D&D 5E Another D&D Next Playtest Survey

Ahnehnois · Jul 24, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
... seriously? The least popular of the big four IME is the healbot. It's the one "someone's got to play".

I find that fighters and their martial brethren are always popular, rogues are sometimes popular, alternate versions, custom classes, and monster characters abound, and casters are niche. I have had more clerics and druids than wizards and sorcerers, albeit not by much. My latest PC party has no full casters.

But a big factor is, I suspect, the starting level and expected length of the campaign. Because 1 spell/day was rough. And even 2 1st level spells was ... not nice. In 3e (3 1st level spells, four cantrips) this melted away a bit.

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.

Fair to say; I think the cleric's unlimited spell knowledge and the removal of most wizardly limitations were backwards steps. I'm not much familiar with earlier editions (than 3e) but I have always felt that casting powerful spells was too easy; just not game-ruining.

I suspect the internet had a lot of impact here - I can look up which the broken spells are rather than have to go through the sourcebooks spell by spell.

I actually link my players to charop threads on their character of choice. Time still a significant barrier; and players I've had are still disinclined to do this kind of research.

DEFCON 1 · Jul 24, 2012

Manbearcat said:
I never implied nor explicated (in the above posts or others) that I want them removed from the game so please do not put those words in my mouth (on my hands?).

I would suggest that what you wrote further up...

"As such, I propose a French Revolution of DnD where the Generalist Wizard is Marie Antoinette."

...would indicate just that. You want the generalist Wizard's head cut off. If that wasn't meant to imply you want the generalist wizard killed off (i.e. removed from the game)... then you might need to learn your French history a little bit better.

erleni · Jul 24, 2012

DEFCON 1 said:
Yeah, but just because you've been stuck in games where Knock and other generalist Wizard spells have ruined your game, it doesn't mean therefore that all those spells need/should be removed. Because if enough other people are able to run their games fine with them and have nothing break... then removing them for no reason other than some people don't like them is not enough.

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.

Hello Defcon,

there are many spells that have a deep impact on the way the game is played and combining them with the easy access a wizard has to them in 2e and 3e is what makes the wizard to be a problem at many tables. This extends to cleric and druid in 3e but let's look at the wizard as an example.

1) Save or die spells: these are very powerful effects that are all or nothing. Very often they spoiled the fun in our games. When our 3.0 group met a Balor for the first time my wizard killed it with Finger of Death before it could take any action...

2) Knock, fly, teleport, teleport without error: these spells bypass difficulties and completely change the way the game is played. I'd like to keep them but move them to rituals that can be accessed by everybody willing to pay the cost. So the wizard can "replace" the rogue if necessary by spending more resources, but any other class can do it too.

3) Summoning: this is a real killer. You can use summoned creatures to trigger traps, to fight for you, and in many other ways. The more monsters are added to the list the more you risk loosing control.

4) Polymorph/shapechange: once again here every monster added can add more trouble

5) Scrying: scrying magic was the root of the scry/teleport/nuke tactics I've seen in 3e. When every vaguely important person in the world is lead-lining their homes you start to understand that something is going the wrong way.
One of my PCs even started a company that was protecting rooms and houses with lead panels...

6) Other stuff: Evard's Black tentacles, wish, forcecage, stoneskin

Vancian magic gives great versatility to the wizard and access to an incredibly wide array of possibilities, so even if you carefully check every spell for balance you still have a very powerful class. And if you don't then you get into a mess.

The standard way to avoid vancian casters dominating the scene has been finding trump cards (magic resistance, disruption, dispel magic, need to rest) that lead to the casters looking for more trump cards (nap spell, lower magic resistance spell, penalties to saving throws, spells with no saves, spells that by-passed magic resistance).
When my 3e party faced a famous warrior, our wizard cast forcecage on him then invoked an Acid Fog over him and started to pepper him with other damage dealing spells until it was no more...

DEFCON 1 · Jul 24, 2012

erleni, what's your point?

You and your games had issues with all of these things. Fine. Don't use them, or modify them as you see fit.

But if enough other players DIDN'T have these issues (based on how they ran their own games), then there's no reason to remove them altogether.

A rule that exists is easier to remove from an individual game than NOT having a rule that every single game would have to INVENT out of whole cloth in order to have.

WotC IS NOT creating a D&D for you. It is creating a D&D game for as many people as possible that wish to play it.

Neonchameleon · Jul 24, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
That's the key one, to me. What I see in fantasy fiction (or in any fiction, or in reality) is completely incompatible with a balanced, closed game system. Thus, to create an engaging rpg experience, we must have an unbalanced, open system, and have people who understand this and choose not to try to "win" D&D. When I see people who treat D&D as a competitive game, rather than as an rpg, I either change their minds, or get rid of them. Not everyone has that capacity, or that luxury, I understand.

And here I wonder how what you do lines up with what I consider to be roleplaying. If a PC, in character, isn't trying to use every edge possible then they aren't taking the situation they are in seriously. And in some games it's only their lives on the line - in others it's the fate of the world. There are chargen choices - and those can be treated non-competatively (depends on the game). But things the characters themselves pick should often be twinked out because they matter to the character.

but I don't think the basic assumptions of the game (including what magic can do) are wrong or need to be changed.

Which basic assumptions? The assumption that the game changes at about level 10? The assumption shapechanging makes you roll for system shock or die? The assumption that teleport has a chance of teleporting you straight downwards into solid rock so you only pulled teleport out in emergencies? Those were all changed and it was IMO to the game's detriment that they were.

Ahnehnois said:
I find that fighters and their martial brethren are always popular, rogues are sometimes popular, alternate versions, custom classes, and monster characters abound, and casters are niche. I have had more clerics and druids than wizards and sorcerers, albeit not by much. My latest PC party has no full casters.

Huh. And druids and clerics aren't the same thing at all. (I also find 3.X a better game when the most powerful caster is the Bard).

I actually link my players to charop threads on their character of choice. Time still a significant barrier; and players I've had are still disinclined to do this kind of research.

Time, motivation, and fitting in the group.

erleni · Jul 24, 2012

DEFCON 1 said:
erleni, what's your point?

You and your games had issues with all of these things. Fine. Don't use them, or modify them as you see fit.

But if enough other players DIDN'T have these issues (based on how they ran their own games), then there's no reason to remove them altogether.

A rule that exists is easier to remove from an individual game than NOT having a rule that every single game would have to INVENT out of whole cloth in order to have.

WotC IS NOT creating a D&D for you. It is creating a D&D game for as many people as possible that wish to play it.

Following your reasoning a car-company should not fix a problem in their cars' brakes because a good part of the cars didn't crash so far (maybe this is an overstatement but I hope you get my point).

Since WotC is making a new system they should try to avoid the mistakes they made in the past (in all editions) and offer a system that is D&D, is robust and is fun.

Kavon · Jul 24, 2012

DEFCON 1 said:
WotC IS NOT creating a D&D for you. It is creating a D&D game for as many people as possible that wish to play it.

What, WotC has changed their stance on not providing the Wizard class with alternatives for the Vancian spellcasting system?

I haven't been keeping up with the latest news, so I might have missed it.

Somehow, I doubt that they did, though.
They're not actually doing a very good job in making the game for as many people as possible, if they keep deciding against creating options for people.

Ahnehnois · Jul 24, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
And here I wonder how what you do lines up with what I consider to be roleplaying. If a PC, in character, isn't trying to use every edge possible then they aren't taking the situation they are in seriously. And in some games it's only their lives on the line - in others it's the fate of the world. There are chargen choices - and those can be treated non-competatively (depends on the game). But things the characters themselves pick should often be twinked out because they matter to the character.

This is a very valid line of thought, up to the point where actual people and fictional characters do this.

I'm trying to min/max myself, trying to get the most out of my talents and the most out of life, sure. But am I doing the things that would make me the most money? Attract the most affection? Bring me the most happiness? No. Life's more complicated than that.

Similarly, I read fiction and invariably think that while most characters have goals and use their resources to pursue them aggressively, they don't end up doing so in the most efficient way. Do Star Trek characters always use their omniscient scanners and transporters and warp drive when it seems like they should? No. Does Gandalf hop on a giant eagle and drop the ring into the volcano? No.

So yes, I think characters should be optimized, but in an open system (and more importantly, with an open-minded DM, one who creates a game that rewards a variety of things), you can't "win" D&D. There are a few truly broken spells (the polymorphs come to mind), but those are fixable/bannable and don't represent the system as a whole.

billd91 · Jul 24, 2012

erleni said:
Following your reasoning a car-company should not fix a problem in their cars' brakes because a good part of the cars didn't crash so far (maybe this is an overstatement but I hope you get my point).

I don't think that follows the reasoning at all. Functional brakes are a necessary element of the car. No single spell rises to the level of necessary in D&D. Any can be cut out to make the game right for that table of players and their styles of play.
I think, if you wanted a car analogy, you'd be looking at standard options that someone might want to cut out or alter in order to customize the fully decked out car to his own specifications.

erleni said:
Since WotC is making a new system they should try to avoid the mistakes they made in the past (in all editions) and offer a system that is D&D, is robust and is fun.

That's the trick isn't it? Providing a game that is D&D without some of its legacy quirks. Is the game going to be D&Dish enough without knock, fly, teleport, and save or die spells? Or will it be labeled "not D&D" because it gets rid of too many iconic elements?

TwinBahamut · Jul 24, 2012

billd91 said:
I don't think that follows the reasoning at all. Functional brakes are a necessary element of the car. No single spell rises to the level of necessary in D&D. Any can be cut out to make the game right for that table of players and their styles of play.
I think, if you wanted a car analogy, you'd be looking at standard options that someone might want to cut out or alter in order to customize the fully decked out car to his own specifications.

You know, I don't agree with the phrasing I'm about to use very often but...

You make a good argument that we should just take all the problem spells like save-or-die, teleport, scrying, and so on, and stuff them in an optional module far away from the core. They're landmines, not brakes. They appeal to certain fans, but they cause endless problems for others, and they often have unpredictable and severely negative impact on the majority of campaigns. They should be isolated off in an optional supplement with a giant surgeon general's warning saying "dangerous: use at your own risk." A few essays on why these spells are bad might be nice, as well. They can call it the Tome of Forbidden Magic.

If, as you say, no spell is necessary to the game and anything can be cut, and that everything is an option, then this shouldn't be a problem for you, right?