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

[Fifth Element]

Someone brought up Zed from Legend of the Seeker they call him a wizard but he is not a DnD wizard he is more like a DnD sorcerer the same with Gandalf he is a sorcerer not a DnD wizard he does not need a spellbook to throw magic around.

Sorry, Gandalf is a 5th-level magic-user. Everyone knows that.

 

[Elf Witch]

And I guess the place where this falls apart for the rest of us is that wizards are pretty much defined by their inability to use a gun correctly. That is to say, they are just as bad at ranged and melee combat as any untrained commoner/civilian. Once they're out of hand grenades, they don't have a handgun . . . they have a slingshot.

These threads are confusing me on one hand people are complaining that wizards get to many spells and they rule the game and on the other hand they are complaining that it sucks to be them if they run out of spells.

 

[dd.stevenson]

These threads are confusing me on one hand people are complaining that wizards get to many spells and they rule the game and on the other hand they are complaining that it sucks to be them if they run out of spells.

Arcane magic is one of those things that has changed considerably from edition to edition. Personally I don't hold out much hope that WotC will be able to pitch their "big tent" without offering GMs several different versions of the class to choose from.

Questions of wizard class design are bigger than PC balance, too. Many (most?) d&d style stories are driven by the machinations of wizards, and the (im)balance of arcane magic heavily drives the implied setting.

 

[Hussar]

I think a couple of us have expressed this, in different ways, throughout this thread. It is not to some people's taste. Do you not believe us?

That you don't want to play it is 100% groovy. That you're imposing your tastes on the rest of us is not. Everyone in this thread has agreed that either way should be an OPTION. You get the once a day wizzie and the other guy gets the all day wizzie.

What blows my mind is people like JRRNeikalot telling other players at the same table that they cannot play a given class because it hurts his suspension of disbelief. He doesn't want to play that character? Groovy. Telling me not to because of his own hangups? Not bloody likely.

As a DM, you get to do that because you get to set the campaign parameters. Fair enough. I can choose to play or not. But, as a fellow player? Please worry about your character and I'll take care of mine, thankyouverymuch.

 

[Hussar]

Sorry, Gandalf is a 5th-level magic-user. Everyone knows that.

I thought he was a druid.

 

[Hussar]

These threads are confusing me on one hand people are complaining that wizards get to many spells and they rule the game and on the other hand they are complaining that it sucks to be them if they run out of spells.

The part you're ignoring is level.

Low level wizard = running out of spells. High level wizard = campaign domination.

What's being advocated is a more balanced approach where the low level guy has something magical to do most of the time and the high level guy is reined in somewhat so he isn't completely changing the nature of the campaign.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yeah, but unless I am reading the latest L&L wrong, both versions are not going to be options within the rules. Your preference definitely looks to be the default. Great for you (I don't say that in a begrudging way), not so much for some of us.

Well, as I've mentioned in some other threads... the L&L article didn't really specify how at-will cantrips would be acquired (just that we'd have them). The last time it had been mentioned by WotC on at-will acquisition, what we were told was that you'd have to spend a feat to get it. I do not know if that rule has changed since then... but as far as what that most up-to-date info gave us... the default was actually no at-wills, and spending feats was the option.

Now maybe this L&L is meant to imply that at-wills are default, but I would rather have thought they'd specifically mention changing their previous stance on the subject if it did.

But on the bright side... having a 'no at-will' option in the game is something that can easily be mentioned during playtesting and thus quite easily achieved.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The problem being that the L&L article doesn't imply this will be an option, it implies that this is the way Wizards work.

Look, people have their own preferences and they can be as arbitrary or insane as they really want. No one here can tell anyone else that their preferences for the way they like to pretend to be a magical elf are wrong.

That's not really at issue, here. Even if some folks detest it as an option, that's something they're free to do.

At issue is that there is a playstyle that the old-school "a few powerful spells is all you get" embodies that isn't embodied by this vision of a 5e wizard.

Low level wizard = running out of spells. High level wizard = campaign domination.

What's being advocated is a more balanced approach where the low level guy has something magical to do most of the time and the high level guy is reined in somewhat so he isn't completely changing the nature of the campaign.

But that's the thing: this isn't necessary for balance. You can balance even "Vancian" wizards by giving them a hard limit on spells per day. You don't need to add cantrips to low-level casters.

Wizards don't need to have at-will magic powers to be balanced. It's unnecessary. Some folks like having that, and that's cool, and I think they should have that option, but this column doesn't describe it as an option, it describes it as the way things are.

If that is the case, then this is 5e failing on modularity, failing on replicating the feel of early editions, and possibly failing to understand player psychology on a pretty fundamental level.

It's a playtest, so we can certainly tell them that and see them change it. But it's a legit beef to have.

And I think that, as petty as some players can be about stuff like this, if it's presented in the right way, the vast majority can find it acceptable -- as an option.

Not-the-right-way includes not really understanding the gameplay effects of the game you're designing, but it's also not even a playstest yet, so making mistakes is forgivable.

Anyway, folks need to calm the frig down.

 

[Elf Witch]

The part you're ignoring is level.

Low level wizard = running out of spells. High level wizard = campaign domination.

What's being advocated is a more balanced approach where the low level guy has something magical to do most of the time and the high level guy is reined in somewhat so he isn't completely changing the nature of the campaign.

What seems to be advocated is the mages have something magical to do all the time.

DnD needs to decide just how magical magic is and what it can it do. Is magic powerful enough at high levels to reorder time and allow mages to reign destruction down on entire armies or is less strong more mundane in its uses.

More Gandalf or Merlin like less Eliminster.

In all the threads I read it not just the complaint that mages have so many spells it is that they can do things like teleport or polymorph.

I read complaints that I want my fighter to be more like Hercules or Conan and they can't. And people tend to blame the magic system for that. But even if magic is nerfed it is still hard to play Hercules or Conan with a straight fighter.

I don't think any edition has gotten it right yet. So here is hoping 5E can.

 

[Tom Servo]

That you don't want to play it is 100% groovy. That you're imposing your tastes on the rest of us is not. Everyone in this thread has agreed that either way should be an OPTION. You get the once a day wizzie and the other guy gets the all day wizzie.

I don't believe I was trying to impose my tastes on anyone, I was simply stating them. But, I don't believe you were actually trying to single me out, so I take your point. Options are a good thing. The original L&L article didn't make at-will offensive magic sound very optional though, in fact it sounded like an important prerequisite to everything that followed, but that's a side point to all of this.

What blows my mind is people like JRRNeikalot telling other players at the same table that they cannot play a given class because it hurts his suspension of disbelief. He doesn't want to play that character? Groovy. Telling me not to because of his own hangups? Not bloody likely.

Actually, if I read it correctly, the options offered by wrecan involved everyone at the same table playing in the same style. I don't think he was suggesting having a "crossbow wizard" and a "cantrip wizard" sitting at the same table at the same time. It is a decision the group must make. I think that is a wise way of offering the options. There is an important shared aspect to tabletop rpgs, it can't be everything for everyone at the same time.

As a DM, you get to do that because you get to set the campaign parameters. Fair enough. I can choose to play or not. But, as a fellow player? Please worry about your character and I'll take care of mine, thankyouverymuch.

Absolutely, like it or leave it. In this hobby there is no reason to play something your not having fun with. I'm sure most of us will find a happy arrangement in our groups despite various tastes and preferences.