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

I've said it in another thread, but I'll say it again here:

If a typical combat encounter can be resolved in 10 to 15 minutes (as with AD&D or B/X and BECMI D&D), then the low-level wizard doesn't need to have at-will magicky things to do each round to prevent the player from getting bored. It's when combats start to average 45 minutes to an hour that it really sucks to be the wizard with only one spell to cast, or to be the 3.x rogue fighting against undead.

I'd like to see low-level wizards start off with more spell slots and acquire new ones more slowly. 3.x gives 1st-level wizards three cantrips and one 1st-level spell, although it only takes a 12 Int to get a bonus 1st-level spell. Bump up the cantrips to 4 or 5 and add another 1st-level slot and your typical 1st-level wizard can perform a fair bit of magic in a day.

One of the major problems with 3e spells that I don't see brought up that often is that in pre-3e D&D, the very high level spells were essentially part of "epic level" advancement. The base OD&D books and B/X D&D didn't go beyond 6th level spells. 7th to 9th level spells were added in the Greyhawk supplement and carried over to AD&D, and from my understanding were primarily intended for use by high-level villains.

AD&D assumed that PCs settled down and retired from active adventuring around name level (9th to 11th), usually after many years of play. The entire structure of the game reinforces this (PCs gain +1 to +3 hp per level instead of hit die plus con bonus, XP to advance becomes linear, demi-human level limits generally cluster around name level or a bit lower, PCs acquire strongholds and followers, name-level characters can defeat arch-devils, demon lords, huge ancient dragons, and demigods). In re-structuring the game so that players can experience the whole breadth of levels from 1 to 20 in a couple of years of regular play, the designers of 3e failed to account for the fact that those "epic" spells were never designed for regular use, least of all by players.

To put it another way, by the time the AD&D magic-user is able to memorize a single 6th-level spell such as disintegrate, control weather, legend lore, or anti-magic shell, the party has faced beholders, pit fiends, type VI demons (balor), and huge, ancient red dragons and lived to tell about it. With a bit of luck, they've also defeated Orcus. The fighter has likely built a castle and is protecting the land with his loyal men-at-arms, the thief has established a hideout and has has own gang of thieves, and the magic-user is finally able to begin crafting magic items at great expense. The party still bands together when there is a crisis that needs their attention, but they've otherwise settled down.

In 3rd Edition, when the wizard is able to cast these spells, the party will have a tough fight with an adult (middle-aged) red dragon and will get soundly TPKed by a balor, pit fiend, or ancient red dragon. The party is only a little over halfway through their adventuring careers.

In 4e terms, 3rd Edition had casters entering the Epic Tier at about 13th level, while the other classes stayed in the early Paragon Tier through level 20 (not even going to get into the Epic Level stuff beyond 9th level spells). I'm not a big fan of 4e, but this is something that it got right.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The only types of "at will" spells I want in Next are cantrips, like Pathfinder has done, and like it was done back in 3rd edition, for example, by leaving a fire spell in a spell slot allowed to to shoot a blast of fire etc....

I think it makes more sense to have the Wizard decide whether he wants to leave that spell in the spell slot to use an at will ability or use that last spell and maybe have to switch to weapons.
 


Nor does it feel like the "new" days, but I suppose you'd have to actually read and play it to figure that out.

A staff or orb is no different than spell components except for inventory purposes. We've always needed fiddly bits to cast spells.

Incorrect. No components I've seen provide bonuses to your spells. Implements are another potential set of bonuses to track.

Huh, so suddenly we 30- and 40-somethings with jobs in the Financial Sector aren't a good customer base. And teenagers/young adults with jobs but no bills. And just because we play the newest edition. Who knew?

Can you point out where I said anyone wasn't needed? I specifically said people like me, ARE needed, not that anyone else isn't. FYI, I am in my 30s as well, but since I started with Basic, and prefer all the older editions to the new, I would consider myself a grognard. The goal of this edition was UNITING the bases. As such, I stated they need us lapsed customers to reach that goal. Don't take things so personally.


And those of us who like the innovations aren't going to buy it if they fill it with inefficient crap from the past.

Old =/= inefficient. Old is only old, inefficient is edition neutral. ALL of them have ineffecient constructs, sorry to break this to you.


This makes some very unsubstantiated assumptions. And like it or not, they need the newer customers too.
Again, no one said they didn't. Needing 1 type of customer does not negate the need for another. Wulfgar is the one that said customers like myself were not needed.


You have no idea how much product they need to sell to be successful. But the formula is real simple: sell as much product to as many customers as possible.

I don't know how much they need to keep an edition alive. I do know that whatever that number is, when editions stop meeting it, they get replaced. If you can't manage to lure back other players, you are very likely to keep not meeting those goals.

This is a minor sticking point you can't seem to get past, and a petty reason to reject an entire game system.
It's a strike against the system, as I stated earlier in this thread, in a post you even quoted. It's not make or break, it's a strike. Too many strikes and then the make or break starts.
If the at-will cantrips become options, I'm 100% fine with it. I have an issue with it in core. I honestly couldn't care less what they put in a 4e type option book, or a 2e or a hardcore, my only real concern is what they decide is the CORE of the game. That is the stuff that is hardest to deal with and change.

They need only to sell enough product to be profitable - and you do that by creating a product that appeals to as many people as possible - not a small niche market segment who hates your last edition and has already jumped over to competitors.
This is wrong. I would almost guarantee all editions were still profitable when they were replaced. They were not profitable ENOUGH.
The "niche" segment that plays Pathfinder spends enough money to (according to people who track sales in the gaming industry) outsell 4e over the last 3 quarters. PF/3.x fans are not niche, they are a significant % of the D&D style gaming community.



Do you really think they should ignore their current customer base to earn the business of surly, skeptical grognards who are perfectly happy playing some retroclone system and hate everything they hear about 5e?

Citation Needed.
 

Just a point on the age thing.

There's a very, very good reason 3e was made for younger gamers. The marketing research capped at 35 years old because it was found that over 35, people's gaming expenditures drop dramatically. The biggest blocks of gamer demographics are high school (where you have lots of free time), college (again, lots of free time) and prison (ditto). The army is also a large demographic for gamers as well.

The 35-55 (which I belong ... sigh) demographic has never historically been particularly significant. That might be different now where the 3e aged gamers (say 20 yo to 30 yo in 2000) are now in their mid thirties and early forties. So, it might make sense to court them. But, without any other market research, I really don't know.

Going by what was done before though, us 40+ aged gamers are just not buying enough product to make our input all that significant.
 


I'll be 28 this August and 3e came out when I was a freshmen in high school. The grew up on 3e+ demographic is probably older than most people realize.
 

Just a point on the age thing.

There's a very, very good reason 3e was made for younger gamers. The marketing research capped at 35 years old because it was found that over 35, people's gaming expenditures drop dramatically.
How did they know that? It's not like they asked us...
Going by what was done before though, us 40+ aged gamers are just not buying enough product to make our input all that significant.
I guess I go against the flow then, as I spent far more per year on gaming-related stuff in my 40's (I'm 50 now) than I ever did before.

Lanefan
 

likewise, I'm sure

I will play D&D until the day I die.

I'm 34, started 1st ed at 11, and spend more on RPGs now than I did in my teens, but less than the coke + hooker fueled debauch of my 20s.

Nah, just kidding, I never paid for party flavours :) hehe
 

In re-structuring the game so that players can experience the whole breadth of levels from 1 to 20 in a couple of years of regular play, the designers of 3e failed to account for the fact that those "epic" spells were never designed for regular use, least of all by players.

You make a number of general points I largely agree with. I think you are overstating the likely naivete of the 3e designers.

I would say their effort here was quite successful in extending play into the higher levels, however they were under pressure to preserve the feel of these classic spells close to their the original text. To have even partially accomplished that feat was perhaps even evidence of the outright superiority of 3e to its predecessors.

In hindsight, I would vehemently argue that half those spells should have been rewritten completely from scratch, for the reasons you stated. But at the time, such a choice would have been rated a strike against, evidence 3e was "not really D&D".

IMHO the majority of the 3.0 design problems stem from adhering too closely to the original material. 3.5 put a band-aid on a number of them, but I think it is Arcana Unearthed that shows us the real potential of a 3e-style system. It was easier for Monte because there were no expectations other than fun.
 

Remove ads

Top