alakazam said:

Well, the quick cast thing is a difficult choice coz it adds to the purple dice which affect the chances of a Miscast. So that is exactly what we're talking about, and pretty much mirrors the sort of thing going on in v2. So I don't see why you think v2 qualifies and v3 doesn't. It's certainly much more of a system choice than we got in v1.

Because of the flexibility of the v3 Power system you can make your own creative choices. For example stance is a hard choice because the descent into madness is directly influenced by stress (and fatigue) and the reckless stance has a strong bearing on stress (and fatigue).

In addition, there is the tactical choice of powering up big-time before an anticipated conflict. This can let you cast a number of spells in quick succession without quick-casting. But the wizard must concentrate hard and risks being in big trouble if things don't go smoothly. This is a real system-embedded risk reward choice that is almost entirely un-random (unlike any of the other ones we've mentioned) so this is a strong example of what you are talking about, I would say.

And, also, bear in mind this is the core book, and a lot of what you like about v2 magic, I imagine, comes from the expanded version in RoS.

Thug said:

Remember +1d for quick casting... otherwise you'll only cast a spell every second round.

Well one thing people keep ignoring is how weak your characters should be. People are expecting to start out at rank 1 kicking all kinds of butt, but the game hasn't really gone into the higher ranking character abilities which will no doubt introduce heavier powers.

Silverwave said:

This is, of course, assuming that apples-to-apples game balance is what is desired or intended by the setting/system/group. I think attempting to balance a game on an apples-to-apples level is one of the most profound mistakes of (to use a very vivid example) D&D 4E. I have never bowed too deeply at the altar of game balance as I believe that characters should be good in their own, distinct way. Trying to make everyone of equal value in all circumstances tends to disappoint rather than excite players because they no longer feel like they stand out. I witnessed a Bard in 4E capable of nearly as much damage as the Ranger while simultaneously being more effective at healing than the Cleric. It was...discouraging to say the least. Sorry...I digress.

Silverwave said:

This is is a good idea and something that I was thinking of while writing my original post but didn't explicitly reference. Being that it is fire that a Bright Wizard slings around, if I were convinced that their "damage-spells" felt underpowered, I would probably rule that they ignore the soak value of armor. Wearing chainmail, brigandine or a breastplate isn't going to offer much protection against heat and flame, not just because the fire will tend to hit exposed body parts as well (neck, face, hands, legs, etc.) but because the armor itself will probably heat/incinerate (ouch!).

@Monkeylite

I dont think the quick-cast was what I was talking about, really. I was after a v2-style 'more power for more consequence', the quick-cast actually decreases the power of the spell (because more banes/challenges are rolled).

The stance thing and the holding power I will conceed on these slightly. However, the stance is not about the nature of magic, it is common. The 'holding power' thing is a choice, sort of - but, I dont know, it does not feel like a true 'risk-reward'... I know that it sort of is, but it almost ends up being a necessity otherwise your wizard player sits around twiddling his thumbs and looking bored as his channel roll does not generate enough power to do anything...

None of these feel as immediate as the core spell-casting mechanic of v2 (or as simple as v1) - thats not to say v2 was excellent, far from it (no rose-tinted glasses here...), but it did have an immediacy to the choice of 'how many dice can I risk' vs 'how badly do I need to cast this spell' - there is not such immediate choice for wizards in v3 (apart from the aformentioned stance mechanic).

In v3, I think the channel roll is unessersary. It makes the wizard player roll two pools of dice (most turns) and adds an extra level of failure without (obviously, in my opinion) adding anything to the setting.

alakazam said:

Well, all you're saying is that the two systems aren't the same and you personally prefer one over the other for a very specific reason. That's fine of course, but it's a bit of a stretch from saying that v1 and v2 systems both support the setting and v3 doesn't.

alakazam said:

If I may jump into the conversation a bit as someone newer to posting on these forums (I really appreciate the posts of the regulars here and want you all to know that these types of discussions are really helpful even for people like me who leech off of them without contributing for a month or so before finally posting).

I also liked v2 risk system for casting. I do not think that it limited the use of magic (as a replacement for spell points or spells-per-day mechanics, which I dislike) as effectively as it should but the general mechanic was fun and very interesting. That being said I do think that v3 miscast system has more potential and is more similar to the v2 principal then Alakazam does. Everytime a wizard rolls a challenge dice on a spellcasting or channel (at least in my group) check they have a chance to miscast and venting power increases miscast chance as well. I also believe the quick cast rules add a challenge dice to increase the chance of miscast as without having to channel wizards really do seem to have easy roles in many circumstances. The miscast cards have some really nifty effects associated with them and may really add to the game imo.

I really hope that FFG makes full use of this when they release higher rank spells by giving those spells more powerful effects at the cost of adding more challenge dice to the roll (more often then adding misfortune dice to the roll). As wizards gain rank they will acquire more characteristic/expertise/specialization dice to succeed but no matter how many of those dice they acquire every challenge dice increases the chance of a miscast (as I read the rules comets do not cancel chaos starts, at least for miscasts, though I could be wrong). This means that choosing to cast a more powerful spell will always increase the miscast risk even if you have enough dice to succeed on the casting check 90+ percent of the time. To me this would be an acceptable trade off for more powerful spell effects and would really add to the fun and interesting nature of playing a mage in similar fashion to v2.

As far as wizards being overpowered, we are playing our first session tonight, but my initial impression is that celestial and grey wizards are not primarily damage dealers and their utility spells are pretty cool (at least on a first read). Bright wizards are supposed to be a bit more damage dealing and do seem on first read to be a bit unpowered in that respect. I really like the idea of incorporating the "its freakin fire" element into the equation but that is a GM initiative and GM remember thing that I know I will not be too consistent with. The other idea that I have seen on these forums that I really like is changing the bright order ability to a 1 power for 1 damage ratio and capping it at three boosts or so. Our group really doesn't have to deal with the damage issue yet though as we have a grey wizard who is more excited about playing his character as an illusionist then a combat mage.

monkeylite said:

I suppose I am saying that I dont think a choice on timing is the sort of choice I think invokes the Warhammer setting.

But horses for courses.

Wizards at rank 1 and 2 are not gods of battle, able to incinerate their foes. Do not take a 3e wizard if you want to be the best combatant in the game at lows levels. People have already pointed out numerous reasons and balancing benefits that wizards get. Even Bright Wizards, who tend towards more damage-like effects are not the Battle Wizards you see in the fluff when they are rank 1 and rank 2. More spells, and higher rank spells, will be included in the future. I'm sure stronger damage spells will be created. Wizards have too many other advantage for them to also be monsters at combat, at least at the early ranks. Remember, that the Core Set is the most basic careers. Ranks 1 and 2 are FAR at the low end of the wizard power scale.

If, at rank 1 or rank 2 a wizard is consistantly more damage than a warrior, then something is wrong. Why would anyone take a warrior? No, wizards are fine as they are, with a lot of versatility and respectable power in a nice package.

Amen. Why are people arguing that a wizard's apprentice should be tossing comets?

jh

Emirikol said:

Nobody is though.

I do think people have short memories, though. If you played most other RPG systems early on (I was a D&D Player through the 80s) Wizards were almost a liability through the early levels. They came into their own later on, but a level 1 Wizard was not even close to as capable as a level 1 of most any other class.

I always preferred that system, and it seems that the same is continuing in 3E of WHFRP. When we get some kind of a Magic supplement, or another pack that increases ranks a bit, hopefully we'll start seeing the mid-range Wizards with more capability... be that in combat or utility.