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

[I'm A Banana]

I'm definitely pro restoring some of the balancing factors of spellcasting.

I'm definitely anti continuing to gripe about other posters. If you think someone's just being a hater (or a hater-hater, or the dreaded infinitely recursive hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater-hater), don't reply to them. And report their post. There's nothing to be gained from giving people attention for their gratuitous provocations. Haters gonna hate. Don't perseverate.

On-topic, I think you hit a bit of a problem between those who want magic to be rare and costly and risky, and those who want magic to be common and easy and continuously sparkly. IE: between the people who want wizards to use crossbows, and the people who want them to use at-will spells that function exactly like a crossbow attack. You can probably serve both of those fields, but not with only one spell: if Magic Missile is balanced for once-a-day casting, it's never going to be weak enough to be at-will, and vice versa. You've got a scaling issue.

 

[Ahnehnois]

On-topic, I think you hit a bit of a problem between those who want magic to be rare and costly and risky, and those who want magic to be common and easy and continuously sparkly. IE: between the people who want wizards to use crossbows, and the people who want them to use at-will spells that function exactly like a crossbow attack. You can probably serve both of those fields, but not with only one spell: if Magic Missile is balanced for once-a-day casting, it's never going to be weak enough to be at-will, and vice versa. You've got a scaling issue.

Isn't that what "dials" are supposed to be for?

I mean, surely high-magic vs. low-magic is something that 5e should supposedly be able to address. We haven't seen it yet though.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

For my money, a level 20 rogue in the current playtest is at least as powerful in all three pillars as a wizard.

Combat? The rogue does good damage, has better HP and armor, and some fun control effects (like Taunt). Plus he can auto-hit if he really needs to. And apparently solo a dragon.

Exploration and Interaction? Take a gander at Ace in the Hole. Four auto-crit skill checks a day in a Bounded Accuracy system. Remember, even at level 20 a DC 25 skill check is Very Hard. 35 is impossible for mortals. If you've got a 20 in the relevant attribute, this power gives you a minimum result of 26 and up to 37. That's walk-into-the-enemy-castle-and-convince-the-king-to-let-you-marry-his-daughter territory there. (Or for exploration, climb-up-a-greased-glass-wall territory, or sneak-into-the-enemy-warlord's-tent territory.)

Yeah, the wizard can use his magic to dig a ditch really fast, or travel to another dimension, or wish for 25,000 gold and then be crippled for a week. Meanwhile, the rogue is tricking a bunch of peasants into digging the ditch for him, Tom Sawyer-style, stealing cash from a passing caravan, and staying the hell out of other dimensions that are full of jerk wizards and overzealous angels just as sure as the wizard's not spending his free time in a thieves' guild.

Oh, and the monk is as smart, strong, tough, dextrous, wise, and charismatic as any mortal being, and doesn't age and can speak every language and punch through small planetoids. And the barbarian can get angry as many times as he wants!!! (Okay, maybe that one could use some work.)

So I'd think it's a stretch to keep treating this whole "imbalance" as a martial vs. magic issue, when it's clearly more of a "fighters still suck out of combat" issue.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Isn't that what "dials" are supposed to be for?

I mean, surely high-magic vs. low-magic is something that 5e should supposedly be able to address. We haven't seen it yet though.

Sure! And I think they're designing the game so that no particular magical effect will be essential to play. This is similar to how they designed 4e (but hopefully they'll do a more thoughtful job of it when it comes to non-combat stuff), but distinct from 3e where, for instance, the game assumed that when the wizard had fly, flight was on the table.

So, you'll likely see damage between dudes with axes and wizards with boom spells to be fairly comparable, and you'll likely see effects no dude with an axe can pull off compared to effects they can. So, turning someone into a toad? Maybe that's about the same value as someone with an axe chopping off a head. Flight? Maybe that's about the same value as someone with an axe sneaking past some guards. Teleport? Maybe that's about the same value as someone with an axe sneaking past ALL the guards.

That way, you don't need a wizard to do any of those things.

 

[Warbringer]

I think it's easy: fewer spells, more fragile wizards.

I played Conan, and in there wizards were worrisome, but not 'overpowered.' You feared them because if they got their spell off, you were likely toast. But they feared you, because if you resisted their spell, you'd chop them in two.

.

You mean like 1e

 

[triqui]

You may be referring to the 3.X Wizard to claim all the above Wizardly accomplishments. Your evidence is invalid, and you are using that evidence in a misleading way. You are forgetting the purpose of this debate.

This is about Wizards and Fighters in D&D Next.

I was explictly answering this:
"One thing I keep hearing is that wizards are/were "overpowered" because they can do so many things that other characters cannot. "How can a fighter and a wizard possibly be balanced when the wizard can do things like fly, teleport, and turn people into frogs?!" "

I bolded the relevant word. This debate is not only about how wizards *will* be in 5e. It's also about how wizards *were* in older editions. And, answering to the italic part of the sentence, my opinion is that the wizard wasn't overpowered because they could fly, teleport, turn people into frogs, or do something nobody else could do. The problem is that there was nothing they couldn't do. That's a sign of unbalance. Fighters couldn't teleport, rogues couldn't heal, cleric's couldn't turn people into frogs. But wizards could do anything, given the right spell (and for everything else, Wish Mastercard).
So yes, WOTC can do some things to try to nerf... er... I mean... balance the wizard. Limiting concentration to 1 spell is, indeed, a great step. But they can still can do too much things.
A rogue's climbing sound bad when compared to Spider's climb, but Jump is completely stupid compared to Fly.

 

[triqui]

You're framing it in terms of class abilities, but I think the real issue is with hit points. Nonmagical characters can essentially only do anything by ablating hit points, which keep inflating with each edition of D&D. Alternate health systems or attack mechanics that bypass hit points are perfectly reasonable for nonmagical characters, but to my knowledge have not been a core part of any version of D&D.

There have been timid attempts. In 4e, rogues had a power, Knock Out, that bassically ignonred HP and take someone out of combat. But yes, I agree, that a fighter being able to "hold person" with Pummel (stunning for a duration, just like hold person does), or "casting" Fear with an intimidating war shout, probably should be an option. At higher levels, a Maneuver that works pretty much like Finger of Death or Power Word to Kill could be nice too.

 

[Ahnehnois]

There have been timid attempts. In 4e, rogues had a power, Knock Out, that bassically ignonred HP and take someone out of combat. But yes, I agree, that a fighter being able to "hold person" with Pummel (stunning for a duration, just like hold person does), or "casting" Fear with an intimidating war shout, probably should be an option. At higher levels, a Maneuver that works pretty much like Finger of Death or Power Word to Kill could be nice too.

I think you're right about timid attempts. I'm not saying no one ever tried, but your typical fighter/rogue/barbarian/ranger/etc. in any edition fights primarily by ablating hit points (and possibly by imposing minor conditions). They generally can't knock out, maim, or behead people. That sucks on a lot of levels.

 

[drothgery]

What I never understood is why they shied away from them. Magic can do special things, yes, but it should also impose special limitations and costs, and daily spell slots quickly become ineffective at doing that.

Because spending rounds doing nothing, or having spells fizzle far more often than the fighter's attacks miss, or declaring that wizards can only be played well by people who enjoy bookkeeping, isn't a very rewarding experience for many players if you're playing the wizard even if things average out (or even if you come out on top) in the long run.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I think you're right about timid attempts. I'm not saying no one ever tried, but your typical fighter/rogue/barbarian/ranger/etc. in any edition fights primarily by ablating hit points (and possibly by imposing minor conditions). They generally can't knock out, maim, or behead people. That sucks on a lot of levels.

I'd say the opposite: it sucks that mages COULD ignore hp so easily. HP is a great system for allowing everyone to contribute to slaying an enemy in combat. It's more versatile than binary Save or Die powers because you can succeed a little (do less damage) in exchange for more accuracy, mobility, defense, conservation of resources, etc. I really like the 5e system where any ability that effectively removes an enemy from combat can only insta-kill if the enemy's hp are low enough that you could probably hack them down in one or two good slashes anyway. (But they still mostly do good damage even if they can't auto-kill.)

And if your DM doesn't let you say you beheaded an Orc when you kill it with your ax I'd have a word with him.