[L&L] Balancing the Wizards in D&D

[ExploderWizard]

correct, if my wizard spends a round casting a spell that effects the battle, then 2 rounds fireing off arrows that miss, then 2 rounds makeing rp moments and 1 round in tha bath room yelling pass, then I think I only did somethin 1 round.

Ok being in the bathroom yelling pass is a gimmie. If I interpret the rest of your statement correctly then each round a target saves vs a spell and is not affected, or a fighter fails to land a hit then these characters did nothing for the round?

So basically the prevailing attitude is either success or you did nothing?

Please clarify if this isn't what you mean.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The play experience of a wizard or cleric has been a distinct experience from the play experience of a fighter or rogue because of one big game-mechanical trick: They can do more, less often.

In some respects the experience was distinct, but in some it was identical. Most rounds, both casters and non-casters are using a mundane weapon, whether it's a sword, mace or dagger. This problem of too much same-ness is what magical at-wills solve.

It's not about at-will magic in general, I think.

I believe, though I've not got the quote, that the complaint was that magic is being cheapened. It wasn't specific to the wizard.

Wizards have been a swingy class. That swing is part of their in-play appeal. The idea of using a single spell very strategically to great effect is part of what playing the role of a wizard is about for D&D.

Taking away that swing hurts the playstyle that many are fond of in wizards

You can keep that swing, if daily magic is much more powerful than at-will magic.

 

[steeldragons]

No, you were insulting because of what you wrote. My three categories are a separate point.

As I addressed them, as separate points. Again, I don't see how or why what I wrote was "insulting." But I apologize for it nonetheless. My intent was not to insult anyone.

Which words were unclear?

Pretty much all of them. But, again, I didn't come here to argue with anyone. So, sorry for insulting you or presenting, what you feel to be, a "strawman."

Here (I bolded the relevant points for emphasis):

Yeah...I read it...read it again..paid attention to the boldy bits...and I'm still at a loss. Just obtuse, I suppose.

You felt that somebody (presumably DFCON1, whom you quoted), was saying that at-will spells is really all that wizards need to do, and that you disagreed because there are noncombat aspects like exploration and interaction.

O...K...? I don't think I was saying that...I was trying to say, I think (and, admittedly, I didn't go back and check), that allowing damage-dealing cantrips that could be done at will was not a way to make one's wizard a worthy contributor or more "magicky" than others.

Except that DEFCON1 didn't say that. nobody has said that wizards don't need ot have noncombat things to do and nobody said that all a wizard needs to feel wizardy are at-will attack spells.

That's why what you wrote came across as insulting.

Well then, again,...I apologize. It was not the intent to insult...merely disagree with what I had read, throughout the thread, that the idea of "damage dealing cantrips...at will"...was it in the original L&L post?...as being something that a wizard "needs" to have to be more "magicky."

As my previous post has ascribed, for all of ENworld to see, Defcon1 and I are in agreement. The option should be there, for those that want their mages that have that, to cast "at will" damage-dealing cantrips all day. I, for one, am not one of those people who feels that necessary for a wizard character...hence, not something I feel the "rules" need to allow or stipulate. The options, though, I have no problem with being there.

I MUCH prefer Minigiant's portrayal of a wizard who uses their cantrips to "appear" magical to those around him/make his life easier...out of combat.

OR, as I presented, a wizard who uses an array of "explorative" and "interactive" magics/spells OR SKILLS to make themselves "useful" AND magicky at the same time...without a flurry of darts or crossbow bolts.

I don't believe I have or intentionally entered into any "argument" here...nor, from what I've seen/received, insulted anyone but you. And for that, again, I apologize.

--SD

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Ok being in the bathroom yelling pass is a gimmie. If I interpret the rest of your statement correctly then each round a target saves vs a spell and is not affected, or a fighter fails to land a hit then these characters did nothing for the round?

So basically the prevailing attitude is either success or you did nothing?

Please clarify if this isn't what you mean.

Ok that is not how I ment it. Let me try again:

If my fighter swings 4 attacks at +22/+17/+15/+10 against an AC 33 then I need a 11/16/20/20 to hit, around round 2 alll that reall matters is roll 1 is x roll 2 is y , and my last two are not a 20 and not a 20.

Missing on the first one is a miss, same with the second, the third and 4 are mostly time wasting

If the Mage has combat skills with a weapon (like gandaulf) then it is not a wast if on the other hand you are rastalin caughing up your lung and wildly shooting 5ft left of the Orc, then it is a wast.

The idea of having magic missle at will is awesome, but I will take the ability to pick up the swordmage feat int blade master, and wear leather instead...

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm not sure if someone has already said this and I missed it, but something I'd quite like to see for controlling scrolls.

What if use of scrolls was always a ritual use?

It always seemed a little odd to me, the idea of a wizard wrestling a scroll out of a tube, unrolling it and chanting it in the middle of combat with as much efficiency as they would cast an ordinary spell.

I could be quite happy with all scrolls as rituals (and even rituals essentially being scrolls too, even)

 

[Lwaxy]

I'd rather scrolls would be created with a ritual.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm not sure if someone has already said this and I missed it, but something I'd quite like to see for controlling scrolls.

What if use of scrolls was always a ritual use?

It always seemed a little odd to me, the idea of a wizard wrestling a scroll out of a tube, unrolling it and chanting it in the middle of combat with as much efficiency as they would cast an ordinary spell.

I could be quite happy with all scrolls as rituals (and even rituals essentially being scrolls too, even)

Don't think anyone said that yet, though a few tangents did get me wondering last night if that was a possibility.

I like the idea a lot from a flavor perspective. My one doubt is that it might not accomplish what they are trying to accomplish mechanically, which is stop the wizard loading up with a ton of utility scrolls so as to:

• Cover every situation
• Not need to put those spells in normal "slots" (whatever those are in this edition)

Of course, given the other changes, those might not be as big an objection as they would be in earlier editions using scrolls that way as a house rule. Certainly, a scroll with slow, ritual knock is not the same thing as a rogue getting you through the door in a hurry or a wizard dedicating a precious, scarce regular spell slot to doing the same.

I also like that thought for some ritual healing by the cleric or other healer. It becomes a way to recover from really nasty fights, but the time and gold invested could become considerable, thus not making it a common thing.

It's a shame that the flavor doesn't really work for wand charges. CLW wands would be a much smaller issue if each charge took five or ten minutes to use.

 

[wrecan]

It was not the intent to insult...merely disagree with what I had read, throughout the thread, that the idea of "damage dealing cantrips...at will"...was it in the original L&L post?...as being something that a wizard "needs" to have to be more "magicky."

I don't believe anybody said "needs". It's not in Mearls' L&L article. (That's what makes it a "strawman" by the way.) You've invented a position for people and then you criticize this imagined position.

nor, from what I've seen/received, insulted anyone but you. And for that, again, I apologize.

I don't see how someone can apologize for something they don't think was insulting. Even if I'm the only one insulted by what you wrote, was it necessary for you to tell me that you don't think I should be insulted and then apologize that I'm too thin-skinned to handle what you wrote?

Wrecan, I'm a bit concerned by your behaviour here. If someone apologises, accept it in good grace and move on. It looks like you're attempting to pick a fight. I hope you are not, because that won't be tolerated - Plane Sailing, enworld admin

 

[Elf Witch]

Uh... yes it is. Because I'm doing MAGIC. And as I'm a magic-user... DOING MAGIC is preferable to NOT DOING MAGIC. If I wanted to fire a crossbow... I'd be a crossbowman. Why is throwing a vial of flaming oil in any way better than just being able to cast a small bursting fire spell? As far as I'm concerned... it ain't.

Then allow your casters in your game to have at will spells simple I have played in several 3E games where the DM did this.

I found it no different in the amount of damage I did sometimes shooting a crossbow was better or I often play elves and take feats that make me good at shooting rays and long bows.

I prefer a game where magic users can run out of spells. You don't. But this is actually an easy thing to modify to satisfy both of us.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I prefer a game where magic users can run out of spells. You don't. But this is actually an easy thing to modify to satisfy both of us.

Then so long as both versions are options within the rules, we're good.