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

[Lwaxy]

As said in the poll about it, I dislike this approach. I want a flexible, powerful magic system, not castrating magic users. If anything, we need more spells slots to grant spell variety (or better yet, a slot-less system) and rather set limits on how often in a week or so a spell can be cast.

And yeah, I saw no rituals mentioned, which is disappointing as that's about the one thing I really like with 4e. But I hope, from what I read elsewhere, it would still be included.

I am not likely to change my tested homebrew for 5e rules, though I'll probably incorporate some. But changes like these wouldn't make it in.

 

[Leatherhead]

Oh, and count me as part of the group who wants to know about rituals.

 

[Minigiant]

Cantrips as At-will:
I thought they'd do this. Excellent. No Mo Crossbow Wizards unless you pick no damage Cantrips.

This could effect backgrounds and themes too.

Sage (background): Arcane, Heal, Diplomacy and read magic (at-will)

Mystic (Theme):
Cantrip Knowledge- Gain the cantrip (at-will) of your choice
Spell Knowledge- Gain one 1st level spell slot and add one 1st level book to your spellbook
Spell Penetration- +2 to caster level checks to bypass spell resistance


Scrollmage (Theme):
Scroll Master- When you cast from a scroll, you may roll a d6. If your roll is greater than the spell level, the scroll is not destroyed upon use.
Power Scribe: Spell casted from scroll deal 2 additional dice of damage
Life Scroll- You may sacrifice 1d10 per level HP to cast a scroll without expending a spell slot

Next Three-
Keep Spells Under Control:
Reduce Total Spell Slots:
Spell Don't Automatically Scale:

Good Good. With At-will cantrips. Wizards don't need more spell slots and more powerful spells. Cantrips can do more heavy lifting .

 

[Bluenose]

It looks a lot closer to the AD&D Magic-User than the last two editions have given me, which can only be a good thing. The only thing I'm slightly bothered by is the idea about scrolls. I don't like having to use an existing spell-slot to 'power' the scroll. On the other hand, if they're going to be easy and cheap to make, then something has to be done to make them less ubiquitous. I'm jus tnot sure this is the right approach.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I was encouraged by this article, particularly this paragraph -

Second, caster dominance shows up at high levels. In my experience, it comes to the fore when a caster has enough spells to unleash powerful combinations. For instance, I remember turning what was supposed to be a deadly fight in 3E against an iron golem into a cakewalk simply by throwing grease and glitterdust at the thing. I've seen similar things happen in 4E. The first spell creates a zone that creatures can't escape, the second one creates another zone that damages or shuts down creatures trapped within the zone.

This, to me, shows that Mearls understands the issues. He doesn't say things like, "It's fine because the wizard player could just avoid using that combo" or "It's fine because the DM could give the iron golem some allies."

One thing I'd like to see, that the article didn't mention, is greatly reduced spell lists for casters compared with the heights of 1e-3e. Perhaps that's assumed.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Oh, and count me as part of the group who wants to know about rituals.

They've said a couple of times in the past that they feel it is important to give the caster the ability to choose how offensive, defensive or utility they want to go and not to mandate a playstyle.

My guess is that Rituals no longer exist, that everything that would have been a ritual in 4e is simply a spell that you can choose to prepare instead of any of your attack spells the same way it was in 1e-3e.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

WOTC tried the "bring all the other classes up" approach in 4e, and some people balked at it.

The basic problem is one of flavor. Wizards have a get out of jail free card when it comes to flavor in the form of magic. Anything they do, because it is magic, is ok for flavor. So all you have to worry about are mechanics.

Fighters have it much harder. On the one hand, people want them to be able to compete with wizards at high levels. On the other, people want them to be martial not magical....and that doesn't really work. You can't be equal to a force that can do whatever it wants by using abilities that have to adhere to some mundane flavor restrictions.


So....we have to add some restrictions to magic to balance the books. The "magic is dangerous" concept is one such restriction. It says, a wizard's magic is stronger than a fighter sword if it can be casted. But then it also allows for a fighter to stop a wizard more easily through his bread and butter (damage).

I know some people are eying this magic is dangerous concept suspiciously, but honestly guys you have to give ground somewhere. If you want wizards to be strong, and fighters to compete, then wizards have to have some kind of restriction that fighters do not. And since limited spells hasn't worked all that well in the past on its own, we need something else.

 

[Leatherhead]

They've said a couple of times in the past that they feel it is important to give the caster the ability to choose how offensive, defensive or utility they want to go and not to mandate a playstyle.

My guess is that Rituals no longer exist, that everything that would have been a ritual in 4e is simply a spell that you can choose to prepare instead of any of your attack spells the same way it was in 1e-3e.

They had combat utility spells in 4e. I assumed they were referring to those.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Cantrips as At-will:
I thought they'd do this. Excellent. No Mo Crossbow Wizards unless you pick no damage Cantrips.

I hope players don't have to take the damage cantrip. I want crossbow wizards to still be possible.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I know some people are eying this magic is dangerous concept suspiciously, but honestly guys you have to give ground somewhere. If you want wizards to be strong, and fighters to compete, then wizards have to have some kind of restriction that fighters do not. And since limited spells hasn't worked all that well in the past on its own, we need something else.

I really like the idea of magic being dangerous, though not the article's interpretation. I'd prefer magic that's far more dangerous to the wielder than that.

As you say, it has a lot of advantages. It allows the fighter to be mundane. It allows magic to be potentially powerful. And it's true to the source material. Not Vance, but RE Howard, Lovecraft and Clark Ashton Smith.