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

[Hussar]

I am inclined to say no. Being able to Detect Magic, provide Light, fool a foe or enhance an interactive encounter with some minor illusions...or Detect same...maybe Detect Poison or Cure Minor Wounds [for the non-arcane caster] can make one just as "magical", more flavorful (to my mind), and allow one to "contribute" just as much as (if not moreso) being able to throw "acid splashes" or "rays of frost" all day.

I get the "I'm a magic-user. If I can't use magic then I'm not contributing" mentality. But being able to/needing to use "attack magic" every round in any combat all day does not strike me as necessary for one to be a colorful/flavorful/interesting or mysterious magical/magic-using character.

But, that's the crux of the issue right there. Sure, being able to do all of those things is great. But, with a low level caster, you can't actually do all that. You can do one of those, maybe two, per day. That's it. It's not about being able to attack with magic every round, it's about being able to use magic whenever it would be appropriate for a wizard to use magic.

"Hey, I'd be able to read this funky writing if I didn't read that last funky writing a couple of hours ago" does not say "wizard" to me. "Hey, I know that I lit the dark corridor this morning, but, I can't do it again until tomorrow morning" doesn't say "wizard" to me.

I want the wizard to be able to "Detect Magic, provide Light, fool a foe or enhance an interactive encounter with some minor illusions...or Detect same" any time he wants to. The rogue fools you with cunning. The warrior impresses you with skill. The wizard doesn't impress anyone with, "sorry guys, can't do that today, can we wait until tomorrow morning?"

 

[Mattachine]

Yes, never heard any of this balance/broken etc shenanigans in pre-3rd Ed, it seems like once the whole Magic the Gathering mindset immersed itself in much of the gaming community that this really became an issue (I did have my black lotus, 4 dark rituals, 4 juzam djinns deck and what-have-you, so I understand, but this strive for "balance", like many things, has gone too far).

I suppose you didn't subscribe to Dragon Magazine in the 1980s. Questions of balance, of Monty Haul campaigns, of wizards being too powerful, of broken spells . . . these were frequently letters in Dragon, sometimes with official changes or rulings being made in the "Sage Advice" column.

 

[Andor]

I think the key is that the "cantrips" (terrible name) or at-will spell feats should not be quite so simple minded as "ray of pain."

To my mind the near ideal at-will spell is produce flame. This gives you a little ball of fire in your hand. You can hold it up as a torch, you can light your cigarette, you can boil a cup of tea, you can throw it at a bad guy, you can roll it down the corridor to set off the oil, you can threaten that punk kid who ratted you out to the docksiders.

It's not a whole lot more than mere short range and modest damage, but it's enough to feel magical.

 

[wrecan]

Is the ability to do "less damage" than a 1st level spell, at will/all the time, really all that wizards need to be/do...is that what/all playing a D&D mage has come to?...in a game that claims it is taking the focus off "combat only" and including exploration and interaction, as well?

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Just because people want to be able to cast a spell instead of using a crossbow or darts does not mean they are implying anything about other things a mage should do. What you just wrote is not only a straw man, but an insult to the people with whom you are having a discussion.

That's clearly not "all that wizards need to be/do".

Really, here's the difference as I see it. There are three visions of a low-level wizard:

1. The wizard has almost no magic. He can fire a crossbow or throw darts as well as a member of the town militia, and he can create one or two magical effects a day.

2. The wizard can create a variety of minor harmless magical effects at will, can create one or two more involved magical effects per day, and he can fire a crossbow or throw darts as well as a member of the town militia.

3. The wizard can create a variety of minor magical effects at will, some of which can even do damage that comes close to the deadliness of a town militiaman. He can also create one or two more involved magical effects per day. Because he relies on magic, he may not even carry a weapon other than a ceremonial dagger.

All are valid choices. The first choice requires a wizard with no cantrips. The second requires the wizard to select no cantrips that inflict damage. The third allows the wizard to select some cantrips that inflict damage.

The only reason there is a "focus" on combat is because the folks in categories 2 and 3 agree on the noncombat stuff. If you want to disagree with someone on the noncombat stuff, find someone in category 1 and ask them why they don't think wizards should have at-will cantrips at all.

 

[Dausuul]

My hope is that a wizard using an attack cantrip will be roughly comparable to a wizard using a weapon--perhaps with greater accuracy but lower damage. Then those who want to throw spells every round can do that, and those who like the "crossbow wizard" can learn utility cantrips instead.

 

[wrecan]

I think the key is that the "cantrips" (terrible name)

Why is that a terrible name? It's been used in D&D since March 1982 to denote minor arcane magical effects and it actually means a magical trick.

 

[Tortoise]

Bingo.

Really, if you equate usefulness in a fight to damage dealt, you really are looking at it with blinkers on.

You nailed the point. What if the fighter and cleric are holding off the lead group of goblins while the wizard and rogue are stringing a line to hoist the dangling rope bridge over a chasm so that before the main enemy force arrives, they can make their escape? Is that nothing of consequence?

 

[Andor]

Why is that a terrible name? It's been used in D&D since March 1982 to denote minor arcane magical effects and it actually means a magical trick.

Because, as you say, historically it means a minor magical trick. But for 5e it sounds like they are intending the feat-magic to be more in line with 4e's at-will magics. And that it fine with me. But those spells tend to be about as a effective as a heavy crossbow.

Put it another way: I do not consider something equivilent to a .45 ACP to be a minor effect.

 

[wrecan]

You nailed the point. What if the fighter and cleric are holding off the lead group of goblins while the wizard and rogue are stringing a line to hoist the dangling rope bridge over a chasm so that before the main enemy force arrives, they can make their escape? Is that nothing of consequence?

All characters -- including the fighter and cleric -- have the ability to string a line to hoist a dangling rope bridge over a chasm. That doesn't exonerate a game from giving a class something class-appropriate to do.

 

[wrecan]

or 5e it sounds like they are intending the feat-magic to be more in line with 4e's at-will magics.

Actually, it sounds more like 3e zero-level magics, but to be performed at will. 3e had zero-level spells like acid splash and ray of frost that did minor damage (1d3) slightly less than a crossbow (1d8). (Even Gygax' original cantrip article and a cantrip called "exterminate" which was ideal for destroying rot grubs.) The difference is that, instead of being able to pick five and cast them once, you pick two each morning and cast them at will.