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

[Janaxstrus]

It looks as though the folks that want low-level wizards to have almost no magic won't like the new edition. Since the majority of those folks are already using house-rules in their games, I guess they will just have to house-rule away some minor at-will magic in 5e.

The design team has made it clear that minor, at-will magic of some type is going into the new edition.

A lot of us won't house rule it at all. We won't buy it.
I've got perfectly good systems with house rules already in place, no need to spend hundreds of dollars to repeat the process if the game isn't better.

 

[steeldragons]

I guess one way to resolve this problem is if there is no expectation of attaining high level. Or any level above first. Experience points are always a reward for skilled play.

Well, that...and killing monsters (monster XP) and/or takin' their stuff (GP XP)...and possibly just completing [successfully] a given story arc, good role-playing (vs. just skilled player playing), and probably a few other things.

But there are also wealth-by-level guidelines.

EGADS! Do we know this will be in 5e or is this a supposition from former editions?!

I, for one, certainly hope "wealth-by-level" is a thing of the soon-to-be-distant past. The expectations and entitlement they instilled did nothing, that I could see, in achieving or encouraging "balance." Simply made for more greedy and expectant players wanting/demanding "their cool stuffs cuz the books says so."

All high level characters (or just fighters?) are expected to have planty of magic, but high level characters aren't expected.

I dunno if this ["high level characters aren't expected"] is so...I think high level play has become a staple of many groups...whether they work up to it or just start somewhere above 5th...or 10th for that matter. But I would expect, through their adventures and accomplishments, a high level character of any class would have a decent array of magic items (I'm thinking in terms of 3-5 reeeally good ones, which I understand is a low number by many standards. But 5-10 -as a completely hypothetical number- with some minor or situational items and a few "use all the time" weapons, armor, items doesn't strike me as unreasonable.)

However I don't think most people play this way any more, we certainly don't. Levelling up is either automatic, or fairly easy. First level characters don't die in their droves as they seemed to in D&D's early days.

No reason that isn't a valid way to play. But I don't think it is accurate or fair to simply dismiss lower level play for "most people"...nor expect the developers should worry/write the game as if it doesn't start at Level 1...as a baseline.

I believe some rpgers are even giving their level one PCs names now!

<best Mort from Penguins of Madagascar voice> It's twue. </Mort>

--SD

 

[Wulfgar76]

A lot of us won't house rule it at all. We won't buy it.
I've got perfectly good systems with house rules already in place, no need to spend hundreds of dollars to repeat the process if the game isn't better.

And this is why you are outside the target audience of the new edition.
And why WotC should not waste one minute trying to earn your business.

Evidently the customers most likely to buy D&D Next want something you don't want.

It is unrealistic to expect WotC to ignore the people eagerly waiting to buy their products, and try to appease people already happy with competitor products.

The worst thing D&D Next could do is cater to the whims of the people least likely to buy their new product.

 

[Libramarian]

It looks as though the folks that want low-level wizards to have almost no magic won't like the new edition. Since the majority of those folks are already using house-rules in their games, I guess they will just have to house-rule away some minor at-will magic in 5e.

The design team has made it clear that minor, at-will magic of some type is going into the new edition.

I don't get what the point of this post is. What the design team has made clear is that they intend to listen to our opinions. I think everyone who's not into at-will blasty magic should speak up as loudly as they feel like.

People should stop trying to control the way other people choose to express their opinions. Let WotC worry about who to listen to.

Personally I was somewhat reassured by Mike Mearl's comment in the chat thing that they don't want at-will magic to be just refluffed weapons, but more like -- you create a small amount of acid alchemically, which could be weaponized. That's more appealing I suppose.

I don't think my apprehension is coming from a particularly grognardy place, I just think at-will blasty magic is by necessity lame and plinky, and I don't want magic like that.

Unless it had a sense of humor about it. Then I could be won over. But that is unlikely.

If it's like Ice Dagger, Acid Splash, Fire Lance -- no thanks, too contrived/symmetrical.

 

[Steely_Dan]

And this is why you are outside the target audience of the new edition.
And why WotC should not waste one minute trying to earn your business.

Evidently the customers most likely to buy D&D Next want something you don't want.

It is unrealistic to expect WotC to ignore the people eagerly waiting to buy their products, and try to appease people already happy with competitor products.

The worst thing D&D Next could do is cater to the whims of the people least likely to buy their new product.

Everything you say is bad, imo. So, cater to some D&D players, but not others, that smacks of favouritism.

 

[Libramarian]

I guess one way to resolve this problem is if there is no expectation of attaining high level. Or any level above first. Experience points are always a reward for skilled play. But there are also wealth-by-level guidelines. All high level characters (or just fighters?) are expected to have plenty of magic, but high level characters aren't expected.

I follow your logic. I prefer a little of column A, a little of column B -- less expectation with respect to both wealth by level and level by x amount of playtime.

However I don't think most people play this way any more, we certainly don't. Levelling up is either automatic, or fairly easy. First level characters don't die in their droves as they seemed to in D&D's early days. I believe some rpgers are even giving their level one PCs names now!

My impression is that the awarding player skill style is surprisingly resilient, given how little the current edition supports it. It's clearly something that continues to interest people. For me I really have found that pushing D&D in more of a challenge-the-player direction while de-emphasizing the DM's role as story-plotter makes the game a lot more fun. It's like a Flaming Moe from the Simpsons -- fire makes it good. My ultimate hope for DDN would be if it presents different styles in a way that encourages people to try something new. Then we can all see which kind of play rises to the top, without wondering what effect the current edition's bias is having on the discussion.

 

[Balesir]

My impression is that the awarding player skill style is surprisingly resilient, given how little the current edition supports it.

Huh?? I find 4e supports the player skill of "showing me what they can do with(in) the rules" absolutely fine. What particular player skills do you want to see tested? Salesmanship? Basket weaving? OK, that last one is a mite facetious, but the question is serious - what player skills do you want to be tested?

 

[steeldragons]

I don't get what the point of this post is. What the design team has made clear is that they intend to listen to our opinions. I think everyone who's not into at-will blasty magic should speak up as loudly as they feel like.

People should stop trying to control the way other people choose to express their opinions. Let WotC worry about who to listen to.

Personally I was somewhat reassured by Mike Mearl's comment in the chat thing that they don't want at-will magic to be just refluffed weapons, but more like -- you create a small amount of acid alchemically, which could be weaponized. That's more appealing I suppose.

I don't think my apprehension is coming from a particularly grognardy place, I just think at-will blasty magic is by necessity lame and plinky, and I don't want magic like that.

Unless it had a sense of humor about it. Then I could be won over. But that is unlikely.

If it's like Ice Dagger, Acid Splash, Fire Lance -- no thanks, too contrived/symmetrical.

I quoted with with the intent of snipping out some pieces to illustrate and agree...but then, it seems, there's nothing in here that needs snipping.

What this speaks to, I think/as I'm reading it, is the inherent issue...and potential problem...WotC is facing with 5e.

It is an inherent divergence of who/how people approach the game.

Namely...There are those who think/want/expect the magic is there for/as any other piece of the crunch of building my character. How much/often can I do this? How much damage can I do? How long does it take? Is there some "feat" that let's me do XYZ with it? Can I "keep up with the Joneses" swinging the swords and not feel "useless"?

Then, there are those who think/want/expect the magic is there for/as any other piece of the fluff of creating their character. The questions are, for the most part the same...but the perspective from which they are asked is completely different.

Is there a third (or fourth, fifth, sixth...) party who wants/uses both or something else entirely? I don't know. I would suspect so. But they aren't the ones arguing on ENworld over every little piece of info we get about the new game. lol.

It's a question of a game of [or perspective/approach to that game for] Crunch/mechanics or Fluff/flavor. Is it a game "built to be won/beaten 'cuz I'm the bestest there is at wut I does' mentality" or a game "created to be experienced/enjoyed without an 'I win! I'm the bestest' mentality"?

The journey or the destination?

It is not a question I have an answer for...and I suspect WotC doesn't either. I do not, for a moment, envy their position.

But, all in all, I agree with everything you say here. It's/I'm not saying this is "goodrightfun" and others are "badwrongfun." Just that I agree with this perspective and hope, very much so, that 5e is able to find that ever-so-elusive "sweet spot" (personally, I think options is the best way of doing this...but there might be some other way I hadn't thought of) to make both camps happy...because, like it or not, they are distinctively different camps from the very way they approach the game.

--SD

 

[Mattachine]

I don't get what the point of this post is. What the design team has made clear is that they intend to listen to our opinions. I think everyone who's not into at-will blasty magic should speak up as loudly as they feel like.

People should stop trying to control the way other people choose to express their opinions. Let WotC worry about who to listen to.

Personally I was somewhat reassured by Mike Mearl's comment in the chat thing that they don't want at-will magic to be just refluffed weapons, but more like -- you create a small amount of acid alchemically, which could be weaponized. That's more appealing I suppose.

I don't think my apprehension is coming from a particularly grognardy place, I just think at-will blasty magic is by necessity lame and plinky, and I don't want magic like that.

Unless it had a sense of humor about it. Then I could be won over. But that is unlikely.

If it's like Ice Dagger, Acid Splash, Fire Lance -- no thanks, too contrived/symmetrical.

Neither I nor the post I was referring to was about "at-will blasty magic", but simply about having at-will magic of any type. The WotC design team have already said they are including at-will magic of some type.

I and many others think it's a great idea, and are glad that the design team is already working on it.

 

[Janaxstrus]

And this is why you are outside the target audience of the new edition.
And why WotC should not waste one minute trying to earn your business.

Evidently the customers most likely to buy D&D Next want something you don't want.

It is unrealistic to expect WotC to ignore the people eagerly waiting to buy their products, and try to appease people already happy with competitor products.

The worst thing D&D Next could do is cater to the whims of the people least likely to buy their new product.

I am only outside any audience because of the previous edition. I still own thousands of dollars worth of 1st, 2nd, and 3x edition stuff.
If all they want are the people from their last edition, 5e will not meet their sales goals.

They lured me into the discussion with a game that will feel like the old days, but to me, being the special snowflake wizard who does nothing but blast things round after round feels NOTHING like the old days.
A wizard who requires a staff or orb or he is at a serious disadvantage doesn't feel like the old days.

I've said a dozen times, I want to like the new game. I want it to be a game I'll enjoy and spend money on. Like it or not, we "grognards" tend to have the most disposable income. They need us MORE than we need them. Most of us have perfectly functional games now, and we want to be wowed by this edition. I want to spend the money on a game, but I'm not going to do so if it's chock full of 4e-isms.

So, like it or not, if they want the game to succeed and be around more than 4 years, they need us grognards and lapsed customers. They need to put out a game we like. They need to listen to the feedback I and many many others fully intend on sending in. They are the ones with the future (or lack thereof) of D&D on their heads. If it's a bad game (for my playstyle and preferences), I am not out anything. I save my money and move on. If they fail in their bid to unite the customer bases, Hasbro just may shelve it and spell the end for the foreseeable future.