Wizardry and Societal Verisimilitude, or Why Mages Need Muzzles

[ren1999]

I think Wizard types should do more damage with their spells than a standard bow or crossbow because Wizards sacrifice hit points. They have to be rewarded for that in some way.

Now let's see. If a Wizard type gets half the hit points as a fighter type, the Wizard type should do twice the damage.

 

[Mattachine]

What bothers me is that most D&D settings have a pseudo-medieval Europe world, despite the existence of fairly common magic. It is jarring to me.

When a setting explicitly takes the magic into account, such as Eberron, many folks don't like how commonplace magic is.

If you want magic to have a minimal impact on society, then the setting (perhaps even the core rules) should specify that magic-users of all types are very rare.

 

[GrinningBuddha]

If you want magic to have a minimal impact on society, then the setting (perhaps even the core rules) should specify that magic-users of all types are very rare.

I'm not so much looking for magic-users to have a minimal impact, I'm looking for them to have a flavorful and balanced impact on their society. Rather than having generic wizards with their generic at-will damage spells doing their best impersonation of mystical crossbowmen, I'd like to see wizards being much more unique and diverse. If they study and focus on a particular school, it should define their use of magic (but not restrict soley to that school.) An Abjurer should feel different from a Transmuter and a generalist wizard. Each will have an impact on their local communities in different ways.

I like at-wills. I think they serve an important purpose in the game. What I don't like is at-will that cause damage at low levels. I want the wizard and cleric to be able to impact battles magically and I believe it can be accomplished without turning them into turrets, either with crossbows or damaging at-wills.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Correct me if I'M wrong we're currently discussing two problems:

1) Wizard flavor: you want more, like specialist wizards

2) Wizards dealing damage: you don't want low level wizards to be good at it in any way (at-wills and crossbows are too good) for a prolonged period i.e several encounters on one day.

I'm not so much looking for magic-users to have a minimal impact, I'm looking for them to have a flavorful and balanced impact on their society. Rather than having generic wizards with their generic at-will damage spells doing their best impersonation of mystical crossbowmen, I'd like to see wizards being much more unique and diverse. If they study and focus on a particular school, it should define their use of magic (but not restrict soley to that school.) An Abjurer should feel different from a Transmuter and a generalist wizard. Each will have an impact on their local communities in different ways.

You say you don't want a generic wizard but you have no problem with various specialist wizards and generalist. I'm confused.

B/c I believe your main complaint about wizards goes more along the lines of your following statement.

I like at-wills. I think they serve an important purpose in the game. What I don't like is at-will that cause damage at low levels. I want the wizard and cleric to be able to impact battles magically and I believe it can be accomplished without turning them into turrets, either with crossbows or damaging at-wills.

I assume you mean wizard/cleric at-wills. Why should they have to resort to the so called MBA/RBA (using 4E terms) while fighters, rangers, rogues, etc. have still at-will powers.
Furthermore, if the wizard should not use spells or ranged weapons e.g. crossbows what is he suposed to do after casting his daily/Vancian spells?

Maybe you would be more happy if the wizard had to make a casting roll/check to use his at-wills or something similar - so using them entails a risk, fumble - his attacks can fail potentially at two/three instances: casting roll + attack roll and/or save.

What I really want to know is what should a low level wizard do in combat, prolonged combat (8+ rounds) or in the fourth encounter on the same day?

And while you write your answer think about how playing such a character would feel for you? And what might other people think about the feel especially players coming frpm 4E?

 

[GrinningBuddha]

Correct me if I'M wrong we're currently discussing two problems:

1) Wizard flavor: you want more, like specialist wizards

2) Wizards dealing damage: you don't want low level wizards to be good at it in any way (at-wills and crossbows are too good) for a prolonged period i.e several encounters on one day.

I want wizards to feel distinct from one another, moreso than what was the case in 4e. If someone wants to run a non-specialist wizard, that's fine too. They will sacrifice specialized knowledge for breadth of knowledge. As for low level wizards dealing damage, I don't believe that should be their forte as compared to low level fighters and rogues. Their forte should be related to their area of study, all of which can contribute to combat in useful ways.

You say you don't want a generic wizard but you have no problem with various specialist wizards and generalist. I'm confused.

See above. A generalist wizard in a world of specialists is not generic, it's just another flavor: vanilla.

I assume you mean wizard/cleric at-wills. Why should they have to resort to the so called MBA/RBA (using 4E terms) while fighters, rangers, rogues, etc. have still at-will powers.
Furthermore, if the wizard should not use spells or ranged weapons e.g. crossbows what is he suposed to do after casting his daily/Vancian spells?

Wizards should have at-wills that allow them to contribute the entire day. I can even see an Evoker having a damaging at-will, since that's their specialty. I never said they shouldn't have ranged weapons, I was acknowledging many people's dislike of the 3e crossbow-toting wizard. I don't mind them having crossbows, but I think it would make more sense for them to use their magic whenever possible.

Maybe you would be more happy if the wizard had to make a casting roll/check to use his at-wills or something similar - so using them entails a risk, fumble - his attacks can fail potentially at two/three instances: casting roll + attack roll and/or save.

What I really want to know is what should a low level wizard do in combat, prolonged combat (8+ rounds) or in the fourth encounter on the same day?

And while you write your answer think about how playing such a character would feel for you? And what might other people think about the feel especially players coming frpm 4E?

No, I don't really see any additional checks needed for at-wills needed. In my system, at-wills are cantrips at 1st level and aren't overpowered to the point where they need a drawback. The daily/vancian spells are more powerful and have the obvious drawback of being used up through the day.

Once the wizard has used all of his daily powers, he will fall back on his magic items (wands, rods), his weapons (thrown daggers, light crossbow) and his at-wills, which in a perfect system will be able to affect each combat in meaningful ways. As long as the at-will damage spells aren't overpowering in a societal context and make sense, I'm not completely opposed to them. Being able to cast 2d4+6 magic missiles at will until the cows come home just seems a bit much for a level 1 character.

 

[Leatherhead]

I don't like the concept of damage spells being the wizard bread and butter.

However, I see no (verisimilitude) problem with wizards being able to kill off commoners. The purpose of commoners is to give PC's something to protect (or alternatively exploit), their lives are supposed to be threatened by giant rats and the like. If you really want to get into the nitty-gritty of it, any class could become a mass murderer relatively easily.

The town guard, on the other hand, should be a bit tougher. But that problem is solved by simply adding a few numbers too their stat blocks and making them use tactics and stratagems.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I do like the idea of much more specialized casters - it's one way to keep any one caster character from overshadowing the rest of the party too consistently. And, it prevents all casters from being fucntionally too similar - though, instead of 'just another cleric' or just another wizard, you're just another evoker or abjurer or whatever. I'd prefer the specialization be (optionally, anyway, much like Themes vs Feats) a matter of more detailed customization (like a 3e Sorcerer choosing known spells or a 4e character choosing powers), so that each caster PC can be more or less unique, but still very limited in what he can do with magic. Thus, magic could 'do anything,' but individual casters could still be down-to-earth.

Power-level is an important point, too. If a caster is to have unlimited-use spells, or even more than a handful of limited-use ones, those spells can't be more powerful than what non-casters can do. So an at-will that's about as good as chucking javelins or shooting arrows is probably fine, while one that never misses or always has advantage would be pushing it. Similarly, if non-casters have only a few combat options that are always available, a caster could have quite a few options that are one-shot (if he didn't also have all the same options as the non-caster, that is).

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Fortunately, you're capped at 62.5 magic missiles per day, so none of this "unlimited casting" stuff is an issue.

I'm not surprised nobody noticed - they printed it on the last page of the playtest rules, in size 2 font. With white ink.

 

[Stormonu]

I'm not against spellcasters at low level having a repeatable attack spell or the like that's about as damaging as a crossbow. What bothers me is the unlimited ammunition.

If there were some sort of recharge mechanic or consumable resource, I wouldn't mind as much. Even the guy with the crossbow has to wait a round between shots and/or worry about ammunition, I think it's fair spellcasters should have that concern as well.

 

[Elf Witch]

I'm not against spellcasters at low level having a repeatable attack spell or the like that's about as damaging as a crossbow. What bothers me is the unlimited ammunition.

If there were some sort of recharge mechanic or consumable resource, I wouldn't mind as much. Even the guy with the crossbow has to wait a round between shots and/or worry about ammunition, I think it's fair spellcasters should have that concern as well.

One of my issue is that at least with a crossbow they can run out ammo and it takes a feat to be able fire it and every round and still move.