A Rekindled Glimmer of Hope

[Neonchameleon]

If magic is to be significant and remarkable to the PC's, it can't be something that is done constantly, easily, or flippantly, even by those experts in it.

If magic is to be significant and remarkable to the PCs then the primary casters should not exist. The best casters should be like the bard and ranger - primary skill monkeys who can occasionally bring out the magic when their skills are not up to the job - and normally fight with swords or spells. While the wizard class exists, D&D is a high magic game.

If you can do something 1/day with no blowback then you can do somethign easily and flippantly.

If you can only do something three times per day, that is much rarer and more precious than doing something every round.

It's still about as common as me needing to go to the bathroom. Gandalf cast about half a dozen spells in the entire Lord of the Rings.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If magic is to be significant and remarkable to the PCs then the primary casters should not exist. The best casters should be like the bard and ranger - primary skill monkeys who can occasionally bring out the magic when their skills are not up to the job - and normally fight with swords or spells. While the wizard class exists, D&D is a high magic game.

That's something of a false choice. You can have a wizard in the game as a PC without magic being common in the world -- or even from that PC.

There's nothing in the mechanics which requires this, so it's a fluff choice.

That fluff choice should probably be in the hands of individual players and DMs, not WotC.

That's not really asking much.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If magic is to be significant and remarkable to the PCs then the primary casters should not exist. The best casters should be like the bard and ranger - primary skill monkeys who can occasionally bring out the magic when their skills are not up to the job - and normally fight with swords or spells.

I really want some one who wants wizards to only keep dailys to look at that angle.

Give the wizards d6 hd, leather armor, and some skill tricks/bonuses and the ability to take a feat(or talent or non weap) that is based of intelegent blademaster (use int instead of dex or str to hit and damage with weapons)

Would that class feel more magic?

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's something of a false choice. You can have a wizard in the game as a PC without magic being common in the world -- or even from that PC.

There's nothing in the mechanics which requires this, so it's a fluff choice.

That fluff choice should probably be in the hands of individual players and DMs, not WotC.

That's not really asking much.

You can have a spellcaster in the party without magic being common in the world or from the PC.

And I'm in favour of leaving things in the hands of the individual players and DMs. We're running a low magic campaign in 4e. How are we doing it? We've banned the high magic classes. My bard can still cast spells (rarely) - but only as rituals.

Let wizards cast at will spells. This will keep the fans of high magic happy. Suggest that you ban wizards, clerics, druids, and all other primary casters - leaving e.g. bards as the best casters in the game. This gives you a good low magic game as well. Except that your wizard is now called a bard. Where is the problem with having options like this?

 

[keterys]

I'm a huge fan of faster combats, and I like the idea of sidestepping or "solving" encounters just fine.

But I hate "Rocket Tag", and the idea that initiative and who gets off the first big screw first feels intrinsically wrapped in what was said. So... I'm glad they're looking at things, but I'm not entirely pleased by what was said.

I've been playing a little cross-edition D&D games to get ready for Next, and it's been fairly obvious. In editions where initiative was gameable, initiative was King. In editions where combat was resolved with one round or one effect, it was even worse.

 

[DMKastmaria]

Let wizards cast at will spells. This will keep the fans of high magic happy. Suggest that you ban wizards, clerics, druids, and all other primary casters - leaving e.g. bards as the best casters in the game. This gives you a good low magic game as well. Except that your wizard is now called a bard. Where is the problem with having options like this?

Because Bards suck and I'd want a real MU class, even in a low magic setting?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Let wizards cast at will spells. This will keep the fans of high magic happy. Suggest that you ban wizards, clerics, druids, and all other primary casters - leaving e.g. bards as the best casters in the game. This gives you a good low magic game as well. Except that your wizard is now called a bard. Where is the problem with having options like this?

That's a very binary choice that need not be so extreme. You can have wizards in the game without at-will magic, and keep the high-magic fans happy through all sorts of methods (themes, warlocks, etc.).

The choice doesn't need to between "allow at-will magic" and "BAN ALL SPELLCASTERS." Some folks want to keep magic as something the PC's can access without being something that any PC who accesses automatically treats as disposable. Those folks can easily be accommodated without inconveniencing anyone else, so they probably should be.

I don't see why there is resistance to the idea that the one point of contention can just be turned off by those who don't want it. From what's been said, the wizard WAS that way, and Mearls STILL wants it to be an option at some point, and it should really not be hard to stick the at-will magic somewhere other than automatically in the Wizard class.

It's easy, it's fair, and it sounds like it would be widely accepted if that were the case.

At any rate, that is really a different thread.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If magic is to be significant and remarkable to the PC's, it can't be something that is done constantly, easily, or flippantly, even by those experts in it.

If you can only do something three times per day, that is much rarer and more precious than doing something every round.

And yet... in the grand scheme of things... it's still not that rare. It might be rare enough for you, KM, which is cool... I have no problem with how you feel about how rare magic should be... but for me (since I was answering Keldryn query wondering how someone could feel that way), 3 times a day every day for your entire life isn't special. As Neonchameleon said... you go to the bathroom that often, and look how mundane that is.

Basically, I would just argue that *if* we were trying to create in the actual game how you feel it should be... "magic is to be significant and remarkable to the PC's, it can't be something that is done constantly, easily, or flippantly, even by those experts in it."... that not only is at-will magic NOT going to get us that, but that spellcasting as it currently stands in the D&D game will ALSO not get us that. The D&D magic system really should be completely overhauled.

Because I don't know what number you would choose to constitute something as being "rare"... but if you're a wizard who does magic from ages 30 to 70 and casts on average 3 cantrips a day... that's 43,800 magical cantrips you will have cast by the time you die. Which, I'm sorry, is ANYTHING but "significant" or "remarkable".

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's a very binary choice that need not be so extreme. You can have wizards in the game without at-will magic, and keep the high-magic fans happy through all sorts of methods (themes, warlocks, etc.).

The problem here is that you aren't making either the high magic or the low magic fans happy. I'm suggesting switches and options that allow you to pick the height of magic in your game. You can have wizards in the game without at will abilities - which means that the high magic fans won't be happy. And you have wizards with a pile of effective and choosable magic with very little cost or drawback. Which means low magic fans won't be happy.

As compromises go, it might have the benefit of appealing to no one. Except that it's not appealing to no one, it's appealing to the Traditionalists. This isn't a compromise.

A compromise would at the very least be to allow wizards to trade out their at will spells for an extra couple of low level spells. And then giving the DM control of that switch.

The choice doesn't need to between "allow at-will magic" and "BAN ALL SPELLCASTERS."

I wasn't saying ban all spellcasters. I explicitely mentioned leaving the bard as a caster. What I said was ban all primary casters if you want to make a low magic game.

Some folks want to keep magic as something the PC's can access without being something that any PC who accesses automatically treats as disposable. Those folks can easily be accommodated without inconveniencing anyone else, so they probably should be.

There are times in 3.X where magic is quite literally "Use it or lose it" thanks to the magical recharge systems. That's an even cheaper cost than free.

I don't see why there is resistance to the idea that the one point of contention can just be turned off by those who don't want it. From what's been said, the wizard WAS that way, and Mearls STILL wants it to be an option at some point, and it should really not be hard to stick the at-will magic somewhere other than automatically in the Wizard class.

The wizard is not, has never been, and will never be a genuine low magic class. Now you can allow the Vancian wizard without at wills on the grounds of Tradition. But for low magic, magic needs to have a genuine cost or to be genuinely rare. Not something that a class gets a dump truck full of every day with only a token cost and that are their primary rather than their reserve means of problem solving.

Wizard classes in low magic games look more like WFRP (2e or 3e) or DCC classes - magic being unpredictable and having blowback. Or ritual casters. Or even 3.X bards where even the casters will use their non-magical skills before breaking out the magic - because in many cases the magic is best used to supplement rather than replace the mundane, and the effects aren't objectively that powerful. Or 4.X ritualists where you pay time and money rather than simply six seconds at the point of need to cast just about any spell.

It's easy, it's fair, and it sounds like it would be widely accepted if that were the case.

It fails to make the wizard a high magic class and fails to make it a low magic one. The only people this would keep happy are those looking for Traditional D&D Magic. It's easy, it's not fair, and it would be unlikely to be accepted IMO

 

[infax]

Well, I really, REALLY, don't want the wildly swingy spellcaster model in the games I GM. Stating that the iconic Wizard is banned, however, may be tough. I wouldn't have too much trouble with Kamikaze Midget's suggestion that Wizards be the swingy spellcaster and Warlocks and Sorcerers use different models of magic. What may be an issue, however, is if Sorcerers and Warlocks have a significant amount of additional rules built into them.

I would like to have "bookish spellcasters" who can cast magic much more than a couple of times a day, who can perform minor acts of magic regularly, simply for their convenience or to show off. I would not like to require those "wizards" (as reskinned sorcerers or warlocks) to have some kind of "bloodline" (with specific rules for that and balance based on that) or to have some kind of pact (with specific rules for that and balance based on that).

So, I would feel more comfortable if different magic system modules could be the base suggestion (and available from launch) rather than stating that "the Wizard is bookish, metamagical and swingy", "the sorcerer is spontaneous, magic-infused and steady" and "the warlock is constant, derives his magic from some external force and has a debt".