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

[grimslade]

Can't XP Kamikaze Midget until I spread mine around.
Please. Please PLEASE! Get your voice heard on what you like and what you don't to the design team. I don't care if you feel welcome or not, get your view across. We have a real chance to craft a customizable D&D to emulate multiple play styles. Let's not let the Next D&D not here from everyone.

 

[Elf Witch]

Another question aimed mostly at the people who don't like 'at-will' powers - how would you feel if wizards got a choice of, say, 3 out of 10 at-will powers, which included stuff like light, prestidigitation, mage hand and a couple of offensive options?

That would allow someone who hated crossbows to choose light, mage hand and magic zap, while someone who hated at-will zapping to choose light, mage hand and detect magic, say, and tote his trusty crossbow.

Would that be an approach which would work for both camps? Giving a framework which allowed choices to come into it like that?

I could see the minor stuff. My issue with at will attack is this it should not be an auto hit like magic missile and the damage should be the same as a crossbolt and you have to roll to hit. I could buy that things like this are so fundamental that the wizard just remembers the formula for them all the time.

If that is not good enough and you want to be able to match what the damage a fighter can put out all the time then don't play a wizard play a warlock you never run out of eldritch blasts.

 

[Elf Witch]

Ideally sorcerers shouldn't cast spells. Spells are something you learn in a book. Sorcerers should hurl barely shaped globs of magic.

Historically, D&D's magic styles haven't been distinctive enough imo. Clerics and magic-users cast their spells in pretty much the same way. 3e wizards and sorecerers use the same spell list.

The way I play sorcerers and house rule them for my game is they are specialists their personalities shape them and their magic. So I require that the bulk of their magic comes from a school. And the first spell in a new level has to come from that school.

I have customized spell lists to help with a concept.

So far no one has objected to this and most have gotten enthusiastically into it.

 

[billd91]

I would largely agree, but, could you imagine the uproar if they went back to, say, Expert D&D, where wizards had 12 spell choices per level (IIRC)? And, funnily enough, even then, the spell section in the Expert D&D rules is still one of the longest sections of the book.

I don't really mind a fairly long list for any class that has a limit on the number of spells the character actually knows out of that longer list. That would be sorcerers (and other spontaneous casters) in 3e and even wizards in 1e/2e. The full class list may be long but because the character could never master more than a fraction (barring superhuman intelligence), it was self-regulating and not much of a problem.

But I fully agree that any class that can prep from any spell in the whole list needs a fairly short list. Any additions to the list as the game develops is almost certainly going to include power creep.

 

[Hautamaki]

Somehow, we all managed, for decades, to play D&D without this grinding the game to a halt.

Someone always wants to play the MU. Just like someone always wants to play the Fighter. Someone always wants to play a thief. Someone always...

Allright, the Cleric can be a tough sell.

Once upon a time, in the late 90's and near the end of 2e's reign, rpg boards would be rife with ridicule, at the suggestion that anyone, but anyone approach PC creation from a min/max, powergaming, optimization perspective.

"How dare you not put roleplaying first!"

Now, I've never had an issue with someone being a little powergamey. And my gaming aesthetics are far and away closer to 1e than 2e.

But, thanks to 3.x, Character Optimization is Game #1, for many people. And heaven help their group, if someone 's PC isn't as Baaaaaaad as their buddies'.

For most of the gamers I've met and played with, from my own age group, this whole "single spell" thing was never an issue. It's a game. This is part of the game and part of the challenge. It makes for some interesting, intriguing situations. Handicaps, by their nature, make things more difficult. But they exist for a reason and skilled players don't shirk from a handicap in any game, merely because it exists.

Arguably, the weakest AD&D class is the Thief. Yet, I've had players who'll play nothing else. Because they enjoy it. Because they bloody well know how to play the class and play it effectively!

And this is why so-called "Old Schoolers" tend not to get all in a tizzy about "balance." Because in the face of player skill, that balance just doesn't mean as much as it does in other versions of the game.

Now, I'm sure that WotC will address as many 3.x and 4e players' concerns about the Wizard, as they can. I suspect they'll put out a game that at least some 3.x and 4e players like. As each L&L column makes clearer and clearer, it's highly unlikely to be a game I want to run. Which, is what I expected and which, is perfectly ok by me.

As I've said on more than one occasion, I think WotC should stick with 4e and not shove their fan-base under the bus.

Again!

Good post but I have two points to make.

First off, you have to consider the present day environment. People back in the day were happy to play the wizard and thief (which was also weak as you point out) for 2 main reasons that really no longer apply today. The first main reason is that D&D itself did not have the same level of competition for the same fanbase as D&D today does. Absent any alternative, of course people in general were willing to settle for less design-wise. Now of course there are still people, like you, who prefer that design. But it's inarguable that if WotC were to put out BECMI for example today, it would not be nearly as successful as when TSR put it out 30 years ago because most people, while not necessarily power gamers, do not want to play a character that basically can't contribute any more than a peasant could in the majority of rounds of combat.

The second main reason people were happy to play thieves and wizards back in the day was that combat was a much smaller part of the game. The game itself has evolved to the point where about 60-80% of the play time of any given session is spent in combat. Back then it was a much more even split with role-play and exploration, so even if you had a guy that couldn't do much in combat that was only about 30-40% of the game and if he could shine for the other 60-70% that was great.

Now if 5e can somehow get back to combat being less than half of the average session then balancing PC combat ability becomes that much less important. Their attempt to do so in 4e with the skill-challenge mechanic was a dismal failure by most accounts (including mine). I think that adventure design is a much more important factor in non-combat related play; and even more important than that is the preferences of the group, ultimately. If a given group of players would rather fight stuff than talk to it or explore a way around it, that's what they're going to do regardless of any non-combat type mechanics you try to design.

But even with groups that don't fight much for whatever reason, I would argue combat ability balance is still important. Even if your character is weak for only 30% of the time rather than 70% of the time, it's still 30% of the time most people are not having as much fun as they would be if their character was more balanced.

That said I'm not favor of unlimited at-will cantrips in any case as I said above. In my perfect world a vancian caster will have X number of spells, say 30, and that won't change, or if it does, very little. A lvl 1 caster might have 20 spells total while a lvl 30 caster might have 30; the main difference is that almost all of a level 1 caster's spells will be weak cantrips. As a wizard gains levels he can start to cast more and more higher level spells, but never more than 30 (or whatever) per day.

 

[DMKastmaria]

Good post but I have two points to make.

First off, you have to consider the present day environment. People back in the day were happy to play the wizard and thief (which was also weak as you point out) for 2 main reasons that really no longer apply today. The first main reason is that D&D itself did not have the same level of competition for the same fanbase as D&D today does. Absent any alternative, of course people in general were willing to settle for less design-wise. Now of course there are still people, like you, who prefer that design. But it's inarguable that if WotC were to put out BECMI for example today, it would not be nearly as successful as when TSR put it out 30 years ago because most people, while not necessarily power gamers, do not want to play a character that basically can't contribute any more than a peasant could in the majority of rounds of combat.

I still disagree with your assessment of how much those players can contribute. I'm also not "settling for less design wise." Neither 3.x nor 4e suite my purposes, design wise. That's all.

There's been alternatives to D&D for quite a while. And people who disliked the system, back in the day. So, they played Runequest, Warhammer, Rolemaster and dozens of lesser known systems. But, some people actually liked D&D and AD&D. There's quite a few who still prefer those systems.

The second main reason people were happy to play thieves and wizards back in the day was that combat was a much smaller part of the game. The game itself has evolved to the point where about 60-80% of the play time of any given session is spent in combat. Back then it was a much more even split with role-play and exploration, so even if you had a guy that couldn't do much in combat that was only about 30-40% of the game and if he could shine for the other 60-70% that was great.

My games have always been combat heavy. My players and I like it that way. Thieves and MU's, too. Honestly, have fun playing what you're playing, but you're making an awful lot of presumptuous statements about what everyone else is thinking, used to think, how they "used to" play, etc.

Even if your character is weak for only 30% of the time rather than 70% of the time, it's still 30% of the time most people are not having as much fun as they would be if their character was more balanced.

Most people who frequent EnWorld and WotC Forums, no doubt. Balance is a big deal in 4e. Not so much in AD&D. Player skill and player agency is far more of a deciding factor.

That said I'm not favor of unlimited at-will cantrips in any case as I said above. In my perfect world a vancian caster will have X number of spells, say 30, and that won't change, or if it does, very little. A lvl 1 caster might have 20 spells total while a lvl 30 caster might have 30; the main difference is that almost all of a level 1 caster's spells will be weak cantrips. As a wizard gains levels he can start to cast more and more higher level spells, but never more than 30 (or whatever) per day.

The WotC editions have been the story of the designers trying to fix AD&D. They've yet to please a majority of their fanbase. I'd like it if they took a cue from the LBB's and made a simple, base game and told everyone to make their own bloody modules for it! Then, EnWorld would be a much more interesting place.

This is the secret of the OSR's success. We're mostly DIY D&D'ers. That kind of creativity and enthusiasm is what fostered the games' growth in the 70's. It's why, whatever 5e turns out to be, the OSR and the OGL ain't going nowhere.

And this is really the only reason I'm interested in 5e. Because there's a real possibility that its very nature, being modular, will inspire and spawn a whole slew of creative DM's, who'll take that system and turn it into whatever they please!

I'm not looking for 5e to be a game I'll want to play. What I want is for all those EnWorld posters who, before the playtest has even been released, are writing up rules, tweaks and discussing ideas, to hold onto and continue developing the systems and subsystems they're making today. And then unleash a slew of new publications like the Arduin Grimoires, and Alarums & Excursions, or to compare with more recent offerings,
Fight On!, Knockspell, and Loviatar.

Look at what that kind of creativity and enthusiasm has wrought in the OSR. Look at what the fanbase has created, in the past 5 years! And how the audience and body of work for those "dead systems" has grown!

If WotC wants 5e to be a success, if the fanbase wants it, then the fans need to take things into their own hands! Assuming, that WotC will stay out of their way.

 

[Libramarian]

I could accommodate someone who wants magic-looking basic attacks in my group. I would just let them refluff their crossbow and dagger however they like, as long as they agree to keep it in their own mind and not bother anyone else looking for a more classic D&D flavor. Everybody wins.

I call it solipsistic refluffing. I think it has the potential to be a hot new innovation in RPG technology.

 

[Lanefan]

Regarding spell interruption:

Because it's not a good balancing mechanism. It makes the wizard's turn take longer (when with pre-4e style spells, it already is taking a long time), and means that the wizard has to succeed on multiple checks to do what he does, while the fighter has to succeed at one (for much the same reason, I hate the 3.x SR mechanic, or as I call it, making a saving throw to be able to make a saving throw). Generally, I don't think 'able to do more cool stuff, but be far less reliable' is how wizards should work.

How on earth does "you got hit, you lose your spell, next!" make a wizard's turn* take longer?

Because interruption, if it is to be a true balancer, has to be automatic on any hit. No concentration check. No saving throw. The only dice that get rolled are to check for (and resolve) a wild magic surge if one's game includes such.

* - and I'll be a much happier camper if they find a way to step back from 3e-4e's strict turn-based system to something more fluid and freeform.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Another question aimed mostly at the people who don't like 'at-will' powers - how would you feel if wizards got a choice of, say, 3 out of 10 at-will powers, which included stuff like light, prestidigitation, mage hand and a couple of offensive options?

That would allow someone who hated crossbows to choose light, mage hand and magic zap, while someone who hated at-will zapping to choose light, mage hand and detect magic, say, and tote his trusty crossbow.

The dangerous ground here is that if an at-will is anything more than marginally useful it'll either get broken in a heartbeat or dramatically change how the game gets played.

At-will Light? So much for low-level types having to worry about how long their torches and lanterns will last.

At-will Detect Magic? Having played a character in 3e who had this (via Permanence) I can tell you it's extremely powerful at high levels and pretty much broken at low...

At-will Mage Hand? I'd have a field day finding ways to abuse this; and many many others would find better abuses than I ever could.

Danger, Will Robinson!

Lanefan

EDIT: there's supposed to be a smiley just there, after "... I ever could." but it's not showing.
EDIT 2: and now it's there, and I'm confused.

 

[Balesir]

At-will Light? So much for low-level types having to worry about how long their torches and lanterns will last.

4e has this and my experience is that it works just fine. The wizard can only have one light active at a time, though, so the fighter's Sunblade is actually a better bet most of the time.

At-will Detect Magic? Having played a character in 3e who had this (via Permanence) I can tell you it's extremely powerful at high levels and pretty much broken at low...

4e uses a skill for this, which works far better than the spellcasters having to give up attacks or heals for it, in my experience. Taking an action and a skill roll is easy in the "search the room" phase, but often decidedly sub-optimal in combat.

At-will Mage Hand? I'd have a field day finding ways to abuse this; and many many others would find better abuses than I ever could.

Again, 4e has this, and "abuses" are limited. The main boon is the ability to pull out items to use without taking a minor action to do so; if minor actions aren't in use I'm guessing that such actions will be cost free anyway...

Can you use it to lift stuff out of trapped places? Sure - but in a world with at-will mage hand, many traps will be set up to account for it (and the range of it is very limited).