D&D 5E (2024) Mearls has some Interesting Ideals about how to fix high level wizards.

Isn't that good? Realizing your mistakes and fixing them? I'm very confused by this post.
Because when I am responsible for a problem, going around and telling people how to fix it, is like if some arsonist becomes a fire fighter.


If you are responsible for problems you should apologize for them, and not assume /behave like you have the actual capazity to solve them, else you would not have caused them in the first place.


If someone was the reason why bridges suddenly start collapsing, why would you trust that person on how to make now better non collapsing bridges?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Because when I am responsible for a problem, going around and telling people how to fix it, is like if some arsonist becomes a fire fighter.


If you are responsible for problems you should apologize for them, and not assume /behave like you have the actual capazity to solve them, else you would not have caused them in the first place.


If someone was the reason why bridges suddenly start collapsing, why would you trust that person on how to make now better non collapsing bridges?
Hahaha. Because we're talking game mechanics, not bridges. This is a truly baffling take on how we want people to behave.

Also, if you follow Mike, you know they had about zero minutes to test and work on high level stuff for 5e.
 


Mike has been saying all around the internet and in threads here recently that their heuristic in designing and evaluating the survey responses were “bias towards making it more like 3.5.” Now that time has passed, both WOTC proper and him are able to look at 4e’s design space and seeing how its paradigm can remedy 5e’s gaps while still keeping to some of the core 5e ethos in terms of basic math and stuff.
 

Because when I am responsible for a problem, going around and telling people how to fix it, is like if some arsonist becomes a fire fighter.


If you are responsible for problems you should apologize for them, and not assume /behave like you have the actual capazity to solve them, else you would not have caused them in the first place.


If someone was the reason why bridges suddenly start collapsing, why would you trust that person on how to make now better non collapsing bridges?
I don't know where you live, but around my parts if a builder messes up your construction project it is in fact them that has to fix it.

In general if I have an issue with a product, then yes, my first stop for a fix is usually the manufacturer of said product.
 

I too sometimes experience cognitive dissonance when Mearls says "Here's what's wrong with 5E!"

But in Mearls' defense, his job with 5E was to make the game with widest possible appeal to players past, present, and future. It wasn't to slay the sacred cows and "fix" problems that have persisted across editions. 4E tried that. WotC wasn't happy with what followed.

Mearls is a good designer and I am (recently) a Patreon supporter. Don't love everything he makes. But I like the way he thinks about games.
 

Addressing the actual content of the post...

This feels like a half step toward the actual solution.

Essentially, he's 1) turning low level spells into cantrips, and 2) limiting the prepared spells to a reasonable number.

I'm down with that!

What feels off to me is that he introduces this at level 11, in one fell swoop.

How about making this a more gradual transition? For example, maybe at 7th level, 1st level spells become "cantrips" for you. Then at 10th, it's 2nd level spells. Then at 13th it's 3rd level spells. Etc.

Meanwhile, the number of prepared spells at any level--throughout all of character progression--is capped and/or grows much more slowly than 5E.

One of my biggest problems with 5E magic is not that casters are more powerful than martials, but that all casters start to feel the same after a while. Constraining some choices might help casters feel more differentiated.
 

I know this sounds like heresy to some, but I think the 4e Wizard was a step in the right direction. You kept replacing lower level spells for higher level ones instead, ditching ones that fell behind the wayside. Spells had three recharge paradigms- the at-will scaling cantrips, the mid-tier spells that refreshed on a short rest, and a small number of heavy hitters that refreshed on a long rest, along with a smattering of utility spells. And rituals, which took time and money to use to balance their power.

And the thing was, there was a way for the 4e Wizard to swap out their spells, to keep the "prepared spells" flavor. Unfortunately it was tied to Tome Wizards, and most everyone wanted to use implements with mechanical benefits, like the Orb of Imposition to penalize saves.

I like playing Wizards, but in 5e, what starts happening is I end up with a very small amount of higher level spells, and a lot of 1st and 2nd level slots that I don't get much use out of (basically coming down to mostly casts of Shield and Misty Step!), since their impact on higher level encounters is often minimal, and I'm often better off spamming my attack cantrip if I want to conserve spell power.

TLDR: less spells overall, but the spells you have should be impactful for your level.
 

I think D&D spell style makes it hard to cut down on the number of spells without significantly changing the feel of magic.

It's a tough spot to be in for a designer. You can't just have a "fire" spell that you use for firebolt, fireball, and wall of fire. Not forgetting all the weird one-off spells D&D that would be hard to genericize into an easy advancement paradigm.

I want a lot of sacred cows to hit the grill, but I can't see an easy way to do away with this one. D&D magic is just so uniquely it's own thing it's hard to make effective changes without losing the feel altogether. But hopefully someone much smarter and more skilled than me is working away on the problem.
 

I know this sounds like heresy to some, but I think the 4e Wizard was a step in the right direction. You kept replacing lower level spells for higher level ones instead, ditching ones that fell behind the wayside. Spells had three recharge paradigms- the at-will scaling cantrips, the mid-tier spells that refreshed on a short rest, and a small number of heavy hitters that refreshed on a long rest, along with a smattering of utility spells. And rituals, which took time and money to use to balance their power.

And the thing was, there was a way for the 4e Wizard to swap out their spells, to keep the "prepared spells" flavor. Unfortunately it was tied to Tome Wizards, and most everyone wanted to use implements with mechanical benefits, like the Orb of Imposition to penalize saves.

I like playing Wizards, but in 5e, what starts happening is I end up with a very small amount of higher level spells, and a lot of 1st and 2nd level slots that I don't get much use out of (basically coming down to mostly casts of Shield and Misty Step!), since their impact on higher level encounters is often minimal, and I'm often better off spamming my attack cantrip if I want to conserve spell power.

TLDR: less spells overall, but the spells you have should be impactful for your level.
Yup. 4e and 13th Age addressed this is different ways, the 13A casters lose lower level castings as they progress and gain higher level ones. Spells can still be "upcast" by using the higher level casts.

1768510340873.png
1768510382502.png
 

Remove ads

Top