not saying that the wizard should be invincible in combat. What I'm saying is that he should be magical in combat.

I'm also not saying that he should outlast the fighter. After all, they share the same trait that measures how long they'll last: hit points. And the wizard has a lot less.

And the wizard will be magical in combat, but he's very limited to how magical he is when he's a complete novice. Why should a novice mage always be magical in combat? Why does it make more sense that a wizard who is wet behind the ears always has the capacity for casting spells? Seems far more likely to me that a novice of any character class doesn't survive by raw power, but is more likely to prosper by playing smart.

As for the wizard having less hit points, yeah, of course, but he's also not on the front line of the fight. The fighter in most parties goes up and down hit point totals far faster than anyone else because he exposes himself to that kind of risk.

Quote4 per day, according to the 3.x rules. The problem arises when your fighter's 4 combats all involve fightery things. The rogue's 4 encounters all involve being rogueish. The wizard however, gets one wizardly encounter and then turns into a crappy crossbowman or sits down and scratches his balls for a while.

Sorry, but thats desperately uncreative and unimaginative play on the part of the mage player.

Quote from: James McMurrayThat's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. I'd want it to scale more with level, but being able to consistently magick my way through the bad guys instead of having to reach for a crossbow is what I'm after.

Then you've been playing the wrong RPG. Try the Lone Wolf d20 game.

Quote from: CabThen forget about being an amazing mage at the beginning of the game, because you're not. You're not much more than a normal person, you're a novice. You're not going to be capable of casting spells all day.

Who said I wanted to be amazing all day? I'd be happy doing the flavor text equivilent of throwing a dagger. Why are you on board the idea when one person mentions it, but against it when another does the same? Or did you jump to the unfounded conclusion that I want to be able to firebal everything all the time?

QuoteSo you believe that a mage should get his class abilities to use at will all day in every fight, whereas a rogues main class abilities should of necessity be restricted? And, more to the point, why are you only concerned with combat? Combat is only part of the game, it isn't (and shouldn't be) your only concern.

Your premise is incorrect. I (as I've said several times) want a single class ability usable all day, so I can continue to contribute in a magical manner. I have never said that I want all spells (or even a sizable portion of them) to be usable all day. That's your misconception.

QuoteThe cleric has more to do than keep the fighter healthy; if you take the attitude that healing the fighter is his prime job then its the cleric who runs out as fast as the mage, and you've still got a party crippled (as you would see it) by lack of spellcasting. And you can't assume that the armour a first or second level fighter will possess will be all that good.

Where did I say that was the cleric's prime job? But you're right, the cleric also suffers from not being "clericy" all day. He has the benfit of being better at being fightery, but that's not very useful if you want to be clericy.

QuoteAnd the wizard will be magical in combat, but he's very limited to how magical he is when he's a complete novice. Why should a novice mage always be magical in combat? Why does it make more sense that a wizard who is wet behind the ears always has the capacity for casting spells? Seems far more likely to me that a novice of any character class doesn't survive by raw power, but is more likely to prosper by playing smart.

Here's the deal: when I play magical characters, it's because I want to  be magical. If you play magical characters so you can throw marbles at people, that's fine and dandy, but it ain't my bag, baby.

QuoteSorry, but thats desperately uncreative and unimaginative play on the part of the mage player.

So we've opted for personal insults now? LOL

QuoteThen you've been playing the wrong RPG. Try the Lone Wolf d20 game.

Why? D&D (the d20 version) offers options to do exactly what I want to do (have a magic dude that can be magical all day). Nice try with the "wrong game" maneuver, but it only shows your lack of understanding of the subject matter. :rolleyes:

Quote from: James McMurrayWho said I wanted to be amazing all day? I'd be happy doing the flavor text equivilent of throwing a dagger. Why are you on board the idea when one person mentions it, but against it when another does the same? Or did you jump to the unfounded conclusion that I want to be able to firebal everything all the time?

I think the idea of a little trinket wand (the option there that I like) at low level is neat. Its also not novel, nor does it unbalance the game. Note that I also wanted to put more restrictions on it.

QuoteYour premise is incorrect. I (as I've said several times) want a single class ability usable all day, so I can continue to contribute in a magical manner. I have never said that I want all spells (or even a sizable portion of them) to be usable all day. That's your misconception.

Gee... Maybe comments from you like this gave me the idea that you want to just keep blasting away with blatty spells:

QuoteBut what if I wanna just blast shit with arcane fire 'til it's dead, instead of figuring out alternative uses for household objects?

So that isn't what you want? You actually want the flavour of a mage without a significant combat ability kicker?

QuoteWhere did I say that was the cleric's prime job? But you're right, the cleric also suffers from not being "clericy" all day. He has the benfit of being better at being fightery, but that's not very useful if you want to be clericy.

A cleric isn't just about healing; again, those who play them that way are missing the point like those who think being a mage is lobbing a combat spell every round are missing the point.

QuoteHere's the deal: when I play magical characters, it's because I want to  be magical. If you play magical characters so you can throw marbles at people, that's fine and dandy, but it ain't my bag, baby.

Then you've got a real problem playing any low level D&D mage in any version of the game ever published, because playing a mage in D&D has never been about having limitless access to magical spells. If you don't like that, play a game other than D&D. The flavour of a game where magic runs other than that is very unlike D&D, to change that to one where there is constant magic on tap is a huge change.

QuoteSo we've opted for personal insults now? LOL

Clarify for me whether this is how you play a mage:

QuoteThe wizard however, gets one wizardly encounter and then turns into a crappy crossbowman or sits down and scratches his balls for a while.

If it is, then yes, that really does look desperately uncreative and unimaginative to me. To me it looks like you've missed the point about what playing a mage is about. Indeed, it looks like you've mised the point of playing D&D. It isn't a close combat simulation game, thats where it left off from Chainmail. If you want to play such a simulationist game then there are better options.

QuoteWhy? D&D (the d20 version) offers options to do exactly what I want to do (have a magic dude that can be magical all day). Nice try with the "wrong game" maneuver, but it only shows your lack of understanding of the subject matter. :rolleyes:

The d20 version really doesn't offer you that; the new 4th ed might. A really low level mage in 3rd ed has more he can do than, say, a classic D&D one, but he doesn't have the 'per encounter' abilities under discussion. If you want those, then maybe 4th ed will suit you, but till then, get another game, 'cos that ain't D&D.

This discussion reinforces my assertion that 4th edition will be the grandest of all Fantasy Heartbreakers.
I start to think of 4e as "beer, that is not bitter!", that is beer for people that don´t like beer.

Quote from: CabSorry, but thats desperately uncreative and unimaginative play on the part of the mage player.

But the problem is that any character can try creative and imaginative things in combat. The wizard character just has no stats actually backing up his chances to pull them off. A fighter is probably strong enough to roll the barrel down the stairs, cut the rope holding up the chandelier, etc. The wizard? Probably not so much. The flash-powder-scaring-the-kobolds trick? Bluff is a cross-class skill, even if you have Charisma through the roof. In fact, it and "throwing marbles" are really the kinds of actions that are right up a rogue's alley.

A fighter's sword doesn't break every time he swings it, nor an archer's bow. Why would it be so terrible if the wizard had an attack that was perhaps less powerful than either of these, but at least as reliable? Because that's really all I'm arguing for, not infinite sleeps or charms.