In my previous article addressing the news of 5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons (or D&D Next as its known in some circles), I went over what I thought was one of the major failings of 4th Edition, that of rules bloat (in particular around PC classes), and offered a simple (1 page Fighter Class) solution.
Quite a few people seemed to like that, so here is my attempt at revising the 4th Edition Wizard class using the same basic methods. I think its pretty good for a first attempt but I am sure it could be tweaked and balanced in a few areas.
Let me know what you think…and yes I do plan on similar treatments of (at least) both the Rogue class and the Cleric class, as well as a second crack at a revised Fighter class. I’ll try to get those here on the website at a rate of maybe one for every 4-5 days as time allows.
So without further ado…enjoy…and forget Elminster, Ringlerun RULES!
Eternity Publishing 
Dave
January 20, 2012
UK:
Thank you for posting and I look forward to the rest. I don’t have time now to review it, but I will this weekend. Quick look it appears a lot more involved than the fighter system, but maybe it is quick and easy once you get the hang of it.
Upper_Krust
January 20, 2012
Hi Dave, its like any new gaming mechanic, once you try it a few times you’ll get the hang of it.
It is more complex than the Fighter class, but thats because you have to choose 2-3 options rather than 1-2:
Fighter Class: Choose Stance (optional) + Martial Maneouver
Wizard Class: Choose Energy Type + Condition (optional) + Delivery System
@Perico, I will reply to your extensive post in a few hours mate, need to go out for groceries in 10 minutes.
Thanks for the feedback guys. 🙂
Perico
January 20, 2012
A very interesting experiment. Here are some initial comments; I’ll write more when I have time.
Spellcasting, Step 1: Damage dice in the table are listed as d6s. However, this is redundant with the Energy type table (which explicitly mentions each type as dealing d6s), and contradictory with some energy types (such as vulnerability, which replaces damage dice with vulnerable 5 all) and confusing with school specialization (which changes the type of dice).
Suggestion: Omit type of dice from “Wizard Spell Power Damage” table and “energy type” table. Include a new table “Specialization”, which determines type of dice from level of specialization.
Spellcasting, Step 4: Your example is missing the half damage on a miss. Also, I don’t see where the “level +3 vs Will” line comes from – Are you using an alternate rule for your attack lines? Otherwise, it should be Int vs Will. By the way, it would be useful to indicate somewhere a basic template for wizard spells where you state that the spell has the implemen keyword, is (+x vs defense), and that damage is (dice + int).
Specialist wizards: You probably have too many levels of specialization. There is not enough difference between 4 energy types and 3 energy types to justify having them as separate steps (and in fact, 3 types should always be the right choice). In addition, the option to go for d12’s by becoming extremely specialized can lead to wizard attacks dealing striker-level damage – was this intended?
Suggestion: I would personally leave just 2 or 3 levels of specialization, more clearly separated. I also prefer cutting on the number of learned types, as a rule.
– Generalist Wizard (default): 4 energy types, d6s for damage
– Specialist Wizard: 2 energy types, d8s for damage
Energy type table: I think the targeted defense deserves a separate column. I would separate this table into a heroic table, with the columns “Energy Type”, “Targeted defense”, and “Allowed conditions” (removing the useless “Effect” and “Dice modifier” columns”, and a Paragon/Epic table with all the weird stuff. Your paragon and epic tier energy types are also missing a targeted defense.
Specific energy type comments: If force targets AC, it should gain a bonus to hit (i.e. +2). The disintegration/annihilation types have strange interactions with the HP total of solos and elites – is this intended? I’d rather have them lose base dice but gain non-base dice in return. Also, I’d check out their damage numbers, since there’s a definite risk of stepping on a striker’s toes.
Condition table: It would be great to have the miss effects associated with some conditions fitting in this table, rather than a separate one. A way to gain extra space would be to remove “The target is” from each effect line.
Specific condition comments: Since you have set a hard limit of 1 condition per power, I would strongly consider removing the dice modifier from some conditions. Slide, slowed, and deafened are good candidates here. Also, unless you houserule Deafened into something useful, you would do better removing that line altogether – that condition is utterly pointless. I don’t like having (save ends) as the default duration for conditions, but i guess it’s a matter of taste.
Suggestion: I don’t like that there is no separation between at-will conditions or encounter conditions, and allowing the use of multiple conditions on certain powers seems appropriate. I would set define two categories (lesser conditions and greater conditions), so that a power could have one of each, and only encounters or daily powers could have greater conditions. I’m also inclined to limit the number of conditions each wizard knows, perhaps removing the limitations on condition use by energy type.
Delivery system: I dislike that half damage is tied to the use of bursts or blasts. I’d rather have it as an automatic effect for encounters and daily powers. You might also want to divide delivery systems by their use for at-wills or encounters/dailies – otherwise, you run into strange cornercases like sustainable effects being cast as at-wills, allowing a wizard to carry a cloud with him at the beginning of the encounter.
Upper_Krust
January 20, 2012
Hey Perico:
Re: Damage Dice. Yes I suppose it is stating the obvious, but at the same time it didn’t take up any additional space. I suppose another table showing specialisation dice would be clearer though.
Re: Step Four. Yes thats a typo, I’ve been dealing with so many monsters from the Vampire Bestiary that I threw in Level + 3 instead of Int. vs. Will.
Noted that I missed the 1/2 damage on a miss for the example, thanks.
Re: Specialists. I just wanted the option of giving the choice of choosing only one energy type. I like the idea of “Fire Wizards” and “Ice Witches” and so forth. That said, I like some of your ideas. I may change this to All = 1d4, 4 = 1d6, 2 = 1d8, 1 = 1d10. What do you think?
Re: Targeted Defense. I’ll see if I can put that in a different column when I do v.2.
Re: Disintigrate/Annihilate. Yes I need to tweak those a bit. As you say, they are overly powerful against Elites and Solo Monsters.
Re: Miss Effects. I’ll look into putting that on a seperate column. It’ll be tight though. 🙂
Re: Nerfing certain conditions. Yes I think a few of the conditions could certainly need looking at to better balance them.
Re: Saved Ends effects. It was more a space saver than anything. “Until the end of your next turn” might be better though, with save ends requiring a flat -1 base die difference, while ‘to the end of the encounter’ might take a 1/4 base die difference.
Re: Delivery Systems. I initially had all the Delivery Systems at an extra -1 die, which meant Ray was 0 and Ball was -1, etc. As such you wouldn’t have been able to At-Will a Cloud spell until Level 29. As opposed to Level 15 as it stands now. But I am not sure I agree with tying certain conditions or delivery systems to Encounters or Dailies only. They should all be balanced using the die modifiers.
Thanks very much for the feedback Perico, much appreciated mate. 🙂
Joshua Kronengold
January 20, 2012
It’s more duration/miss effects that need to be tied to at will/encoutner/daily. Dailies should generally have an effect that last at least half the encounter (if not the entire encounter); encounters should last for two rounds and have miss effects, at-wills should last for the current round (or at a lower than average attack in exchange for a 2 round effect–Cloud of Daggers or Storm Pillar). The economy is built around the e/a vs d distinction.
I’m not sure I like the sustainable shapes — they mostly seem to result in over-powerful sustains compared to the current version, without a proper secondary effect. Maybe a table of continuing static effects (difficult terrain vs damage to adjacent vs lightly/heavily obscured, attack/hit penalties etc) that can get applied to sustains, and downgrade the secondary attacks?
Also, it seems like it should be easy enough to add the friendly fire option for -1 die. I’d probably allow a lot more option stacking; if the options are balanced it’s probably ok to stack them.
Upper_Krust
January 21, 2012
Hey Joshua, thanks for the feedback.
Re: Spell Durations. I think what I’ll do is change all conditions (other than Ongoing Damage) to “Until the end of the target’s next turn”, but then give a Save Ends modifier that doubles the existing modifier.
So if stun is -2, then it would be -4 (save ends).
One possible addition might be an Encounter duration that quodruples the modifier (in this case stun would be -8).
What I don’t want to do is start complicating things with “this only works on Encounter powers” etc. I’d much rather balance everything using the base die modifiers.
Re: Sustainables. I’ll look into the Secondary Effects idea, sounds good…although I suspect the 1 page table won’t be big enough. 😉
Re: Friendly Fire. I don’t like Wizards having friendly damage, I’ll be keeping that for the Cleric. If I did add it to the Wizard I’d make it 1/2 base damage dice.
Perico
January 21, 2012
More playing around with a level 1 wizard! This time I go for the daily attacks.
Daily (3d)
Boring Ray (any type): 4d10 + Int damage. Comment: It’s a lot of dice, but it feels like a waste of a daily.
Stupid Damaging Ball/Breath (any type): 3d10 + Int damage, half on miss. Comment: Still bland, but more satisfying
Stupid Large Damaging Ball (any type): burst 3/ blast 7, 1d10+Int damage, half on miss. Comment: A Fireball, more or less. Interestingly, at level 5, trying to build this kind of spell leaves you with an attack that is weaker than the original Fireball – already considered a mediocre spell. Perhaps an indication to buff daily dice?
Large Radiant Ball: Burst 2. 1d10+int damage, and dazed (save ends), half on miss. :
Large Psychic Ball: Burst 2. 1d10+int damage, and slide 3, half on miss.
Large Thunder Ball: Burst 2. 1d10+int damage, and prone, half on miss.
Comment: In all of these spells, going for more damage dice seems like a waste, compared to the encounter version. A large area is a better investment, but it still falls short of what you expect for a wizard daily attack.
Big Flaming Sphere: 3d10+Int damage, sustain to repeat. Comment: I guess spheres become moderately interesting with daily slots? This lets you use a boring, but highly damaging attack for a whole encounter. Still weak for a wizard daily, in my opinion.
Dazing Sphere: 2d10+Int damage, and dazed (save ends). sustain to repeat. Comment: Now, This would be interesting, if at-will dazing ray wasn’t available. Something to watch for, if daze is downgraded to costing 2 dice?
Blinding Spherre: 1d10+Int damage and blinded (save ends). sustain to repeat. Comment: This one looks like a decent use for a wizard daily. Maybe a bit excessive, due to the (save ends) duration.
Perico
January 20, 2012
Another long post, this time with me experimenting a bit with the system. As expected, it’s a lot of fun! It does feel way more limited than your fighter rules: the meat of the power lies in the condition, and you don’t have many choices. Also, the options for energy types feel mostly cosmetic.
Level 1 Wizard A – Focused wizard. 3 energy types (d10s)
Note: “Stunned” is not a condition available in your table, just an augment for dazed. Since it is listed separately from dazed in certain energy types, it probably should have its own condition line. The same applies to “Immobilized”.
I want one type for each defense.
– Psychic (vs Will)
– Radiant (vs Ref)
– Thunder (vs For)
This allows me to use the following conditions:
Dazed, Slide, Blinded, Prone, Stunned
I’ll take a look at the options available:
At-Will (1d)
Damaging Ray (any type): 2d10 + Int damage. Comment: Doesn’t feel like a controller power at all. More like a striker attack – and a pretty good one, at that.
Damaging Ball/Breath (any type): 1d10 +Int damage, half on miss. Comment: Boring, but way better than your current damaging at-will burst. Note that due to the half damage on a miss, this averages roughly the same damage as the ray!
Damaging Sphere (any type): 1d10+int damage. Comment: This doesn’t do anything! I can sustain it and move it around… but it only ever attacks a single creature, spending a standard action? There’s no point in that.
Radiant Ray: 1d10+int damage, and dazed (save ends). Comment: Very overpowered!
Psychic Ray: 1d10+int damage, and slide 3. Comment: Decent.
Thunder Ray: 1d10+int damage, and prone. Comment: This one is actually on par for the usual power curve.
Encounter (2d)
Very Damaging Ray (any type): 3d10 + Int damage. Comment: Very nice, but we can do better! I miss an augment to have rays hitting multiple targets.
Very Damaging Ball/Breath (any type): 2d10 + Int damage, half on miss.
Large Damaging Ball (any type): burst 2/ blast 5, 1d10+Int damage, half on miss.
Radiant Ball: 1d10+int damage, and dazed (save ends), half on miss. Comment: A bit too strong.
Psychic Ball 1d10+int damage, and slide 3, half on miss. Comment: Meh
Thunder Ball: 1d10+int damage, and prone, half on miss. Comment: Again, the prone effect is probably the most accurately costed.
Blinding Ray: 1d10+int damage, and blinded (save ends), half on miss and -2 to hit. Comment: This one feels about right.
Upper_Krust
January 21, 2012
Hey Perico,
Okay, I get ya, MOAR CONDITIONS! I’ll see what I can do. 😉
Plus, I’ll be looking to nerf the Ray attack. It is too strong at Level 1.
Re: Damaging Sphere. I actually wanted to add “attacks adjacent targets” but I couldn’t fit the text in without compromising the whole table. That said, I think I have a solution for the Revised Wizard 2.0.
Re: Half-damage on Miss. This may need to become its own modifier (like Save ends will).
Dave
January 21, 2012
UK:
After looking at the wizard more thoroughly I am again impressed with the overall flexibility of the system and it doesn’t appear to be as complex as it looked at first glance. Here are a few thoughts:
Teleportation: I am not sure how to do it, but I think it needs to be added back in. To me, it is a fundamental magic power.
Disintegration and Annihilation: What is the difference? They have the same damage, but annihilation cost more. Also, the damage seems very high (instant kill if the target is bloodied). I don’t know about annihilation, but I like ongoing damage for disintegration effects.
Stunned: -4 dice seems to be a really high cost. I think it would work fine as its own condition as well, but I don’t mind it as upgrade from dazed, but at a lower cost
Fragile/Dominated: I would probably flip them (dominated to paragon and fragile to epic).
Dice Modifiers: To me it makes sense that all heroic tier conditions could (should) be -1, paragon conditions -2 and epic conditions -3. If you think something really needs to be -2, maybe it should be a paragon condition.
Delivery System: I think I would start Heroic Balls at 1 w/in 10 and Rays at 10 with a way to increase the range (-to hit or dice reduction?). I am also not sure why cloud, chain and wall are paragon and not heroic. They don’t seem to be inherently better.
Specialist: The specialist is a nice touch that allows you to differentiate your wizard; I am not sure about the difference between general (d6) and single specialist (d12) though. It seems a bit steep.
In general a really interesting exercise that could be fun to play. However, I am not sure that it is better than the traditional system (other than taking up less space) and it doesn’t seem to cover utility powers at all. I think a system the combines the two might be best. Maybe, your approach for at-will and encounter spells and traditional daily and utility spells? Again, thank you sharing your ideas, the whole exercise is quite inspired. I look forward to the rogue and cleric.
Upper_Krust
January 21, 2012
Hey Dave! 🙂
Re: Teleportation. I’ll assume you mean as an attack? Remember I haven’t tackled Utilities yet.
Re: Disintigrate/Annihilate. Disintigrate does 1/2 bloodied damage, Annihilate does FULL bloodied damage.
Re: Stunned. I’ll be dropping this to -2, but thats just for 1 round of stun. Save ends will still be -4.
Re: Fragile/Dominated – agreed.
Re: Condition Modifiers. I was thinking more -1, -2, -4. But with the Delivery Systems I lowered them all to -0, -1, and -3.
Re: Delivery Systems. I may remove the different tiers altogether and just go with the dice modifiers for balance.
Re: Specialists. I will be changing this to All = d4, 4 types = d6, 2 types = d8, 1 type = d10. But I need to up the number of conditions to make some energy types attractive. Such as adding a potential ‘Panic’ condition to Fire energy, etc.
Re: Overall. I am having this discussion on two other forums (ENWorld and RPG.Net) and one interesting side effect of this system is that a player will keep track of their favourite spells by writing them in a ‘spell’ book.
As for utilities, I am not sure if and when I’ll be doing them. Some people have suggested that when 5E is released I package these rules together as a sort of mini-‘Pathfinder’.
Dave
January 22, 2012
UK,
Teleporation: yes
D/A: I missed that – Annihilation damage seems a bit over the top to me. The problem w/ 1/2 bloodied or bloodied is that effects elites and solos more than standard monsters. I prefer a set damage amount because fo that. Maybe double dice damage for disintigrate and 4x for annihilate. That may be to much though.
Stunned: sounds good
Condition modifiers: that sound good, but why the jum from -1 to -3?
Specialists: that sounds good
I like that you make your own “spellbook”
Utilities: I think utilies can remain as is. In fact, this system could be used in conjunction with the typical 4e system without much problem
Dave
January 22, 2012
Something I like about this system is you can have different types (at-will, encounter, daily) of the same spell. If we take the standard lvl 5 daily fireball (updated version): 4d6+Int mod./miss half damage/burst 3 within 20. This could also be a 2d6+Int encounter power or a 1d6+Int at-will. Pretty cool.
Dave
January 22, 2012
UK:
Another thing that would be cool to implement is a time/damage factor – like the delayed blast fireball.
Delayed Blast Fireball (lvl 25):
burst 2 in 20; 5d8+Int fire damage, plus 1d8 fire damage for each round the spell is sustained (sustain as a minor action, maximum of 3 rounds or +3d8); miss – half damage
I have always thought something like this could allow for the 3e style “powerful” casters, but keep it balanced (I would have the spell fail if the Wizard takes damage while the spell is being sustained); I just didn’t realize they already had a basic mechanic for it.
Range Modifier:
This also gave me the idea of using range/blast/burst as a modifier. Heroic range = 10, Paragon = 20, Epic = 40. You can then downgrade the range to add damage. Maybe reduce range by 5 or 10 gets you +1 base dice. You could do the same thing for bursts and blasts.
Dave
January 22, 2012
Oops – i completely missed that you had range modifiers in the delivery system already!
Perico
January 22, 2012
After much testing and tweaking, I have come up with a version of these rules with very interesting properties. I have given up on building your custom daily powers (since I think each of those is pretty unique, anyways), but otherwise the system does a good job at replicating existing at-wills and encounter spells.
In short, this new system lets you apply two effects on each power. These effects (called metamagic techniques) are classified as Lesser and Greater – with the Greater ones reserved for encounter powers. And there are a ton of them.
For those interested, it is available here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DLU7HTNCPhotivtZ58Xz_evVDMJOC5DUv5n5tLsvKPc/edit?hl=en_US
The format is a bit crappy, and I haven’t tested it as much as I’d like… but I’m working on it 😉
Upper_Krust
January 22, 2012
Hey Perico,
Glad I could inspire you to create your own variant. Some nice ideas (love the ‘Exiling’ name).
I do still think I prefer my more freeform style though.
However, you do have quite an extensive range of conditions though. Good work.
Upper_Krust
January 22, 2012
@Dave,
Re: Delayed Blast Fireball. Surely that is just the same as the ‘Cloud’ mechanic?
Re: Ranges. Range 10 is a bit flimsy at Heroic given the range of bows and xbows.
I’m definately considering taking the Tiers out altogether and just using modifiers for balance. Naturally though some modifiers would ‘price’ certain spells out of certan tiers.
Re: Condition modifiers. The difference was initially -1, -2 and -4, I just downgraded them by 1.
Re: Annihilate/Disintigration. I’ll eventually come up with a mechanic that works. 😉
Dave
January 22, 2012
UK:
Delayed Blast Fireball: not really like the cloud. The attack does 5d8+int if you use it immediately, but if you wait 3 rounds (spending a minor action each round) after casting the spell you can then launch the fireball and do 8d8+int damage. It is not 5d8 and then 1d8 per round for 3 rounds.
Personally, I think this is the begining of a mechanic that could be applied to all spells. You take longer to cast the spell to “charge up” and cause more damage. The risk is if you get hit while waiting to cast the spell, you loose the spell. I would probably make it cost a standard each round though, not a minor.
Ranges: I guess 10 is a little low, I was just going by how they are set up now. But they are weak (in range) compared to weapons, so I think it was a good move.
Tiers: I can see the benfits both ways. There is something logically about eliminating the tiers, but it might be simplier to leave them in place.
Upper_Krust
January 23, 2012
Hi Dave,
Re: Delayed Blast Fireball. Okay I understand what you mean now.
I think the big problem with this kind of mechanic is that its not really fun to sit about and have your character do nothing while the spell ‘beams up’.
Plus someone will always have the bright idea of beaming it up before combat (or in a scenario where the enemy is coming to you (such as an approaching army).
thehydradm
January 23, 2012
Hey, I saw the post over on ENWorld and wanted to drop by – I absolutely LOVE this! Very awesome concept, and something I’ve been looking for in a game for a while (I took my search to nWoD’s Mage and Ars Magica, incidentally). I can’t speak for balance, and you’d obviously have to retool the definition of what constitutes a vancian daily spell (rather than memorize fireball you’d memorize a placeholder that could be turned into fireball, for instance).
I think it would work really well for a sorcerer, too, for precisely that reason – they seem a bit more prone to magical improvisation than a wizard (although for some reason historically they never had as many spells…)
At any rate, seriously cool design work, major props!
Upper_Krust
January 23, 2012
Hey thehydradm! 🙂
Thanks for the kind words.
Re: Balance. Still tweaking things here and there and listening to all the feedback.
Re: The Sorceror. I like all my classes to be as unique as possible (which is why I have totally different delivery systems for the cleric). I’ll have to take a hard look at the 4E Sorceror and see what really differentiates it from the Wizard and exploit that for an eventual build (assuming I get around to the Sorceror that is). 😉
Josh Gentry
September 10, 2012
I have another delivery method to suggest. Available from Heroic. IDK what you would call it, but it would be Ranged 20, up to 3 targets; +0 die adjustment. This would be like that lightning power you see sometimes.
Upper_Krust
September 11, 2012
Hi Josh,
I’m wondering if this would be covered in Serpent (Chain).
Given that Ranged 20 (single target) is +1 base dice, I think that 3 targets would be 1/3 base dice BUT not have a to hit penalty like the revised fighter (on multiple attacks) to compensate for the initial +1 dice.