D&D 5E Are quadratic spellcasters still a problem?

In my first and second level playtests the wizard also seemed to steal the show a lot, even with just a few spells. The area of effect spells, combined with the high save DC, made the wizard be able to consistently take out or at least decimate each encounter's monsters with a single first level spell most of the time, while the other players kept saying "I guess we can just sit back and let the wizard handle it".
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I still say the inherent "problem" (if you want to call it that) with spellcasters is versatility. In no system can a fighter ever be truly as powerful as a wizard simply because magic , potentially, can do -anything-. I understand that a low level wizard and fighter can be similar in strength, but when you start giving the wizard access to more and more spells, they can do more fantastic things which eventually dwarf the fighter on a fundamental level. This isnt in respect to combat power out right (though when wizards start summoning meteors and doing AOE damage most of these spells just obliterate the enemy, and rightly so as meteors should), but when wizards start getting things like clairvoyance, flight, dimension travel, create magic items, summoning demons etc etc, these are simply things that an ordinary fighter will never be able to do (unless you are running some kind of anime fantasy game like DBZ where fighters start learning Ki stuff, which then arguably turns them into battlemages of a sort).

The only thing you can possibly do to limit this kind of balance is to do just that, limit what kind of spells people have access too. Also we need to get away from this standard action crap and make spells take much longer to cast. But then you run into the situation of players whining that "it isnt fun to sit around and do nothing for X turns but casting a spell", but honestly there's no way around this. If you want spells to be cast per turn, and keep the same versatility then your wizards are simply GOING to be overpowered given the inherent nature of magic. At this point (again) the only thing to do is simply block and limit what kind of spells are available in YOUR game. I do this with pathfinder and 3.x games, and you know what? It fixes 99% of every problem I have heard people complain about those systems.
 
Last edited:

In no system can a fighter ever be truly as powerful as a wizard simply because magic , potentially, can do -anything-.

That's not true. Wizards can't do anything. Magic has limits, and while those limits go beyond what mundane people can do, they're still there. Magic also has drawbacks that mundane abilities do not.
 

It depends on what type magic system you are running. But for 3.5 pathfinder what ever you want to do, I can almost guarantee there is a spell for that, and if there isnt a wizard can research a spell to do what ever you want. Magic works on such a ridiculously large scale and almost infinitely variable. A wizard could have access to a planet buster spell that destroys and entire planet. In no way could a fighter do that without some sort of magical power. A wizard can teleport, again, a fighter can not do that without the aid of some kind of magic if we are sticking to the traditional terms of a fighter. A fighter can not planeshift into the astral plane or whatever without magic. A wizard can summon a literal army of demons/skeletons/whatever, a fighter can not do that without the aid of magic. A wizard can shapeshift into a dragon giving him abilities that dwarf the fighter, the fighter can only fight. Need I really go on? Sure, wizards need material components, and other things that may limit him in some way, but the simple fact that these things can and usually DO exist makes whoever wields them almost infinitely more desirable in a various amount of situations more than a fighter.

And for conversation purposes let's say that magic does have limits, the limits are so beyond the scope of what a mere mortal can do it's irrelevant to even claim that the limitations bear any sort of weight that spellcasters can be brought down to a martial character's standards. The only limits to magic are what the designers of the spells impose restrictions on. This is exactly the reason that 3rd edition is claimed to be unbalanced. While (again) I don't have any problem with wizards in my own games, I can understand how wizards can make fighters feel useless even if a fighter can deal more "raw" damage.
 



In my (heavily homebrewed to the point of being a separate system) D&D campaigns all spells, both arcane and divine, have a rarity designator. There are common, uncommon, rare and legendary spells. Casters can only pick common spells to learn automatically (or uncommon if they are specialists or the spell belongs to their specific tradition). The rest either have to be individually researched (and if they are they would almost always be weaker than the actual spell unless the research was thorough, i.e. took years) or are granted as treasure.

Voila, no problem ever with magic users being unbalanced? For every wizard using wish, there is a paladin with a holy avenger. Balance treasure with treasure
 

A wizard could have access to a spell that destroys a planet. I'm not saying such a spell exists, but if it did they can learn it. Magic can do anything whether the spell exists or a wizard ingame designs it, that's precisely the reason it is called magic.

I'm fairly sure that you don't have to have magic with no limits for it to be called magic. Magic that enables a person to fly doesn't imply that they can also make anyone else fly, or that if they can't make everything around them fly it's not still magic.

Voila, no problem ever with magic users being unbalanced? For every wizard using wish, there is a paladin with a holy avenger. Balance treasure with treasure

Still a problem. Today, the Wizard needs Wish. Tomorrow they need Meteor Swarm. The day after that, Shapechange. If they have the 'treasure/spell' they can do that. Meanwhile the Paladin may have a Holy Avenger, a Vorpal Blade, and a (some other powerful magic sword) but they still do pretty much the same thing. The versatility of the spell caster is vastly greater than the versatility of the person with several magic swords.
 
Last edited:

That's not true. Wizards can't do anything. Magic has limits, and while those limits go beyond what mundane people can do, they're still there. Magic also has drawbacks that mundane abilities do not.

I agree with your "that's not true" statement however, I do not agree with your reasoning. Magic does not have limits, game rules have limits. Magic can be brought in line with combat potential. Very easily. 4e did it. Utility type effects is where magic is more powerful in terms of game rules. Things that are unique to magic, like dispel magic, remove curse, teleport, resurrection and many others, those are the areas where it does not feel balanced. But if you limit these affects then you run the risk of making all classes basically the same and making magic mundane.

Things like knock, invisibility, charm, summoning, damage effects, and buffs for instance, can all be duplicated by other means (equipment, skills, feats, and class features). If you give non-casters a huge repertoire of caster-like-utility then you detract from what it means to be a non-caster. That said many low level effects are generated at will where a caster has to do it a limited times per day.
 


Remove ads

Top