D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Derren]

Disinformation and lies. 4e has quite a bit of non-combat spells, or are utility spells not spells? Obviously you also forgot rituals the vast majority of which are non-combat.

I get it, you hate 4e, but please stop spreading lies. It makes your point seem petty, ridiculous, and ill conceived.

Spreading lies. Says the right one...
The majority of utility powers are just "combat but do not damage". Even in the collage which you praise so highly he got some of them.
Rituals? Yes they are non combat. The whole handful of them. No comparison to all the non combat spells which were removed in 4E. (Not to mention that the ritual mechanics were bad making them mostly an ignored feature and that they were not really traditional spells as everyone could learn them).

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think there's alot of "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence" envy going on here. Were spellcasters overpowered at high levels in past editions? Sure, I won't deny that. Of course, they were also underpowered at low levels.

It depends which edition. The 1e wizard with one spell chosen, I think, randomly was certainly underpowered. I don't believe the level 1 3e specialist conjurer with three spells per day and 3+Int mod spells known actually was. (By third level they certainly weren't). Also 3e removed the soft cap on levels - if they were about balanced at level 5 or 7 historically (remember this was around when the fighter got the additional attack) that was 5 or 7 out of about 10 levels before the fighter got an army as a class feature. 3.X has no soft cap and goes up to level 20.

The reason wizards were overpowered at high levels in the past was mostly due to the fact that they just had so bloody many spells that the whole "limited resource" thing was no longer much of a limitation at all.

One of several reasons, certainly.

1. So bloody many spells that running out wasn't an issue
2. Layered defense spells so they were tougher than most other classes (ties in with 1).
3. Broken spells (e.g. Polymorph)
4. The ability to bypass the hit point mechanics and have this be more useful than actually working through hit points.
5. The ability to bypass the strategic portions of the game by spells such as Teleport.

Point 1 we've dealt with and point 2 is really just an extension of point 1. 13th Age gives out far fewer spells for good reason. (I think the most a wizard can have is 12 spells per adventure although they can reuse a number of them). And point 3 can be hit by errata - an implementation problem.

Point 4 is pretty huge and caused by a number of factors. In 3.X spells got harder to defend against as the wizard's level rose - in AD&D the relevant factor was the defender's level and the type of spell. Death, petrification, or polymorph was the hardest type of spell to cast successfully - whereas in 3.X it's as easy to petrify someone as hit them with a fireball. So why not go for the clean kill as it's no longer a one shot. Also save or suck spells would last until the end of the fight rather than the couple of rounds they do in 4e, so they could turn a fight into a cakewalk rather than a race against time until the victim recovers.

Point 5 is spells like Passwall or Teleport. Turning people into frogs isn't an issue as long as it isn't significantly easier than using a sword to turn them into sushi. On the other hand if a fighter wants to start on a journey of 100 miles he needs to trave it. If a wizard can just snap their fingers and be there in six seconds, the entire journey has been bypassed. Passwall or take the front gates? One will take a handful of seconds, the other the entire play session. 4e removed or nerfed most of these spells (the teleport equivalent needs to be done between teleportation circles) and turned the majority of the remainder into rituals - spells that take a minute or so to cast, cost material components, and that can be cast by anyone with the appropriate feat.

Ever since, I've gone damage weak, utility strong on all my casters, whenever I can. One of my big beefs with 4E when we ran our lvl 1-25 test campaign was that I could not do any such tradeoff...

It's got better over time - although still has a demarcation. The only time I played a 4e wizard I retired him for giving the DM too much of a headache.

http://i53.tinypic.com/15mlhg5.jpg

sorry what was that about 4e ignoring non combat?

If my quick count is correct, 4e contains around two hundred and fifty ritual spells. Not one single one of which can be used in combat. Not as visual an illustration as yours (although the 22 page PDF might be).

 

[Evenglare]

This argument pops up every time wizard power levels are discussed, and it's always wrong. Just because you can do things other people can't, doesn't make you omnipotent. I'm a software developer; I can do things with my mind that most people can't do and will never be able to do. But which would you rather have on your side in a fight, me or a Navy Seal? The Seal, after all, can also do things that most people can't do and will never be able to do, and the stuff the Seal can do is a lot more useful in combat.

"But," the usual reply goes, "the wizard can break the laws of physics!" No. No, the wizard cannot break the laws of physics. Physics just has different laws in D&D-world, such that it is possible to produce fireballs by chanting, waving your hands, and tossing bat crap at people. The wizard has learned to take advantage of this branch of physics, just as the fighter has learned to take advantage of the branch that deals with momentum and kinetic energy. There's no reason why the wizard's tricks need to be more powerful than the fighter's.

LMAO. What??? Planes consist of magic, spirit and souls consist of magic. Magic breaks and makes worlds. Magic can do ANYTHING. Of course the fighter can't compare. If you can't see this then there is no arguing with you . Magic can do -anything-. Sure you can structure rules and give it restrictions, but magic can allow anything that can't be explained which allows for immeasurable power. That's why it's called magic. If it's constrained by rules and can be measured and quantified and restrictions apply then it's really not magic is it? Most magic in D&D is but a small sampling and documented effects of what magic is truly capable of, that's the thing with magic, it can do -anything-. You may not agree with it but that's what it is.

 

[Manbearcat]

Rituals? Yes they are non combat. The whole handful of them.

I don't even know why I'm bothering and I really don't know how it is you're able to keep this up; presumably because no one reports you. I know I certainly won't report anyone even if its as blatant and impossible to misinterpret as that initial post. Its much easier to correct the misinformation by just going Compendium > Rituals > 357 returned results. 357 > handful.

 

[D'karr]

Spreading lies. Says the right one...
The majority of utility powers are just "combat but do not damage". Even in the collage which you praise so highly he got some of them.

So you admit that 4e does have spells that are non-combat, or even non-damaging spells that have combat applications.

Your original assertion was that 4E removed ALL non combat spells from wizards. That's why you got called out on spreading disinformation.

Rituals? Yes they are non combat. The whole handful of them.

Looking only at the rituals put out by WotC I count a total of 357. By my count that would be 347 more than 2 handfuls. I'm not even including books like Azagar's Book of Rituals, which had 300 IIRC.

It's okay to dislike things, and it's okay to discuss these dislikes, but stop spreading disinformation about it. I have valid dislikes about some aspects of 4e, but I don't have to resort to hyperbole, half-truths, innuendo and untruths to make my point about those aspects I dislike. If someone likes those aspects I'm courteous enough to let them enjoy them, even if I don't.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Because a lot of wizard powers aren't combat powers. The wizard's ability (in 3.x) to Scry/Buff/Teleport would be overpowered even if the wizard wasn't actually going to jump into combat. Wizards could break the economy, bind creatures long term, cast Wish...

Sure, this is why I want fighters to get some out of combat stuff too. I also would like members of any class to be able to learn ritual spells by taking a feat. Since alot of the out of combat utility spells can be used as rituals, this would allow other classes to have them too.

I do feel like pointing out, however, that while wizards do have powers that are incredibly useful in all three pillars of play (combat, exploration and interaction), they also have to do something that most other classes don't - split their powers between the three. Every spell a wizard uses out of battle is one less spell he can use in battle (and vice versa). This wasn't a very big deal for high level wizards in the past when they could cast 30-40+ spells per day, but now it's a much bigger deal. Rituals help alleviate this to a degree, but as I said earlier, I'd like anyone to be able to learn rituals if they're willing to pay for them.

.... that's the inherent problem with magic. It's better than fighting flat out. By definition magic allows people to do things that you can not normally do. Balancing magic with normalcy is doomed from the start, because then magic wouldnt be magic. At least not in the way magic is supposed to be magic. But god help us if we wont still try to balance magic and melee.

No, magic and mundane thigns can be balanced with each other, even though magic can do more. How? By giving magic disadvantages and drawbacks that mundane things don't have to worry about. We've seen this since the 1st edition of the game. Wizards tend to be frail, can't wear armor, have the lowest attack bonus and worst weapon proficiencies of any class. They have to do weird gestures and speak strange words and use bizarre ingredients to cast their spells. Deny any of those things, by tying up the wizard or gagging him, or stealing his component pouch, and he's screwed. Yes, later on there were metamagic feats to let wizards cast spells without these components, but they themselves came at a cost and no wizard is guarnteed to know them (or have them prepared). Spells can be interrupted and fizzle out and be wasted. Spells can be dispelled. Spells often cost expensive material components. Fighters don't have to deal with any of those problems. And that's why, even though there are many things a wizard can do that a figher can't, they can still be balanced with one another.

 

[Derren]

I don't even know why I'm bothering and I really don't know how it is you're able to keep this up; presumably because no one reports you. I know I certainly won't report anyone even if its as blatant and impossible to misinterpret as that initial post. Its much easier to correct the misinformation by just going Compendium > Rituals > 357 returned results. 357 > handful.

Most of my 4E knowledge comes from the core books and does not include most splatbooks or Essentials (or dragon magazine which contain about 30% of those rituals).
And in the beginning of 4E there were "a bit" fewer rituals (47 to be exact, not counting item creation).
But ok, big hands but still not all that impressive and yes, later in its production cycle 4E increased the number of Rituals. But they certainly saw less use than in older editions as they cost money for each casting (which is a much more regulated resource in 4E) and had a big casting time attached to them. That was enough to make Rituals not overpowering.

So, you do not want wizards to do strange stuff with magic over and over again? Make them pay.
Another idea would be to not (or hardly) give wizards skills at all. They have to spend so much time learning magic they have no time to learn something else in addition.
Because the real problem is not that magic can do things that other people can't do, but that wizards can do most things other persons can do in addition to magic.

 

[Dausuul]

Magic can do ANYTHING.

Even if this were true (and there's no reason to assume it is), wizards do not have total control of all magic, any more than fighters have total control of all conventional physics. The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs was operating on the same principles as a fighter bashing a guy in the head with a mace, but fighters can't fling asteroids. Magic in the hands of Mystra or Asmodeus may be able to do amazing things, but magic that some puny human wizard can control is another matter... and even Mystra and Asmodeus have their limits.

I suggest you try this argument on your DM next time you're playing D&D:

You: "I point my finger at the ancient red dragon and it drops dead instantly in a puff of smoke."
DM: "Uh... no, it doesn't."
You: "Yes, it does. Magic can do ANYTHING!"
DM: "Nice try. You got the smoke part right, though. Make a Reflex save."

Either all wizards are omnipotent deities from the moment they pick up a spellbook, or they're not. If they are, you aren't playing D&D or anything like it. If they're not, then they have limitations, and those limitations can be set wherever the designers deem appropriate, including to a point that balances fighters with wizards.

 

[triqui]

So why is it then that people insist that wizards aren't or can't be balanced with fighters because they have a wider range of abilities (no matter how many drawbacks come along with it, like no armor, low hit points, the ability to have their powers disrupted, dispelled, etc.)?

The problem in balance is not that wizards can do things that fighters can't. The problem is that fighters CAN'T do things that wizards can't. If the wizard could fly, teleport, and turn things into frogs, it might be balanced with a fighter ability to stand punishment, instantly slay enemies, or being inmune to fear. The problem is: it's the other way around. It's the wizard who is able to stand punisment (through Stoneskin), instaltnly slay enemies (through finger of death) or being inmune to fear (through calm emotion or mind blank). He can also open locks (knock) or stealth (invisibility) like the rogue, and he can even heal (summon monster an unicorn) like the cleric (or limited Wish).

So the problem is not that the wizard can do things that are wizardlish. The problem is that the wizard can do everything. ALL wizards have access to ALL spells and ALL of them can do things that step in the toes of EVERYBODY ELSE. Yes, it's limited to a few times per day, or whatever. But the other classes can't turn people into frogs "just a couple times per day". The wizard can. A wizard with Tenser's transformation, Bull Strength, polymorph self, stoneskin, displacement, mirror image and fire shield will beat the crap of any fighter *in melee combat*. Then he can sneak into the castle being invisible, open the locked chest with knock, and THEN he can proceed to fly, teleport and turn people into frogs.

 

[Stalker0]

Magic and Melee can be more balanced....but you have to use ways that WOTC has started to shy away from.

For example, magic can be more powerful to melee, but it could be damaging to the body, or extremely fatiguing. Or it could require long casting times. It could always require expensive components. It could draw the attention of otherwordly beings, etc. Just because magic is powerful doesn't mean it has to be free.

But as I said Dnd has tended to shy away from these types of costs. They want a wizard that can cast their magic more freely. Which is fine, but then the magic has to be weaker to maintain balance.