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

[TerraDave]

This has been my single favorite one of these columns. Good diagnosis and solutions, fairly specific ones, I actually like. Together. Finally.

Of course, I knew reading it that the fact that it had both possible problems and a series of fairly concrete proposals would lead to vehement disagreement by others.

 

[ren1999]

How about limiting all characters to acquiring 30 powers?

Instead of limiting the wizard, increase the abilities of the fighter and all the other classes.
A fighter should be able to attack 3 adjacent enemies if a wizard can cast a burst spell on 3 or more enemies.

I'm definitely not liking a lot of official comments on the direction of 5th edition. I wouldn't go scrapping 4th edition rules. I'd make them very clear and simple to memorize.

5th edition has only one important task in my opinion.

Group together and remove all duplicate powers/feats/spells/prayers/utilities/special qualities/damage reduction/racial traits/class features/skills/etc..

Remove all of the powers that are rendered useless by stronger duplicate ones and make them scale automatically when leveling-up.

Remove "Incredibly Vastly Improved No Really Improved Initiative" and replace it with "Improved Initiative" then scale it according to level.

Seriously, in many previous editions, the power is not even explained correctly so it leaves players guessing as to how to implement it.

Here are some more "rules" and "optional rules" to think about.

Multi-Classing - none but class variants who can chose a total of 30 power/feats/skills/racial traits/class features etc -- 5 per level

Optional Rule -- No resistance spell casting.
A caster rolls a 1d20 when casting on him or herself or a willing target, and fails on a 1-3. At 11th level, fails on a 1-2. At 21st level, fails on a 1.

Paul's XP Method
Each encounter or seperate skill challenge is worth 1XP
Each boss encounter is worth 2XP
Characters level-up after 20XP.

Opportunity Attack Rules
Anytime you leave the square by an adjacent foe, the foe may attack.
Anytime you use a ranged projectile attack in a square by an adjacent foe, the foe may attack.
Touch ranged casting does not provoke an opportunity attack.
Readying a weapon again does not provoke an opportunity attack.

Flanking Rules
You are flanked only if at least two foes are on either side of you and there are no allies adjacent to those foes.

Level-Up Rules
Your total level may not exceed 30th.

 

[grimslade]

On the whole, I like the notes. The 24th will help see how these thoughts are in action. Not too long now.

Cantrips as At-Will spells. Fantastic. Even better if I can load up on non-damage cantrips and sport a bandolier of throwing daggers or a light crossbow. Utility for the victory! Flavoring my damage as magical vs mechanical is not my thing, but I have no problem with it for other wizards. Multiclass rules will account for this somehow.

Keep spells under control- this is less a problem with the spells and more a problem with the rules subsystems they exploit. Why did a 15th level foe have a negative balance score so 1st level spells could eliminate it? Grease was fine, the exploiting of the skill subsystem was broken. Change the balance check to a reflex save and no one would use Grease, even if it's the word.

Reducing spell slots- Fewer max spell slots makes my wizard sad, but is a simple way to make spell selection more meaningful. Easy fix in playtest if it seems to go too far. Good call.

Spells don't auto scale- No brainer. Good enough. More power = higher spell level. Ok. I will still miss my magic Gatling gun of missiles.

Spell casting is dangerous- Sounds more inconvenient rather than dangerous. Back to Concentration Checks to cast after a love tap. "Feel the power as I tear reality asunder... Ooh ooh hangnail hangnail!" Poof. Danger is the chance for the spell to backfire or hit an ally or buff the enemy. Loss of action is a non-fun flavorless penalty. Also, will there be a way for wizards to turn a check into an auto success like concentration checks in 3.x? Wipes that off the grid, feat-skill tax to do your job. Not on board with this, but we will see it in play.

Keep Magic Items under control- Scrolls use slots. Reins in the infinite spellbook, but has other ramifications, like leaving rogues in the cold for lucky scroll casts. I think it is a good balancing method. MIC being an optional mod is, sadly, a no brainer. I wish it would be balanced into the rules, but other priorities. I am with the wand should be an implement not receptacle crowd. The suggestion of the writings of a monk's conversations with an Air Elemental prince as a reusable or multiuse magic item for Levitate sounds cool as a wand or staff replacement.

Keep buff spells under control- Duh. Under control but not under-powered. Invisibility is invisibility. Up the spell level, but you can't hit what you can't see easily. Stoneskin is a vital spell if spell casting is dangerous when damaged. Haste and polymorph are the 8000 lb Fiendish Awakened Dire Apes in the room. Haste needs to be useful without turning the wiz into a Nova Elemental Lord. Polymorph into a fireproof acid resistant troll? No. But keep the ability to be creative,this spell needs to be able to stretch.

Creativity, not dominance- Creativity sometimes leads to dominance. How about no uncreative prepackaged dominance. Pun-pun was a travesty because it was a pure rules loophole abuse, the kind of thing play testing finds and fixes. The pacifist duelist sorceror using Unseen Servant to run off with disarmed opponents weapons is creative dominance.

Rituals not in a class discussion. Rituals are not class specific. Sir Not Appearing in This Film, does not appear in this film. Rituals do not help balance or unbalance the wizard or cleric. We wait for a ritual L&L with bated breath.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I liked most of the article, but it appears to me that they are still struggling with the essential nature of magic items. I don't mind the scroll part terribly (not least because it is tangentially similar to something I suggested a few weeks back ), though the idea as it stands thus far is rather clunky. But the repurposing of scrolls as "quasi magic items that augment casting versatility instead of adding raw power" is a way to have the flavor of casters scribing many scrolls without it becoming unbalanced. And there is nothing inherent in the idea that prevents the traditional D&D magic scroll from also appearing in some form, under stricter limits.

The problem with magic items is that they are conceptually optional and additional, and that is very tricky to balance. They keep trying to make compromises to work it out, but I don't think they can--comprehensively. Thus, I suggest again that the way to handle items it recognize that they are optional, additional, and inherently unbalanced--and then build the wider system around those assumptions.

It might help if the province and systems around mundane equipment was expanded. This gives more room for "equipment" to work, and thus more room for magical equipment to fit into the larger system.

The bit about limiting wands to certain spells I don't like, either. Not because of objections raised thus far, but because that method is "brittle" design. If there are spells that are that much trouble when coming in multiple charges in a wand, then the spell is either too powerful itself, or something is busted in the item/charges arena. Don't squash symptoms of larger problems with band aids, especially not at this stage of the design.

 

[The Shadow]

A thought I had about scrolls:

Notice he says that you must give up a spell slot to use one. He does not say you have to give up a spell slot of the same level!

So I'm thinking that if you give up a slot of the same level or higher as the scroll spell, well and good. But if you use a slot of lower level, there's a chance of miscasting - the chance going up as the mismatch between levels goes up, of course.

Then, what a rogue does is "cast" a 0-level slot to cast the scroll, the miscasting chance being calculated normally... and then modified by the rogue's class ability in some way.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Actually, this article seems to indicate that attack at-wills will be available without a feat. And they should be, for players that DO want them available. For those that don't want them and want to play a crossbow wizard, they can elect to have other cantrips. They aren't forcing you to pick them.

The article says nothing about how you acquire cantrip at-wills... only that they are looking to have them exist, and that a few attack and utility spells would fall under the designation.

Thus, since not mentioning something does not mean it's been eliminated... we should go with with what we've been told in previous articles-- that at-wills spells are gained via feats. Until they say something that specifically counteracts that mention from before... that's the only logical reasoning we can make.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I disagree with Mattachine's characterization. Cantrips weren't At Will until 4th Edition, and Cantrip slots were (in my experience) very rarely used for direct damage spells.

Exactly. There is a difference between very low cost and completely at-will.

Who ever needs a knock spell? PEW PEW PEW break that chain or lock. Why not, it costs absolutlely nothing.

Need to build an encampment quickly? PEW PEW PEW down goes a grove of trees.

Need real defensible shelter? PEW PEW PEW I just carved us a cave to camp in.

 

[Somebloke]

Finally the one everyone's been waiting for.

I like what I hear. Well, granted, I liked what I heard about 4E, and didn't like the end result.

I can kind of envisage the level/spell system working like the following:

(Warning: Idle speculation ahead).

You get a flat number of spells per level, which may or may not be modified by your int- say, 1 spell per level, with scaling int bonus.

Keep the spell pyramid, including int bonuses, but use it to determine maximum spells learned per level- so once you've used up the slots foe this level, you have to take the next. Grant a small number of at- wills, with very minor scaling, at 1st level (say 2 + 1 per 3 levels).

So what does this mean, for say a 7th level wizard with 18 int?

They would have access to 7 spells per day. Two could be 4th level spells, another three could be 3rd level spells: the remainder would be 2nd level spells. Note that the wizard would actually know a very large number of spells, which- hopefully according to the promise of scaling- could all fit the 4th level slot (well, so it is promised). Once they run out of spells, they have at-will cantrips to rely on.

-end idle pointless speculation-

If this is the model they would use, it has some merit- it cuts back on spell numbers while giving a wider selection of meaningful spells at low level.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

The article says nothing about how you acquire cantrip at-wills... only that they are looking to have them exist, and that a few attack and utility spells would fall under the designation.

Thus, since not mentioning something does not mean it's been eliminated... we should go with with what we've been told in previous articles-- that at-wills spells are gained via feats. Until they say something that specifically counteracts that mention from before... that's the only logical reasoning we can make.

That is true, but then again, they also said that MONTHS ago, so it is possible things have changed. We will see. Personally, I would rather a feat was not required to be a magic-user all the time (rather than part-time MU, part-time Crapsack fighter).

As to the video gamey attack on the system, honestly, D&D SHOULD be looking to video games for some direction, as TTRPGs are a dying breed, and need to keep current rather than stay straight-jacketed to a series of books from sixty years ago.

 

[Somebloke]

Exactly. There is a difference between very low cost and completely at-will.

Who ever needs a knock spell? PEW PEW PEW break that chain or lock. Why not, it costs absolutlely nothing.

Need to build an encampment quickly? PEW PEW PEW down goes a grove of trees.

Need real defensible shelter? PEW PEW PEW I just carved us a cave to camp in.

Ummmm....replace all of the above with HACK HAACK HACK and you have the first edition fighter. Was that broken???

I think you need to calm down a little.