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

[steeldragons]

Last we heard on the matter on how we acquire at-will attack cantrips was that they required you to spend a feat to get it. Nothing has been said since then that appears to have changed that rule (and I'm not saying that it hasn't changed... only that we have not been told yet if it did). So at least at this moment in time... it appears the game isn't necessitating damage-dealing cantrips for all wizards... only that they are available for those who want them.

AH! Well ok then.

And that's all I care about. That the option is there to take.

I am right on that same page wit'cha. Offering options hurts noone and benefits everyone. Viva les OpTIONS!

Some players don't want the option available at all, because it seems as though they feel that anything that appears in the book is implied to have to be allowed. And rather than just say 'No' to their use... they instead don't want it to appear.

Yes. That is unfortunate. It also seems like it could be easily avoided with a single sentence or two in both the PHB and DMG stipulating that everything presented are "options" or "guidelines" or "dependent on your DM's choice" or some such. Hopefully that happens.

Of course, then you get the "DM Fiat- and Rules-lawyers'" panties all in a bunch that "DM choice/option/decision" ought not be encouraged or even offered for the game. The "How can I play [manipulate] a game that's not set in stone? I shouldn't have to and DM's ought not be allowed to think outside the box" and/or "I want a videogame experience from my table-top RPG" contingent.

I confess...I have absolutely no comprehension of their reasoning in that avenue. Bad/Unfair/Random/RBDM experiences, I suppose....which obviously, logically, the game can not possibly attempt to account for.

The exact same argument some players have why they hyperbolically say they will never touch 5E if it dares to have dragonborn in the first book. And I say to them to learn a little bit of compromise.

Most definitely. I am...or attempt to be...a thorough advocate for the 5e "unifying edition" proposed mission. Offering options is, from my perspective, at the heart of that mission. Inclusive, by nature. Stipulating "rules" for every little thing, by its very nature, is exclusive. It says "no you can't! Cuz the book says so!" Because, as you say, they'll see (or want to see) it in print as a "rule" and not tolerate it being bent or ignored or treated like anything but carved in stone.

I have no love of Dragonborn...but I see no reason for them to not be included. I believe it to be adequately revered as part, by a certain element, of the D&D experience.

For my ideal, I expect to see a base presentation of the races to include the "traditional 4", the additionally "traditional 3" (half-elf, half-orc, gnome), and then the more modern/newly traditional "dragonborn, tiefling..." and I would expect one other.

I am the "burning hate for the unnecessary Eladrin/Elf split" kind...and I despiiiise Drow as PCs, but their place in the D&D historical record cannot be denied (thanks Salvatore!). But, yeah, "dragonborn, tieflings and something else"...and have those 10 as the "core races."

I can easily say, "you can't be this race as a PC" for my games...or "you might encounter these as an NPC race...after that, you can make these characters."...or "they don't exist in this world at all"...or a hundred other variations.

But, it seems, that level of creativity and option has fallen from the D&D consciousness...of a certain level/age/experience of players...and DMs seem, to me from what I've read, are ever more reticent and feel their hands tied to they must "give the players everything they want."

I don't know when or how this came about. AND I have no desire to "screw" my players. This is foremost a GAME and should be FUN...but it needs to be fun for the DMs as well...and part of taking on the mantle of DM, as it were, is the prerogative to say "No."...or "Not now" if not "Not ever."...not "Yes to everything cuz it's in X book."

Hmmm. How many topics/threads in the 5e forum did I just cross? lol.

Anywho, yes, Defcon1, we are in agreement.
--SD

 

[Remathilis]

Hey, a bunch of cantrips you can use at will...

Where have I seen that before...

[Yes, I know 4e did it first with mage-hand/prestidigitation/light]

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You nailed the point. What if the fighter and cleric are holding off the lead group of goblins while the wizard and rogue are stringing a line to hoist the dangling rope bridge over a chasm so that before the main enemy force arrives, they can make their escape? Is that nothing of consequence?

That is. Awesome, and I mean that not sarcastic or anything.

Infact that is a great encounter...

But the next one, and the one after that...

I bet if we tried we could make a rather large list of great encounter like it... But how many is enough? 3-4 per dungeon for the first 5 levels and 1-2 for the next 3 levels. Oh then the roles switch... And you don't want the same encounter in every campaign...


One awesome encounter proves nothing

 

[steeldragons]

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Just because people want to be able to cast a spell instead of using a crossbow or darts does not mean they are implying anything about other things a mage should do. What you just wrote is not only a straw man, but an insult to the people with whom you are having a discussion.

Well, that was certainly not the intention! Apologies for any and all that took it as such.

That's clearly not "all that wizards need to be/do".

Really, here's the difference as I see it. There are three visions of a low-level wizard:

I...hang on...so I'm insulting and straw-manning because of how you see it...with 3 options?

1. The wizard has almost no magic. He can fire a crossbow or throw darts as well as a member of the town militia, and he can create one or two magical effects a day.

2. The wizard can create a variety of minor harmless magical effects at will, can create one or two more involved magical effects per day, and he can fire a crossbow or throw darts as well as a member of the town militia.

3. The wizard can create a variety of minor magical effects at will, some of which can even do damage that comes close to the deadliness of a town militiaman. He can also create one or two more involved magical effects per day. Because he relies on magic, he may not even carry a weapon other than a ceremonial dagger.

All are valid choices. The first choice requires a wizard with no cantrips. The second requires the wizard to select no cantrips that inflict damage. The third allows the wizard to select some cantrips that inflict damage.

The only reason there is a "focus" on combat is because the folks in categories 2 and 3 agree on the noncombat stuff.

Huh?

If you want to disagree with someone on the noncombat stuff, find someone in category 1 and ask them why they don't think wizards should have at-will cantrips at all.

When did I disagree with anyone on the non-combat stuff? Or the "at will" element?

Not important. It's rhetorical (don't feel the need to answer).

Will do. Though I don't expect I will bother. I would expect that those in the 1 or 2 camps wouldn't argue with me very much...the 3 camp...I don't really know, but don't see a need to argue with them...and I don't come here to argue in any event.

Again, apologies for the perceived "insult."

--SD

 

[Doug McCrae]

Has anyone mentioned the paladin's magic ability to detect evil at will yet?

At-will magical abilities in editions printed when I was 12: Part of D&D's holy canon. As it was written so must it be.
At-will magical abilities in editions printed when I was 42: Those idiots are ruining D&D!!!

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION]
Unseen Servant is just a hour per level. Kydios the Great is up for longer than 10 hours a day! Who will open all those doors dirtied by goblin and muggle hands? Who will clear Mr. Meow Meow? Or hold his tea kettle and cup during the dungeon crawl?

---

But to the crossbows, cantrips, and contribution discussion.

The differences of editions and character flavor is the heart of it.

When I played 1e and 2e, PCs were squishy. Monsters were squishy.fights were short and deadly for both sides. So the wizard and his "poor" attack (not really poor though) was a great help.

Plus low level was SO swingy that the DM levels the party quickly as 1 too many fights or traps is a TPK.

But if you actually do 10 rooms of monsters and traps, during the 20-30 action of fighting, lockpicking, and trap dealing, the wizard casts 1 or 2 spells. It doesn't feel wizard once you look at it that way.

Then it is worse in 3E where monsters and traps are tougher so your wizard can't even do much with his crossbow and darts. In fact, your wizard become a liability as everyone attempts to protect the wizard so they can live to wipe an encounter, lock, or trap.


This is why I hope therefore are themes that handle this

One old school wizard them that gives the wizard a decent crossbow shot.

And one canteip caster them that at wills cantrips and does EVERYTHING with magic.

 

[wrecan]

Well, that was certainly not the intention! Apologies for any and all that took it as such.

I...hang on...so I'm insulting and straw-manning because of how you see it...with 3 options?

No, you were insulting because of what you wrote. My three categories are a separate point.

Huh?

Which words were unclear?

When did I disagree with anyone on the non-combat stuff? Or the "at will" element?

Here (I bolded the relevant points for emphasis):

Is the ability to do "less damage" than a 1st level spell, at will/all the time, really all that wizards need to be/do...is that what/all playing a D&D mage has come to?...in a game that claims it is taking the focus off "combat only" and including exploration and interaction, as well?

You felt that somebody (presumably DFCON1, whom you quoted), was saying that at-will spells is really all that wizards need to do, and that you disagreed because there are noncombat aspects like exploration and interaction.

Except that DEFCON1 didn't say that. nobody has said that wizards don't need ot have noncombat things to do and nobody said that all a wizard needs to feel wizardy are at-will attack spells.

That's why what you wrote came across as insulting.

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

I liked most of what Mearls is considering... except...

Wands: I'd make an inbued spell be just a template. It would allow the Wizard to convert prepared spells of equal level to wand spells. Thus a wand becomes a flexibility device and not something like a magic missile machine gun.

Scrolls: I'd keep them as a full spell, but make them *much* slower (retreieve from scroll storage location, unfurl, and read) and easier to interrupt (reading during a commotion is ridiculously more difficult than recalling something commited to memory).

Also I'd include a limit to the amount of scrolls one can have "at-the-ready".

 

[I'm A Banana]

At-will magical abilities in editions printed when I was 12: Part of D&D's holy canon. As it was written so must it be.
At-will magical abilities in editions printed when I was 42: Those idiots are ruining D&D!!!

You're missing the point, there.

The play experience of a wizard or cleric has been a distinct experience from the play experience of a fighter or rogue because of one big game-mechanical trick: They can do more, less often.

If you give them abilities where they can do the same thing, just as often, you're ruining that play experience.

Paladins have offered a different play experience than wizards, and one element of that has been detect evil at will.

It's not about at-will magic in general, I think. It's specifically about at-will magic being hard-coded into the Wizard class. A lot of people looking to play the Wizard aren't looking for a play experience that is always-on magic.

I think that play experience of easy, fast magic should exist, but warlocks and sorcerers are better for that.

Wizards have been a swingy class. That swing is part of their in-play appeal. The idea of using a single spell very strategically to great effect is part of what playing the role of a wizard is about for D&D.

Taking away that swing hurts the playstyle that many are fond of in wizards.

And pre-emptively: no, the swing doesn't mean it's inherently unbalanced.

 

[Doug McCrae]

You nailed the point. What if the fighter and cleric are holding off the lead group of goblins while the wizard and rogue are stringing a line to hoist the dangling rope bridge over a chasm so that before the main enemy force arrives, they can make their escape? Is that nothing of consequence?

I guess it's all down to whether setting up the rope bridge is a skilled job. If your PC could be replaced by a 1st level commoner/0th level laborer (on greatly reduced pay!) then, maybe what you're doing is important, but you're not.