Is D&D (WotC) flaming out?

[Sorrowdusk]

[MENTION=65637]ProfessorCirno[/MENTION]
Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards - Television Tropes & Idioms

And on the price of books I was talking about a post before.

Yup. Not to mention that introductory products are often priced artificially low. The D&D core rulebooks are often less expensive (per page) than other hard covers of their size . . . and I'm sure it's the same with the softcover Essentials products.

But, then again, I've heard people suspiciously complaining about rising prices since I started hanging out here on ENWorld roughly 10 years ago. It's called inflation folks, deal with it.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I've yet to meet someone who was truly comfortable with the rules and understood good tactics and how potent spellcasters were and how un-potent most non-spellcasters were and did not find it in some way problematic.

When a wizard can destroy any encounter - not just in combat, either - with "I cast a spell," it's a problem.

My opinion on this tends to coincide with Justin Alexander's: Death of the Wandering Monster

(TL;DR: It's only a problem if the DM allows the PCs to reliably control the pace of encounters. When the fifteen minute workdays and always-nova strategies are 100% reliable, the spellcasters rapidly become problematic. When they aren't, spellcasters are kept in check until somewhere between 12th and 15th level.)

And I would go further to say that the root of the problem is the new school of My Precious Encounter(TM), in which every encounter is lovingly crafted in painstaking detail. When the wizard suddenly blows up the encounter you spent 2 hours prepping, that's a huge ing problem. The ratio of prep-to-play is completely screwed up.

But if your encounter prep consists of writing down "6 orcs + 2 ogres", then when the wizard decides that that's the one encounter he's going to blow up for the day it doesn't matter.

My Precious Encounter(TM) design tends to focus the game entirely on tactics. The older way of designing encounters made strategy an important part of the picture.

Last interesting note: The fact that balance begins to break down around 12th to 15th level makes sense when you consider that in the original design for D&D this was the level at which fighters became Lords and began accruing dozens or hundreds of followers. And wizards didn't.

The imbalance specifically exists because the game took away the fighter's high-level toys, but it didn't take away the wizard's high-level toys.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

My opinion on this tends to coincide with Justin Alexander's: Death of the Wandering Monster

(TL;DR: It's only a problem if the DM allows the PCs to reliably control the pace of encounters. When the fifteen minute workdays and always-nova strategies are 100% reliable, the spellcasters rapidly become problematic. When they aren't, spellcasters are kept in check until somewhere between 12th and 15th level.)

And I would go further to say that the root of the problem is the new school of My Precious Encounter(TM), in which every encounter is lovingly crafted in painstaking detail. When the wizard suddenly blows up the encounter you spent 2 hours prepping, that's a huge ing problem. The ratio of prep-to-play is completely screwed up.

But if your encounter prep consists of writing down "6 orcs + 2 ogres", then when the wizard decides that that's the one encounter he's going to blow up for the day it doesn't matter.

My Precious Encounter(TM) design tends to focus the game entirely on tactics. The older way of designing encounters made strategy an important part of the picture.

Last interesting note: The fact that balance begins to break down around 12th to 15th level makes sense when you consider that in the original design for D&D this was the level at which fighters became Lords and began accruing dozens or hundreds of followers. And wizards didn't.

The imbalance specifically exists because the game took away the fighter's high-level toys, but it didn't take away the wizard's high-level toys.

Cant give XP, would do it for mentioning TheAlexandrian but I must spread it around. Oh-And Wizards followers arent gathered, they are made.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

-Snip-

How many spells does a wizard need to destroy a fight?

2. Maybe 3.

How many spells does a level, let's keep it small, 4 wizard have?

Way more then needed.

Balance breaks down far earlier then level 12. Colorspray is a level 1 spell, Glitterdust and Web level 2.

All this is ignoring scrolls and wands the wizard can have.

And no, the problem isn't "my preciosu encounter," because it goes far beyond combat. Want to have a murder mystery? Nope! The spellcaster can just ask the dead guy what happened. Or he uses a divination spell to easily pinpoint the murderer. Want to have a difficult and daring traverse through difficult terrain? Nope! Endure elements, purify and/or summon food and water.

For every situation there is, the wizard can respond with "I cast a spell." Not just combat.

It's funny - for all the anger and whinging that 4e is just about combat, whenever the discussion about pre-4e wizard power comes out, combat seems to be all people talk about

Wizards in pre-4e have all the narrative power. That's my issue.

Edit: And for the one billionth time you are Alexander, stop referring to yourself in the third person.

 

[rounser]

Cirno, I understand you've got this mental picture of an archmage unloading, but as the guy points out above that's highly artificial. The myth of the solo archmage even requires cheaty spells (c.f. Symbul, Elminster) in order to live up to the hype. And however you cut it, they have buggerall hit points, and will die if they unload and cannot hide behind magic items and bodyguards (or exotic defensive spells like Mantle or Immunity).

Yes, the wizard will be good for a sprint after which he can immediately catch his breathe, but there are superior choices for an endurance event, which D&D often is.

For all the hype about 4E being a cooperative game, it is ironic that you cannot detect how dependent the Vancian wizard is on the other PCs. The only one I'd say they're clearly superior to is the rogue or thief, because spells can duplicate their abilities. Fully outfitted fighters, clerics, druids and paladins? Not so much, especially in terms of endurance between rests.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Cirno, I understand you've got this mental picture of an archmage unloading, but as the guy points out above that's highly artificial. The myth of the solo archmage even requires cheaty spells (c.f. Symbul, Elminster) in order to live up to the hype. And however you cut it, they have buggerall hit points, and will die if they unload and cannot hide behind magic items and bodyguards (or exotic defensive spells like Mantle or Immunity).

Yes, exotic spells such as Mirror Image which provides better defense then any mount of AC. Or Blur. Or invisibility. Or flight. Or stoneskin.

The archmage isn't unloading in my mental picture. He seems to do that a lot in your guys', but never once in mind. Again, I'm talking about a wizard that plays smart. Throwing out your most powerful stuff once against an easy fight isn't playing smart.

Yes, the wizard will be good for a sprint after which he can immediately catch his breathe, but there are superior choices for an endurance event, which D&D often is.

Except a wizard has a lot of spells, and even then he has scrolls and wands. Wizards can also rest on command with any number of ways of summoning magical invisible houses or extradimentional hidey holes.

For all the hype about 4E being a cooperative game, it is ironic that you cannot detect how dependent the wizard is on the other PCs. The only one I'd say they're clearly superior to is the rogue or thief, because spells can duplicate their abilities. Fully outfitted fighters, clerics, druids and paladins? Not so much, especially in terms of endurance between rests.

Sure they can.

Here's another secret of the trade: fighters have an expendable resource too. It's called "hit points." Fighters also can't renew them, nor can they rest on command like wizards can. They and paladins are also utter rubbish in 3e at doing, well, much of anything. Druids and clerics? Of course they compare; they're more spellcasters.

And all of this is ignoring my original point.

It's not about combat power. It's about narrative power. The wizard can fly, open any door (or lock it magically), turn invisible, shapeshift, stop time, disintegrate solid matter, summon monsters, or bind horrible and powerful demons to his will. The wizard can, in other words, change and shape the very fabric of the setting itself.

And if you want a very high powered campaign, that's fine. I have no problem with that in such a campaign. If everyone gets to play in it.

The problem is that D&D tried to be a high powered awesome world changing campaign with the wizard and the low magic gritty sword and sandals kicked out of the inn game with the warrior. And those two types of games are mutually exclusive.

 

[rounser]

Yes, exotic spells such as Mirror Image which provides better defense then any mount of AC. Or Blur. Or invisibility. Or flight. Or stoneskin.

Stoneskin is the only one of those worth comparing to magical platemail and tower shield in terms of reliability. IMO you're an armchair general on this topic.

 

[Jhaelen]

Ultimately HALF the stuff may be boxed, but that does not mean that the boxes dont contain BOOKS.

Sure! However, speaking for myself, the reason I bought the Monster Vault was not the 'scannable' material it contained. I bought it for the monster tokens and the poster map. That the box also contained a paperback with a bunch of new or revised monster stats was just a nice bonus.

And the preferable format for the contents of that paperback would be as a dataset in the monster builder.

The only other products of the Essentials line I bought were the boxes with the dungeon tiles. I realize I 'might' be in the minority here, but I doubt I'm the only one not interested in the 'Essentialized' books.

I suppose at the other end of the spectrum might be people who are not interested in anything in the box _except_ the books. For such persons, I'd imagine getting their hands on a pdf version of the books would be quite neat...

 

[khantroll]

Sorry to jump in, but I've been following the last couple of pages. On a certain level, I can see your point, Cirno; if a wizard has access to most or every spell in the book, and he has the time to prep every or at least most encounters, it could be very difficult to frustrate him. With those resources, he can literally write a new ending to the story.

Thing is, speaking as a wizard player, you don't and shouldn't have access to those things all the time. Your murder mystery example only works if the mage has the spell. A DM can keep scrolls and wands away from the wizard for that adventure; if that magic were that plentiful, there wouldn't be a mystery in the first place. Besides that fact, the deceased doesn't necessarily know the answer

Your other examples have similar issues. The lower-level spells you mention are not terribly unbalancing except in the most rudimentary setups. The knock spell can unlock most doors, but it doesn't disarm traps (which there is no spell for). Arcane Lock locks most doors, but the lock doesn't matter if the door is bashed in by a fighter, or the lock dispelled.

Fly is only a pain if you are trying to lock them in a hole. Archers can make short work of a wizard scout trying to do recon. Traps or odd setups cure its use in any locked rooms with ledges.

Summon Monster is not terribly bad. At lower levels, who really cares about badgers, and at upper levels banishment/antimagic is a real pain.

Polymorph is a pain in the rear, but size and level constraints are sort of put a muzzle on it.

Time Stop isn't really a problem. A character can't do a whole lot, and the level/benefit causes most people to overlook it during spell selection.

Invisibility gets canceled/thwarted by so many things that a single failed role can leave worse off then if you hadn't tried to sneak by magically at all.

Blur and Mirror Image do give cover bonuses, but in the case of Blur it's much better to be used on the fighters then the wizard. Mirror Image is a pain, but area effects counter it nicely and can take the wizard out of the game entirely.

Disintegrate is the worst one, but even it is muted. It can only disintegrate 10x10x10 of matter, so a small hut or large rock. Normal weapons and shields are of course dead. An average amount of damage is 100 for that spell, which is a lot. A high fort save by the target limits its likely damage to 15 points, which isn't that much. It's actually less then the average fighter of equivalent level.

Clerics are worse then wizards because they get total access to their spell lists without any kind of control built in. Plus armor.

The point of all this has not been to poke holes in the handful of examples post here; rather, just to illustrate two things. First, that it isn't as all powerful as it seems, second, that the wizard may be able to rip reality, but the DM gets to line it with kevlar.

If a person wants to play a game like a Conan novel, where the mage is limited to colorspray and divination and the entire plot hinges on the fighter making that natural twenty to throw his sword across throne room and hit a tiny gem stone, then I completely agree with you that the classes as written do not fit in that fantasy world. <For clarity, let me say that the tongue in cheek tone of the above is me ragging on the Conan films/comics, not your position or anyone elses>.

If you have a world where arcane magic is rare, and your adventures are prepared that way, then I concur the wizard class is unbalancing.

If a person wants to play in the traditional D&D world where the clerics augment the fighters into blessed juggernauts wading into undead foes while the wizard spends several rounds trying to send them back to the graves which the party rogue is currently looting, then they jive quite nicely in my experience. Just my 2 cents though.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

How many spells does a wizard need to destroy a fight?

2. Maybe 3.
How many spells does a level, let's keep it small, 4 wizard have?
Way more then needed.

Then isnt IT the SPELLS and not the wizard that need to be fixed if one or two spells can end an encounter? I wouldnt take the wizards slots away necessarily, I'd remove or alter the spells, or increase monsters ability to save.

And no, the problem isn't "my preciosu encounter," because it goes far beyond combat. Want to have a murder mystery? Nope! The spellcaster can just ask the dead guy what happened. Or he uses a divination spell to easily pinpoint the murderer. Want to have a difficult and daring traverse through difficult terrain? Nope! Endure elements, purify and/or summon food and water.

And havent magicians in fiction and fantasy ALWAYS done these things? Hell, Saul conjured up and spoke with the dead back in ye olde testament. On as SIDE note, players should NOT be denied their divinations. You should also remember that while divinations may give hints YOU in control. WHAT makes you think the dead guy SAW his attacker? AND- dont forget that often information recieved under Speak With Dead is cryptic rather than straightforward.

For every situation there is, the wizard can respond with "I cast a spell." Not just combat.

And WHATS the problem? Thats what Wizards do. If a fighter were confronted with a deadly situation you would fully expect him to use some physical skill to solve the problem, be it swimming or climbing, trying to trip or grapple an enemy, or just chopping it up with his sword. But what about out of combat?

It's funny - for all the anger and whinging that 4e is just about combat, whenever the discussion about pre-4e wizard power comes out, combat seems to be all people talk about

So whats a wizard do? HE CAST'S A SPELL. And of course he does the wizard is MAGICAL. Magic can do anything -its FANTASTICAL! I mean with the proper spell you can even make your own demi-planes. YES fantasy has had its epic warriors, its Hercules, Gilgameshes and its Samsons but, the fact of the matter is- is that a Wizard, a Sorceror, a magician be his power divine or secret knowledge, can and should by very definition be able to do things that NO classical warrior has any bussiness doing EVER.

The problem with the fighter or nonmagical class, is that he is mundane. He's may be far stronger and quicker, almost supernaturally so-but otherwise the things he can do are limited to his physical actions, skills, and abilities, no matter how strong.

OH

And the warrior is SOOOOOOO screwed against say, A WRAITH-you know, one the truly fantastical threats in a fantastical setting. He cant touch it, not unless he has that magical sword that some Wizard or a Cleric in his party to loose divine wrath upon it. In fact, a warrior completely devoid of magical items he's expected to have at any given level is severely weakened. If magicians just stopped making all that crap for other people, where would the fighter be then?

Then again....where would the magicians be without the melee classes to tank for them when they cant fly or cant be invisible against some thing with magic eyes, or what have you. Frankly, sometimes being physically tough, is the only thing that can save you.

Ultimately though, the classes never have, and never will be perfectly balanced against one another. (somtimes never at all) You are comparing two unlike things that nonethless-each serve a purpose in a party with the mage being the most versatile. But this "wizards" what about Clerics? Its really more CASTERS in general.

What can a divine agent do?

"A new cleric can supply enough water to replace the local well (create water) and can ensure that nothing gets broken for long (mending). After some experience a cleric can be the best fix-it guy around (make whole) and is a near perfect magistrate (zone of truth).

A cleric in the prime of their career should be able to ensure that a town is completely free of blindness, deafness, or disease (remove blindness/deafness, remove disease). They should also be the best stoneworker and sculptor (shape stone), finder of lost things (locate object), and food supplier (create food and water). And just in case a Zone of Truth isnt enough to locate that murderer, they can even try to ask the victim (speak with dead). They can even talk to the crops (speak with plants).

A senior cleric rules the temple and is cital to the life of the community. No one can lie to them (discern lies). They can predict the future (divination), he can talk to anyone (tongues), removes the efects of any nasty creature (neutralize poison, restoration), and ensures even a drought doesnt reduce the water supply (control water)."

-DEFENDERS OF THE FAITH (p. 77)

Could a fighter do any of that with no magic at all? Yes. But he would have to try very, very, hard. The sourcebooks tell us this. This is what happens when you live in a kitchen sink high fantasy world. Magic sets you FREE-no matter how strong or fast you are, magic can go beyond physical limits to literally make the impossible-POSSIBLE. Take that away, and its not really magical.

OH

~And the CLERIC* is a trained WARRIOR-he doesnt melee bad and can wear heavy armor!~

Even in Shadowrun, my mage can do so many things mundanes cant. TRUE his total selection of spells is far smaller than any D&D magician, but he can summon spirits to aid in many tasks and use their own magical abilities. Thats the way magic is. Nonetheless, he's still mortal and SR is a much more lethal game than D&D (Chunky Salsa My Friends).

In a kitchen sink fantasy like D&D you're mixing gritty mundande swordsman with fantastic Harry Potter. Those two get in a fight one on one-well we know who would win frankly, its to be expected-of course they were never intended to fight against each other like that, rather they were intended to work together each doing what they excel at. The swordsman will be a swordsman. I will say that 4E powers and system of Daily/At Will/Encounter abilities were hinted at or foreshadowed a bit with Bo9S manuevers, and served to give melee classes more options.

There are some possibilites for 3E:

A. Take away all magic or play a very low magic setting
B. Make all casters distant NPCs, Evil Wizards with undead armies (HEY-EVEN SAURON got his arse whooped by some little haflings) and lordly Priest-Kings.
C. GIVE the fighter-indeed ALL CLASSES at least some magic. *Magical Warriors. If you're going to have a high fantasy setting, you might as well do it.
D. Just live with the way things are in a high fantasy game, if you're going to play a superhuman/action-movie-heroic, but otherwise mundane person.


And THIS...this is just a fact of the inherent nature of the game.

The problem is that D&D tried to be a high powered awesome world changing campaign with the wizard and the low magic gritty sword and sandals kicked out of the inn game with the warrior. And those two types of games are mutually exclusive.

And yes as you may have guessed-I like magicians. In fact, they are my most favored character archetype in any setting or game. However-I have played Barbs, Rouges, Knights, and Monks and you know what? I still had fun anyway, and I didnt try or think I was going to be what the party Cleric, Druid, Wizard or what have you was.