D&D 5E Party optimisation vs Character optimisation

[FormerlyHemlock]

For that matter, if you go to the nearest source of inspiration, Vance's Dying Earth, the magicians he imagined could cast only a handful of spells a day - even the greatest Vancian magicians ever alluded to in his works could manage to memorize at most 10 spells - something D&D wizards exceed while still in single-digit levels.

How familiar are you with the Dying Earth? Your description matches some Vancian wizards like Mazirian, who stuff spells into their brains by force of will, but neglects their mystic runes (reusable), technological cloning vats, and words of power (possibly reusable, possibly the same as spells). Other wizards such as Rhialto are far more powerful and don't rely on spell memorization at all AFAIK; they just bend reality to their will.

RE: "greatest wizards," I've never seen any source putting a limit on Pandelume's ability to memorize spells, nor Phandaal. We know Turjan and Mazirian were limited to less than six spells at a time, but they're not legendary. In fact, "legendary" Phandaal is famous not for the number of spells he could MEMORIZE but for the number he INVENTED. Knowledge is power for these wizards.

I don't think your assumptions about Dying Earth wizards are born out by the text.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Your description matches some Vancian wizards like Mazirian, who stuff spells into their brains by force of will, but neglects their mystic runes (reusable), technological cloning vats, and words of power (possibly reusable, possibly the same as spells).

Yes, there were magic and technological items floating around the Dying Earth, too. The 'Vancian' system, though, did not portray wizards able to memorize near so many spells as D&D by mid levels. Anything other than magic items or memorization that might have popped up in the Dying Earth, then, would just be something /else/ that D&D didn't do.

D&D shot very far from the mark at portraying wizards from the broader fantasy genre, and didn't even get that close with the one science fiction series from the '50s that it lifted 'Vancian' casting from.

We can't go using the genre that inspired D&D as an excuse for casters being excessively powerful and excessively versatile. If they were true to genre, they'd mostly be providing exposition and plot devices. Making those sources of inspiration into playable classes does require deviating from the genre - but not in an imbalanced direction.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What is the support for your claims about the greatest wizards of Dying Earth maxing out at ten spells? Are you just extrapolating from Mazirian's limit of six?

 

[Psikerlord#]

Well it my optimal group I have access to all of the above.

Here is what they do:

Enemy spell caster(s)? Spend in the Abjurer first (and Bard close behind). Counterspell GG - he is at +10 counterspell now. If he does get a spell off, the Abjurer can shrug it off. I've had to protect my important NPC casters with golems and other such minions now, because the Abjurer can shut them down too easily.

Enemy with potent breath weapon like the Dragon? They super buff the Paladin (fly, haste, protection from energy) and send him in, while they go ethereal or whatever and maintain concentration.

All other enemies? Doesn't matter if you stick around the Paladin that much. I can't tell you the amount of times his aura has saved them from something bad happening, be it a trap or a monster ability. It is just as amazing on paper as it is in game, and if you go down the Ancient Path you don't need to worry too much about spell AoE's either. The only thing they really fear at the moment are mind flayers.

There is a drawback to this level of optimisation however. It's boring.

Another fight. What shall we do. Counterspell till enemy caster cries. Buff paladin a lot. Hide while paladin kills everything. Highy effective yes. Fun? No.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

No, it's not boring. It's really exciting in fact when an enemy casts Dispel Magic on the super-buffed paladin (or just hits him with a Maze) and your whole battle plan falls apart.

;-)

 

[DaveDash]

There is a drawback to this level of optimisation however. It's boring.

Another fight. What shall we do. Counterspell till enemy caster cries. Buff paladin a lot. Hide while paladin kills everything. Highy effective yes. Fun? No.

I run fights where one mistake could get a party member killed. No holding punches and fight to win to kill.

They earn their victories, it's not boring.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What is the support for your claims about the greatest wizards of Dying Earth maxing out at ten spells? Are you just extrapolating from Mazirian's limit of six?

I believe it was mentioned in the same story. Most only 1, great wizards of the age like Mazirian, 4 or 6, greatest ever, as many as 10. And, yes, the greatest ever were known for creating many spells - most magicians of Mazirian's time couldn't create any, IIRC. Got any references to mages who could memorize more?


And, again, note that we're down to hashing out whether D&D maybe didn't do quite so bad a job modeling the one science fiction series where nominal mages 'memorized' their spells.

That's a far cry from D&D casters needing to be overpowered to model the whole fantasy genre.

 

[transtemporal]

One Barbarian arch-type though that I liked a lot was the super tank Barbarian. Hill Dwarf + Totem of the Bear abilities. He can run in and do respectable damage, but be a very tough opponent to take down, and can "control the battlefield" in a sort. I like him backed up with a lot of ranged power.
I also like the idea of him being backed up by a pole-arm master Fighter with sentinel, but I haven't tested this combination yet. I think I'll put that next on my list.

I actually think this is more effective tank than a sword and board battlemaster fighter. Wearing no armor and outputting a lot of damage makes him a lot more attractive target than my old high-AC fighter.

 

[Celtavian]

A bunch of stuff claiming straw man arguments.

You don't know what a strawman argument is. That term is thrown around far too often by people that are complaining about something that they don't agree with and want to make their opinion seem more authentic. Couching your opinion in logical terms does not make it anything other than it is: an opinion. One that is incapable of being logically argued because the game it is based on is not based on logic or anything close to what might be construed as logic. It is an imaginary fantasy game based on illogical source material dreamed up by authors and ancient folk writing myth.

There is no argument occurring between you and I, thus no possibility of a straw man argument. What I stated was the history of D&D. You want D&D to be something else. It isn't. So you continue to argue your viewpoint thinking it will bring about change. It won't.

If you prefer 4E, then play it. No one is stopping you. There are still people that play 1st edition and other derivatives. You have that option. No one is forcing you to play 5E. No one has forced you to play any edition of D&D. It is a completely optional game.

In fantasy literature, there have been everything from wizards with the power to destroy the world to wizards with the power to do a few tricks. D&D tries to mirror that vast scope of magic in one game by using a midrange standard for magic that you have the ability to modify according to your desires. There is nothing stopping you from doing this.

I will leave it at that because no amount of discussion is going to make someone like yourself realize the game is made until the next iteration. It's obvious your particular viewpoint for magic is not the most popular or desirable one for the D&D players polled. Thus you will have to modify the system yourself to fit your tastes. We have all had to do that at one point or another with the D&D system. It is your only option besides choosing a different game.

Good gaming to you.

 

[Celtavian]

I believe it was mentioned in the same story. Most only 1, great wizards of the age like Mazirian, 4 or 6, greatest ever, as many as 10. And, yes, the greatest ever were known for creating many spells - most magicians of Mazirian's time couldn't create any, IIRC. Got any references to mages who could memorize more?


And, again, note that we're down to hashing out whether D&D maybe didn't do quite so bad a job modeling the one science fiction series where nominal mages 'memorized' their spells.

That's a far cry from D&D casters needing to be overpowered to model the whole fantasy genre.

Do you truly believe Dying Earth was the only model used for magic? It was the choice for how to model spell slots. Lots of different genres were drawn from. That is why there is a huge list of books at the end of the original D&D books that were recommended to players. That is why there is a "bewildering variety of magic" because fantasy literature has a bewildering variety of wizards.