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

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I would begin by questioning the assumption that I've bolded. I was going to say more, but what I'd written read like a massive anti-4e-rant, so I decided to withold it. However, given the open-ended nature of ritual magic (and especially the "fly, teleport, and turn people into frogs" applications), and also given that (I think) Wizards have received more splat-material expansions than any other class, I would be inclined to question whether the classes are actually balanced.

The role system makes it very difficult to compare classes filling different roles. When people talk about 4e balance, they're usually talking about which class fills that role better. Most fighters (other than slayers) are defenders, and most wizards are controllers. They simply don't fill the same role.

Slayers and blasty wizards are essentially strikers (blasty wizards are technically controllers, but only technically) but even then, slayers are good at single-target damage and blasty wizards are good at roasting multiple targets.

They're considered balanced because their rules aren't too different, and (not that PvP is designed for balance) neither have "overwhelming" abilities that could completely shut down the other side.

Rituals aren't a huge balance concern between classes. Most rituals are a party resource rather than something used by and for only the ritualist PC; many actually give benefits to all the participants. (An example might be Traveler's Camouflage. This lets a group make a really good Stealth check, but of course all the participants have to "dance" for the casting time until it's ready. Also, once combat starts the ritual ends, so you don't have enemies guessing which square everyone is in. It's great for surveillance or setting an ambush though. This sort of ritual is basically a significant party buff.) I've seen very few rituals that would worry me as a DM.

The ability to Fly as a ritual (Overland Flight, a 20th-level ritual) is quite weak. The ritual actually ends if the wizard starts fighting, and you don't move so fast that enemies with ranged attacks can't try to stop you. Here are my short-form notes on the ritual: "The ritualist and allies within 5 squares gain overland flight 20. All minor, immediate and standard actions are lost, and move actions can only be used to fly. The flier flies 20 squares as a move action. Doing anything else causes the flyer to crash. With typical rests, the fliers can fly 100 miles." A far cry from "fly at speed 50 or so for hours at 9th-level, no restrictions beyond Dispel Magic." If I were seriously worried about this ritual, I've give it an altitude limit, but that's it.

The ability to Teleport is under the DM's control. When a wizard learns the ritual, they learn the sigils for two teleportation circles. That's it. Teleportation circles are usually found in mage guilds, temples, etc, not just any random place. Anyone popping into such a place could easily face an encounter, including traps, and said encounter could be out of their league. What won't happen is teleporting into the main villain's bedroom, buffed to the gills (long-term buffs are pretty much non-existent for combat purposes) and ganking him immediately. Even True Portal, the 28th-level version that can teleport you into the villain's bedroom has restrictions and can be blocked by the 20th-level Forbiddance ritual.

There's no ritual that I've sen that can turn someone into a frog, but if there is, then like the Imprisonment ritual it would have a casting time of 5 minutes, and the target must remain within range for that period, without ganking you for those 50 rounds. In short, you have to defeat an opponent first before you can turn them into a frog. It's not combat, it's punishment. Witches can turn allies into frogs, and there's a few NPC wizards that can do something similar, but first they must "hex" the target, and the target is only turned into a frog until they save.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It's very hard for that kind of system to not end up with either ineffectual/unuseable magic (because the costs are high enough no one is willing to use it, ala the Force in the first two versions of WotC Star Wars) or broken magic (because the costs are low enough that it's not really a limit). And the costs are entirely dependent on pacing.
Tilting at windmills is rarely a rewarding exercise. It's a lot easier to narrow the scope of what any one class (and especially any one individual caster) can do with magic than to try to balance Batman wizards.
Well, memorization and 3.x levels of slots is excessive, though I think short fixed-list classes (ala the specialist-in-a-box warmage, beguiler, and dread necromancer) are at least playable with a minimum of hassle, and chosen-list classes (ala sorcerers or bards) are only a hassle at level up. 4e-style AEDU was never problematic to me.

Giving that D&D is about fighting imaginary opponents, tilting at windmills doesn't sound so bad. Your alternative to fixing the current system appears to be to abandon its effects completely, i.e. giving up.

Don't get me wrong, there's a place for the fixed list casters and the spontaneous casters (I made all my divine casters spontaneous). But it's hard for me to see how a game could work as D&D without having some version of the open-ended wizard.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The role system makes it very difficult to compare classes filling different roles. When people talk about 4e balance, they're usually talking about which class fills that role better. Most fighters (other than slayers) are defenders, and most wizards are controllers. They simply don't fill the same role.

Given that roles are a 4e invention, pre-4e wizards, fighters, etc. also did not fill the same role.

They're considered balanced because their rules aren't too different, and (not that PvP is designed for balance) neither have "overwhelming" abilities that could completely shut down the other side.

So they're balanced because neither of them can do their job effectively?

I don't see this at all. I mean, all editions of D&D are generally considered to be balanced. Some people with narrow definitions and rigorous standards might say that none of them are. You might be able to find people that say edition X fixed a certain issue with edition Y; you might even find a few fanboys that say edition X is more balanced overall than edition Y. But "generally considered"? Please.

 

[Bluenose]

Don't get me wrong, there's a place for the fixed list casters and the spontaneous casters (I made all my divine casters spontaneous). But it's hard for me to see how a game could work as D&D without having some version of the open-ended wizard.

Remember AD&D had Magic Users/Mages with limits on how many spells they could learn of each level and what the maximum level of spell they could learn was. The entirely open-ended wizard is a function solely of 3e. And I don't think anyone can reasonably claim that's the only game that could work as D&D.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Remember AD&D had Magic Users/Mages with limits on how many spells they could learn of each level and what the maximum level of spell they could learn was. The entirely open-ended wizard is a function solely of 3e. And I don't think anyone can reasonably claim that's the only game that could work as D&D.

That may be, but they still could access spells of any school, right? As opposed to a warmage or somesuch.

To be clear, that's what I mean when I say open-ended: that wizards can choose from a sufficiently wide variety of spells. Whether the size of the spellbook is open-ended is a different issue (and a less important one).

 

[Alzrius]

Remember AD&D had Magic Users/Mages with limits on how many spells they could learn of each level and what the maximum level of spell they could learn was. The entirely open-ended wizard is a function solely of 3e. And I don't think anyone can reasonably claim that's the only game that could work as D&D.

I can't remember if 1E had this also (I don't think it did), but in 2E a wizard that got their Intelligence up to 19 could learn any number of spells of any level.

 

[Bluenose]

That may be, but they still could access spells of any school, right? As opposed to a warmage or somesuch.

To be clear, that's what I mean when I say open-ended: that wizards can choose from a sufficiently wide variety of spells. Whether the size of the spellbook is open-ended is a different issue (and a less important one).

What's a sufficiently wide variety? 13? Because that's what the Rules Cyclopedia gives you.

I'll also note the rituals a 4e Wizard can learn include Raise Dead. Do those count towards the variety of spells? Note that it wasn't instant and cost resources in every edition.

 

[delericho]

Remember AD&D had Magic Users/Mages with limits on how many spells they could learn of each level and what the maximum level of spell they could learn was. The entirely open-ended wizard is a function solely of 3e.

One small nitpick: even 3e had a maximum level of spell that casters could learn - Wizards needed Int 10+spell level to cast.

Of course, for the primary casters at least, that was always a purely theoretical limit, due to the easy availability of stat-boosts of various sorts. Though I did, very occasionally, see a Ranger or Paladin who couldn't cast his top-level spells.

I can't remember if 1E had this also (I don't think it did), but in 2E a wizard that got their Intelligence up to 19 could learn any number of spells of any level.

Indeed. Plus, of course, the ability for Clerics to cast all spells on their list (subject to Wis requirements) has existed for a long time.

(But, broadly speaking, I agree with Bluenose - I don't see the truly open-ended Wizard as a necessity for D&D. And I certainly don't consider it a requirement that Clerics be able to cast any spell from any supplement - indeed, the ability to do so is really quite poisonous.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

What's a sufficiently wide variety? 13? Because that's what the Rules Cyclopedia gives you.

Fundamentally, you can make a "Batman wizard" with less than that. And realistically, what player regularly uses more than 13 spells? So I'd say nominally yes.

I'll also note the rituals a 4e Wizard can learn include Raise Dead. Do those count towards the variety of spells? Note that it wasn't instant and cost resources in every edition.

I'm not an expert, but can't anyone learn those rituals given the right feat? In my mind, the basic concept behind rituals is generally a positive thing (for that reason).

Anyway, there are several ways in 3e for a sufficiently determined wizard to access Raise Dead.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I would begin by questioning the assumption that I've bolded. I was going to say more, but what I'd written read like a massive anti-4e-rant, so I decided to withold it. However, given the open-ended nature of ritual magic (and especially the "fly, teleport, and turn people into frogs" applications), and also given that (I think) Wizards have received more splat-material expansions than any other class, I would be inclined to question whether the classes are actually balanced.

Fly, teleport, and invisibility aren't big things in 4e - there is at least one race that has each as a racial ability (fly: Pixie (with an altitude limit), Teleport: Eladrin, Invisibility: Gnome), and turning someone into a frog for a few rounds is not functionally different from stunning them for a few rounds. The Monk can get a wire fu flight power from level 2. Teleport - its big issue is the strategic not the tactical use; Teleport not Dimension Door. Bypassing an entire chain of encounters, and 4e wizards can't do that.

Rituals are indeed broken from mid-paragon or so (this is due to the cost issues and exponential income) - but it costs one single feat for a member of any class to gain the ability to cast rituals. So citing them as a reason for the wizard being broken is dubious.

As for classes being actually balanced, there's one class in 4e that isn't Tier 3. That is the Tier 4 Binder. All classes in 4e can do what they do, do it effectively, and are broadly competent - textbook tier 3. Any time something gamebreaking came up and a class was able to drift into tier 2 they were whacked round the head with errata until they fell back into tier 3, and a pretty tightly grouped tier 3 class at that. Does this mean that there's no difference in the power level of tier 3 classes? Most assuredly not - to get no difference in power level would be absolutely impossible. And the wizard is one of the strongest classes in 4e.

But ultimately the playing field is approximately level. If we picture editions as races, oD&D and AD&D are 70s stock car racing. Different cars look very different and we have minis going up against big four wheel drive cars - but there are definite power to weight restrictions, and the tracks are chosen carefully so the minis win the corners the big cars win the straights. 4e is closer to 250cc motorbikes - engines are simmilar, tyres are simmilar - but the chassis vary and some are lighter and more aerodynamic than others. 3e on the other hand is a race in which the monk tries to compete on a pushbike against the wizard who has a formula 1 racing car and can rearrange the track in front of him. No, 4e classes aren't perfectly balanced - this would be impossible. They are, however, other than one completely unnecessary class, all in the same tier and built by the same rules.

And for the record, yes the wizard is one of the strongest classes in 4e. So is the fighter (who has had about as much love as the wizard over the course of the edition - and more than any other class). The other two classes leading the pack are the ranger (because off-turn attacks win) and the warlord (who hits you with the slayer) with the flexibility of thieves and bards meaning they win the corners. But it's a pack in which the cars are near enough that anyone can overtake anyone else, and even the binder is only getting lapped if one spins off and needs to restart. Which is ... as near as you can get it without putting everyone in an identical car.