Unpopular opinions go here

[Thomas Shey]

I think they could make wizards suck more at low levels without making them suck as much as they did in OD&D. I think part of the problem is the rhetoric around the issue is very all or nothing.

And honestly, even at low levels how much a mage "sucked" often depended on what spells he had available. A large number of opponents you'd run into at low levels really, really didn't want to see anyone with Sleep. Being able to delete that room full or goblins or orcs was not trivial. Especially since the spell originally had no save.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There's also the problem that sucking at low levels...well...sucks. It's no fun to play, so people complain, so wizards get buffed.

It was especially so in early D&D, since you could end up never seeing much above 6th level at all easily enough.

 

[Thomas Shey]

5e is. Probably 3.x and 4e too. But I don't think that's particularly true of TSR editions.

citation required.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The focus on "balance" (which is actually a concern about parity) between broad player character categories (such as classes) is wrong-headed and misses the point. It assumes that the G is the most important part of RPG, which probably has never been true for more than a relatively small portion of gamers.

On the other hand, its a pretty important part for a rather bigger proportion than some people want to acknowledge.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

And honestly, even at low levels how much a mage "sucked" often depended on what spells he had available. A large number of opponents you'd run into at low levels really, really didn't want to see anyone with Sleep. Being able to delete that room full or goblins or orcs was not trivial. Especially since the spell originally had no save.

I think the challenge is figuring out what a magic-user/mage/wizard does after that point. The people -- who typically don't play those characters -- saying that it's fine that the character can't do anything but offer advice or throw darts are basically saying that it's OK for one character to stop being fun after doing their one big thing. And that's bad design (and frankly, pretty crappy toward that player).

But there's a big middle ground between "be able to cast sleep in every combat" and "basically useless for 90% of the the adventure" that it would be smart to aim for.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

On the other hand, there's only a limited amount Companions can do that the mages couldn't do one way or another, and--I'm sorry, but grogs are very much meatshields. So I'm going to kind of stand by my position. And that may be the expectation, but I'll promise you I've heard plenty of AM groups that went out with a grog or two and the rest mages.

Oh, for sure. But the game is balanced for a lighter approach than even D&D is.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think the challenge is figuring out what a magic-user/mage/wizard does after that point. The people -- who typically don't play those characters -- saying that it's fine that the character can't do anything but offer advice or throw darts are basically saying that it's OK for one character to stop being fun after doing their one big thing. And that's bad design (and frankly, pretty crappy toward that player).

Well, the degenerate example after first level was "prep additional castings of Sleep", and at first level, there was always the question of how long past that the party was going to continue given even the Fighting Men could be wandering out with 5 hit points.

But I don't disagree with your general point.

But there's a big middle ground between "be able to cast sleep in every combat" and "basically useless for 90% of the the adventure" that it would be smart to aim for.

Or this one.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Oh, for sure. But the game is balanced for a lighter approach than even D&D is.

Sure, I was just noting that, for the most part, they addressed the problem by, well, trying to make it moot. This is even more visible in Mage...

 

[Reynard]

On the other hand, its a pretty important part for a rather bigger proportion than some people want to acknowledge.

Why? The only possible explanation is that the people involved have decided that combat is the most important aspect of the game. Minus that, it isn't particularly important at all.

 

[overgeeked]

Why? The only possible explanation is that the people involved have decided that combat is the most important aspect of the game. Minus that, it isn't particularly important at all.

Well, the designers pointed something like 90+% of the game towards that one thing...combat. So I'd say it's fairly important aspect of the game. If it's not that important at your table, that's great.