Thread: Another D&D Next Playtest Survey
Tuesday, 24th July, 2012, 01:35 PM #111
- The Generalist Wizard can adequately stand in for (but not replace) the Rogue at level 3 (with invisibility and knock).
- The Generalist Wizard can more than adequately stand in for (and thus replace) the Rogue by level 9 (and anyone else except for the Cleric).
- The Generalist Wizard is irreplaceable by level 9 as once he has access to level 5 spells, no one else can reproduce his impact (micro or macro) on the game...or come close to it.
As such, I propose a French Revolution of DnD where the Generalist Wizard is Marie Antoinette.
Last edited by Manbearcat; Tuesday, 24th July, 2012 at 01:52 PM.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
I am very glad for you for not having experienced it. It means that you must have had consistent fun, from both sides of the DM screen, in our mutual hobby throughout your gaming life.
It would appear that some are not as lucky as you for whatever reason (badwrongfun?...you're just better at playing DnD?...magic?). If it does happen to be pixie dust, I would appreciate it if you'd spread the wealth. I can paypal you and pm you my address.
Scout (Lvl 6)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
ř Ignore erleni
Actually my first 3e character was a wizard. I ran it up to 17th level and then realized it was not fun anymore. After a long DMing period, I came back as a player with a Swordsage and that was real fun.
Can't tell what the sarcasm quotient is on this post, but if I had any trenchant words of wisdom, I would share them. I do honestly suspect that if myself and the other experienced DMs of the world could have our services disseminated and experiences shared more widely, the gaming world would be a better place, but D&D is inherently insular, and everyone's game is different.It would appear that some are not as lucky as you for whatever reason (badwrongfun?...you're just better at playing DnD?...magic?). If it does happen to be pixie dust, I would appreciate it if you'd spread the wealth. I can paypal you and pm you my address.
I also find that durability is a large concern, and players are afraid their casters will die. Perhaps in games with a lower level of challenge, this is not an issue. Players also are afraid of running out of spells, and prefer those characters that "take a licking and keep on ticking"; I find warlocks do well.
I also find that players who do play such characters and do learn game-breaking spells are reluctant to cast them, again for fear of running out of resources or perhaps fear of being cheesy, as you say.
Bottom line; I don't deny the diversity of people's gaming experiences in this regard, but I don't see power the 1e-3e arcane spellcasters as being the main issue for the game moving forward.
Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Burlington, MA
ř Ignore DEFCON 1
Because after all... if you want those spells removed from the game because they break it, there's nothing stopping you or your group from removing them yourselves from your own game. You don't need WotC to do it for you.
1) Extremely smart people who are well above average linear problem solvers and highly proficient nonlinear problem solvers. If you give them an extended supply of resources that leverage both their linear and nonlinear problem-solving-skillsets, expect them to max out the load-bearing capacity of those resources and expect the problems to be solved in short order...and expect investigatory and exploratory plot device to be nullified. The 4e analog to this is when decriers of that system complain that if you place scripted, thematic powers in front of people they will do nothing but leverage those buttons and it will create for a monotonous table experience.
2) Couple those players with your Average Joe who does not possess their skillset nor the drive to maximize it.
3) Couple that with well above average, highly analytical players who desperately want a proper and equitable "martial experience" from their fighters, rogues, rangers, etc.
4) Couple that with resources limited only by the propensity for DMs to use transparent conventions to curtail their limits. If the DM chooses to use said transparent conventions (the world hates you and therefore this contrived "happenstance" consistently disrupts your ability to restore your resources), expect either passive aggressive or open derision from the players who have more cognitive capacity than a box of rocks. The same passive aggressive or open derision follows from the effort to "operatively condition" the group, over time, through use of more subtle (but still contrived...hence the problem) resource disruption techniques. Following that, expect "suspension of disbelief", "immersion", "living, breathing worldism" to be short-circuited for all parties at the table.
5) Couple that with an open acknowledgement of the mechanical deficiencies of the system but an unwillingness, due to vindictiveness or other, to come to social accord to not leverage those deficiencies.
My guess is that one or more of these things are present in people's games who suffer from this issue. Ahnehnois, there are people out there who have just as much experience as you or I (or more)...just as much analytical ferocity as you or I (or more)...and they suffer these issues. Dismiss their experience and fail to address their concerns at the hobby's peril.
I desperately want this hobby to persist through the next few generations so I desperately would like all lobbies to be able to play the game of their choice within the framework of a unified ruleset (if possible). I hope we're on the same team.
Spellbinder (Lvl 16)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
ř Ignore Neonchameleon
There has been a vast powering up of wizards over the editions - and they started to really break in 1e at level 9 or so - not coincidently the same level the fighter picked up lands and the wizard a tower.
I don't dismiss them; I just don't think that this is the norm. D&D has been very successful for several decades and I find it implausible that the basic game is as fundamentally flawed as this line of reasoning suggests. D&D is a primitive game, filled with problems that need to be fixed, but I don't think the basic assumptions of the game (including what magic can do) are wrong or need to be changed.My guess is that one or more of these things are present in people's games who suffer from this issue. Ahnehnois, there are people out there who have just as much experience as you or I (or more)...just as much analytical ferocity as you or I (or more)...and they suffer these issues. Dismiss their experience and fail to address their concerns at the hobby's peril.
Personally, I would prefer a much more limited magic system where spells had huge costs, as well as a deeper and better nonmagical combat system, albeit for different reasons.
Hopefully, the hobby will grow and diversify. Whether that will happen under one brand and one set of rules I don't know, but it would be nice to see the hobby move back in that direction. If we could have a universal, customizablke ruleset that would be nice, but I'm also a realist and thus skeptical of WotC's ability to get back on track. I suspect the hobby will persist, one way or another.I desperately want this hobby to persist through the next few generations so I desperately would like all lobbies to be able to play the game of their choice within the framework of a unified ruleset (if possible). I hope we're on the same team.
By zoroaster100 in forum D&D and PathfinderReplies: 8Last Post: Monday, 29th April, 2013, 06:52 PM
By GX.Sigma in forum D&D and PathfinderReplies: 0Last Post: Thursday, 21st March, 2013, 05:36 PM
By Morrus in forum NewsReplies: 147Last Post: Saturday, 28th July, 2012, 01:08 AM
By infax in forum D&D and PathfinderReplies: 5Last Post: Thursday, 24th May, 2012, 07:55 PM
By Robert Head in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 8Last Post: Sunday, 12th September, 2004, 02:50 AM