The fact is that BWs will most likely be the 'best' damage dealing wizards (especially to larger numbers of enemies).  However, wizards are much more versatile overall, so only at much higher ranks will wizards begin to surpass melee in terms of damage.  That is my point ... that with Rank 3 spells a BW is easily on par with melee.  Even at 3 successes + 2 boons (not uncommon) you're looking at 19 damage.  Consider higher rank spells will be even more powerful.

That was my point, that although BWs aren't the big hitters currently (although they can be decent in some circumstances), at higher ranks is where they start to draw even and surpass melee.  This is due to the nature and utility of magic.  Even BWs get access to a bunch of utility spells, and also don't have the requirement for gear to use spells.  They pay for the utility by progressing in damage ability at a slower rate than melee.

dvang said:

Bolt of Aqshy is the one Rank 3 BW spell I have seen, and this has a Recharge of 5. It's encouraging, it doesn't make your case. Without seeing the whole set I can't conclude that Rank 3 is where BW breakeven with Rank 1 melee.

You're also assuming damage is is flat for Melee through all Ranks. I find this doubtful.

dvang said:

We'll have to wait and see if the equation does balance.

 I changed two things for wizards and bright wizards in particular to balance them better with melee. They are still not on par with melee in terms of combat, but it's a better balance in my opinion.

• Bright wizards may add +1 damage for every extra power they spend on a spell. For each extra power they spend, they must roll a misfortune die. Each bane rolled with the pool of misfortune dice inflicts one wound on the wizard. For every three wounds the wizard suffers, one of the wounds is converted to a critical wound.

• Quick casting only adds 1 misfortune die instead of 1 challenge die.

For damage to increase for the melee characters they will have to aquire new action cards and so far we havent seen any of those for the advanced tiers or magic weapons (rare in the world of warhammer), also BoA is the first spell we see there will doubtlessly be things like rain of fire or that spell that turned shadows into acid pools, winds that rot the flesh off your bones or blinding flashes of pure light that sear your brain many of these affecting more than one enemy. Casting a spell is basically a mini ritual, maybe there will be extende rituals in there ala exalted?

Fresnel said:

This is the chances if the wizard channels one round and casts the next. To hope to reach the damage output of a Rank 1 melee, the BW needs to channel and cast the same round  - adding another challenge to the roll.

The change of maximal success is therefore negligible - any Defence rating and/or active Defence further reduces output.

Fresnel said:

Active Defense cards should not be used against spells: Parry, Dodge and Block are all ineffective against spells, as spells are neither a Ranged Attack or a Melee Attack. If they were they would use the default 1d difficulty that both of these use, but instead they are 0d difficulty. Least that's my interpretation of it.

Lexicanum said:

There is no need for interpretation.

See p2 of the FAQ:

"An action that is listed as “vs. Target Defence” is not an opposed
check – it is based on the Easy (1d) default difficulty, similar to how
Melee Attack and Ranged Attack actions are resolved. In addition to
this default difficulty, the dice pool may be modified by the target’s
Defence rating, as well as by the action’s difficulty modifier"

The FAQ even uses the spell card 'Fires of U'Zhul' as its example. As you rightly point out, it must follow that Active Defenses can be applied against such Action Cards.

Fresnel said:

My wizard won't be happy about that, but thanks for pointing it out.

Lexicanum said:

As I understand it you are right about Block and Parry, but Dodge can be used. It's even spelled out on the card itself.

The FAQ makes clear that spells that use 'Spellcraft(Int) vs Defense' are treated as a Melee or Ranged attack (normally a Ranged attack). 

Whether it is an arrow or a bolt of fire, common sense suggests that it cannot be parried - but it is not obvious why you cannot put your shield in the way of it (Block). If you can block at arrow, then you can block a bolt of fire.

Fresnel said:

yes, the faq does make it clear that spells vs. Target Defence are affected by a players defence rating. however, defence rating is passive. active defences like dodge, parry, and block work differently. block lets you add misfortune but only if you are the target of a melee or ranged attack. parry only works against melee attacks. and dodge works against melee, ranged, and spells or blessings that target defence. each card type is also a trait and can be a requirement. yes, most spells attack from range, but they do not belong to the card type: ranged attacks.

in your own terms, it is easy to imagine blocking an arrow set on fire. but bw spells are more like living fire that flows around partial/directional defenses like shields, but can be evaded. maybe a cool magic item is one that is somewhat spell absorbant and lets the user use block actions against spells.  

Thanks for clarifying the RAW.

Personally I dislike the concept of dodge-able spells that can nonetheless flow-around shields. The character adds the 'passive' defence related misfortune from the shield - so a shield only helps if the user doesn't 'actively' try to block the spell...  Imo its a mess conceptually.

 Isn't Flameblast much better a spell because it's a simple Spellcraft check ?

I find it very strange that this "weak" rank 1 spell should be written like this. Typo, or what ?

Quite.

In some game systems there is a clear distinction between spells that affect the target directly and spells that use 'something' which is projected at a target.

Curses, mind control, give disease, cause pain et al, are in the former catagory. The target may resist with inate bodily (Resilence) or mental defences (Discipline), but there is no 'thing' to dodge (or block).

Fire, lightening, acid, daggers thrown via magic et al, are all in the former catagory. The target has a chance to get out of its path or arrange for its path to be block by something.

Imo Flameblast should be Spellcraft vs. Defence. But maybe there is a writers guideline document somewhere that lays the design philosophy all down and the reasons why Flameblast is a simple Spellcraft check is perfectly explained.

Flameblast is good, but not overpowerful for its rank. in conservative stance:

1. magic dart: petty magic, no rank, Spellcraft, [B], 0 recharge. a magical bolt flies around and hits the target for 3+Int damage. 2 boons, ignore armour soak, crit w/ comet.
2. choking shadows: Grey, rank 2, Spellcraft, <p>, 4 recharge. shadows within close range of you choke and smother your target for 3+Int damage. 2 boons, crit. comet, target blinded for 2 turns.
3. flameblast: Bright, rank 1, Spellcraft, <p>, 2 recharge. you hit target w/ fiery blast for 3+Int. one boon, +1 damage. a little bit more damage in reckless and can crit.

choking shadows seems to be underpowered for a rank 2, but when you use it in reckless stance it hits multiple targets. magic dart might do more damage than both of them against heavily armoured enemies w/ its ignore armour soak. all three of these attacks can only be dodged. but i might rule that by dodge i mean you jump behind cover or throw yourself prone as far as possible. i get what you are saying, but flameblast doesn't bother me. it ignores a couple of misfortune from shield and armour. shrug.