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

[Incenjucar]

DnD needs to decide just how magical magic is and what it can it do.

I disagree.

Given the whole "module" concept, What D&D needs to do is establish a workable baseline that can be most easily modified by the players to fit what THEY want magic to be, and for them to provide tools and guidelines to allow this.

Default D&D needs to be balanced, but there's no reason they cannot reintroduce the old imbalances through options, or even make a crazier range of them than ever before.

 

[Hussar]

But that's the thing: this isn't necessary for balance. You can balance even "Vancian" wizards by giving them a hard limit on spells per day. You don't need to add cantrips to low-level casters.

But, then you have the issue at the low end where you have so few spells that most of the time you are not doing anything directly related to your class.

I suppose the hard limit could be high enough that that doesn't happen, but, then you have the issue on the other end where the high level caster changes the nature of the campaign.

I'm really having a problem seeing the issue with the wizard having a combination of the two systems. You have a magical power that is analogous to a regular attack/skill check/mundane action that is at will and a sharply limited list of fire and forget magic for the big guns.

What seems to be advocated is the mages have something magical to do all the time.

Yup.

DnD needs to decide just how magical magic is and what it can it do. Is magic powerful enough at high levels to reorder time and allow mages to reign destruction down on entire armies or is less strong more mundane in its uses.

More Gandalf or Merlin like less Eliminster.

So a D&D wizard should not be like the iconic D&D wizard? Really? And, which Merlin are we talking about? That's a kinda like invoking Batman - do you mean the Caped Crusader or the Dark Knight?

In all the threads I read it not just the complaint that mages have so many spells it is that they can do things like teleport or polymorph.

Well, I'd say it's a bit of option A and option B.

You have a large number of spells per day and each spell can be extremely versatile. Polymorph can be a very, very powerful spell, particularly in 3e, but in earlier editions too, for its level. Polymorph self into a Behir, attack and grapple a medium target (with your size and strength bonuses, you're almost never going to lose a grapple check) and shred the target with impunity. Pin and rake until it dies, or, for more fun, just swallow it and it dies.

Teleport is an issue because it's entirely campaign changing. Or it can be. Want to do "Explore the Jungle" campaigns? Well, when the party hits teleport, then can just Bamf home, resupply and come back. Suddenly survival isn't an issue. Need to buy some magical item (or have it made)? Teleport to a major city and get it. On and on. And the AD&D limitations aren't that hard to get around by that level. A simple levitate spell first and then teleporting into the air above your landing point and you're good to go.

I read complaints that I want my fighter to be more like Hercules or Conan and they can't. And people tend to blame the magic system for that. But even if magic is nerfed it is still hard to play Hercules or Conan with a straight fighter.

I don't think any edition has gotten it right yet. So here is hoping 5E can.

Well, this is something of a separate issue. I'd say Conan isn't really too hard to do in D&D. Hercules needs some magical item help but it's doable too. But this is a somewhat orthagonal issue to the caster one.

 

[Minigiant]

I would be happy with a wizard that gets like... 10 spells a day... for level 1 to level 20.

Enough that they can actually use magic at low levels but not fill up their throwaway spell slot with the most powerful spells at high level.

Then the warlock could be the at-will spellcaster and the sorcerer could be some sort of a spontaneous recharge/encounter/mana spellcaster.

 

[hafrogman]

These threads are confusing me on one hand people are complaining that wizards get to many spells and they rule the game and on the other hand they are complaining that it sucks to be them if they run out of spells.

Different people have different views? There aren't two sides to this issue, there are many sides. *shrug* But as pointed out by others, they're also talking about different parts of the game.

In OD&D this was a clearly stated design goal. Wizards were impossible to level, but gods once they did. But from the descriptions I've read of Gygax's early sessions, they also had a very different approach to game play. It was (ironically) much more like a modern MMORPG with a persistent world. You played a fighter and dragged your friend's wizard through a few levels. Then you rolled up a mage, and your friend did the same for you. Then you soloed high level dungeons as a magic-user, acquiring wealth and fame in the world.

It wasn't a campaign, your old fighter wasn't dead or retired, he was just on a shelf for when you felt like pulling him out. Balance wasn't a design goal because the idea of sustained campaigns with one character per player came much later.

So moving forward, gaming changed, the game changed, but wizards, by and large didn't.

So personally I can reconcile the two seemingly contradictory ideas you mention above. I want a wizard that functions well with a party at every level of play. There could be a lot of different ways to accomplish this. But Libramarian was actually onto something with his soldier analogy. Adventurers are adventurers, not commoners with hand grenades. I could play in a game where wizards could only cast one or two or whatever spells per day, but then I would want that wizard to be more competent when not spell casting, an adventurer who happens to know some magic. Oddly enough, 4e put at-will magic in core, but also did the most to make wizards competent when they couldn't cast.

But if a wizard is only magic, the older wizened scholar who has wasted away his youth devoted to studying magic and nothing else, 1d4 hp, no armor, then magic should be their thing. They should not feel like a commoner, because nobody takes commoners into dungeons. Instead they should feel like they live, eat and breathe magic.

*shrug* So yeah, I want my characters to be competent, either because they're well rounded or because they're focused and skilled. And as they level I'd like a well rounded character to become more focused, and a skilled character to become more well rounded, so at the end you aren't left with any gods deigning to walk among mortals.

But in the end, what I most want is a system that can work with lots of different solutions. Because if I want a character who knows cantrips, and someone else decides to play a character who doesn't, that won't actually bother me, or ruin my immersion, or make me storm away in disgust.

 

[Elf Witch]

I disagree.

Given the whole "module" concept, What D&D needs to do is establish a workable baseline that can be most easily modified by the players to fit what THEY want magic to be, and for them to provide tools and guidelines to allow this.

Default D&D needs to be balanced, but there's no reason they cannot reintroduce the old imbalances through options, or even make a crazier range of them than ever before.

I am all for dials and options. And it is my wish that with 5E I can have a closer to 3 style game then 4. And people who want a more 4 than 3 can have it as well.

This last article is kind of making me go umm. Instead of discussing at will as an option it sounds like it is going to be how standard wizards are made.

We will know more when we play test it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But, then you have the issue at the low end where you have so few spells that most of the time you are not doing anything directly related to your class.

...and when you DO do something related to your class, everyone knows it.

That's the wizard's bag: all or nothing, go big or go home, one-perfect-tool, "I know his weakness!", swing from BOOM to (peep).

That's the play experience some folks who play the wizard want: that swing that solves all of your problems once or twice, but then doesn't do much else.

You don't need to have a high hard limit.

Look, when a druid is at the king's dinner table, the druid isn't really using their class abilities. He doesn't need to be able to use druid magic at all opportunities to do everything. Presumably, he has a Charisma score he should be using.

A wizard out of spells doesn't need to be using low-rent magic. It's OK if a wizard can't cast spells all day long. Presumably, they have a Dexterity score they should be using.

Your class doesn't need to give you 24-7 ability use to be relevant and effective.

I'm really having a problem seeing the issue with the wizard having a combination of the two systems. You have a magical power that is analogous to a regular attack/skill check/mundane action that is at will and a sharply limited list of fire and forget magic for the big guns.

The problem is that for a lot of players, that's not the experience they want out of playing the wizard.

See, having to rely on the crossbow every once in a while...that's not a bug, that's a feature. It keeps magic rare and special. Magic's not something that can replace a sword, not a tool you can rely on, not a known quantity. It's something that you can occasionally, with great effort, unleash, to great effect. At-will magic sours that effect.

Again, that's not to say that there's not probably room in the game for that. As an option, or linked to a non-wizard class (like Warlock), it would probably be fine. But for a lot of folks, it's not possible to use magic to replicate mundane actions, because it's magic, so it's not mundane. The gameplay element of rationing your few magical resources until just the right moment and otherwise just being a very clever person is a desired element.

 

[Elf Witch]

Different people have different views? There aren't two sides to this issue, there are many sides. *shrug* But as pointed out by others, they're also talking about different parts of the game.

In OD&D this was a clearly stated design goal. Wizards were impossible to level, but gods once they did. But from the descriptions I've read of Gygax's early sessions, they also had a very different approach to game play. It was (ironically) much more like a modern MMORPG with a persistent world. You played a fighter and dragged your friend's wizard through a few levels. Then you rolled up a mage, and your friend did the same for you. Then you soloed high level dungeons as a magic-user, acquiring wealth and fame in the world.

It wasn't a campaign, your old fighter wasn't dead or retired, he was just on a shelf for when you felt like pulling him out. Balance wasn't a design goal because the idea of sustained campaigns with one character per player came much later.

So moving forward, gaming changed, the game changed, but wizards, by and large didn't.

So personally I can reconcile the two seemingly contradictory ideas you mention above. I want a wizard that functions well with a party at every level of play. There could be a lot of different ways to accomplish this. But Libramarian was actually onto something with his soldier analogy. Adventurers are adventurers, not commoners with hand grenades. I could play in a game where wizards could only cast one or two or whatever spells per day, but then I would want that wizard to be more competent when not spell casting, an adventurer who happens to know some magic. Oddly enough, 4e put at-will magic in core, but also did the most to make wizards competent when they couldn't cast.

But if a wizard is only magic, the older wizened scholar who has wasted away his youth devoted to studying magic and nothing else, 1d4 hp, no armor, then magic should be their thing. They should not feel like a commoner, because nobody takes commoners into dungeons. Instead they should feel like they live, eat and breathe magic.

*shrug* So yeah, I want my characters to be competent, either because they're well rounded or because they're focused and skilled. And as they level I'd like a well rounded character to become more focused, and a skilled character to become more well rounded, so at the end you aren't left with any gods deigning to walk among mortals.

But in the end, what I most want is a system that can work with lots of different solutions. Because if I want a character who knows cantrips, and someone else decides to play a character who doesn't, that won't actually bother me, or ruin my immersion, or make me storm away in disgust.

Believe it or not this last thing is what I want to. The ability to fit the game for the style you want.

There are rimes I want a real low magic gritty game and then there are times I want a high magic where magic is more like technology.

I do think there is an issue where a commoner and a wizard have the same exact BAB. The wizard should be better than that when it comes to fighting with some kind of weapon.

I play Shadowrun as a hermaeric mage there are times I can't use my magic because it is to flashy and will attract unwanted attention or I have already cast and taken to much drain and I don't want to pass out. So I pull out by trusty Ares Predator which is a big ole hand gun. I slap on my non cybered targeting system and I am almost as good as the street sam when it comes to shooting. The big difference is that since they have cyber reflexes they are going more than once in a round while my mage who chose to keep her body pure is going only once.

So I would like to see wizards be able to run out of spells but because they know that can happen they have bothered to learn some other fighting skills.

 

[Elf Witch]

Yup.


So a D&D wizard should not be like the iconic D&D wizard? Really? And, which Merlin are we talking about? That's a kinda like invoking Batman - do you mean the Caped Crusader or the Dark Knight?



Well, I'd say it's a bit of option A and option B.

You have a large number of spells per day and each spell can be extremely versatile. Polymorph can be a very, very powerful spell, particularly in 3e, but in earlier editions too, for its level. Polymorph self into a Behir, attack and grapple a medium target (with your size and strength bonuses, you're almost never going to lose a grapple check) and shred the target with impunity. Pin and rake until it dies, or, for more fun, just swallow it and it dies.

Teleport is an issue because it's entirely campaign changing. Or it can be. Want to do "Explore the Jungle" campaigns? Well, when the party hits teleport, then can just Bamf home, resupply and come back. Suddenly survival isn't an issue. Need to buy some magical item (or have it made)? Teleport to a major city and get it. On and on. And the AD&D limitations aren't that hard to get around by that level. A simple levitate spell first and then teleporting into the air above your landing point and you're good to go.



Well, this is something of a separate issue. I'd say Conan isn't really too hard to do in D&D. Hercules needs some magical item help but it's doable too. But this is a somewhat orthagonal issue to the caster one.

I view iconic wizards as the ones who can run out of spells. As I said in an earlier thread I don't see them as creatures of magic but more the scientist of the magical world who learn to wield magic through complex formulas. Anyone with a high enough intelligence can become a wizard. Because of this I personally don't like the idea of at will combat spells.

Warlock and sorcerers have magic in their bodies so for me I would rather see them with the at wills.

Arthurian literature is a hobby of mine and for the most part Merlin is more a sage who has some magic, he advises Arthur but it is Arthur out there winning the battles with the rest of the knights. In most of the literature his power is no where near a DnD wizard. Personally I think Merlin would be closer to a bard than a wizard.

I do think teleport can be a pain in the butt and it is a spell that I would like to see cost a lot to do so that is much more rare than it becomes in some games.

 

[Sunseeker]

But that's the thing: this isn't necessary for balance. You can balance even "Vancian" wizards by giving them a hard limit on spells per day. You don't need to add cantrips to low-level casters.

Hard caps limit the high-level wizard, but don't do anything to lift up the lower level one.

Wizards don't need to have at-will magic powers to be balanced. It's unnecessary. Some folks like having that, and that's cool, and I think they should have that option, but this column doesn't describe it as an option, it describes it as the way things are.

If that is the case, then this is 5e failing on modularity, failing on replicating the feel of early editions, and possibly failing to understand player psychology on a pretty fundamental level.

Woah, logic FAIL.

First off, we all know there's going to be a "core" to 5e, which ideally will be rather unique in it's own right and not simply a retroclone of some given edition's first few books. Any modularity will be to swing the game more in one direction of another, but no matter which way things go, they will be built upon 4e's CORE, which will likely be some form of compromise and learning from multiple editions.

Second, 5e's goal is not to replicate 1e's play. 5e's goal is to provide the ability to play in a style similar to older editions. Style of play and play replication are two totally different goals. Feeling like you're playing in a 1e game is great

Third, there are so many players who want so many things, anyone who attempts to claim they "know what players want" is flat out BSing, so I call shenanigans. Players want good material. If they want a retroclone, there's plenty of those out there.

 

[Andor]

I think that's a good point, Wizards are NOT going to be the only spellcasting option out the gate.

We know Sorcerers and Warlocks are in the mix too. So even if they rip at-will entirely away from the wizard (something I do not advocate, I like options) then there will still be at-will magical types for those who need to feel mana oozing from their pores like glowey stripper glitter.