[L&L] Balancing the Wizards in D&D

If you're a magic-user... I don't think it's asking too much that you actually get to USE magic throughout the day. Even if the magic is nothing but the Prestidigitation spell over and over. At least that's something. Cantrips are cantrips. Why a wizard should only cast a single Light spell once in an entire day is something I just won't ever understand.
Yeah. If the wizard's action for most rounds is to attack with a conventional weapon, such as a crossbow or dagger, then isn't playing a wizard very similar to playing a fighter? The classes become too 'same-y', which, ironically, is a common criticism of 4e.

Bedrockgames said:
Have to strongly oppose making D&D more like a video game in the name of giving people stuff to do at all times. The article was fine but this is an innovation I strongly dislike.
It's not really an innovation any more. Pew pew all day long has been part of D&D since late 3e's reserve feats in Complete Mage, and entered core in 4e. It's tradition now.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The "video-game" fear is an extremely fair one to have as it reflects a particular style of play which not everyone likes and therefore for obvious reasons should not be included in the basic system. It should be a feature/option/dial that can modify the basic system to "upgrade", if you will, the MU.
The basic system should cater initially to the low-magic campaign not the high magic or magic-free styles. Its always easier to add on than to negate/remove. What was beautiful about the older systems is their simplicity. Its not that they were perfect, far from it, but their ruleset allowed manipulations to modify them to suit the playstyle of the group.
You could add-on feats, skills, themes, spells...etc It was and is quite easy.
5E should strive for that same simplicity at least in its basic style of play.

As for unlimited cantrips - let the DM and players decide how free and easy magic can be cast, it must not be forced on from the get go in class design.
 
Last edited:

I like most of it, and look forward to seeing the playtest.

But I'm not happy with wands and scrolls. As mentioned above, reversing the describe effects would be better.

Scrolls should contain their own magic. I'm still okay with that.

Wands should do something else than just carry spell charges. Allowing spell substitution is cool. Providing an extra spell slot that's reserved for a particular spell could work too.
 

You could add-on feats, skills, themes, spells...etc It was and is quite easy. 5E should strive for that same simplicity at least in its basic style of play.

As for unlimited cantrips - let the DM and players decide how free and easy magic can be cast, it must not be forced on from the get go in class design.

And this is why the at-will cantrips *ARE* feats. They aren't "default" as far as we can tell. The DM has to allow the at-will spell feats to be taken, and the players have to choose to select them. At this point in time, as far has been mentioned by the designers, they are optional.

But as is always the case, some people don't want options to be available, because apparently that means implicitly that they should be used, and thus they are being "forced" into it. But in my opinion that's an attitude that has no place in the realm of compromise.
 

Something I posted over on the Wizard's website:

Instead of weakening all spells across the board, couldn't some spells include notes for how a Dungeon Master could offset the effects, so that the DM controls the game instead of having rules that limit the game?

For example, for the Iron Golem Grease thing - couldn't the DM say the floor was covered in sand, or a grated drain, so that the effect only lasted a turn or two?

That way, the Wizard can still shine, but the encounter doesn't have to be a complete wash.

Creative DM solutions can solve a lot of these problems without relying on the rules to limit them.

So now the Wizard feels screwed over because all of the sudden every fight takes place on sand, or over a grate. Or the DM decides which fights he'll allow the Wizard to use his overpowered toy. So much for player creativity.

No, the solution is not for the designers to throw up their hands and leave the actually difficult part of game design (balance) to the DM, by offloading it into adventure design.

Also, it is a fallacy that a balanced game is somehow a "limiting" game. It is easy to permit more options to the players, if the DM doesn't care about balance. It is much more difficult for the DM to balance a game that was designed without it.

Rules do not remove options in an RPG. Even in a perfectly balanced RPG, all they do is tell the DM which options are a safe baseline, that produce balanced gameplay. If a DM wants to permit more options, it is trivial to do so, if he's willing to risk unbalancing his game.
 


Rituals were not discussed because they aren't a feature unique to wizards, anyone can cast them such as a Rogue, Warlord, Paladin with the right feat.

Thier whole fewer spell slots thing could be achieved by removing the bonus spells slots one gains for a high intellience. If that's not enough remove a single maxium slot from each level. Or at higher levels lower slots disappear, but low level spells remain useful because they become more powerful in higher level slots.

Of course if cantrips are still spells say 0 level spells, then putting them in higher level slots would make them more powerful. I wonder what a 9th level slotted ghost sound cantrip would be like.

Also if wizards get cantrips do clerics get orisons again?
 

If you are foolish enough to blow your only two spells for the day on the first encounter and then want to "boohoo I'm outta magic"...that's YOUR fault, not the systems.

As for "better to play a videogame than get turned into a Sage NPC", says you, is what I sez to that! Again, what your character does (with or without their spells) is on YOU, your imagination and your role playing...or apparent lack thereof.

If you'd rather play a videogame, by all means go do so...don't muck about in my RPG because you want more "pew pew."

are you kidding?


If you are foolish enough to blow your only two spells for the day on the first encounter
so lets say you are waking up from camp outside in the woods less then an hour from the dungeon. You are first level, and as such have 1 spell per day Plus 1 for a high Int. You have preped 2 1st level spells.

5 kobolds ambush the party, the fight lasts 4 full combat rounds, and 1 suprise round (kobolds get the suprise) providing no PCs die from those 5 kobolds, you do what for those 4-5 rounds. Out of game that is like half hour to forty minites.

Lets say you do no spells, int hat fight.

you get to the dungeon and the first room are 2 goblin archers behind cover with a wolf. great sentrys. How ever this is another 3-5 round fight, and another half hour... then you go into the dungons get started.

I bet more then half the wizards in D&D over the last 40 or so years would have been sitting out 7-10 combat rounds.

As for "better to play a videogame than get turned into a Sage NPC", says you, is what I sez to that! Again, what your character does (with or without their spells) is on YOU, your imagination and your role playing...or apparent lack thereof.

Lets advance to level 5, and give them 10 spells... You still can't cast a spell every round, but atleast you can most.

My imagination rocks, but I can't imagin casting 2 spells over 3-5 combats being a fun time. I have put up with it knowing better days are coming, but that is still boreing games.

If you'd rather play a videogame, by all means go do so...don't muck about in my RPG because you want more "pew pew."

First I don't play video games any more, last time I was playing games regulary was pre PS2, however I did kinda get into GTA Vice city for a while.

I don't want video games, I want wizards to be magical, and have magi options. I want to play the game at level 1, level 3, or level 10.

Lets look at 3e wizards.

Level 1 Wizards have 1 spell per day (+1 bonus spell)
level 2 wizards have 2 spell per day (+1 bonus spell)
Level 3 wizards have 4 spells per day (+2 bonus spells)

so lets pretend I start at level 3, and everyone else starts at level 1, and I stay at level 3 as the other PCs level up through the levels until level 4.

So this wizard has 6 spells per day, and in the Dungeon with lest say 4 combat encounters, 1 puzzel, 1 trap, and the day starts with that ambush fight out side the dungeon... Each combat last on avrage 4 rounds so lets assume the theif handles the trap, and I am totaly not needed. lets say I have a divination that helps with the puzzel, but doesn't auto settel it.

so that leaves me 20 combat rounds and 5 spells.

Now imagin that same dungon at level 1... yea..

now imagin a slightly diffrent game, one where I have 5 at will cantrips, Light (no big deal in example) Detect magic (see light), Ray of frost, Magic Missle, Mystic Rubble.

i also have the same divination type spell as a rituel that I can use, but it costs gold and time.

I also have 2 "Big gun" dailys like Sleep and Burning hands

notice I still have the big magic feel, but I don't go get pizza during a fight (By the way in early level 2e games the rule was always wizard was the one to run errands for the table becuse he was most likely to sit out a round or two.)
 

And this is why the at-will cantrips *ARE* feats. They aren't "default" as far as we can tell. The DM has to allow the at-will spell feats to be taken, and the players have to choose to select them. At this point in time, as far has been mentioned by the designers, they are optional.

But as is always the case, some people don't want options to be available, because apparently that means implicitly that they should be used, and thus they are being "forced" into it. But in my opinion that's an attitude that has no place in the realm of compromise.

Ah! I must admit, I was a little lazy in not reading the article from L&L. Just read parts of the last two pages here and got completely the wrong impression from some of you (these threads sometimes get too long). I entered the conversation ass-backwards.:blush:

Well from what you've posted (still havent read the L&L article) - what they're proposing seems rather fair for all concerned. Thanx for setting me straight!
 

Wait a minute... people are saying free low level low damage spells are videogamey?

[MENTION=6678226]Mattachine[/MENTION] already pointed out that this exists in D&D since 80's.

I disagree with Mattachine's characterization. Cantrips weren't At Will until 4th Edition, and Cantrip slots were (in my experience) very rarely used for direct damage spells.

(That said, I'm open to most of what WotC is proposing. The only thing I'm not sure about is using "Cantrips" as a name for At Wills if they're deliberately beefing up the At Wills. When I hear "Cantrip" I think "minor magical effect" and not "competent ranged melee attack".)
 

Remove ads

Top