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

[Bedrockgames]

I like the idea of balancing across the adventure, but no edition of D&D has yet done this. "Adventure" and "day" are not synonymous. Maybe you run mostly grueling dungeon crawls with a dozen encounters in a day, while I run overland quests where several days are apt to pass between encounters. Wizards in my campaign can blow a wad of spells on each battle, putting fighters in the shade. Wizards in your campaign must ration every casting and look with envy on the fighter's tireless sword arm.

I'd really like to have some "per-adventure" resources rather than daily ones, but it'd be venturing rather far afield from D&D as we know it.

I think when most people talk about balancing out over adventure they mean things tend to balance out over the course of an adventure, not that they would be rigged to the adventure structure like a daily or encounter power is (in fact I suspect many people advocating it would be opposed to something like an Adventure Power).

 

[Doug McCrae]

When a player only considers what their character does in combat as important it indicates a couple possibilities. 1> playstyle is aimed at the tactical almost excusively, or 2> They don't really care about other elements of the game.

Combat is the crucible in which a PC, and player, are tested. It's the part of the game in which a PC is most likely to die, which many players regard as losing, or, at least undesirable. Tension is at its highest. It's the most exciting part of the game.

For me, combat is where the gamist (challenge the players) segment of play most comfortably resides.

Other aspects of play, such as portraying character and experiencing the world, are important to me. But combat is where things get serious.

 

[howandwhy99]

Cantrips as At-Will Magic:
I'd really prefer this to be optional. Perhaps it could be made to be backwards compatible rather than forwards? I mean, instead of casting a 1st level spell to be able to perform a particular magic for 1 day, Cantrips could be modularly dropped for more spell slots? I strongly disagree that a Magic-User without spells is powerless or that spell casting is all a M-U does.

Keep Spells Under Control:
This sounds like "Balance spells by spell level and make sure they are balanced." I have suspicions it really means weaker spells and fewer effects. And I'm not even going to get into how skill systems are notorious at not working in conjunction with magic systems.

Reducing Total Spell Slots:
Honestly this is a character level problem. I'm not sure what your particular sentence phrasing might suggest, but spells castable per preparation (by day normally) are already pretty few. And by the time the higher spells are gained the lower ones are not as applicable because the challenges are not as applicable. One possible progression for a 10 level system:
1st = 1
2nd = 2
3rd = 2, 1
4th = 2, 2
5th = 3, 2, 1
6th = 3, 2, 2
7th = 3, 3, 2, 1
8th = 3, 3, 2, 2
9th = 3, 3, 3, 2, 1
10th = 3, 3, 3, 2, 2

Start a level later for clerics and we have a game that can handle 10 levels of play with 14 spells at once at most. Not too bad, and while spells never decrease in power it's the level of adventure that has increased to make them not overshadow other characters.

Count 2/level for learned spells and we get only 20 spells for certain in a M-U's spell book. Spells found as treasure, on scrolls, etc., % chance to learn, costs to copy, and everything else limits just how big that list can get. And it still is limited by the spell slots. Compare that to divine casters who cast fewer slots, but gain a set number of spells / spell level. Gaining spells from treasure means selecting others to to be unavailable (until bought back in). Not bad, especially when it's remembered that Clerics are never full spell casters.

Spells Don't Automatically Scale:
This sounds reasonable and basically refers to variable stats by caster level, especially effects like fireball damage. I don't think it's necessary, but I can always rewrite spells to scale again. Scaling spells are not unbalanced.

Spell casting Is Dangerous:
This sounds like DCC and games from the 80s. It's definitely possible, but wasn't really the default in D&D. It wasn't the act of casting the spell that was dangerous. It was the impossibility to know exactly what the results would be that were. Additionally interfering with a spell could disrupt it, optionally with a possible bad result. Overcasting from a scroll or spell book carried even more potential backfires. Spell casting wasn't ever guaranteed, but it was more about side cases and determining how that lightning bolt bounced or the volume of a fireball blast that mattered more. Perhaps a roll could be had for saving a spell being cast with variable failure too? Sounds like a decent house rule.

Keep Magic Items Under Control:
It sounds like you're going with a daily balance rather than an encounter-based one. Fighters typically got better attacks (magical +1), while wizards got more due to magic. It doesn't have to be high level stuff, but that would still balance out. The wand deal sounds fine.

Keep Buff Spells Under Control:
Invisibility is balanced more by tactics, like covering exits, attacking a wide area, throwing dust or flour about, and the like. I might just remove any nerfs as a house rule.

Haste made it impossible to cast, including psionics, iirc. So this really was for non-casters to show their stuff. If classes were already better at an action like speed or attack, now that benefit pays off doubly (or trebly, or quadruply, ...)

Stoneskin, Shield, and Blur (and there are many others) sound like they've always been.

Creativity, Not Dominance:
Improvisation and number crunching are the same thing and both are supported when the "rules" are behind the screen, but you know this. Improvisation for some is exclusively feel good, impossible-to-achieve wishes. I see it more as quick thinking, especially when under duress. Still, this whole point is the best news yet for spell casters.

 

[Fallstorm]

I will just copy what I posted in the WOTC forums on this matter:

My concerns on this article are is that 1) by using "creative improvisation" it allows to much abuse from both a player and a DM perspective. Spells should have a set mechanic so that a player knows exactly what happens from a mechanistic perspective and the same goes for the DM. Otherwise you will get into situations where players are casting spells and DMS are making the spells negligble based upon some vague interpretation and the same goes for spells DMS may have the opponents throw at the PCs; clear, concise, accurate descriptions are the way to go. Secondly, and it is not fully addressed in this article but Mike M in the PAX interview constantly talks about damaging spells like fireball and buff spells and mentions zones and combos, but I also thought the purpose of this new edition (of any edition) was two reward smart play. I hope that the game will include status effect and battlefield control type spells that are actually effective so that all wizards who want to be offensive in nature are pigeonholed into the Blaster Caster model of wizard.

Also, we are talking about wizards losing spell slots, etc will they be more resilient in nature this edition. Having wizards lose an action when they talk damage is huge as DnD is a game that comes down to economy of actions. No other class actually waste a turn from taking damage and it seems unfair to me to have the most fragile class lose a turn from taking damage, especiall since this edition will not have roles therefore there will be (at least from what I have seen) no mechanic in place for the fgr to lock down opponents and give them incentive to attack him instead of more squishy characters like wizards, rogues, etc.

Lastly, I would like rituals to stay a part of the game. I do miss the utility aspect of the wizard sometimes but I really don't want to have to prepare spells like knock to open a door vs. spells like glitterdust and so forth.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm trying to figure out how they're going to deal with number of spell slots. Personally, I'd rather them go for something a little more abstract than "you get 2 spells of each level" or the like. Maybe something like "you can prepare a number of spells whose slots are no higher than twice your class level"?

So, if you're a Wizard at level 1, you can have two different level 1 spells. At level 2, you can have four level 1 spells. At level 3 (when you get your first level 2 spell), you can have up to six spell levels worth of spells. So, three level 2 spells, or two level 2s and two level 1s, or one level 2 and four level 1s.

At Wizard level 20, you can have up to forty spell levels worth of spells. So, up to four level 9 spells (36 spell levels) and a level 4 spell, or five level 8 spells (40 spell levels), or five level 6 spells (30 spell levels) and five level 2 spells (10 spell levels), etc.

That way, you can spend your resources on nothing but big spells, but you run out faster. Sure, you can spike higher, but at the cost of stamina. Or, you can opt for lower effects with more stamina in spellcasting, if you plan on spending some time in the dungeon instead of traveling on the road. Is it complicated? Sure, I guess, but in my mind it's less complicated than "prepare 40 spells" each day. Just a thought, at least.

correct, if my wizard spends a round casting a spell that effects the battle, then 2 rounds fireing off arrows that miss, then 2 rounds makeing rp moments and 1 round in tha bath room yelling pass, then I think I only did somethin 1 round.

A couple of things, here. First, none of my players are going to "spend two rounds making RP moments" and "one round in the bathroom yelling 'pass'" during play, so I'm not really worried about them willingly wasting their turns. At least, not if combat is on the line. If their character objects to helping fight, is trying to Negotiate, or the like, it's a different story, but it's not what you're implying here at all.

Secondly, you mentioned "two rounds firing off arrows that miss" and considering that a waste of action. The problem is, other people are okay wtih the following:

... you're doing 1d4+1 damage a round and it's fluffed as a "magic missile" instead of a "crossbow bolt"

In a system where you've basically changed the flavor from "crossbow bolt" to "spell" and you deal the same damage with the same attack bonus, then those spells would miss, too. So, having an "at will magic bolt" isn't any more useful than a "crossbow bolt" in the scenario you've described.

So, basically, if you don't positively affect things every round, you've wasted your turn. I can see that definition, but then every edition is filled with wasted actions. I mean, you included missed attack rolls for your Wizard. The same should apply to every miss from every character. Does that "problem" need to be "fixed" in your mind?

I doubt that you think people should automatically hit and deal damage, but maybe you do. I'm not trying to claim I know what you're thinking is on this. But, just because you tried and failed to contribute this round, it doesn't mean you're wasting your time. I mean, it does in that you didn't succeed, but when the Fighter misses, he wastes his time, too. Can he hit more often? Sure, he can. And probably harder. But he can't spike as high. At least, I think that's the current theory. As always, play what you like

 

[SkidAce]

That's not an onus that should be put on the players, or the DM, by the system. If the systems gives your character abilities that, if used to their fullest extent, hurt the fun of other players, then that's a system problem, not a player problem.

Also, what [MENTION=6182]Incenjucar[/MENTION] said.

I think the onus is on system and players and DM, no one facet in isolation.

And I do understand; a better system would make it easier for the DM and player not to worry about it, all for it.

I just don't feel we can rely on the system to solve all these problems that, IMO, also relies on the social contract among friends.

....everyone acts like the only tool we have is a hammer....and the systems the nail.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I like the idea of balancing across the adventure, but no edition of D&D has yet done this. "Adventure" and "day" are not synonymous. Maybe you run mostly grueling dungeon crawls with a dozen encounters in a day, while I run overland quests where several days are apt to pass between encounters.

I don't want to go on too much about this in this thread, but this is mostly an issue of terminology. The important mechanic, gameplay-wise, is simply to embed the encounters in a broader context -- to get a bigger box the encounters can fit in, so that every encounter need not be the same.

A lot of classic D&D powers (not just the wizard) rely on this, and I think it is a defining gameplay element of D&D -- the long-term strategic use of your most potent abilities when they matter the most.

Though actually a lot of the specific issue you point out is more an issue of time-shifting your extended rests. The idea that "1 Day = Full Recovery" need not be true, and wasn't until 4e.

It would be something like if, in 4e, a wizard had 3 weak encounter-strength powers that recharged at the end of the day, rather than 1 encounter power that they can use over and over again.

 

[Plane Sailing]

But how does a mundane fighter compete with invisibility, fly, teleport, and wish? Or are you proposing a non-mundane, Cú Chulainn-style fighter?

Via magic items. Too many people forget that THAT is the D&D way. D&D doesn't expect naked fighters with a steel sword to be adventuring at 15th level. It expects fighters with rings of protection, boots of flying, a helm of brilliance, gem of seeing and sword of might smiting to be adventuring at 15th level.

D&D was never intended to be a low-magic item system, and that is probably why it sucks at that once you get above relatively low level!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

A couple of things, here. First, none of my players are going to "spend two rounds making RP moments" and "one round in the bathroom yelling 'pass'" during play, so I'm not really worried about them willingly wasting their turns. At least, not if combat is on the line. If their character objects to helping fight, is trying to Negotiate, or the like, it's a different story, but it's not what you're implying here at all.

Secondly, you mentioned "two rounds firing off arrows that miss" and considering that a waste of action. The problem is, other people are okay wtih the following:In a system where you've basically changed the flavor from "crossbow bolt" to "spell" and you deal the same damage with the same attack bonus, then those spells would miss, too. So, having an "at will magic bolt" isn't any more useful than a "crossbow bolt" in the scenario you've described.

So, basically, if you don't positively affect things every round, you've wasted your turn. I can see that definition, but then every edition is filled with wasted actions. I mean, you included missed attack rolls for your Wizard. The same should apply to every miss from every character. Does that "problem" need to be "fixed" in your mind?

1st the problem isn't that they missed, but that they miss most of the time. and 4th edtion got it right... atleast for me, third at the end got pretty close.

*My perfect world would reskin 3,5 warlock as wizard, and warblade as fighter... but that is a dream.

 

[Lwaxy]

And how often did anyone use 1st-3rd level spells at high level?

All the time.