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

[Oni]

ar
5 kobolds ambush the party, the fight lasts 4 full combat rounds, and 1 suprise round (kobolds get the suprise) providing no PCs die from those 5 kobolds, you do what for those 4-5 rounds. Out of game that is like half hour to forty minites.

Good lord, I hope not.

 

[I'm A Banana]

There's a few problems with this.

• Assuming that at-will magic is a good thing is a problem. It may be a good thing for some individual groups, but it's certainly not a classic D&D wizard, and you can't rely on that as a balancing mechanism and keep folks wanting classic D&D wizard gameplay happy. You need to have the option to turn it off, and the game can't assume that it happens.
• Spells being "interruptable" isn't bad, and I'm fond of their mechanic for it, but it does apply a rather hard limit for any combat-focused spellcasters out there. It's not an unsolvable problem, but it is a little eyebrow-raising.
• Only certain spells will be wand-able? What? Are we going back to 4e's days of "only one daily item power because NUMBERS?" Rather than bake-in artificial distinctions, what is lost by, say, making wands have the at-will cantrips?
• Scrolls costing slots is similarly weird. Though it's a good instinct to let a spellcaster gain some versatility, it's very odd to bake it into magic items like that.
• Related to the two above points: whatever the heck happened to the idea that magic items were pure reward and you shouldn't EXPECT to gain any and if you do then bully for you, but there's no guarantee they're going to be useful? If you really want to have wands cast spells, let them cast a million of 'em, and just warn DMs. Or whatever.

These aren't exactly positive signs.

And mearls still doesn't seem to quite understand a basic principle of adventure-based design: individual encounters are more disposable. In 5e, it shouldn't be a problem if you grease-glitterdust handicap an iron golem, because the iron golem isn't the only thing you need to kill, and mages only get a handful of spells anyway.

(not that grease and glitterdust need to do so much -- in 4e, that balance DC is a lot more reasonable given always-increasing bonuses. But there are ways to solve the problem that don't mandate changing how a wizard plays)

I'm not encouraged by this. There's a few good points (very limited spells/day, and damage disruption, for instance), but about equal quantities of troubling statements.

I've been pretty gung-ho about 5e so far, but I'm not so sure about this one. There's some conceptual problems, here.

 

[Gold Roger]

I think this article way more fack than it deserves. Most of this should be seen in comparison of 3.x, which was an issue for a lot of people. Let's see:

Cantrips as At-Will Magic: Really, we're talking cantrips here. Even if they get a tiny bit better than usual, that's still weaker than a normal weapon. Besides, there's plenty of creatures that can "shoot magic" at will. We know D&D magic can do this. Doesn't it make sense for wizards to develope something for backup?

Keep Spells Under Control: The wording and example might be a bit messy, but this is a sensible suggestion. Spells that circumvented normal defense mechanics could really mess up 3rd edition (black tentacles comes to mind).

Reducing Total Spell Slots: In light of the other changes, this too, makes sense. Again, especially in the light of 3.5, spell slots got redicilous. And how often did anyone use 1st-3rd level spells at high level?

Spells Don't Automatically Scale: Spellcasters getting both new spell levels with more powerfull spells and spells of lower levels scaling at the same time means a significant power increase at every level that is hard for non spellcasters to keep up with. In addition, automatic scaling means a spell that is no problem when initially gained, could be ridiculous at higher levels.

Spellcasting Is Dangerous: Big misnamer here. It should rather be named "Casting a spell in combat is hard to do". Again, to me this seemed sensible and in line with traditional D&D. 4th is the only edition I can think of that did away with this entirely. And it makes sense. When you're fighting you are aware and reacting to people attacking you (duh). When casting a spell you concentrate on something that is definitely not fighting, weaving around your arms and reciting. Just try that while people come at you with a sword.

Keep Magic Items Under Control: Is this even still about the wizard? Was it ever? I'd assume most of this stuff goes for clerics to. I can see people not liking these suggestions. The scroll thing is bogus and I'd prefer wands as implements (maybe required to use cantrips)

Keep Buff Spells Under Control: I've always had my problems with buffs. 1 or 2 buffs? Awesome. Tracking masses of buffs (wether 3rd edition longtime or 4ths masses of 1 round buffs). Boo. So I'll not comment further, as I'm heavily biased.

Creativity, Not Dominance: Looks like riggid 4th edition style spell formulas are a thing of history. This is a huge boon for spellcasters all around and should ensure they're not completely nerfed. This also puts the magic back into spellcasting more than any definite rule ever could.

To me this all seems like it could put power levels of spellcasters in line with other classes while keeping them different and, well, magical.

That people argue against this collection of goals from both sides of the spectrum just shows you can't please everyone once again. I believe it's a good compromise for the core. The magic system should be a place where modularity especially extensive.

 

[Fifth Element]

The idea that a wizard must always have a ZAP button for infinite damage is very videogamey.

Drink!

 

[Minigiant]

I just don't get the videogamey feel.

If you don't like wizard's with atwill attack cantrips, don't pick atwill attack cantrips. Take Open/Close instead of Ray of Frost. Detect magic over Magic Needle. Then Polly out you gun crossbow and fire.


As for the leave the spells at high power and make the DM handle everything. No.

Crafty once is abuse the tenth time.
Spontaneously putting drains in rooms, handing goggle to monsters, and adding SURPRISE! Reinforcements! when the casters try their trick the third time la not fun on the DM side. I shouldn't have to fudge and nerf constantly to make the game work.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Assuming that at-will magic is a good thing is a problem. It may be a good thing for some individual groups, but it's certainly not a classic D&D wizard, and you can't rely on that as a balancing mechanism and keep folks wanting classic D&D wizard gameplay happy. You need to have the option to turn it off, and the game can't assume that it happens.

That's why the at-will spells are feats that need to be allowed to exist by the DM, and taken by the players. They aren't a default part of the wizard (from what we have heard from R&D). Those who don't want at-will magic in their game can just disallow the feats to be taken.

 

[billd91]

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

I don't really see 4e's attempt at combat balance as just "bring[ing] all the other classes up" as much as it was nerfing the heck out of most combat-available spells. That's not bringing the other classes up, that's bringing the casters down.

And I agree that the result was certainly controversial.

 

[Bedrockgames]

,

And mearls still doesn't seem to quite understand a basic principle of adventure-based design: individual encounters are more disposable. In 5e, it shouldn't be a problem if you grease-glitterdust handicap an iron golem, because the iron golem isn't the only thing you need to kill, and mages only get a handful of spells anyway.

I am not troubled by the article but this is a very solid point and i actually want to encourage you to send this feedback to mearls directly (more tactfully stated of course).

 

[erleni]

I think this article way more fack than it deserves. Most of this should be seen in comparison of 3.x, which was an issue for a lot of people. Let's see:

Cantrips as At-Will Magic: Really, we're talking cantrips here. Even if they get a tiny bit better than usual, that's still weaker than a normal weapon. Besides, there's plenty of creatures that can "shoot magic" at will. We know D&D magic can do this. Doesn't it make sense for wizards to develope something for backup?

Keep Spells Under Control: The wording and example might be a bit messy, but this is a sensible suggestion. Spells that circumvented normal defense mechanics could really mess up 3rd edition (black tentacles comes to mind).

Reducing Total Spell Slots: In light of the other changes, this too, makes sense. Again, especially in the light of 3.5, spell slots got redicilous. And how often did anyone use 1st-3rd level spells at high level?

Spells Don't Automatically Scale: Spellcasters getting both new spell levels with more powerfull spells and spells of lower levels scaling at the same time means a significant power increase at every level that is hard for non spellcasters to keep up with. In addition, automatic scaling means a spell that is no problem when initially gained, could be ridiculous at higher levels.

Spellcasting Is Dangerous: Big misnamer here. It should rather be named "Casting a spell in combat is hard to do". Again, to me this seemed sensible and in line with traditional D&D. 4th is the only edition I can think of that did away with this entirely. And it makes sense. When you're fighting you are aware and reacting to people attacking you (duh). When casting a spell you concentrate on something that is definitely not fighting, weaving around your arms and reciting. Just try that while people come at you with a sword.

Keep Magic Items Under Control: Is this even still about the wizard? Was it ever? I'd assume most of this stuff goes for clerics to. I can see people not liking these suggestions. The scroll thing is bogus and I'd prefer wands as implements (maybe required to use cantrips)

Keep Buff Spells Under Control: I've always had my problems with buffs. 1 or 2 buffs? Awesome. Tracking masses of buffs (wether 3rd edition longtime or 4ths masses of 1 round buffs). Boo. So I'll not comment further, as I'm heavily biased.

Creativity, Not Dominance: Looks like riggid 4th edition style spell formulas are a thing of history. This is a huge boon for spellcasters all around and should ensure they're not completely nerfed. This also puts the magic back into spellcasting more than any definite rule ever could.

To me this all seems like it could put power levels of spellcasters in line with other classes while keeping them different and, well, magical.

That people argue against this collection of goals from both sides of the spectrum just shows you can't please everyone once again. I believe it's a good compromise for the core. The magic system should be a place where modularity especially extensive.

Cantrip as at-wills: it makes quite some sense. First of all why should all mages in the world be trained in crossbows? If you study magic it makes more sense to develop something you know than to dabble into something completely alien to you (do Mage's towers have crossbow shooting training fields?)

Spellcasting is dangerous: why should damage interfere with casting magic and not with wielding a sword? I've been doing martial arts for some years (even if I'm not a professional) and I can assure you that after getting kicked hard your ability to fight is reduced until you shake off the pain, and if somebody punches you in the face you'll most likely not complete the maneuver you were supposedly doing.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

And this is why the at-will cantrips *ARE* feats. They aren't "default" as far as we can tell. The DM has to allow the at-will spell feats to be taken, and the players have to choose to select them. At this point in time, as far has been mentioned by the designers, they are optional.

But as is always the case, some people don't want options to be available, because apparently that means implicitly that they should be used, and thus they are being "forced" into it. But in my opinion that's an attitude that has no place in the realm of compromise.

Actually, this article seems to indicate that attack at-wills will be available without a feat. And they should be, for players that DO want them available. For those that don't want them and want to play a crossbow wizard, they can elect to have other cantrips. They aren't forcing you to pick them.

Overall, I have nothing to complain about with this yet. This was the class I was most worried about.