D&D 5E The 5E Magic User

[Minigiant]

I think what 4e did with the idea of rituals and attack powers was close to what is needed. The problem was how they did it.

Each spell should be split up by resource.

Weak spells: Cantrips, Ray of Frost, Feather Fall

Time consuming spells (minor communication exploration spells. Usable outside of battle when time permits) Water Breathing. Remove Poison. Hide from X,Magic Circle against X, Detect X

Slot consuming spells (bigger effects. 5 a day or so) Fireball. Sleep, Heal, Summon X

Gold (via components) consuming spells: Magical Crafting, Wishes, Raise Dead, Permanency

 

[FireLance]

I like 4e and generally have not liked Vancian magic. That said, when I really think about that dislike, my only real complaint is the Wizard being reduced to throwing darts ineffectually when it's not time for a blow-the-doors-off spell. Vancian magic + Magic Missile at-will would be fine by me. Just make it so the Wizard can always fight using magic rather than physical weapons, even if it's minor magic, and I'd be happy.

Just floating this idea out for discussion: would you be okay if the wizard requires an implement of some kind to use his at-will attacks? In other words, if someone takes away his wand or his staff, he can't cast magic missile.

 

[jefgorbach]

Personally, I'm hoping part of the reason Monte Cook was hired shortly before the 5e announcement has todo with the excellent component-point-based alt/n magic system he developed for his World of Darkness conversion. His free-form spellcasting method preserved the Vancian concept by limiting how much a mage may cast daily, while allowing the PC to determine whether his daily resource limit is used sparingly throughout the day or in one single grandstand spell.

Likewise, I'd like to see -ALL- magic unified in a single system (mechanically) wherein a spell is a spell regardless of whether its cast by an item, person, rod, spell, supernatural ability, wand, or whatnot; with the incidence's fluff determining if the PC's a cleric, druid, psion, sorcerer, wizard or whatnot.

On a related note, proficiency feats (armor, weaponry, spellcasting, thieving, etc) should be changed to skills which can be learned by ANYONE regardless of class; providing increases bonuses every # ranks. While anyone can casually learn any skill, only someone truly devoted to studying a given skill (by allocating the points) truly masters it, gaining the progressive bonus. IE: fighters are better with armor/weapons because they devote more points on the related skills than rogues/spellcasters.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I just hope they rein in things like wands and scrolls. Scribe scroll was one of the most broken feats in the hands of a 3e caster. And no, the xp cost was negligible for most spells, so that was not a real balancing factor.

Admittedly, part of this problem was that there was a spell for everything. I still remember the time when the party wizard was attacked by demons and whipped out a scroll he had prepared for just such an occasion, that automatically stunned demons. It wasn't even that he was regularly under attack by demons; in fact, I believe this was the first instance of demons in the campaign. Needless to say the encounter was somewhat... anticlimactic.

Regardless, scrolls and charged items can completely circumvent the balancing limits placed on most types of spellcasters (usually that they can only use their spells x times per day). As such, I hope this is an issue they carefully examine and address.

 

[Kaodi]

I think the basic 5e " magic user " should be called a mage and be more like the Pathfinder magus in terms of abilities (and I think the cleric should be the divine equivalent of said magus). I like the idea of the most basic spellcasting classes being what we ordinarily call " hybrids " and the " specialists " (priests and wizards) be saved for higher complexity games).

I could get behind a system that combined at-will powers with Vancian casting, or one that used some sort of stamina system to determine how much power could be brought to bear without resting (which might incidentally work for non-spellcasters as well).

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think the basic 5e " magic user " should be called a mage and be more like the Pathfinder magus in terms of abilities (and I think the cleric should be the divine equivalent of said magus). I like the idea of the most basic spellcasting classes being what we ordinarily call " hybrids " and the " specialists " (priests and wizards) be saved for higher complexity games).

Interesting. It'll never happen because the casters are so iconic, but the idea that you have to train for a while to be a "real" mage or that hybrid mages are the default is interesting.

I just hope they rein in things like wands and scrolls. Scribe scroll was one of the most broken feats in the hands of a 3e caster. And no, the xp cost was negligible for most spells, so that was not a real balancing factor.

I never had any of those problems in my campaigns, but I can see them. Crafting (magical especially) needs to make sense and be balanced, but be at least somewhat accessible to PCs (which was a problem in earlier editions). This isn't really specific to the wizard, but they do need to fix crafting as a whole. I don't think it's ever (in D&D) been done really well.

 

[trancejeremy]

The idea of a magic user being able to constantly zap someone seems too video-gameish for me, even if it is mechanically the same as using a crossbow.

Really though I think part of the problem is exactly what someone brought up in the To Vance thread - Vancian MUs (in the books) were probably more akin to the 3E bard than traditional D&D MU. They only knew a relatively few spells but were generally very capable people beyond their magical ability.

Of course, part of this is mostly due to AD&D. In BECMI, there were basically only 3 tiers of combat ability, but in AD&D there were 4.

Like a Fighter had a d10 hit point in AD&D, Cleric d8, Thief d6, MU d4

But in BECMI, it was d8 for Fighter, d6 for Cleric, and d4 for Thief/MUs

Similarly, there were only 3 charts, not 4. A 10th level fighter, in AD&D had a THAC0 of 12, and an MU had one of 19.

By contrast, in BECMI, a 10th level fighter had a THAC0 of 13, and an MU had one of 17.

Still a noticeable difference, but the BECMI MU was not nearly as hopeless at low levels than the AD&D one (and to compensate, he had a slower spell progression)

3.x pretty much split the difference.

But I guess to answer the question, I'd like to see the 5E MU more like the BECMI one or 3e bard - not hopeless in combat (or other situations) but the spell progress dialed back a bit.

 

[Kaodi]

If I am not mistaken, [MENTION=924]trancejeremy[/MENTION], this must be the first you back been back to EN World in a long time, given your post count compared to your level? Good to have you back. Just the other day I was thinking about the explanation of your musical tastes in your signature.

 

[OnlineDM]

Just floating this idea out for discussion: would you be okay if the wizard requires an implement of some kind to use his at-will attacks? In other words, if someone takes away his wand or his staff, he can't cast magic missile.

I could probably be fine with that, sure. I'm flexible. But I'd like this to be a game where disarming is very, very rare if it happens at all, so it will in effect be the case that the wizard always has at-will magic.

 

[Simplicity]

If I am not mistaken, [MENTION=924]trancejeremy[/MENTION], this must be the first you back been back to EN World in a long time, given your post count compared to your level? Good to have you back. Just the other day I was thinking about the explanation of your musical tastes in your signature.

I suspect 5th edition will bring a lot of us back.