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

[Hussar]

i agree they both are very different if you know them. But I do think GH, DL and GH all resemble one another in that they are somewhat standard D&D type fantasy. So to someone who is just skimming through the various worlds for the first time, they will kind of look the same (while spelljammer, darksun and ravenloft will all kind of stand out as different).

Now that I'd largely agree with.

But, I double dare you to head over to Candlekeep and tell them that Forgotten Realms looks like Greyhawk. Or, better yet, head over to Canonfire and tell them that you cannot, at first blush, tell the difference between Dragonlance and Greyhawk, they're just too much the same.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

From the AD&D DMG by GG page 65

"Thus, casting a spell requires that a figure be relatively motionless and concentrating on the effort during the entire course of uninterrupted casting."

"Spells cannot be cast while violently moving - such as running, dodging a blow, or even walking normally."

"It can thus be understood that spell casting during a melee can be a tricky business, for a mere shove at any time can spoil the dweomer!"

From a strict reading of the text, an AD&D MU isn't able to cast a spell at all, when someone's waving a sword in their face!

As I run it, an MU can't cast a spell with a casting time longer than 1 segment, if he's directly threatened in melee.

Many higher level AD&D spells require rare components, though perhaps not enough of them. The vast majority of combat spells can be cast within the 1 minute round, though higher level spells often take several segments, up to 9.

Of course, then there's Power Word Kill!

Well, virtually all AD&D spells required a number of segments equal to the spell level. There are a few 'ritual like' exceptions, most of those require 5 minutes or more to cast (and a few require long casting times). Once in a while there's also one that goes quicker than the norm. PWK is a good example, but it was also pretty limited in other ways. The enemy had to have less than 60 hit points (in the 2e version) or you could hit up to 120 hp worth of enemies of considerably lower level. As a 9th level wizard spell it didn't let you actually kill major plot enemies you were likely to face at that level, unless they happened to be NPC spell casters. In that case of course they would be well advised to have strong magical defenses.

I think the general consensus on how AD&D casting works is that your spell goes off unless you actually take damage, so you can cast in combat, it is just problematic. You'll lose DEX mods to AC and many casters will be hit without much problem. Of course even some level 1 spells are pretty useful anyway, like MM, which is a 1 segment spell. It wasn't a huge issue anyway, as any old wand would be 1 segment activation and there's no spoiling magic item activation (well, death).

The bigger impact was needing to be still and stable. You can't cast from horseback, on a pitching boat, etc. I think a lot of groups didn't really follow that too closely. Heck, the "Emerikol the Chaotic" illustration in the DMG is technically not a rules legal situation in AD&D (Emerikol casting something, MM maybe, from horseback).

I could see a setup where casting slotted spells was like that in 5e, hard to do, but cantrips (which I guess would include your basic at-will attacks like MM) would be less restricted.

 

[billd91]

Now that I'd largely agree with.

But, I double dare you to head over to Candlekeep and tell them that Forgotten Realms looks like Greyhawk. Or, better yet, head over to Canonfire and tell them that you cannot, at first blush, tell the difference between Dragonlance and Greyhawk, they're just too much the same.

Fortunately, I don't think anybody's saying that. I'm saying they share a lot in common thanks to commonalities in D&D flavor.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Here's the thing about the 'combat restrictions' on spells in AD&D. They aren't really a restriction that should be counted as some sort of disadvantage. Every other class has equally serious (usually much more so) conditions on using their abilities. A thief can't hide or sneak unless the conditions are right, they can only climb walls that exist, etc. Fighters can only use their abilities when an enemy is in weapon reach of them, etc. By that measure wizard's casting restrictions are a mild conditional restriction. 99% of the time you can cast something. Really in the grand scheme of things casters get off light on restrictions in AD&D. In post-AD&D they have almost no restrictions at all. Even 4e is still quite favorable to the casters, they STILL have powers that are useful most of the time, and the fighter is STILL relying on almost 100% combat-use-only stuff. Still score one for the wizard. I think in a sense that's the main advantage of magic. I don't see why the actual spells need to be more powerful than what non-casters can do in at least some situation.

 

[DMKastmaria]

I think the general consensus on how AD&D casting works is that your spell goes off unless you actually take damage, so you can cast in combat, it is just problematic. You'll lose DEX mods to AC and many casters will be hit without much problem. Of course even some level 1 spells are pretty useful anyway, like MM, which is a 1 segment spell. It wasn't a huge issue anyway, as any old wand would be 1 segment activation and there's no spoiling magic item activation (well, death).

The bigger impact was needing to be still and stable. You can't cast from horseback, on a pitching boat, etc. I think a lot of groups didn't really follow that too closely. Heck, the "Emerikol the Chaotic" illustration in the DMG is technically not a rules legal situation in AD&D (Emerikol casting something, MM maybe, from horseback).

Not to be argumentative, but no matter what the "consensus" was, the rules are a lot clearer than that.

"...dodging a blow."

Because you just can't be still and concentrate, when some madman is waving a sword in your face.

But, that's really the whole issue. People chaffed at the restrictions upon spellcasters, complained, complained and complained, until, when designing 3e, WotC removed oh, so many of those pesky restrictions.

We all know what happened then.

Edit: to be fair, that particular restriction was probably loosened in 2e, but I can't say for certain.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not to be argumentative, but no matter what the "consensus" was, the rules are a lot clearer than that.

"...dodging a blow."

Because you just can't be still and concentrate, when some madman is waving a sword in your face.

But, that's really the whole issue. People chaffed at the restrictions upon spellcasters, complained, complained and complained, until, when designing 3e, WotC removed oh, so many of those pesky restrictions.

We all know what happened then.

But that is what the whole casting time/speed factor/initiative thing is about. The rules also explicitly state that spells are spoiled IF YOU TAKE DAMAGE. So as far as I know the 'correct' interpretation is that what you quoted is flavor text, and then there are rules that implement that flavor. The rules are if you take damage your spell is spoiled, and speed factor etc will determine if you got the spell off before anyone could attack you or not. They still have to HIT or at least effect your character. It is never really stated clearly in any rule what would happen if say someone pushed you (1e doesn't have rules for that at all, though I think 2e does). Presumably the RAI is that your spell would be disrupted, but again there's just no actual mechanical statement of that fact in AD&D. It is often very hard to tell when Gary was stating a RULE, when he was describing what the rules were intended to do, and when he was just giving some kind of guideline for doing something.

There's not really a clear wrong or right here, but I think the people (like me and most others I suspect) who played with you have to be hit to lose your spell have a pretty solid argument that they're playing as intended (else why would the damage spoils spell and speeds etc even exist).

 

[DMKastmaria]

It is never really stated clearly in any rule what would happen if say someone pushed you (1e doesn't have rules for that at all, though I think 2e does).

There's not really a clear wrong or right here, but I think the people (like me and most others I suspect) who played with you have to be hit to lose your spell have a pretty solid argument that they're playing as intended (else why would the damage spoils spell and speeds etc even exist).

You mean a rule like this? From GG's DMG? That I already quoted, above?

"It can thus be understood that spell casting during a melee can be a tricky business, for a mere shove at any time can spoil the dweomer!"

 

[DMKastmaria]

P.S. GG did explicitly hard code the "damage" thing into the casting procedure. I disagree that the preceding four or so paragraphs were just fluff, though.

 

[Balesir]

"It can thus be understood that spell casting during a melee can be a tricky business, for a mere shove at any time can spoil the dweomer!"

(Added emphasis mine) - what does this mean, as a rule, exactly? That a push might happen and will spoil the spell? Or that, should the caster be shoved, that might spoil the dweomer?

I see issues either way, if this is supposed to be a "rule". For the second, we are given no clue as to how the chance of spell failure might be tested; in the first we have few clues elsewhere in the rules concerning when and why a "shove" might be deemed to happen. Except, maybe, that in the first case the "Push" spell moves from being a useless party trick to being a puissant counterspell...

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's a group endeavor. If I'm trying to play in a reasonably immersive LOtR manner I don't necessarily want Bugs Bunny, Buddy Weiser, or Doctor Strange sitting at the same table. We should work toward being on the same wavelength as far as style.

This is why I think the idea of different players at the same table on different rule modules will face stiff challenges.

But that's a setting rather than rules issue. I routinely ban classes in 4e, not because I think they are bad classes but because they don't fit the setting. There's nothing wrong with this.

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.

I remember those days. And I remember my thoughts on people saying that. "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." They didn't like optimisation because they wanted to not think of the elephant.

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.

I disagree. The reason IMO "Old Schoolers" don't get in a tizzy about balance is Gygax prioritised balance. And said as much. What do you think the differing XP charts were about? Why do you think weapons did more damage against large monsters? Why do you think UA had such big boosts for the fighter-types? (Weapon specialisation, Cavaliers, Barbarians). Balance, balance, and balance. Balance is like oxygen. You only really worry about it when you get deprived of it.

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.

This is exactly what everyone who wants at will attacks for wizards wants. It's about being magical not DPR.

For the record, if crossbows hit two thirds of the time there's nothing really wrong with having autohit magic missiles that do half the damage of a crossbow. It makes it useful and cool - and you'll come nowhere near to stepping on the fighter's toes. (And in practice this is the way it works with the 4e Mage - they get autohitting magic missiles for free - but don't use them much because even the humble Ray of Frost is better DPR).

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.

And? That style of play is ... rare these days. From the 3.5 SRD's alchemical equipment:

Sunrod2 gp1 lb
Sunrod

This 1-foot-long, gold-tipped, iron rod glows brightly when struck. It clearly illuminates a 30-foot radius and provides shadowy illumination in a 60-foot radius. It glows for 6 hours, after which the gold tip is burned out and worthless.

People haven't been worrying about how long torches last since that thing was added to core 3.5

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...

Actually IME it's much more useful at high levels than 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.

From the 3.5 SRD:
Hand of the Mage

This mummified elf hand hangs by a golden chain around a character’s neck (taking up space as a magic necklace would). It allows the wearer to utilize the spell mage hand at will.
Faint transmutation; CL 2nd; Craft Wondrous Item, mage hand; Price 900 gp; Weight 2 lb.

It was extremely useful. But not gamebreaking.

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

4e believe it or not has components that provide bonusses to spells. And are expensive. (And not that well implemented - but people don't like spending money).

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.

If at-will cantrips are not in core, front and centre, I'm going to have issues. It's a strike Bob Crow would dream of against the game. And people who've been playing D&D longer than I've been alive have, at my table (and spontaneously) said that at will spells are something they really like.