The Problem of Magic

[RangerWickett]

What I've advocated is tiers:

From level 1 to 5, you're an Adventurer. An adventurer wizard can cast one or two cantrips but then have to spend a few minutes gathering back their mana to do it again. They can cast maybe one or two low-level spells per day.

From level 6 to 10, you're a Hero. The wizard casts cantrips at-will. Low-level spells you can cast over and over, but you have to spend a few minutes recharging your batteries. And you can only get one or two mid-level spells per day.

From level 11 to 15, you're a Paragon. The wizard casts cantrips and low-level spells at-will. Mid-level spells must be recharged for a few minutes before you can recast, and you can get a couple high-level spells per day.

And then from 16 to 20, you're a Legend. Everything from, like, teleport on down is at-will, and even the really crazy stuff like meteor swarms and gates you can cast every few minutes.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

There was a fair amount of that prior to 3Ed, which was retained to a certain extent in 3Ed & 3.5Ed.

There was a little in 1e. The idea was abandoned in 2e. 3e brought back a very weak version, but I do not think that texture like "Earth 4, Wiz/Sor 5, Clr 5" really address the issue the bigger issue. There are a couple interesting unique Bard spells in 3e, but that is about it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Rather that force specialization on spellcasters, the limitations should be natural and organic.

What's unnatural about specialisation for spellcasters? It's pretty normal for fiction and myth, and hardly unusual in RPGs.

I just don't think specialization should be forced into every game.

Besides the myth & legend consideration, I also look to the real world professions tht most resemble wizards. Those that require an emphasis on structured academic study of intricate knowledge.

In both my Dad's field (medicine) and mine (law), the general practitioner is becoming the rarity, not the norm. In science again, most practitioners specialize in one field. Ditto engineering. Heck, there are certain things ONLY specialists can do. You don't want your GP doing brain surgery unless you have no choice. And the ONLY lawyers who have the credentials to practice before the patent boards in the USA are those who have passed an additional bar exam to become Patent Attorneys...which also requires a degree in Engineering, Math, or a hard science (Chem/Physics/Biology).

In that light- along with the added context of the aforementioned inspirational source material- making Wizards into specialists only seems very natural to me.

Perhaps a Feat option could exist- "Arcane Polymath" or "Mystic Savant"- opening up general wizardry and perhaps some other benefits besides.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There was a little in 1e. The idea was abandoned in 2e. 3e brought back a very weak version, but I do not think that texture like "Earth 4, Wiz/Sor 5, Clr 5" really address the issue the bigger issue. There are a couple interesting unique Bard spells in 3e, but that is about it.

Mmm... I think the Illusionist & Druid still had some unique spells even in 2Ed.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I just don't think specialization should be forced into every game.

Not having specialization be the norm would be inorganic and unnatural IMNSHO. I am not absolutely against having a Generalist, but beginning at square one with Specialist In Everything as the norm is, frankly, crippling to any effort to add interesting and organic incentives.

It sets the expectations all wrong. It creates the presumption that it is unfair that an Evocationist can be 5% better at casting Fireballs than a Generalist.

The 1e/2e spell learning mechanics were sloppy and only kind of worked if you stuck to low level play. Having 1 or 2 gaps in your spell list as a 9th level Wizard is an unimportant differentiator, especially if your spell list is likely to be perfected when you reach 10th level.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Mmm... I think the Illusionist & Druid still had some unique spells even in 2Ed.

Druid, yes. But is the Druid really a specialist Cleric? I think it is fair to call it a model of how one could have specialist casters by simply creating brand new classes. But I do not think Druid and Bard are the shining examples of where we want to go.

Class proliferation could address the issue of differentiation, but it is an extremely mechanically heavyweight approach.

The Illusionist was a 1e Magic-User subclass. Did it even exist in 2e? IIRC, all its goodies got folded into the MU spell list and the class evaporated.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The key is moving the problem magic out of the cherry bowl and to the expensive high class restaurant.

That sounds promising but what does it mean in practice?

We could tweak spells like "Fireball (Wiz/Sor 4, Evocationist 2)". That would start to get us somewhere.

The Psion model says "Everyone gets to dine at a high class restaurant. Pick one." I suppose you can go for Asian Fusion, but do not be surprised if the sushi is slightly less good than the Japanese place across the street, or the Dim Sum is less good than the place just around the block.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As I (dimly) recall, 2Ed had rules for making specialist wizards but only wrote up the Illusionist. Which means it probably had lower level access to spells...and maybe just a couple of unique ones.

As for the Druid, while it could be considered s specialty priest, there were definitely some spells that were Druid only.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Your point about Druids make sense. I do not consider it is useful model for 5e.

Yes, it could be done, but many people would hate it, for many good reasons. The amount of class proliferation required to get somewhere interesting does not exactly say "unifying".

I push the psion model because it is realistically achievable in 5e core -- every wizard can have a slice of generalist on their plate.

My personal bet is Core will only have the generalist only, which I am live with, but I would be pretty unexcited about.

 

[Bluenose]

As I (dimly) recall, 2Ed had rules for making specialist wizards but only wrote up the Illusionist. Which means it probably had lower level access to spells...and maybe just a couple of unique ones.

As for the Druid, while it could be considered s specialty priest, there were definitely some spells that were Druid only.

I'd have to pull my books out, but I'm pretty sure that the specialist mages were all in the PHB. Give up one or two opposed schools, get an extra spell per level of your own school, apply a saving throw penalty (-1, I think) to saves against spells of that school. 1e had the Illusionist class in the PHB, and that had access to spells the Magic-User could never cast, as well as lacking spells that the MU had available. I remember I hoped they'd go that way with 2e when it was being talked about, giving the specialist Mage a spell list with things that just weren't available to other classes.