• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

[L&L] Balancing the Wizards in D&D

Oni

First Post
WOTC tried the "bring all the other classes up" approach in 4e, and some people balked at it.

I would argue that they didn't balk at that particular design philosophy so much as the execution. Bring all the other classes up is not the same as give them all the same power system and at the same time drastically change how a lot of classes function.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I hope players don't have to take the damage cantrip. I want crossbow wizards to still be possible.

Old School Crossbow Wizard: Resistance, Light, Flare, Read Magic, Prestidigitation

New School Blaster Wizard: Scorching Burst, Detect Magic, Ray of Frost, Read Magic, Prestidigitation
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I would argue that they didn't balk at that particular design philosophy so much as the execution. Bring all the other classes up is not the same as give them all the same power system and at the same time drastically change how a lot of classes function.

It is hard to bring the other classes up to the MAGIC! class without practically giving them MAGIC!

There is a lot of "Rogues jump too high!" and "Fighters can't survive that!" guys. A LOT of them!
 

Lwaxy

Cute but dangerous
The "magic is dangerous" concept is one such restriction. It says, a wizard's magic is stronger than a fighter sword if it can be casted. But then it also allows for a fighter to stop a wizard more easily through his bread and butter (damage).

We've always done it so a caster no matter the class getting injured may lose concentration, and if she does the spell fizzles. The DC to not have the spell fizzle depends on the damage taken, of course.

I was under the impression a lot of groups to that, but looks like I'm wrong there.

In any case, for me the yes or no towards 5e goes with the way they handle magic, so if there's going to be yet fewer options for the magic types, I'm going to back off.
 

erleni

First Post
Cantrip as at-will: good! I hate crossbow wizards as they don't really feel magical.

Keep spells under control: good. This should extend to any kind of ability. Nobody should be able to shut down encounters regularly with a single tactic.

Reducing total spell slots: once again good. Wizards should not have enough spell slots to do everything all the time. Anyway this has to be balanced by making cantrips/at-will meaningful.

Spells don't automatically scale: this should be simply balanced with the rest of the math.

Spellcasting is dangerous: please don't do it. Too many variables to keep it under control for the good and for the bad, but what I really hate is the "defend the mage" attitude it will bring in (unless wizards are like in 3e where with a relatively small investment they can keep casting even inside a grinding machine).

Keep magic under control: solid. Characters should be awsome because they are awesome, not because they carry an arsenal of wands and scrolls.

Keep buff spells under control: I agree in general but please be careful in implementing stuff like stoneskin and haste. They were two of the most unbalanced spells in the past.

Creativity not, dominance: fully agree.

By the way, 4th edition addressed all these points in the right way (IMHO), except the last one where presentation could be really better.
 

We've always done it so a caster no matter the class getting injured may lose concentration, and if she does the spell fizzles. The DC to not have the spell fizzle depends on the damage taken, of course.

This is already considerably more generous than the AD&D/BD&D method, where there's no "may" about it. Since interrupting a caster was also easier, since spells took time to cast, being able to get a spell off required a lot more thought. By comparison, 3e was Easy Mode for casters.
 

Hautamaki

First Post
Hello Everyone,

Some excellent suggestions here:

Article (Balancing Wizards in D&D)

I think the final point of creativity over dominance however, was the most important for me. This is as crucial to uniting the editions as is square-rooting the quadratic wizard. I think they are on the right path.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

One point about creativity is that in the internet age you have to take into consideration the combined creative brain power of everyone on Earth who plays the game lol. If that were not the case, a lot of players would never realize how powerful certain combinations of spells can be. I'd certainly never be able to come up with Pun Pun on my own, for example.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Well, it's a few baby steps in some right directions I suppose...

I'm not sold on at-will magic; I don't at all mind the idea of a Wizard having to do something else once out of spells. What concerns me here is the implication that combats will last long enough for at-wills to be necessary; in other words the need to keep up to some sort of damage-per-round standard in order to cut down the bag of hit points in the expected time. Better to just reduce the hit point totals, hm?

The next three points - fewer slots, "appropriate" power, and no scaling - aren't very relevant provided things below are seen to...

Spellcasting is dangerous. Damn right it is! High risk, high reward. Wizards are powerful, but with that power comes a very high risk, often to the caster and not much less often to those around her. If you're summoning up the energies of the cosmos and get interrupted there should be a decent chance those energies release anyway in a wild magic surge - sometimes beneficial, sometimes harmful, and sometimes just humourous. This idea that a blown spell is not lost is kind of ridiculous: a Magic analogy fits here, in that if you've got a spell on the stack and it gets countered you don't get to put the card back in your hand. Same should be true here: if your spell gets interrupted you don't get to put it back in your brain...

Magic items - answer here is to do away with PC item creation, period. The scroll-uses-a-slot proposal doesn't work - scrolls should be a one-shot "extra" for when you really need it, and fairly uncommon unless a DM gives 'em out like candy. And how does this interact with casting a spell off a scroll that is usually too high level for you?

Buff spells got broken in 3e in part because there seemed to be way more of them than in 1e (can't speak for 2e here). I find people don't tend to use buffs in 1e nearly as much, perhaps because of having to choose between buffing and blasting.

Creativity in spell use is a double-edged sword. Obviously it's fun to be creative with how one casts spells, but it's that same creativity that can unintentionally break things if not squelched. My own stance is to let the creativity reign and see what happens, but I realize others may take the other tack - I think the game can support both sides here.

Lanefan
 

Ahnehnois

First Post
Well, let's have at it:
Cantrips as At-Will Magic: We're hoping to keep the concept of cantrips for wizards, and expand it to include some nifty attack and utility spells. Wizards would be able to cast spells at will, much as they do in 4E. We think that making cantrips a bit more powerful, while also making them at-will, will go a long way toward making restrictions on prepared spells more palatable for groups that don't see caster dominance as an issue.

We also look at at-will magic as a key tool in keeping the adventure moving forward. You can still unleash all your prepared spells in rapid succession, but that doesn't leave you powerless.
Okay. Nothing to see here. How often do spells run out anyway? And does it matter?

Keep Spells Under Control: This is an obvious first step, but we need to make sure that spells are of the appropriate power level and that they don't abuse the system in some way. For instance, the 3E grease spell required a DC 10 Balance check to avoid some of its effects. That seems reasonable, until you realize that grease was a 1st-level spell and that a 15th-level NPC cleric might have a total Balance check modifier of –8. We need to make sure that spells don't create an effect that is too powerful or include loopholes that make them overwhelmingly powerful for their level.
This is a terrible example. If you are a 15th level cleric and you can't stand on your feet, then Grease should be a problem for you. There is no reason why a 1st level spell, used well, shouldn't be powerful under that situation. If anything, more of that type of thing would be good to reduce the difference between characters of different levels.

Reducing Total Spell Slots: Since wizards now have at-will magic, they need fewer spell slots. The current design places a cap on the total number of spells you can prepare, and it caps the maximum number of spells you can prepare of each level. The reduction of spell slots pushes more reliance on cantrips, and it makes combinations harder to repeat.
That would be nice. I hate memorizing huge number of spells.

Spells Don't Automatically Scale: We're thinking that wizard spells scale only if they are prepared with higher-level slots. That would mean that a wizard's spells don't all become more powerful as he or she levels up. The wizard would gain some new, more powerful spells. The wizard would not gain those spells while also making the rest of the spell list more powerful.
Not really a big deal; the most powerful spells never scaled much with level anyway. But okay, that's not a bad thing. It's actually a good thing if the power of the spell is less reflective of the caster.

Spellcasting Is Dangerous: This point ventures into the theoretical, since we still aren't 100% certain how we want to pursue it (so it's just the kind of thing that we want to gather feedback on in the playtest). The current proposal is that a wizard who takes damage has a chance to miscast his or her next spell. A wizard can always instead choose to do something else or use a cantrip without risk of failure. In addition, a miscast spell is never lost. The wizard can try again next round.

The idea here is to capture the feel of earlier editions, where wizards needed some amount of protection to unleash their most powerful abilities. In play, it means that a wizard has to be careful in a fight, lean on defensive magic, or otherwise stay out of harm's way.
Concept: okay. Implementation: we'll see.


Keep Magic Items Under Control: There's a good chance that magic item creation will be a rules module that DMs can opt into. At the very least, items such as scrolls and wands will likely change in the following ways.

Scrolls would require a caster to expend a prepared spell to use them. Thus, scrolls would make wizards more versatile but they do not increase the number of spells they can cast each day.

Wands would no longer accept just any spell. Instead, we would provide a specific list of spells that can be added to wands. The idea here is to keep things under control so that casting fly on everyone in the party is a real investment by a wizard.
The scroll thing is not good. If anything, it would be better if anyone could use a scroll with a skill check, and tying a spell slot to it makes it harder to use, not easier. Limiting wands is fine but not really important. How many wands other than CLW every saw use anyway? Crafting needs to be fixed for some groups, but I don't think most D&D players ever used it, let alone had problems with it.

Keep Buff Spells Under Control: We want to make sure that spells such as haste and invisibility are useful without making other classes' key abilities redundant. An invisible creature that makes noise or otherwise gives away its location might not get much of a defensive benefit. Instead, an invisible creature is best off if it has a rogue's excellent bonuses to stealth. In this case, invisibility works as a spell that makes a scout or sneaky character much harder to find. It does not become a huge defensive buff.

Haste might grant extra attacks, but at a penalty that makes the fighter's ability to attack multiple times come out ahead. The cleric in the group fights much better with haste, but she still can't match the fighter's martial skill. On the other hand, casting haste on a fighter is a great idea. It augments the fighter's already deadly weapon skill.

Spells such as stoneskin, shield, and blur are great for wizards because they make casting less hazardous and help counter the class's low AC and hit points. A wizard might throw such spells on the rest of the party, giving up some of his or her own defensive options to help the rest of the party thrive.
Invisible is invisible. That said, it would be nice to reign in some of these spells.

Creativity, Not Dominance: Finally, on a personal level, I'd love it if creative use of a spell focused more on improvisation rather than number crunching. A web spell entangles the bandit chief's horse, cutting off his best chance to escape. Grease allows a rogue caught in a giant crab's claw to wriggle free with ease. If we build good, clear descriptions into the spells that bring them to life and combine these descriptions with a robust set of DM tools for improvisation, spells become tools that characters can use in creative ways rather than strictly defined special abilities. Hopefully, reining in some of the mechanical challenges that D&D has faced in the past makes it easier to encourage creative use of spells in a compelling, immersive way.
It sure would be nice if this came through in the design.

It's a delicate issue. There's room for improvement from the "classic" D&D approach, but the whole power thing was such a huge step backwards that I think it will be very difficult to sell any kind of rethinking of the game now.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top