D&D 5E The 5E Magic User

[malkav666]

I am not really sure what would be good for the 5e wizard class. I know I really like how 3e/PF handle casters, but even though its my preferred method of dealing with magic (out of the D&D flavors) even I must admit that if a player wants to, they can abuse the system and have better options than others. My first gut instinct in this case is to assume an adversarial relationship between the DM and the offending mage or perhaps a similar status between the other players and the caster. Or perhaps a game pace that allows the caster the regain their resources at such a quick rate that they never really have to deal with the power balancing aspect of Vancian casting (ie. the 15 minute work day). But that is just based on my own groups. I know there are many different folks who game and do so in different environments than my own group.

So while Vancian works just fine for my group, even we have problems every so often with a caster being too good, but TBH we sometimes run into the same scenario with other class/item/power combos that have nothing to do with casters. We just handle balance issues on a case by case basis, and usually if the group has a good relationship with one another it can be settled by pulling the player aside and letting them know that while they have designed a baddass combo that really works, could they please not use it EVERY scene, to add some more enjoyment to the session across the group. I usually don't even have to adjust the rules or take away/nerf the ability/combo. Its kind of fun to be a badass. And some of my players really enjoy pouring over rules looking for new ways to do just that. As long as everyone realizes we are playing a game TOGETHER and everybody in the group is given access to that "I am a badass" feeling then it all works out for us.

I do not mind 4e wizards. I don't think the AEDU system is perfect but it could of worked for me. My main gripe about 4e Wizards is really about the AEDU system itself. Its not a bad system, and I definitely could envision a good class designed on that principle. But all of the classes in 4e used it and they all seemed a bit too similar in scope to really be different classes to me. This made me feel like I was playing one class regardless of which one I chose. In the end it is this idea that drove my group away from 4e more than any other. There was a strong consensus in my gaming circles that class choice did not really matter. And when we played different classes they played so similarly to other classes that the choice had less reward than in previous iterations of the game.

I guess my main wish for the 5e wizard is for it to feel different. I think there is more room in the class design for other systems aside from AEDU. I would like to play a Wizard that feels very different then playing a fighter and to be able to make different developmental choices when playing one. But I guess this applies to other classes as well. I would like thief characters to feel different than fighters as well for example.

But as far as Vancian vs ADEU for wizard? I don't really care as long as multiple play styles can easily be supported by whatever they choose, and that when I play another class, that creating the toon and managing its resources aren't so similar that they feel the same. I am willing to take a look at whatever they design with an open mind as far as the framework. I just want more variety in class design, and for it to be fun.

But those are just my own wishes, it should not be read as an argument trying to prove my views. I know what works for me and my groups. It was posted in the hopes that if the designers are in fact reading these threads that I could weigh in with them.

love,

malkav

 

[GMforPowergamers]

my perfect 5e wizard looks like this:

choose 5 cantrips usable at will +1 per 5 levels
Detect magic, Magic missle, Ray of frost, Mage hand, Suggestion, Prestdigatation, true strike (use Int for melee basic attack instead of str), Cload of daggers, ghost sound, and scare (use arcna instead of Intimadate)

gain identfy rituel + # of rituels of 1st level equal to int mod +2 rituels every 5 levels.

Spells per day. Start with Int mod per day 1st level spells. then at level 2 gain 1 second and 1 first level spell, at 3rd gain 1 1st 1 second 1 third. at 4th level gain no new spells at 5th level gain 1 2nd 1 3rd 1 5th, at 6th level gain 1 3rd 1 5th 1 6th, at 7th gain 1 5th 1 6th and 1 7th level gain none at 8th at 9th gain 1 6th 1 7th 1 9th, at 10th gain 1 7th 1 9th 1 10th.

so a wizard with a 20 int at level 10 would have
7 at will cantrips, 8 rituels
7 1st level spells per day
3 2nd level spells per day
3 5th level spells per day
3 6th level spells per day
3 7th level spells per day
2 9th level spells per day
1 10th level spell per day
so 22 daily spell slots.

spell book: You would start with 2+Int mod 1st level spells, and every level you could add 2 new spells to your spell book.
so that wizard would have 24 spells known in his book. (like 2 and 3e there are other ways to add spells like treasure but that is base)

starting at level 11 you can trade slots up for higher level ones, so at level 11 instead of getting more slots, you can trade 1 1st level slot for an 11th level one.

Like 4e spells of level 1,3,5,7,and 9 are attack spells 2,6,and 10 are utility ones. 4,8,14,18,24,and 28 don't have spells, but you learn new ones in your book, and you can at 14,18,24,28 still trade one slot.


I would also prefer for the base rule not be int or dex to AC, but instead classes like mage get a class feature "Mage armor" when in no armor (or cloth armor) a magemay add his Int instead of his dex to AC.


edit: note the lack of encounter powers, and yes he could prep the same spell multi times, and yes you could prep a lower level spell in a higher level slot. This should keep 33 daily powers on par with 4 encoutner 4 daily 7 utilites (that can be d or e) just fine

 

[Hassassin]

I see the bold as symptomatic of the larger problem: no class (or role, if you will) should be required for the functioning or well-being of the party. And that is a design issue.

I think knock is a perfect example of how that thing was designed around in the past. You don't need a rogue (though he helps), since if you see a locked door your wizard can knock, the fighter can bash it or whatever. OTOH, if the rogue is there he'll do it, since he is better at it: no resources consumed, no sound, you can still close the door.

 

[Frostmarrow]

To me the most important thing about being a magic-user is certainty A wizard need not roll dice to use his stuff. Magic works and hits unerringly.To me it's not as important that spells are memorized and forgotten when cast.

I like the idea of spellcasting either be physically taxing (in literature) or require a build up. Say, for instance that a wizard need to generate power first and then use it to cast spells. Different spells have different costs and effects and maybe they also generate different amounts of residual power. A wizard player would need to balance a budget of spell points in combat. Power can be generated by force of will, by expending moon stones, or maybe even by draining the surroundings. It's important it is a slow process to generate power (so mages are vulnerable for awhile) and where magic is unerring in execution it is unreliable in the time it takes to execute it. So in order to cast fireball a wizard must first survive a few rounds using less costly spells before he can unleash his best attack.

 

[Incenjucar]

To me the most important thing about being a magic-user is certainty A wizard need not roll dice to use his stuff. Magic works and hits unerringly.

I'm not sure I understand this position. In what fiction are wizards incapable of failure? Heck, prior to 4th edition, there is Spell Resistance.

 

[Stalker0]

Seconded, I think the spell system in Arcana Unearthed (or rather Arcana Evolved the complete system), is the best spell system I have ever encountered. It really is a gem.

I ran an AE campaign and I also really loved the magic system.

But that said, I also found it the most unbalancing spell system in dnd I have played to date Casters there have a crazy ton of power and flexibility.

So if that system were implemented a lot of would have to be taken out if you still wanted wizard/fighter balance.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I'm not sure I understand this position. In what fiction are wizards incapable of failure? Heck, prior to 4th edition, there is Spell Resistance.

In D&D spells are cast with no chance of error. Other games require a check to cast spells but that sucks (which incidentally works well in Call of Cthulhu). Spell Resistance is a defense on part of the target. My position is that no failure chance to cast spells is the part of Vancian magic worth keeping.

 

[Incenjucar]

In D&D spells are cast with no chance of error. Other games require a check to cast spells but that sucks (which incidentally works well in Call of Cthulhu). Spell Resistance is a defense on part of the target. My position is that no failure chance to cast spells is the part of Vancian magic worth keeping.

With non-casters and all classes in pre-4E, you have a variable attack vs. a static defense.

With non-4E casters, you have a static offense vs. a variable defense.

The main significant difference is that there's no critical hit or critical miss.

Otherwise you just have 1d20 vs. DC 10 instead of DC 10 vs. 1d20.

 

[avin]

Being a Fighter infiltrated here I just wish we don't move back to a D&D where melee classes are nothing on higher levels.

On a side note, I'm fond of old WW Mage's system, but it's too alien for D&D

 

[Hassassin]

The main significant difference is that there's no critical hit or critical miss.

Kinda. In 3e at least there is critical fail in save, where your items may break.