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

[Tom Servo]

there's nothing particularly spectacular about a magic missile spell, or a potion of cure light wounds, especially after you've seen it once or twice. The guy who wiggles his fingers and puts monsters to sleep once a day is consistently going to be that guy, every day, until he gains a bit of experience and becomes the guy who can also waggle his thumbs and shoot fire out of his palm. The guy who can brandish a symbol and cause a skeleton to run away might be an impressively holy man, but after he's cleared rooms of undead in a few successive crypts, using the exact same method every time, he's just a guy with a useful skill.

Sure, to your fellow companions in your adventuring party your tricks become predictable. But the group of you are on the front lines against the forces of evil on a regular basis. Extreme circumstances require everyone using their best abilities to survive.

In that post I was responding to a wizard having unlimited uses of certain magic powers (at wills). My main point was that older editions had a system in place where a wizard had to somewhat restrain themselves since their magic could only be used so often. Casting a spell was like a trained warrior attacking with an intent to kill or like a priest calling upon the power of the gods themselves to castigate unholy abominations; these are the actions of trained professionals doing the things that make them so special and valuable.

I feel that by having "free" magic (at wills or whatever) you risk making it as mundane as swinging a sledgehammer or digging a ditch (both of which a wizard could do without magic anyways). With no limits why not use your magic for every little thing you can?

Again, I'm not so much disagreeing as explaining why I wouldn't be a fan of such a set up. I truly respect that others enjoy a different game style than me and that I could very well be in the minority on this topic.

 

[Daztur]

A few other things that kept early edition Wizards in check that were watered down later:
-The gap between basic combat stats (attack bonus, AC, HPs) between wizards and fighter is greater in early D&D than 3ed.
-You often get more fights per day in older D&D than in 3ed (because of wandering monsters and fights taking less time to run).
-As you gain levels in early D&D the critters will pass they're saves more and more often, unless you're really bad at dumping up your spell DC that doesn't happen in 3ed, generally the reverse in fact...
-Although there are abominations like Rope Trick in 1ed, it's generally harder to get back your spells in 1ed than in 3ed (takes longer, harder to magic up supplies needed to feed you while resting, most wandering monsters).

What I'd go with personally as a balance mechanism is put more obstacles in front of wizards getting their spells back (and characters getting their healing surges back) so it's hard/impossible to do mid-adventure. Something like "extended rest in a safe and comfortable location, camping out for a few hours in a haunted tomb doesn't cut it."

 

[Orius]

I want my wizard to look like this:

legend of the seeker - zeddicus zu'l zorander - YouTube

Hehe. I was making cracks during the show's run about how Zedd was coming off as pro-low-magic:

Remember that comment I made last week about the magic in the show having a king of D&D feel? This is all I could of in a certain scene during the episode:

Zedd: Low magic is the best! Too much is is unbalacing!. Even +1 swords should be rare!
Josiah: That's sooo old school. I need to use my Brew Potion feat so I can have the appropriate wealth for my level.

Later....

Zedd: I'm glad 4e has made the low magic campaign viable again! Sucks to be you!

Zedd can be such a killjoy though. That mirror could probably be very useful for Richard, and yet Zedd complains about too much magic again. I think he doesn't like the competition.

I've been making D&D cracks about the show all along, especially about Zedd being pro-low-magic.

 

[Bluenose]

Via magic items. Too many people forget that THAT is the D&D way. D&D doesn't expect naked fighters with a steel sword to be adventuring at 15th level. It expects fighters with rings of protection, boots of flying, a helm of brilliance, gem of seeing and sword of might smiting to be adventuring at 15th level.

D&D was never intended to be a low-magic item system, and that is probably why it sucks at that once you get above relatively low level!

When I get home I'll have a look at some of my old modules, and see how the pre-generated characters were equipped. I don't remember many of them having all that bling, but maybe my memory is faulty.

 

[pemerton]

Even simple things are important. PC's do not have to be firing the BFG every round to matter. As long as they are making an effort to do something toward the party goal however minor they might see it at the moment, it adds up toward survival and/or a win.

There are RPGs that support this. For example, Burning Wheel has the Assess action, which (i) can provide augmenting dice to your own and other PC's actions, and (ii) can allow the player to stipulate certain features of the local terrain/room contents (BW assumes a degree of player control over the fiction with certain knowledge and perception checks).

D&D does not have these sorts of mechanics. Looking around can be helpful (eg in 4e it allows a Perception check against Stealth), but there is no mechanical framework to make it a smoothly integrated part of combat as Assess is in BW. It has strong elements of "mother may I". D&Dnext may move D&D in a different direction, but I think it is more likely to keep Percpetion as a minor (or free) action and give the wizard PC more wizardly things to do.

A player who feels blocked from doing anything worthwhile in previous editions is probably also the kind of player who would feel like he can't do anything in differently balanced systems like 4e.

I don't know of any empirical evidence for this. I have players who don't like the one-shot-wonder style of tradional low-level D&D magic-users, who are happy with 4e.

It's about engaging the game via your PC, and particularly via that feature of your PC (like magic use) that is, for you as a player, definitive of your PC.

I don't see it necessarily as a question of being smart. It's more a question of inflexibility to circumstances, I think, particularly negative or limiting circumstances.

Playing D&D is playing a game. Part of playing a game is playing.

I GM for a lot of tactical game players. At one stage my group consisted of two Australasian M:TG champions, two local PBM champions, and a fairly serious Bridge, Poker and Diplomacy player. (The first three are now out of the group for various reasons, the fourth still with us. Unsurprisingly, he has the most optimised PC.)

These players don't mind losing (which is not to say that they don't enjoy winning). And they are happy not to break the game. When exploits emerge, as they often do, we will work together to house rule it away, or reach a gentlemen's agreement not to go there.

But they want to play the game with the PCs they've built.

The time the PCs all got trapped in a cage and had to do sneaky stuff to get their weapons back before they could then break out and trounce the goblins? Fun.

The two or three times the dwarf fighter has had to pull out his longbow to plink away rather futiley at a target too far away or too high up to charge to? Amusing.

It being routine for a PC to have to engage the action resolution mechanics with some third-rate default option that is not part of the players' vision or schtick? A feature of no RPG that I'm aware of other than low-level MU play in classic D&D.

 

[pemerton]

A first level wizard in AD&D has the exact same chance to hit as a first level fighter.

This is true in Basic D&D but not AD&D. In AD&D the fighter and cleric hit AC 10 on a 10, while the MU and thief hit AC 10 on an 11 (same as a 0-level human or halfling).

Back in 2e you needed a 16 strength just to get +1 damage. A 17 gave you +1 to hit AND +1 to damage and a whopping 18 gave you +1 to hit and +2 to damage. Now take into account that the standard method of rolling was 3d6 then as well. I know a good number of groups used 4d6 drop lowest so I'll be generous and allow that.

I don't know about 2nd ed AD&D, but in 1st ed AD&D 3d6 is not the standard method. The DMG suggests a range of standard methods, with I think 4d6 drop the lowest as the default.

In B/X 3d6 is the standard but (i) there are stat-swapping rules, and (ii) the bonuses are much more generous than AD&D: 13-15 +1, 16-17 +2, 18 +3. It's pretty easy for a fighter to have a +1 or +2 to hit and damage (although B/X doesn't have weapon specialisation or multiple attacks).

 

[pemerton]

I like the idea of balancing across the adventure, but no edition of D&D has yet done this. "Adventure" and "day" are not synonymous.

<snip>

I'd really like to have some "per-adventure" resources rather than daily ones, but it'd be venturing rather far afield from D&D as we know it.

I think I saw somewhere - maybe in a Rule of 3? - that they're not planning on metagame style recharge periods, but prefer ingame time (minutes, hours, days) as the measure for recharge periods.

 

[steeldragons]

Coulpa things that have already been said and argued and said and aruged s'more...

Cantrips as At-wills: I don't really have a big problem with this, but not with a slew of "cantrips" that are, essentially, "Magic missile" or "mini-fireball" (with various energy types applied). The cantrips, as makes sense, are the "tricks of the trade"...the MINOR magics that all mages learn before getting into working their own crafts...the way a "master wizard" and his/her apprentice could live in a tower, all by themselves, and get things done...cleaning, cooking, lighting candles, inscribing and transcribing written documents or diagrams, reading and detecting magic. The Light spell as a cantrip was, I thought, a great idea! Produce flame was the only, potentially, damage causing thing in the list...moreso if whatever you used it on caught fire and burned for itself than the cantrip itself. Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Open/Close were all very handy and, if used creatively, could be very "magic vibey," even in combat. But rays/bursts/daggers/javelins of fire and ice? Not really "cantrips"...to my mind/in my book.

The idea of a spell getting disrupted with a hit gives me no pause whatsoever. The idea that then, after deciding to cast X spell and having it disrupted, you can still use a cantrip that round? Again, doesn't really sit well with my "makes sense"/flavor sensibilities.

The Scrolls taking up a spell slot to read/cast off? No thank you very much. I understand the reasoning/desire to minimize scrolls as an endless supply of "other spells"...but the idea that it requires the mage's own energies to cast off of a scroll just doesn't fly, flavor-wise, for me. Besides, as others have pointed out, the idea of a rogue attempting one or a fighter pulling out that "Protection from Undead" scroll he was gifted (or bought!) from the local Temple of Light are...or rather, I feel, should be...valid possibilities for scrolls in the game...as well as making them more useful as "treasure" as opposed to something of a toss away, "Oh, we found another scroll in the giant's hoard. Here ya go mage-guy."

In fact, I might suggest...and see as a possibility, that clerics and druids (warlocks and bards and just about any other "spell caster" character), should be able to access scroll-spells even if those spells are not their own "type of magic." Mage casting cleric/divine spells, Druids (Nature-casters) reading mage/arcane spells, etc. Not "above their available spell level", of course...or even with some kind of limitation...the Druid who can cast 3rd level druid spells is able to parse out a 1st level mage or cleric spell from a scroll, etc.

The other thing, as has been brought up hereabouts is...how ARE spell levels/slots/availability going to work? Do we have any definite info on that? Is "2 spell slots per level" going to be it? Intelligence bonuses applied...or applied where/to what? Is that for mages/wizards only or all spell casters?

Are we going to have a set table of spell slots per spell level per caster level...even per class, as in Basic-2e? Or is it going to be something like "Int bonus +1 (or 2) per PC level with the next spell level being achievable every other PC level? Or "minimum caster levels per spell, then prepare this in any slot you want (more or less powerful), but you may not be able to do/chances of failure increase it if its too high/beyond you? "Max spell level = Double caster level"? And/Or any other of a dozen different ways?

"Full casters [mages, druids, "priest style clerics", etc.] use this table...Partial casters [bards, warlocks, "fighting clerics", paladins or rangers who use spells, etc...] use this other one with lesser numbers/slower progression."? That works for me, though I'm sure wouldn't for everyone...but, the point is, just tell me what it's going to be!

Seems a lot of concern here (and in other threads), be it "Magic is Difficult/Dangerous", "Cantrips as At Wills", Scroll or Wand use, et al. might be greatly calmed (or inflamed!) once we know what the actual spell progression is going to look like...and who/what classes it will actually apply to.

I probably don't need to worry (much) about "At will Cantrips" if the mages are gettign 4-6 "real" spell slots at first level. I don't need to worry (much) about Magic being dangerous/reading spells off of Scrolls/casters trying spells "above their ability" if they have suitable slots in a "safe/easily castable" zone, etc...

Perhaps a bit of a departure from this thread. A new thread on that specific last topic might be warranted.

Personally, just give me a spell table and be done with it. I (indeed, any DM) can certainly add to or subtract from the possibilities ("+ Int bonus spell levels/day", as I've been applying since 1e, or whatever) on my own once we have a set number.

--Steel Dragons

 

[Minigiant]

One thing missed in the at will wizard talk.

At Will Utility

One thing that ALWAYS BUGGED ME was that a D&D wizard could not have a conversation while flaunting magic all over the place like a major show off. Floating your teacup in the air. Mage handing your kettle. Heating the tea while you magically flip pages of your spellbook nonchalantly while across the room brushing you familiar's fur and poofing up biscuits. Oops, candle went out. Foom! Someone is at the door. Wave a hand and Open it. "Why hello there. Have a seat." Telekinesis a chair over. "Cheese?" Poof. Cheese. "It is too quiet in here. You, Violin. Play thyself." Zip zap. "I adore the violin. Don't you? No the cheese is good." Detect poison. "Nope. No poison. Eat up. Now what was the purpose of your visit? Oh Lady Sweetbuns. Should we off that harlot tomorrow or not?"


But spell slots. And Prestidigitation is so limited.

 

[Sadras]

I don't want "miscast" or "dangerous" magic except for rituals. No other class gets class abilities that can randomly screw them or the party, nor should there be for any class. It should be an option for those who want it, but not default.

If plot breaking magic is confined to rituals then having dangerous rituals is ok.

I also want 4e style implements. Wands and staves that you channel your magic through to help you cast better. Thats how most fantasy fiction works, especially big popular ones like Harry Potter.

1stly) I'm gonna come across a little arrogant/obnoxious here (my apologies) or perhaps old, but did you seriously use Harry Potter as your basis for D&D Wizard design?
2nd) Since you want to stick to most fantasy fiction, including the popular ones, I have to inform you that "miscast" and "dangerous" magic is quite the norm - and it is not relegated to rituals only.

For the best possible result I sincerely believe that the basic Wizard should be just that - purely a simple wizard who casts spells - that does not fit in one particular play style.
a) At-will spells should be an option
b) Implements necessary to cast spells should be a feature, not the norm. It may depend on the type of setting.

Spell-casting might be an esoteric skill, it might be the norm, it might be incredibly dangerous to use, perhaps due to some historic incident everybody in the land knows at least a cantrip or two...etc
The options to use spell-casting failures tables, spell casting durations, mishaps and the likes should be available.

I'm not sure what the best method is to incorporate all of the above and more (to cater for everyone's desires) which in addition must allow for the balancing of classes, which is very important to some.

This is why in my personal opinion the more I ponder about all of this, the more I think our greatest problem in reaching an agreement amongst us all, lies in this endless debate of class balance. I believe most of our problems stem from there.
The older editions had a simple system with tables and tables of options available. True class balance (specifically in combat) was not something the designers strived for. Their goals were different. You can see that from the books they put out.
They gave endless support for various options that players/DMs would be interested in. Realism, High Fantasy, Gritty, Loose, Stream-Lining, Low Magic, Supernatural, Enviromental, Dark, Horror. It seemed like they were more concerned with settings and styles of play than Class Balance.

I have played 2E all the way through to 4E and have enjoyed each system for what it is. I think if 5E is to succeed - their core mechanics should really be simple, and not necessarily focussed on Class Balance, because if they do, I'm afraid their core will firstly, not appeal to the older system players and secondly, might enforce a particular style of play which will not suit everyone.

Class balance became more of an issue in the later editions - so I therefore propose that some sort of guidance or system be in place which provides advice how to balance all the dial ups/options available for each class.
The people interested in the core basic - wont worry about class balance, they will take whatever suits their style of play/setting/DM preference. They will have a mix and match. (I presume this would be appeal mostly to oldschoolers)
The 3.fivers (pathfinders) and the 4thers will have their dial-ups which when options are taken will balance the classes. There might also be options within the dial-ups i.e. Perhaps to balance the wizard with the Fighter he might have to take 2 negatives from a list: Casting Times for Spells, Miscast Spell, Implement Required to Cast, Spell Memory Loss...etc.

Anyways. Thats the way I see it. I didnt intend this to be so long.