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

[Sadras]

Um. No. No, it really doesn't. It's much easier to take a balanced core and unbalance it than vice versa.

I am going to disagree at this point only because I have never seen THAT kind of class-balance in D&D without infringing on someones play-style. I admit 5E may prove me wrong, but so far D&D historically, is easier to design if it comes from an unbalanced class-system and modifications/options are available (1st-3.5E) to make it a class-balanced game (4E).

I think most of us can agree 4E is the most class-balanced edition of D&D we have, but it infringes on quite a few play-styles by enforcing its own styles of play, whereas the earlier editions although not-class balanced could easily be modified/adjusted for any playstyle and/or to have the classes balanced.
I better also add, that I'm not for or against any edition - I have played all.

To make the above simpler: The oldschoolers, prefer the way things were, with maybe a few tweaks. So if 5E is to cater for all - we have to start with a minimalist basis, which of course by 4thers standards is unbalanced. However as the modular approach kicks in we start balancing and satisfying the 3-fivers until we come full circle and please 4thers. So the FULL game is only reached once all/most modules have kicked in which eventually gives you class-balance. Therefore the basic core, which serves a particular set of players, will not necessarily be perceived as a class-balanced system by fans of later editions. They (later edition fans) will add the modules to balance the classes from their perspective and to suit their game style!

And its easier to start "non-balanced" because 90% of the work has already been done with the earlier editions. No need to reinvent the wheel - figure out whats core, what needs to remain and then add-on...

 

[DMKastmaria]

Obviously I meant the general 'your' not the specific YOUR.

But semantic silliness aside are you honestly saying that you happier playing as a handicapped character compared to the others in the group than you would have been if you were able to contribute at least somewhat on par with others? That you were happier trying to make improvised attacks with beer mugs doing d2 or d3 damage at best and dying in one hit afterwards? You wouldn't have preferred to have been able to cast at least a couple spells per encounter instead?

Playing a low level MU in AD&D is supposed to be a challenge. And since I don't think with my character sheet, I'm able to contribute just fine! Though, I rarely run PC's anymore, myself and have primarily DM'ed for the past 25 years.

A low level MU isn't solely reliant upon spells memorized. It's up to the player to step-up, be creative, resourceful and do something besides just hiding under a rock, when he's out of spells and the encounter is anything more than just a nuisance.

So, no. I wouldn't prefer it any other way. One of the reasons I run TSR era D&D and retro-clones.

 

[Hautamaki]

Playing a low level MU in AD&D is supposed to be a challenge. And since I don't think with my character sheet, I'm able to contribute just fine! Though, I rarely run PC's anymore, myself and have primarily DM'ed for the past 25 years.

A low level MU isn't solely reliant upon spells memorized. It's up to the player to step-up, be creative, resourceful and do something besides just hiding under a rock, when he's out of spells and the encounter is anything more than just a nuisance.

So, no. I wouldn't prefer it any other way. One of the reasons I run TSR era D&D and retro-clones.

Alright fair enough if it's actually your preference to play the weakest character in the group just for the challenge of it then that's pretty cool.

But as a fellow DM, how would you handle my situation where I've moved to a new country, made new friends who never played D&D in their lives, but want to give it a shot? Do you just disallow the MU? Hope that whoever gets stuck with the MU enjoys the challenge of being the weakest character? Start at mid level where it's more balanced, but multiply the complexity and time required of character creation by 5? I recall my own first time playing, being stuck with the magic user, and not liking it at all that I could only cast an offensive spell twice in a whole day. If the DM had not taken pity on me and given me a panther familiar that could fight pretty well I'd probably have quit after 1 session.

Ultimately I house-ruled so much stuff to make my game suitable for complete newcomers to the game that I had a whole new system by the time I was done. It would be nice if 5e precluded that necessity.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It got lost around the discussion, but what about this:

Give wizards there choice of leather armor or Int bonus to AC
Give the wizard the choice of melee or ranged attacks working off int instead of str.

Give 3-5 cantrips that are utility only, at will.

Then giveing more hp like 5e looks like should make a melee or crossbow wizard more stomicable

 

[Minigiant]

The more I read this topic, the more I think you wont be able to say "I'm playing a wizard" in 5E.

You'll have to say that you are playing a 5C wizard. Or 5.3 wizard. Or a 5.4 wizard. Or a 5.D wizard.

 

[pemerton]

What does your ranger contribute to a fancy court dinner to impress the king that your druid or barbarian does not?

That is, the class need not be a crutch you lean on at all times. Someone who wants this play experience is looking to have the wizard they play occasionally be no more than a clever normal person.

I still think that is very unlikely that D&Dnext will involve, as central to typical gameplay, as many court dinners as combats.

the earlier editions although not-class balanced could easily be modified/adjusted for any playstyle and/or to have the classes balanced.

I don't think this is true at all - either with respect to playstyle, or balance.

Balancing MUs in classic D&D or 3E is particularly challenging, in the experience of many players at least.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Which is why modularity solves the problem...if it's implemented. If all wizards have at-will cantrips, that's not modular, and it doesn't address the needs of that first group of players.

So the question I would ask, KM... is what needs to appear in the book for it to be considered a "module"?

For the sake of argument... if we say that in 5E the spells Prestidigitation, Open/Close, Mend, Light, Mage Hand, and Magic Missile are all at-will... when does the book then need to say to make them "modular" that would be satisfactory?

Could it be as simple as a single sentence stating "For a more classic spellcasting feel, these spells are not considered at-will, but that you can cast any of them as many times equal to the number of Level 1 spells slots you have per day"? Or does there need to be a Level 0 line in the spell slot chart and a more detailed paragraph about how cantrips get used and how often?

Would either of these actually work, or does there need to be something more to it than that? (And to be completely fair about it... we can also look at it the other way, which has those spells not at-will as baseline, and instead includes a sentence in the wizard section that states that for a more magical wizard those Level 0 cantrips can be changed to "at-will" upon agreement with the DM.)

 

[hafrogman]

The more I read this topic, the more I think you wont be able to say "I'm playing a wizard" in 5E.

You'll have to say that you are playing a 5C wizard. Or 5.3 wizard. Or a 5.4 wizard. Or a 5.D wizard.

Why? In the end, a wizard is someone who

a) focuses on their intelligence
b) casts Arcane magic
b) learned to cast magic through study as opposed to an inborn talent or diabolic bargain.

If he can cast light once, five times or a thousand, it doesn't change those things. If you're talking to a non-gamer, or someone who doesn't play 5e, then one word is enough to fill their mind with pretty much what your character is.

 

[Hussar]

It's a group endeavor. If I'm trying to play in a reasonably immersive LOtR manner I don't necessarily want Bugs Bunny, Buddy Weiser, or Doctor Strange sitting at the same table. We should work toward being on the same wavelength as far as style.

This is why I think the idea of different players at the same table on different rule modules will face stiff challenges.

This is a bit of a strawman though. I'm not talking about dropping a completely genre breaking character on the table, like Bugs Bunny. I'm talking about dropping a pretty well established genre character into a D&D game.

I have no problems with someone saying that they won't play X because they don't like it. I DO have problems with players telling other players they can't play X because the first player doesn't like it.

As a DM, I'd tell player number one to either suck it up or leave. Sorry, only one person gets to dictate limits at my table and that's me. If I'm groovy with Bob's character, then you have the choice of either playing or not playing. You could, politely, inquire whether Bob REALLY wants to play that character or not. But, ultimatums like, "I won't play this game if X is there" is a quick recipe for being shown the door.

 

[Sadras]

I don't think this is true at all - either with respect to playstyle, or balance.
Balancing MUs in classic D&D or 3E is particularly challenging, in the experience of many players at least.

Balancing MU
I would agree with u back then, it would be a challenge, but now with all that we know, our experience and the multitude of ideas to draw from (various editions and other roleplaying game) I personally believe we can balance them.
The largest problem is agreeing upon the balancing technique so as not to infringe on anyones game style. Its easier between a group of 5 or 6, but for the entire D&D fanbase - its a little more trickier. But that is a far cry from saying balance cannot be attained.

Playstyle
Not sure what adjustments could not be made to the system to suit your playstyle with earlier editions. Could you give me an example?