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

Making Magic Magical Again?

Intrinsic to the idea of magic, in my opinion, is placing it in the game as a limited resource. While I undestand people wanting to have something to do all day long with their wizards, that's on the root of magic that is not magical enough.

I think the major problem with wizards doing non-wizard things through the day is the choices made available in the core game. C'mon, it's hard to shoot at the orcs with a crossbow when Gandalf is there fighting with a staff in one hand and a sword in the other... :p

Wizards should have good mundane stuff to complete their set of options; something compatible with the limited nature of "magic that is magical enough".

Cheers,
 

log in or register to remove this ad

KidSnide

Adventurer
At least for magic items, I think the prevalence of minor daily powers in 4e really cuts down the magic feel. Once you have a few, it makes sense to try using one or more in practically every encounter. For the typical paragon party, a magic item power probably gets used every round, and rarely does it have a major effect.

Similarly, arcane (and divine) daily powers aren't really any different from any other type of daily power. They are super reliable, and don't produce a huge bang.

I would dramatically reduce the expected number of magic items to, say, 3-4 magic items per tier. I'd expect each character to gain one offensive magic item per tier, plus a second complicated defensive/misc item and 1-2 minor items. Those major items would have significant powers - something that strongly affects how the character fights or a 1/week (read: 1/adventure) power that can totally change a single encounter or situation.

If characters have a very small number of magic items they won't want to get rid of them. I don't mind having rules for selling magic items. I don't like the idea that most characters will want to do it. Also, if magic items are rare, it will make sense if NPCs don't have any.

I would also make high end arcane spells more significant. I don't mind if arcane characters have at-will or encounter magics that are reliable and no better than non-magical powers. However, I think daily (or rarely case) magic should be less predictable and more dangerous to use. Those abilities should be disrupt-able (vulnerable to opportunity and interrupt attacks) and maybe they should have a cost in (generic) material components, healing surges or action points. I would add in a "disrupted" effect where nailing a wizard casting a powerful spell could result in the wizard being hit by his own uncontrolled magic. (Of course, monster spellcasters should have the same vulnerability.)

Divine magic might be less vulnerable to disruption, but I think powerful divine spellcasters should have a top-end ability where either the effect is unpredictable (because it's decided by the deity/DM) or the availability of the power is unpredictable because whether it goes off depends on how well the cleric has been fulfilling his holy obligations and how often he's been calling on the deity's intercession.

-KS
 

Electronic

First Post
Intrinsic to the idea of magic, in my opinion, is placing it in the game as a limited resource. While I undestand people wanting to have something to do all day long with their wizards, that's on the root of magic that is not magical enough.

I think the major problem with wizards doing non-wizard things through the day is the choices made available in the core game. C'mon, it's hard to shoot at the orcs with a crossbow when Gandalf is there fighting with a staff in one hand and a sword in the other... :p

Wizards should have good mundane stuff to complete their set of options; something compatible with the limited nature of "magic that is magical enough".

Cheers,

I disagree.

I pick Wizards because I want to fight using magic. Not because I want to fight with swords (or crossbows or darts) and occasionally use magic.
 

KarinsDad

Adventurer
I'm not convinced magical magic is impossible to have, but I strongly suspect magical balanced magic is.

I'm not sure that I agree with this.

I think that the way to balance magical vs. non-magical classes is to give both sides abilities that the other side does not have.

For example, the Martial power source (which I think should be called the Physical power source) should be an internal physical source of power of the PC. It should allow the PC to swim and climb and hide and use weapons better than the normal Melee Basic attack, Stealth, Athletics, and Endurance of other classes in other power sources.

Arcane casters might use a once per encounter spell to enhance their jumping capability, but Physical PCs should be able to enhance their jumping capability every time they try to jump.

On the other hand, Arcane casters can fly. Flying is typically better than jumping, so the jumping enhancements of the Physical PCs should occur at a much lower level than the flying capabilities of the Arcane casters. That's how balance should be maintained.

Casters of the Divine power source don't necessary get any sort of improved movement spells or powers, at least until much higher level. That's not their schtick. Primal casters, on the other hand, should gain a lot of different natural effects (flying like birds, swimming like fish, shapechanging into other species).

If the power sources were segregated a lot more on which effects each could produce, at what levels they could be produced, and the potency of those effects, I think that the game would feel more magical again. Each power source and even each class, would feel more unique. There's always going to be some overlap, but segregation should be designed into the game system from the start.

I also personally think that the Martial and Arcane power sources shouldn't be able to heal (or at least not until much higher level and then, at a much lesser degree). These power sources should hand out temporary hit points for their Leader type classes, but healing should be reserved for the Divine and Primal power sources where healing is special and unique again and granted by outside non-Arcane supernatural or mystical forces.

Segregation of healing abilities makes the Divine and Primal classes feel special and magical again. Not every power source can heal, just like not every power source can Teleport, just like not every power source can Fly, just like not every power source can Dominate foes or Stun foes or Enrage foes.


Another thing to remember is what resources are spent on. In 4E, the Fighter is for free typically walking around in Scale and Plate at AC 19 while the Wizard is typically walking around in Cloth at AC 14 at level one. The Fighter doesn't have to really spend a single resource on AC, but the Wizard often spends a feat on Unarmored Agility or Leather Proficiency and often uses up his second level utility spell with Shield. Just so that the Wizard is 3 lower AC instead of 5 lower AC for most attacks, and for a few attacks per encounter when he really needs to be, 1 higher AC than the Fighter.

The reason I picked AC as my benchmark here is because about half of all attacks are against AC. Individual NAD defenses are important, but not as important as AC.

The Wizard is walking around with a fairly crappy AC and much lower hit points all of the time. In return, his powers should be more potent than the Fighter's powers. The Fighter shouldn't have the same potency for same level Close Burst powers that the Wizard has.

In this case, balance is about the fact that the Wizard either cannot survive as long as the Fighter, or the Wizard has to spend more resources on defense and hence won't have as many offensive resources as the Fighter (and still won't actually get as close as the Fighter on survivability). One could argue that the Fighter gets attacked more often, so he needs to have a higher level of survival, but that isn't guaranteed. That's a tactical choice of the players (and often a conscious or subconscious choice of the DM). I think it is perfectly reasonable in many scenarios for the Wizard to be up in front on occasion and take his fair share of attacks, but if he decides to do so, he will often be setting aside defensive resources to allow this. Quid Pro Quo. Balance.
 

Belphanior

First Post
The Wizard is walking around with a fairly crappy AC and much lower hit points all of the time. In return, his powers should be more potent than the Fighter's powers. The Fighter shouldn't have the same potency for same level Close Burst powers that the Wizard has.

In this case, balance is about the fact that the Wizard either cannot survive as long as the Fighter, or the Wizard has to spend more resources on defense and hence won't have as many offensive resources as the Fighter (and still won't actually get as close as the Fighter on survivability). One could argue that the Fighter gets attacked more often, so he needs to have a higher level of survival, but that isn't guaranteed. That's a tactical choice of the players (and often a conscious or subconscious choice of the DM). I think it is perfectly reasonable in many scenarios for the Wizard to be up in front on occasion and take his fair share of attacks, but if he decides to do so, he will often be setting aside defensive resources to allow this. Quid Pro Quo. Balance.

I can't say I agree.

The Fighter has better protection overall (in the form of defenses and hp) but he's a melee defender. He makes himself vulnerable to both ranged and melee attacks from the enemies. He can't teleport, fly, summon monsters, or otherwise shift the face of the battlefield. All he can do is dish out punishment and take some right back.

The wizard meanwhile has worse protection but also the least need for it. His powers are almost always ranged and many of his powers hamper the enemy's ability to strike back at him. If you add on top of that all their utility that the fighter can't match, what's really left for the fighter if you then also give the wizard better AC and hp?


Edit: Besides, the wizard is not that far behind. The fighter gets 6 hp per level. The wizard gets 4. They both benefit equally from Constitution (actually that's a lie, the wizard benefits slightly more because it will benefit his Fortitude). Compare this to 1d10 vs 1d4 from the past.
 

Wormwood

Adventurer
I'm hoping that +X gear is a sacred cow we can grill up this go around.

Bring on the bands of billaro, helms of brilliance, cloaks of the bat, decanters of endless water, etc.

Drop the boring.

From your lips to Monte's ears---but I fear that the +1 sword is *easily* as iconic a D&Dism as Vancian Magic, 18 Charisma, and attribute limits for women and demihumans.

Oh wait, we *did* manage to drop that last one, didn't we? Fingers crossed.
 

KarinsDad

Adventurer
I can't say I agree.

The Fighter has better protection overall (in the form of defenses and hp) but he's a melee defender. He makes himself vulnerable to both ranged and melee attacks from the enemies. He can't teleport, fly, summon monsters, or otherwise shift the face of the battlefield. All he can do is dish out punishment and take some right back.

The wizard meanwhile has worse protection but also the least need for it. His powers are almost always ranged and many of his powers hamper the enemy's ability to strike back at him. If you add on top of that all their utility that the fighter can't match, what's really left for the fighter if you then also give the wizard better AC and hp?


Edit: Besides, the wizard is not that far behind. The fighter gets 6 hp per level. The wizard gets 4. They both benefit equally from Constitution (actually that's a lie, the wizard benefits slightly more because it will benefit his Fortitude). Compare this to 1d10 vs 1d4 from the past.

What forces a Fighter to be a Defender? The fact that WotC tried to force feed that label on players? I've played a lot of Defenders that don't just move to the center of the battle like a moron and try to soak up damage. Instead, they pick and choose their foes, often trying to lock down one specific foe and to not get themselves in situations where they are surrounded.

Also, nothing stops a Fighter from using ranged attacks. Thrown heavy weapons are readily available in the game.

I didn't say that the Wizard should get better AC and hit points. I said that their powers should be more potent because of their defensive weaknesses.

With regard to survivability, the Wizard is WAY behind.

A first level Fighter with AC 19, Con 13, and 28 hit points will be unconscious with 7.83 +6 D8+4 same level vs. AC attacks (including crits) on average. A first level Wizard with AC 14, Con 13, and 23 hit points will be unconscious with 4.04 +6 D8+4 same level vs. AC attacks. The Fighter will survive approximately twice as long in an identical same level scenario. You don't consider that a major benefit of the Fighter over the Wizard here when he can take almost twice as many melee attacks before dropping on average? And his hit points increase by 50% more for each level. The level two Fighter is 34 hit points, +7 attacks against his AC 20 for D8+5 damage or 8.55 attacks vs. the Wizard's 4.41. As levels go up, the Fighter is able to handle even more attacks than the Wizard. At level 30 (assuming that both classes can up their AC by 1 every level), it's 12.7 attacks vs. 5.51 attacks, well over twice as many attacks.

Yes, the Wizard can sometimes (not always, but sometimes) control the battlefield more. But in order to actually survive in combat (at least against a DM that sends foes against him), he has to devote resources to defense whereas the Fighter doesn't have to.

And by more potent, I don't necessarily mean that the powers have to do more damage. A dazing effect is slightly more potent than an effect that does the same damage, but doesn't daze.
 

Belphanior

First Post
Also, nothing stops a Fighter from using ranged attacks. Thrown heavy weapons are readily available in the game.

Which would invalidate pretty much all their powers and class features. This, incidentally, also immediately reaches the conclusion you'd like to see it seems: In this scenario the fighter is tougher, while the wizard has more effective powers.


Your math regarding the wizard's relative un-survivability doesn't convince me. The fighter can withstand twice as much punishment... but in a typical game he also receives twice as much punishment. You're staring too much at the numbers and not looking enough as the holistic picture. The wizard is far more mobile, far more invisible, far more supported by summoned meat-shields, far more capable of throwing around walls and zones, and so on. His actual AC is only one single facet of the matter.

The fighter may be "forced" into a defender role, but he nevertheless is a defender. One of the very resources that will keep the wizard alive is the fighter himself.

And as an aside, I already consider wizard powers more potent than fighter powers. There's nothing a fighter can do that a wizard can't (broadly speaking, not talking about the exact minutiae of every single power), but the opposite is not true. Fighters can daze, push, immobilize, deal ongoing damage, and so on... Wizards can do all that and a hell of a lot more.
 

mmadsen

First Post
Yes, they need to know how it works.

In order to chose a class, players need to know what they can do, and if they like it. In order to play a class, players need to know what they can do.
When I first played D&D, I most certainly did not analyze the rulebooks and weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the various classes. I rolled the dice and wrote "1st-level Fighting Man" on the top of my character sheet.

Only later did I learn how Magic-Users worked. I don't think that ruined my early Fighting-Man days.

It also didn't ruin the game when I ran into a carnivorous ape and didn't know its stats.

Having a list of potential powers is still defining powers.
If you see no difference, we'll just agree to disagree.
 


Remove ads

Top