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

[GMforPowergamers]

A first level wizard in AD&D has the exact same chance to hit as a first level fighter. So yeah, he can make a difference. Any person entering a dungeon where monsters lurk better damn well be prepared to swing a weapon.

um no, close, most likely your best case senero is a 2e wizard who rolled well for stats and a 2e fighter who did not.

The wizard has a base Thac0 of 20, a Base AC 10 (no armor) and a Base hp 4 Lets give him a +1 str, a high Int, a +1 dex and a +1 Con

that gives him an adjusted thac0 of 19 with both melee and range attacks, AC9 and 5hp.

Now lets give the fighter only a +2 str and +1 con, and no other positive modfires. He has weapon spec long sword. and an adjusted thax0 of 17 an AC of around 4 and 10hp they also get to attack 3 times every 2 rounds (and multi attaack is an accuracy increase.


so if we are fighting an AC 9 with an adjusted thac0 of 17

then the fighter attacks once the first round and twice the second and needs 8 or better to hit. That monster hits him on a 13 or better


the wizard needs a 10 to hit and gets hit on a 10 as well.

that is most likly the closest you will ever get, by level 4 the diffrence is huge.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If you're doing 1d4+1 damage a round and it's fluffed as a "magic missile" instead of a "crossbow bolt", and you consider that "playing a videogame"... then I'd wonder what video games you were playing.

Exactly. If you're going to call me a wizard then by god give me something 'magical' to do, even if it is just a fancy dart. The wizard in my 4e game has MM, and it is nice. It usually sees a use or two in any fight. There's always that pesky monster that isn't quite dead yet and is flanking the paladin, kapow.

Anyway, my understanding is the wizard uses some kind of feat to get that currently. Seems OK, they'd probably need a feat to get a crossbow that is about equal to that.

I don't see what the "at-will cantrips" thing is about. It is like the reference point is AD&D or something in Mearls head. 4e cantrips are all at-will and always have been. They're quite handy and properly exploiting them can do a lot for you.

Honestly, playing the 4e wizard my impression is that if you're clever you're able to pull off a lot of stuff. There are a huge number of rituals for instance and many of them are actually pretty darn useful.

 

[KidSnide]

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.

I want to add that I really like this idea. Because shifting and 5-foot-steps were so easy, I thought it was too difficult to spoil the casting of 3e and 4e characters with a melee assault. Sure, you could back them into a corner, but 3e casters could cast defensively and 4e casters had close spells. (Essentially, you were stuck readying an action.)

This rule creates a nice balance of spoiling a wizard's ability to be effective without putting the character into a situation where they can hardly do anything (because they always have the cantrip). It also has the significant advantage of not needing a map, and anything that allows semi-tactical combat in theater of the mind is a big plus in my book.

-KS

 

[n00bdragon]

um no, close, most likely your best case senero is a 2e wizard who rolled well for stats and a 2e fighter who did not.

The wizard has a base Thac0 of 20, a Base AC 10 (no armor) and a Base hp 4 Lets give him a +1 str, a high Int, a +1 dex and a +1 Con

that gives him an adjusted thac0 of 19 with both melee and range attacks, AC9 and 5hp.

Now lets give the fighter only a +2 str and +1 con, and no other positive modfires. He has weapon spec long sword. and an adjusted thax0 of 17 an AC of around 4 and 10hp they also get to attack 3 times every 2 rounds (and multi attaack is an accuracy increase.


so if we are fighting an AC 9 with an adjusted thac0 of 17

then the fighter attacks once the first round and twice the second and needs 8 or better to hit. That monster hits him on a 13 or better


the wizard needs a 10 to hit and gets hit on a 10 as well.

that is most likly the closest you will ever get, by level 4 the diffrence is huge.

You know, stat modifiers didn't work back then like they do now. Back in 2e you needed a 16 strength just to get +1 damage. A 17 gave you +1 to hit AND +1 to damage and a whopping 18 gave you +1 to hit and +2 to damage. Now take into account that the standard method of rolling was 3d6 then as well. I know a good number of groups used 4d6 drop lowest so I'll be generous and allow that. Plus, since there was no core race that boosted strength you need to roll that 17 legit to get your measly +1 to hit. Suffice to say that in an entire adventuring group it's about 50/50 whether someone has a 17, and 18s are very rare special occasions.

So yes, very often fighters and wizards DO have the same chance to hit stuff at early levels.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This rule creates a nice balance of spoiling a wizard's ability to be effective without putting the character into a situation where they can hardly do anything (because they always have the cantrip). It also has the significant advantage of not needing a map, and anything that allows semi-tactical combat in theater of the mind is a big plus in my book.

I'm a little afraid it will encourage the "the rest of the party is there to be the wizard's bodyguard" problem. If wizard spells are good, and the party wants the wizard to get off their spells, the encounter will, to an awkward degree, depend on everyone protecting the wizard. Not sure I like that.

It might not result in that, o'course, but it's part of the possible consequences I see.

 

[Elf Witch]

I have often played wizards and I never once just sat out combats when I ran out of spells which happened all the time in earlier editions.

I used to fire my crossbow, throw alchemical items, dart around dragging fallen comrades out of the fray and pouring healing potions down their throat to get them back up.

I was even known to draw a weapon or use my quaterstaff to play whack a mole on someone's head.

If you are going to say doing all that is nothing because it is not doing a lot of damage so does not count then the issue is not the wizard doing something it is the wizard is not doing as much damage as the rest of the party.

Giving the wizard to fire a magic missile a round for 1D4+1 is no better then firing a crossbow.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

um no, close, most likely your best case senero is a 2e wizard who rolled well for stats and a 2e fighter who did not.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of the average fighter and wizard. Which means neither has a strength bonus. You are not guaranteed to roll a 16 or higher.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You know, stat modifiers didn't work back then like they do now. Back in 2e you needed a 16 strength just to get +1 damage. A 17 gave you +1 to hit AND +1 to damage and a whopping 18 gave you +1 to hit and +2 to damage. Now take into account that the standard method of rolling was 3d6 then as well. I know a good number of groups used 4d6 drop lowest so I'll be generous and allow that. Plus, since there was no core race that boosted strength you need to roll that 17 legit to get your measly +1 to hit. Suffice to say that in an entire adventuring group it's about 50/50 whether someone has a 17, and 18s are very rare special occasions.

So yes, very often fighters and wizards DO have the same chance to hit stuff at early levels.

My books are in storage, but I will take your word for it (I thught when I typed that a 16 str gave +1 to hit.) but that hurts your side even more. Becuse I gave the wizard +1 from str, dex, con and a good Int. So lets go back and give them more realistic (from my point of view) stats...

Fighter with a 16 str and weapon speclization weilding a long sword is doing Adj Thac0 19 with 3 attacks per 2 rounds for 1d8+3 damage
Wizard with 9+ but less then 16 str has a 20 thac0 1 attack per round 1d4 damage.

and that is the best you could hope for, but if dex was the same those ACs are way less too.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of the average fighter and wizard. Which means neither has a strength bonus. You are not guaranteed to roll a 16 or higher.

I totaly most have been playing a diffrent game entriely then you guys.

we almost never (and never for long) rolled 3d6.

We almost always (although not always) had atleast 1 player with an 18, and often most had atleast 1 16.

I have seen atleast 6 fighters with 18xx str, and 2 of them had 18/00 str (one awarded by dm, and one roled in advance but suposadly witnessed)

 

[AngryMojo]

While I really like the idea of magic being dangerous, the idea of potentially not casting a spell while taking damage is hardly such. I'm far too accustomed to the idea of "dangerous" magic potentially killing the caster when things go awry. I think there's plenty of things you could add in to make a good "dangerous magic" module rather than a "slightly more unreliable" module.

Imagine if fireball scattered when cast. Not very far, but enough to potentially hit allies. Or lightning bolts prioritizing targets in heavy armor, like the party fighter. Things that have the chance of happening if the caster's aim is off, not just if the player's aim is off.