The (Generalist) Rogue, Bard, and Wizard. One of these things is not like the other.

[Manbearcat]

Throughout the history of our hobby, we have had various iterations of each of these classes. Their design space was sometimes focused and coherent. Sometimes not. Their balance, relative to the contribution of their contemporaries, was sometimes reasonable, sometimes woefully underpowered and sometimes they were the game-changing star player amongst a swath role players. To map to professional sports, the opposing team (DM) had to game-plan entirely around their presence.

Each of these classes have a mechanical toolkit they are equipped with by which they interface with the opposing mechanical pieces of the system. Sometimes, their mechanical toolkit allows them to circumvent the process of interfacing with mechanical opposition and directly manipulate the fiction (more-or-less director stance). Let us look at the two generalists and specialists listed above within the micro-components of the 3 pillars, their mechanical toolkit to interface (or bypass) with the pillar and how they grade out in each. Finally, I will attempt to draw some conclusions after the assessment. It would be good if we could focus the conversation on the title of the thread, stay away from evaluation from an edition warring perspective (eg this edition's Rogue/Thief was great, this edition's Bard was horrible...therefore this edition is good and this one is bad), and evaluate on the general theme and spirit of these classes' mechanics (with specific mechanics from various editions where required). For those who wish to participate, it may be easier to use the template below for comparative grading. A few parameters first:

- It should be accepted beforehand that the signal to noise ratio of this analysis (and subsequent analysis by other posters) will lean heavy toward the noise. This is primarily a subjective enterprise underwritten by a bit of objective truth here and there.
- This will not be edition-specific. However, specifics from editions to illustrate your sense of intent of the class, or fulfillment of promise, should be invoked.
- This will not be extremely low level where outcomes are more a product of player decision rather than PC resource deployment due to the limit of quantity and potency of PC mechanical resources. We're probably talking somewhere around levels 5 to 15. That removes the margins where mechanics are relatively peripheral or so game-changing that nothing else exists.


The Rogue/Thief (Generalist)

Combat - B

Offense - A
Defense - B
Control - C
Support - D

Mechanics: Significant burst and single target damage by way of Backstab mechanics and/or Sneak attack. Can serve as assassin to bring down sentries or difficult to access targets. Static defensive capabilities are average but intangibles such as dictating fights to minimize deficiencies and the ability to escape/outright avoid damage/deleterious effects elevates this to above average status. Average means of control through action denial/harassment, situational defender, and virtually non-existent support. Grade: B

Exploration - A-

Perpetuate Travel - B
Solve Puzzle/Mystery - C+
Circumvent Obstacle/Trap - A+
Mitigate Exposure/Hazards - B+

Mechanics: Has no means to expedite group travel. However, hastens group travel and delivers access to hidden/hazardous areas through a wide breadth of reliable skill proficiency. The class performs as an extremely effective, borderline essential, scout who can make travel through hostile domains much more easily negotiated. Must interface with the mechanics as no system circumvention capabilities. Therefore, only means of puzzle/mystery solving are skill/lore based. Grade: A-

Social - B

Coerce Neutral NPC - B
Gather Information - A
Resolve Aggression Without Conflict - B
Solve Mystery - C

Mechanics: Through a wide breadth of reliable skill proficiency, the class performs as an extremely effective, face and spy who can facilitate, and rarely circumvent, the resolution of urban and social conflicts. Must interface with the mechanics as no system circumvention capabilities. Therefore, only means of mystery solving are skill/lore based. Grade: B


The Bard (Generalist)

Combat - B

Offense - D
Defense - C+
Control - B
Support - A

Mechanics: Minimal resources in the way of direct and burst damage with a modicum of AoE capability (which are generally worse spells than their of-level counterparts). Static defensive capabilities are average with minor intangible spell means to elevate slightly. Above average means of control through action denial/harassment/inducement of negative status effect. Considerable support through numerous buffs; from static bonuses, to action economy, to tactical mobility to healing. Grade: B

Exploration - B+

Perpetuate Travel - B
Solve Puzzle/Obstacle - B+
Circumvent Obstacle/Trap - B
Mitigate Exposure/Hazards - B+

Mechanics: Has means to expedite overland, group travel. Hastens group travel and delivers access to hidden/hazardous areas through a wide breadth of reliable skill proficiency, lore and divinations. Can mitigate exposure to features of hostile environments through abjurations and healing which makes travel through hostile domains safer. Through vast lore and limited divination use, can facilitate resolution of, or sometimes circumvent, exploration conflict and puzzle challenges. Grade: B+

Social - A+

Coerce Neutral NPC - A+
Gather Information - A+
Resolve Aggression Without Conflict - A+
Solve Mystery - A

Mechanics: Through a wide breadth of reliable skill proficiency, enchantments, divinations, and illusions the class performs as the preeminent face, mediator, and spy who can facilitate, and sometimes circumvent, the resolution of urban and social conflicts. Often must interface with the mechanics (with considerable effect) but through lore and divinations, the class has system circumvention capabilities as means of mystery solving. Grade: A+


The Generalist Wizard

Combat - A-

Offense - A
Defense - B
Control - A+
Support - B+

Mechanics: Average single target damage (with some single target spells that circumvent the mechanics) but considerable, varying options for unmatchable AoE capability (which again, sometimes working outside of the mechanical system). Although unmatchable, AoE spells are still generally less effective spells than their of-level Control counterparts (which speaks more to the potency of the Control capability). Static defensive capabilities are average but through spells, class has unmatched tactical mobility, illusory misdirection (self-target management) and extreme means of protections from ranged/melee physical attacks and elemental effects/spells. Bulwarking the defensive abilities are Conjurations/Summons spells which interpose themselves between the class and opponents. Unmatched means of control as preeminent battlefield dictator, through encounter changing action denial/harassment/inducement of negative status effect. Considerable support capability through numerous buffs; from static bonuses, physical/elemental damage/spell mitigation/protection, to action economy to unmatched tactical mobility. Grade: A-

Exploration - A+

Perpetuate Travel - A+
Solve Puzzle/Obstacle - A+
Circumvent Obstacle/Trap - A
Mitigate Exposure/Hazards - A

Mechanics: Has unmatched means to expedite overland, group travel. Hastens group travel and delivers access to hidden/hazardous areas through lore, transmutations and divinations. Can mitigate exposure to features of hostile environments through abjurations, transmutations and sacrificial conjurations which makes travel through hostile domains safer. Through lore and unmatched divination use, can facilitate resolution of, and often circumvent, exploration conflict and puzzle challenges. Grade: A+

Social - A

Coerce Neutral NPC - A
Gather Information - A+
Resolve Aggression Without Conflict - A-
Solve Mystery - A+

Mechanics: Through lore and unmatched enchantments, divinations, and illusions the class can effectively play the role of face, mediator and spy and can facilitate, and sometimes circumvent, the resolution of urban and social conflicts. Has the most access to system circumvention mechanics, borderline omniscience through divinations and summons, as means of mystery solving. Grade: A


Conclusion: The Rogue/Thief and Bard perform well as "Generalists" and are reasonably comparable across their pillar metrics. However, as a "Generalist", the historical Generalist Wizard performs as well, or better in all pillars than its counterpart "Generalist" classes. In order to constrain the Generalist Wizard toward the end of equilibration with the acceptable baseline level of performance as a "Generalist" (Rogue/Thief and Bard), either:

- its resources must be siloed so that it cannot access all of its "pillar power" at its discretion.
- its quantity of resources must be trimmed. This includes access to scrolls and rechargable items.
- its intra-resource potency must be constrained and/or hard-coded (divinations and transmutations) to prevent circumvention through leveraging their open-ended nature.
- it must be forced to Specialize, thus affording it more potency in one pillar but less, or more difficult, access to its discretionary "pillar power".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think that describes the classes pretty well to me. Did you classify healing as defense or support?

Anyway, I agree with the conclusions - If the Wizard really has to stay a Generalist with acccess to everything, then there must be something that limits him so he cannot do everything equally well at all times. (With the note that "at all times" is a placeholder for "just often enough that it hasn't been a real limitation" - the Wizard can't Teleport, but if you only need to Teleport every 3 days and F, being able to do it once in those 3 days will already make him pretty good at Travel...).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Keeping this edition-neutral is going to be tough. The Thief/Rogue, for instance, varied so much in effectiveness from one ed to the next, while the Bard varied greatly in both concept and contribution. The evaluation of the wizard is pretty edition-independent, though.

So, without worrying about specifics and editions...

The Thief may have had a name-change, but he remained pretty consistent. Always light-armored, always stuck looking for traps and trying to hide in the shadows, always non-magical with the profound handicaps that implies.

The Bard, OTOH, has been all over the place, sometimes a prestige-class-like construct, sometimes an ordinary class, sometimes borrowing spells from other lists, sometimes his own, sometimes Druid-like, sometimes mage-like, sometimes thief-like, on occasion fighter-like.

Even from the 'Pillar' pov, I don't think the Thief is really a generalist. Sure, he has a lot of skills, and they apply to shady dealings in each pillar (backstabbing, locks & traps, bluff & streetwise), but, really, if it's not shady, it's not the Thief's thing. Stand up fights? No. Above-board Diplomacy? not so much. Wilderness survival? hardly.

The Thief is a specialist, just a specialist with a specialty that intersects each of the Pillars, without encompassing any one of them.

The Bard, has been at times, and the Wizard, sure, absolutely.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You are probably right with your premise. But I guess the conclusion to force a wizard to specialize is wrong.

Looking at the ADnD 2nd edition wizard, there was a balance mechanic dropped in later editions: chance to lose spells. Need of people protecting him. Unless you were prepared.

So lets analyse, what happened in 3.x:

-> magic item creation to have unlimited access to support spells
-> metamagic to make low level protection spells duration endless
-> no realistic possibility to interrupt the mage during casts
-> removal of the failure chances for teleport (Noone uses scry teleport, if you have good chances to die)
-> hp were much more easily gained (magic items), protection spells cheaper (hello haste)

There were good changes for the wizard too, that made him more appealing. But in the end, he became omnipotent.
In ADnD i nearly never have seen pure wizards (specialists and multiclass wizards quite a lot) in our groups, as all the advantages you describe come with great disadvantages. 10d4 hp which average our at 25... at level 10, where you face 10d6 fireballs...

 

[JamesonCourage]

Conclusion: The Rogue/Thief and Bard perform well as "Generalists" and are reasonably comparable across their pillar metrics. However, as a "Generalist", the historical Generalist Wizard performs as well, or better in all pillars than its counterpart "Generalist" classes. In order to constrain the Generalist Wizard toward the end of equilibration with the acceptable baseline level of performance as a "Generalist" (Rogue/Thief and Bard), either:

Essentially, this is a "nerf wizards" thread? If so, I can get on board, as long as we're willing to talk how to do that. (I admittedly skipped to the end after starting to read the post; it just didn't hold my attention span.)

- its resources must be siloed so that it cannot access all of its "pillar power" at its discretion.

This is one way. Not my favorite method, but it's one way to do it. I prefer to give dedicated magic users access to basically what they need, but this comes at a price: specializing in this versatility costs them elsewhere (skills, combat prowess, hit points, etc.). More on implementation below, as I continue to reply.

- its quantity of resources must be trimmed. This includes access to scrolls and rechargable items.

Disagree with access to all scrolls and rechargeable items, though I agree in essence with this line of thought. I cut down spell slots significantly in my RPG (no bonus from high attribute), higher level spell slots cost significantly more with character points than lower level spell slots (it's a point-buy system), getting a spell slot back takes a lot longer than overnight (a level 9 spell slot takes 32 days to get back [16 days with a special ability], and you can only get 1 spell slot back at a time), etc. Also, creating a magic item temporarily takes up "auras" (basically a limit to how many spells you can maintain at once, to limit buffs), and making them permanently costs you permanent attribute damage.

So, I'm okay with limiting resources, just not completely. Let people get rechargeable items, but at a cost.

- its intra-resource potency must be constrained and/or hard-coded (divinations and transmutations) to prevent circumvention through leveraging their open-ended nature.

Things like divination, teleportation, charms, illusions, etc. are all hard to handle (those four were the hardest in my RPG). Setting up limitations helps quite a bit (people explicitly remember being charmed, and charming someone moves them one step closer to friendly, not directly to "Friend"; illusions can be dispelled by attacking them, and it's hard to create huge scenes with them; etc.).

This is where things get tricky. I want the system to allow teleportation, but I don't want it to be standard. Set up a huge recharge time, permanently drain an attribute on each use (my RPG's method), limit where it can go (4e), etc. Open-ended abilities like Teleport or certain divinations can really alter the game in such ways that you can't really avoid them (scry and fry tactics, etc.).

I'm down for discussing how to limit these things; my preference is to make them either have a permanent cost (usually attribute drain*), or to make them less reliable than a mundane method. For example, you can use Revelation magic (basically divinations) in my RPG to ask questions, but you basically get what people think is the right answer; it's like a "poll the audience" spell. If you said "who is the assassin who just killed the king?" the majority of people wouldn't know (and thus the spell would ignore them), some people might have suspicions, and others would know (such as the assassin). You'd get the most common answer (excluding "I don't know" or the equivalent), though the less people know, the harder it is to find out the answer. A Rogue or Bard could potentially bypass these restrictions with some mundane methods: asking around, talking to the right people, dropping a few coins, etc.

*When I say "attribute drain", I don't mean in the "and the Cleric will use Restoration to restore it" sense. More like "mark down your stat by 1; it's now lower, permanently."

- it must be forced to Specialize, thus affording it more potency in one pillar but less, or more difficult, access to its discretionary "pillar power".

This isn't a bad method, either. I like the generalist wizard, but I see them as a "jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none" type of class. I can turn someone invisible, but it just lets them hide without cover or concealment (so the Rogue is still better than the Wizard); I can give someone a bonus to attacks, but it's limited by how good that person already is (so the Fighter benefits more than the Wizard); I can ask the universe a question, but it's not reliable, and we're better served by the Bard asking around unless we need a quick lead or we're short on time.

Specialization is viable for a lot of other classes, though. Basically, give some magic users less spells, but they get more class abilities, less restrictions (they get better at combat, more skills, etc.), etc. I'm definitely okay with this type of class design for a lot of classes. I just like my generalist wizards, too. As always, play what you like

 

[Minigiant]

To me the Rogue/Thief and Bard are both skill experts that can apply their skill (shadiness and cheating for the Rogue and minor magic and communication for the Bard ) to all pillars.

But yes, the wizards needs a limitation so they can't simply handle everything at once. Making a few spells more specific or having a few drawback is a given.

I've been a fan of a soft cap on the number of spells a wizard can know with wizard traditions like school, element, or location-based specialization opening the cap.

 

[Ahnehnois]

My take-home is that spellcasters get too many spells, can cast them too easily, and that their spells are too powerful. None of which would be particularly difficult to change while retaining all the essential capacities of a wizard (and retaining specialization as a choice).

 

[MoonSong]

I think that any changes made to keep the wizards in check should be done to the class itself rather than the spells. In 3.x sorcerers had access to the same spells and hardly broke anything, that despite having more spell slots than the wizard, and it was because they had to pick a niche and run with it, and I think that is the core of the problem, being able to switch the whole spellset everyday is too powerfull by the sheer flexibility it provides.

Perhaps many of the restrictions proposed/from previous editions should apply to the wizard class itself instead of all arcane casters. Want to have the potential to replace everybody on the party? play a generalist wizard, but it comes with heavy limits on casting and a reduced number of slots, want to be flexible within a niche? play an specialist mage who while still having heavy limits can preppare more spells from his/her school and has an easier time casting them. Want to cast all day with less limitations? play a sorcerer that has more slots and less chance of failure (after all magic is second nature for them, it should be easy), but you are stuck with only knowing two spells of every level and perhaps not unlimited cantrips.

 

[yakuba]

I'd like to see wizards in DDN limited in three specific ways:

1) Spell Effect limitations.
The developers seem to have already taken this to heart. Save or screwed spells have hard hit point limits that seem like they will make it difficult to dominate all encounters, especially encounters with strong monsters. Encounters with many weak creatures are still a wizard sweet spot and that's fine. They've explicitly said that exploration/social spells should not overshadow exploration/social skill specialists. I'm satisfied here.

2) Spells Known
Having too many known spells allows for too much versatility. I'd like to see Wizards know 2-3 leveled spells at 1st and gain only one additional spell known per level, with explicit options for buying, stealing, inventing spells. It should require significant effort for a wizard to have a big spellbook with a spell for every occasion. I prefer this to forcing limits that forcing specialization. Specialization should be a choice. The playtest gives 3 new spells per level, that's far too much for me right now.

3) Total leveled spells/day and spell levels
If spells refresh daily, you cannot allow wizards to have 30, 40, 50 leveled spells to cast each day. I'd like to see the number of leveled spells limited to 16-20 and the total number of spell levels castable llimited to 40-60. The best way to do this would be to make it so that beyond a certain spell levels have to be 'purchased' via giving up lower level spell levels. For example, Let the 10th level spell progression be:
4-1 4- 2 4-3 4-4 4-5
60 total levels
At 11th you learn a 6th level spell but you have give up a 4th and 2nd level slot, or any other combination, in order to have 1 6th level slot to cast that spell.

I think these changes allow me, a wizard lover, to have a really fun character I would love to play, without overshadowing the other characters in the party.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think that describes the classes pretty well to me. Did you classify healing as defense or support?

Support.

Keeping this edition-neutral is going to be tough.

I agree. This was the best I could do under those constraints. Just tried my best to keep the "general spirit" and the most prominent iterations.

The Thief is a specialist, just a specialist with a specialty that intersects each of the Pillars, without encompassing any one of them.

I agree. Generalist by Specialist Proxy. His skillset does not dynamically function in multiple intra-pillar ways (within the fiction), but insofar as it does through his Specialist heritage, it makes him mult-faceted/multi-pillar capable. So, in that sense, "Generalist."

Essentially, this is a "nerf wizards" thread? If so, I can get on board, as long as we're willing to talk how to do that. (I admittedly skipped to the end after starting to read the post; it just didn't hold my attention span.)

I'm fine with Specialists (except perhaps the Summoner...the Summoner can turn generalist quickly...have to be careful with the iteration of that one), its just the impact of the Generalist relative to the other Generalists that I wanted to examine. The Wizard is 1A in my rank of favorite classes and if I were ever to be a PC, Wizard would be the class I played.

I fully understand it was TLDR. I wish I could have snipped it but I wanted to be thorough. I was actually a bit surprised when I evaluated each metric that it was as close as it was. I went into it thinking that the Generalist Wizard's "GPA" would like by a full "Grade" and change higher, but it ended up being closer to .75ish.

Some good stuff throughout your post from a resolution standpoint. I definitely don't want to cut scrolls out of the game. In fact, I don't want to cut out any portion of the game for the Wizard. I love each aspect of the Wizard. I would just like some effects constrained, and some effects more hard-coded/less open ended, so their impact on Exploration and Social pillar gameplay is not so total (by way of ominscience or astral-taxi).

But yes, the wizards needs a limitation so they can't simply handle everything at once. Making a few spells more specific or having a few drawback is a given.

I agree. I would prefer specificity and constraints over operative conditioning by way of (circumventable) drawbacks. However, as long as the above two classes are not marginalized in their Generalist capabilities and each pillar maintains their relevance, I will be happy no matter the solution.

My take-home is that spellcasters get too many spells, can cast them too easily, and that their spells are too powerful. None of which would be particularly difficult to change while retaining all the essential capacities of a wizard (and retaining specialization as a choice).

I absolutely agree. All of the wizards facets and fun can be retained and would not be difficult to change.

I think that any changes made to keep the wizards in check should be done to the class itself rather than the spells. In 3.x sorcerers had access to the same spells and hardly broke anything

This is a very good point. If mutually shared spell lists become manifest then there needs to be great care taken when "pruning" spells as the effect on Specialists (such as the Sorcerer) could be negative through "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" principle.