Quote from: James J Skach;278859I would appreciate it greatly if you could you define "USEFUL"?

If you have an Archer Ranger in your group or a Laser Cleric, then Magic Missile is less important for the group because the Wizard is giving up an area effect spell to just add another direct attack to the group.  

However, in a group with a Rogue instead of a Ranger and a Warlord instead of a Cleric, then Magic Missile is nigh-mandatory to make sure your group has a way to punch across the battlefield.  At first level, an 18 INT Wiz had +4 to hit and does 2D4+4 = 9 pts average and against Reflex which is quite potent.  When you add that its a basic ranged attack, then that makes it even juicier.

Personally, I have never liked MM in any edition.  It's a glorified arrow.  My preference is for magic that does more than direct damage.

Quote from: Spinachcat;278904If you have an Archer Ranger in your group or a Laser Cleric, then Magic Missile is less important for the group because the Wizard is giving up an area effect spell to just add another direct attack to the group.  

However, in a group with a Rogue instead of a Ranger and a Warlord instead of a Cleric, then Magic Missile is nigh-mandatory to make sure your group has a way to punch across the battlefield.  At first level, an 18 INT Wiz had +4 to hit and does 2D4+4 = 9 pts average and against Reflex which is quite potent.  When you add that its a basic ranged attack, then that makes it even juicier.

Personally, I have never liked MM in any edition.  It's a glorified arrow.  My preference is for magic that does more than direct damage.

While I appreciate your attempt at an answer, SC, I would still like to hear it from Gabriel - particularly with respect to the usefulness compared to the "ever before."

Quote from: James J Skach;278906While I appreciate your attempt at an answer, SC, I would still like to hear it from Gabriel - particularly with respect to the usefulness compared to the "ever before."

I know you are waiting for Gabriel, but here's what I thought:

My take on that was the lowest level wizards were basically useful for only 1 or 2 battles in previous editions. Even a 3.5 wizard is only alloted a single 1st level spell.. he gets 2 for being a specialist, and maybe a 3rd for high intelligence. Even the most maxed out wizard, taking only attack spells, could conceivably use up all of those attacks in a single battle, and chances are he took something like shield or mage armor as a backup spell anyhow. Mage Armor was really too good not to take. I used to drive my fellow players crazy by creating sorcerers with no attack spells, just because I had a cool concept.

After the point where a wizard blasts off his spells--he sort of  becomes a liability because not only are they reduced to crossbow attacks (and not even that in AD&D1e- the dart was the wizards standby in AD&D), they were less armored and had fewer hp, so the other party members had to work harder to protect them.

What this amounted to in campaigns I was familiar with was a lot of multiclassing (to cover deficiencies in hit points and gain the use of light armor, and perhaps a better weapon- many wizards in my campaigns spent their 1st level as a rogue), and a certain amount of scroll-abuse: low level scrolls only cost 25gp, could cover a wizards ability to use more spells, go further in an adventure before he had to rest, and even allow for some diversity of the cool "I have just the thing for that" spells vice the attack spells.

I myself was a firm believer in scroll abuse in my home campaigns. I encouraged it for players as a DM, and engaged in it as a player. In certain RPGA campaigns, though, they specifically had a rule against it by charging 5x the list price for consumables (potions and scrolls).

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;278915I know you are waiting for Gabriel, but here's what I thought:

My take on that was the lowest level wizards were basically useful for only 1 or 2 battles in previous editions. Even a 3.5 wizard is only alloted a single 1st level spell.. he gets 2 for being a specialist, and maybe a 3rd for high intelligence. Even the most maxed out wizard, taking only attack spells, could conceivably use up all of those attacks in a single battle, and chances are he took something like shield or mage armor as a backup spell anyhow. Mage Armor was really too good not to take. I used to drive my fellow players crazy by creating sorcerers with no attack spells, just because I had a cool concept.

After the point where a wizard blasts off his spells--he sort of  becomes a liability because not only are they reduced to crossbow attacks (and not even that in AD&D1e- the dart was the wizards standby in AD&D), they were less armored and had fewer hp, so the other party members had to work harder to protect them.

What this amounted to in campaigns I was familiar with was a lot of multiclassing (to cover deficiencies in hit points and gain the use of light armor, and perhaps a better weapon- many wizards in my campaigns spent their 1st level as a rogue), and a certain amount of scroll-abuse: low level scrolls only cost 25gp, could cover a wizards ability to use more spells, go further in an adventure before he had to rest, and even allow for some diversity of the cool "I have just the thing for that" spells vice the attack spells.

I myself was a firm believer in scroll abuse in my home campaigns. I encouraged it for players as a DM, and engaged in it as a player. In certain RPGA campaigns, though, they specifically had a rule against it by charging 5x the list price for consumables (potions and scrolls).

• I expect a similar answer from Gabriel, I just want to make sure so I don't get accused of putting words in peoples' mouths, etc.
• To make the comparisons easier (in the "ever before" category), I propose they are done on an edition by edition basis.
• Let's go back to your breakdown of MM, X-bow, short bow and compare it to a previous edition - say 3.x What does it illustrate?

Of course, if Gabriel claims a significantly different meaning, to the drawing board we must return!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;278824Well-- that's not the only requirement. You still need a trained skill (arcana or religion) to cast, and to make the appropriate skill check (arcana or religion) to cast the ritual, and there's always a material component cost.

Ok, then you need two feats. And some (many?) rituals don't need a roll, raise dead for example

Maybe it is just me but I find someway wrong for a warrior or rogue that dabble in magic or religion to be able to raise the dead.

Greek legends - Breaking into the underworld to 'raise dead' was practically a heroic warrior hobby, IIRC.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;279030Greek legends - Breaking into the underworld to 'raise dead' was practically a heroic warrior hobby, IIRC.

Indeed. It even forms the basis of a comedy: the Frogs.

AM - does this look about right to you?

3.5 Wizard, Int 13
Magic Missile

• Evocation [Force] Spell
• On average, it hits 100% of the time.
• It does 1d4+1 (2-5) damage.
• It is a standard action to cast.
• Range 110 feet.
• Can cast 2 times per day.

Light Crossbow

• The Light Crossbow is a two handed "simple" ranged weapon.
• On average, it hits AC 10 50% of the time.
• It does 1d8 damage.
• Loading a crossbow is a move action.
• Shooting a crossbow is a standard action.
• Range 80 feet.

I am going to concede that I am wrong, especially sincwe I've not had my books returned so I can find the text that I believed supported my argument.

Quote from: James J Skach;279276AM - does this look about right to you?

3.5 Wizard, Int 13
Magic Missile

• Evocation [Force] Spell
• On average, it hits 100% of the time.
• It does 1d4+1 (2-5) damage.
• It is a standard action to cast.
• Range 110 feet.
• Can cast 2 times per day.

Light Crossbow

• The Light Crossbow is a two handed "simple" ranged weapon.
• On average, it hits AC 10 50% of the time.
• It does 1d8 damage.
• Loading a crossbow is a move action.
• Shooting a crossbow is a standard action.
• Range 80 feet.

That seems likely for a 1st level character. I think an 3.5 wizard is likely to have a higher dex or a feat that will boost his crossbow attack a bit, and he may have a 3rd spell if he's an evoker, or even a feat that does something else with the spell, etc. But yeah, that's pretty close.

Remember the Magic Missile scales: two at 3rd level, three at 5th, four at 7th, etc. A 7th level caster will do 4d4+4 force damage 100% of the time. The 4e equivalent will still be doing his 2d4+int bonus until he reaches 11th level, and then he can add another d4, and he still has to roll for it.

The 3.5 wizard can augment the crap out of that with scrolls or a wand of magic missile. By 2nd level he can buy the wand.

All this really shows is that the expectations in 4E are different. In many ways when we try to compare the actual little factual components of the rules we overlook the change in expectations. You can't keep going with the same expectations you had in an earlier edition.  

This is just common sense, but I've made the mistake myself with dungeon-building lately. Luckily I also caught it. I'm going to post about dungeon building sometime this week, because I got really into it over the last month or so. And I made a painful mistake with my initial plan and had to scrap about a week of work just last night. 4E dungeons are easier to build but you can't go by how it used to be if you want to get anywhere.  

This is similar to when Ron Edwards tried to run D&D3e to prove he understood the mainstream. He ensured that each player had two characters each (horrible idea in D&D 3, but an old standard in AD&D), and when one of the barbarians raged he assumed that meant his character was going to attack the other PCs.

In the end, the only thing he proved was how little he understood.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;279294In the end, the only thing he proved was how little he understood.

That actually seems to be a pretty good blanket statement for the man.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;279294This is similar to when Ron Edwards tried to run D&D3e to prove he understood the mainstream. He ensured that each player had two characters each (horrible idea in D&D 3, but an old standard in AD&D), and when one of the barbarians raged he assumed that meant his character was going to attack the other PCs.

In the end, the only thing he proved was how little he understood.

Do you have a link for this? It sounds like comedy gold.

Quote from: Drew;279304Do you have a link for this? It sounds like comedy gold.

It's on the Forge somewhere, in the actual play forum, about two years old, I guess. Someone linked it triumphantly to "prove" that RE understood and "liked" D&D because he conceded to running it for a neighbor. He had to borrow books (having never read it) and made just about every mistake you can imagine.

In a way it was kinda neat, because it was like seeing D&D through someones eyes for the very first time, and it also left me convinced that when the forgies railed about "d20" they were actually talking about AD&D2nd edition and earlier.

Just the other day I noted one of them talking about D&D4e and it's "20 level range" so I guess the trend of being one edition behind is going to continue.

Quote from: Drew;279304Do you have a link for this? It sounds like comedy gold.

Here's the start; here's more.

Quote from: Zachary The First;279318Here's the start; here's more.

Check this self-congratulationary quote from the very first post:

"I specifically did not take over character creation from them, like I habitually did twenty years ago, and like GMs typically do up through the present day..."

Like WHAT? Do GMs really do this? It's a huge insight into what the hell went wrong with some of these guys.

Also he threw the equivalent of a CR 6 encounter against the 3rd level group of newbies but had them withdraw. I had a bit of sympathy fo rthis: CR's are tough to eyeball when you are starting up (he should have gone by the formula in the DMG), and not only did he not even bother to use a DMG, he used a 3.0 PHB with 3.5 monsters from the SRD.