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

[FireLance]

I really dislike the idea that casting a spell is dangerous. Fighters don't lose the ability to swing their sword if they are hit. And they are not limited by a finite amount of times they can swing it.

I would be for them losing the ability to cast this round but not losing the spell.

That actually seems to be the way they are proposing to do it. In the round after you get hit, you have a chance to fail to cast your next spell. If you go ahead and try anyway, you might waste your action, but you don't lose the spell if you fail. If you choose not to cast a spell, you can fall back on a cantrip.

The implication for non-spellcasters is that you don't have to "interrupt" spellcasting any more. As long as you damage the spellcaster on your turn, he will have a chance of spell failure on his next turn.

 

[Serendipity]

Not a single mention of rituals. I'd be happy if they kept them (in some capacity) and maintained a lack of class based restrictions on them honestly.
Kind of iffy about the rest of it, though.
Dangerous magic? Yes, more please, but then I've got the DCC RPG for that. I really don't think they'll go anywhere NEAR as far with it as that. Too much whinymage would ensue. (Though I don't expect it would be core anyway, nor would I expect it to be.)
I'm all for (generally) reducing the number of spell slots to a more manageable number. Flattening the scalability of some of the spells I'm fine with, if only because it implies that giant rats with 20 hp won't be the norm again (Yes, I know that's hyperbole thanks).
In short, okay with some of it, don't really care about the rest (the whole balance thing, for example, I could care less about). Very much still looking forward to the 24th.

 

[Oni]

I'm going to be honest, I'm a little concerned about the level of focus on the wizard. I really feel like there is a quite a bit of hyperbole when it comes to the class, and that there is a perception that doesn't really match their actual capabilities as the gaming table. The quest for balance often leads to over reaction and/or a reduction to the lowest common denominator of blandness. I'm not saying there aren't are few adjustments that could be made to improve class balance, but I would much rather the focus be on bringing other classes up rather than the other way around, what we have now is already starting to seem a little foreign to me in terms of the traditional D&D wizard. This is one of the areas of the game that will make the biggest difference to me when it comes to selling me or losing me. I really hope they get this right, I'm waiting for the playtest with equal parts anticipation and apprehension.

 

[satori01]

Spells are dangerous is what I was hoping for - at least it goes some of the way.

I hate the idea of spell casting as being dangerous. Realistically, whenever anyone takes a sword wound to their body, there should be a chance they lose their next action...why should a trained Fighter, or Trained Cleric have no penalties while a trained Wizard does?

Thematically it might seem a good idea, but only if spell slotted magic is way more powerful than other actions, (to justify the theme)...and this can be hard to do.

Concentration checks in 3E quickly became hand waivable, as all spell casters took max ranks.

Moreover should spell failure apply to all casters? I always thought Spell Failure for Arcane casters but not Divine was clunky.

Core rules I say leave it out, but haves module for those that want it.

As for Mearls buff spell comments, the issue with buff spells being overpowered has never been zero going to hero, but more subpar going to supreme....ala the Cleric casting Divine Might, Bless, Holy Weapon on themselves.

I hav seen a party from the safety of a Rope Trick buff a partymate with everything they got, and send them out alone....funny but ultimately also unbalancing.

I don't like, in general, rules that threaten to break verisimilitude, but I would not mind a rule that stated 1 buff on a PC at a time. Period.

You want Divine Might or you want Haste, 'cause you can not have both.

 

[RangerWickett]

If you are trying to stab someone and you get stabbed first, your sword won't explode because you failed to hold onto it properly.

But if I'm channeling the forces of the cosmos and I get stabbed, I might want to take a second to gather my focus before I try bending reality to my whim. My whim is very fickle, especially when I've just been stabbed.

 

[MacMathan]

Like most of it conceptually.

Lack of rituals would be a downside we will have to see.

Bringing back IMO "problem" spells like Haste not a good thing.

Related to that the idea of multiple attacks as standard for high level fighters very negative, total regression IMO from the faster one attack but more effective design.

Almost forgot wand as storage seems to cause problems as the game expands, wand as implement much easier to handle and has more literary flavor IMO

As far as Wizards and all casters go the best balanced edition IMO was 4th. The melee types did not become replaceable in the games I played in for the first time.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Actually, rituals could fall into the same category as scrolls:

You can "rememorize" a spell with a ritual and cast it simultaneously. This way, you increase versatility, but not power.

In a certain way it is how scrolls and rituals are handled in 4e, only without a hard birder between those two kinds of magic, and I would like that.

So: Not the right spell meorized?

1. Hey, I can use my scroll, channel my energy into it and cast it as a standard action.
2. Hey, I don´t have the right scroll handy, but I can do a ritual to cast that spell.

Example: Need a fireball to open a door. Np. Sulfur and bat guano, 5 min. And boom.

 

[MacMathan]

While not everyone liked it bringing power level up is what 4e did by giving fighting types their own type of powers. Since there was negative backlash the problem of casters vs fighting types is back and need s to be dealt with in type V.

Mearls did address the perceptual issues around the issue that exist table from table which was nice to see.

I'm going to be honest, I'm a little concerned about the level of focus on the wizard. I really feel like there is a quite a bit of hyperbole when it comes to the class, and that there is a perception that doesn't really match their actual capabilities as the gaming table. The quest for balance often leads to over reaction and/or a reduction to the lowest common denominator of blandness. I'm not saying there aren't are few adjustments that could be made to improve class balance, but I would much rather the focus be on bringing other classes up rather than the other way around, what we have now is already starting to seem a little foreign to me in terms of the traditional D&D wizard. This is one of the areas of the game that will make the biggest difference to me when it comes to selling me or losing me. I really hope they get this right, I'm waiting for the playtest with equal parts anticipation and apprehension.

 

[Szatany]

Another thing for me is wands as storage devices (even if limited to certain spells) but that is another thread. It's weird but I think I prefer the Harry Potter (no snark by the way) idea of wand as implement over wand as spell storage.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

I agree. Ideally, I'd see wants as implements that make casting easier (or stronger), and staffs as spell storage items.

I'm a bit leery on wands - sure, they can easily put a limit on what you can "put into" a wand in core (and, personally, I don't mind a wand of fly so what spells are going to be restricted is going to be contentious), but what happens when new spells get added to the system?

Then they'll also add new wands I assume.

We can call them "true" scrolls or something.

Or elder, or whatever

I'm not particularly keen on this idea. Kind of kills the idea of a rogue being able to fake his way through a scroll, something that's been around since 1e. Also kind of kills the idea of being able to cast a higher level spell than you have slots for - assuming there are level-based slots.

What you're describing are exceptions from general rules (non-casters can't cast from scrolls but rogues can). As such, they can be easily emulated by feats or class abilities in 5e, regardless of what rules we end up with.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Boy, this one really rubbed me the wrong way. Capping the total number of spell slots? Non-scaling spells? Reliance on 4E-style at wills?

Naw; thanks.

I'll still try and see if I can get some guys together to playtest this thing at some point, and I'll give it a fair shake. But honestly, it doesn't look like any retroclone companies will need to worry about losing my business to fifth edition.