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

[Lwaxy]

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.

And why not? I use different magic styles for different players and it works fine. Why should 5e suddenly limit that?

 

[Bluenose]

Arthurian literature is a hobby of mine and for the most part Merlin is more a sage who has some magic, he advises Arthur but it is Arthur out there winning the battles with the rest of the knights. In most of the literature his power is no where near a DnD wizard. Personally I think Merlin would be closer to a bard than a wizard.

This would be Merlin, who defeated the druids of Ireland in spell battle and then flew back over the Irish Sea riding Stonehenge. Who created another stone circle by turning a group of Saxon magicians who attacked him into stones. Merlin had significant limits, far more than a D&D magic-user, but he's not just a sage by any means.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In OD&D this was a clearly stated design goal. Wizards were impossible to level, but gods once they did. But from the descriptions I've read of Gygax's early sessions, they also had a very different approach to game play. It was (ironically) much more like a modern MMORPG with a persistent world. You played a fighter and dragged your friend's wizard through a few levels. Then you rolled up a mage, and your friend did the same for you. Then you soloed high level dungeons as a magic-user, acquiring wealth and fame in the world.

This is a very good point regarding OD&D's similarity to WoW.

1. Main aim of play is the acquisition of power - level ups, treasure and magic items.
2. Game world makes very little sense, as its main purpose is to support gamist play.
3. Players can play almost any time they want, not just once a week/once every two weeks, etc.
4. Solo play is common.
5. A large number of players, all playing in the same world.
6. Each player has lots of different characters.
7. Characters in the same campaign span a wide range of levels, and don't necessarily adventure together. Lowbies are more likely to adventure with other lowbies, high levels with others of their ilk.

 

[Hautamaki]

No. That was Your problem. And its ok that it was Your problem.

My 1st level MU's, tackled wererats, threw flaming oil, ran from monsters, smashed people over the head with beer mugs, or did whatever else a thinking, resourceful person might do, when out of spells. And it was fun!

It's ok that it was Your problem. I only take issue with your claiming it was mine.

Obviously I meant the general 'your' not the specific YOUR.

But semantic silliness aside are you honestly saying that you happier playing as a handicapped character compared to the others in the group than you would have been if you were able to contribute at least somewhat on par with others? That you were happier trying to make improvised attacks with beer mugs doing d2 or d3 damage at best and dying in one hit afterwards? You wouldn't have preferred to have been able to cast at least a couple spells per encounter instead?

 

[Hautamaki]

Simplest limit I ever found for this: you can only change into a mundane non-magical creature. Polymorph into an eagle? Fine. A rat? Fine. A horse? Fine. A Unicorn or Centaur or Behir? Not so much...

Removing spell interruption takes away one of the balance mechanisms working against not just wizards but all casters. And as the focus seems to be on in one way or another reining them all in, why would you do this?

Lanefan

Agreed with all your points but I went even further.

Polymorph only works on inanimate objects weighing 50 lbs or less, and then only for 12 seconds (2 rounds) per caster level. Is it useless now? Not when you can turn the BBEG's powerful magic weapon into a bouquet and his armour into a frilly dress for basically the entirety of the fight. Obviously it loses some of its utility against enemies that don't use equipment but still you can get creative with it. You could try fooling the dragon with a false 50 lb diamond for example--that's no joke even for a red Great Wyrm.

And spell interruption isn't only a balancing feature; it's also a distinguishing mechanical feature. It's one of the things that makes playing a MU different from any other class, and that's a great thing for the fun and replayability of the game apart and above balance alone.

 

[pemerton]

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?

What proportion of encounters have this character:

*in published D&D modules?
*in example of play in D&D ruleboosk?
*in your home game?

I am not expecting that D&Dnext will radically change the basic dynamics of the typical D&D encounter.

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.

But you need to make the wizard more robust.

The problem with the low level B/X or AD&D wizard is that they have almost no physical prowess, and almost no offence.

It's true that they are perhaps the most learned in the party (although those editions don't really have the mechanics to express this), but that learning is typically not relevant to the resolution of more than a handful of the situations that the PCs encounter.

Again, I am not expecting D&Dnext to radically change this feature of typical D&D play.

Examples of meaningful contributions given upthread include lurking in doorways looking out for reinforcement, dragging fallen allies out of the fray, etc. What does this add to play that another fighter or rogue would not?

I agree that the mostly functionally incapable wizard is something of an established D&D trope. It also seems that those who like it won't just implement it via roleplay. It seems they want it to be mechanically mandated. But those mechanics cause notorious and well known problems for a large group of players.

(Did any new player of Basic D&D, who had the stats to make an Elf, ever start as an MU instead?)

 

[Sadras]

Given the whole "module" concept, What D&D needs to do is establish a workable baseline that can be most easily modified by the players to fit what THEY want magic to be, and for them to provide tools and guidelines to allow this.

Default D&D needs to be balanced, but there's no reason they cannot reintroduce the old imbalances through options, or even make a crazier range of them than ever before.

Yes and no, but you're very very close ! Hint: The Reverse works much better.

 

[Dausuul]

Yes and no, but you're very very close ! Hint: The Reverse works much better.

Um. No. No, it really doesn't. It's much easier to take a balanced core and unbalance it than vice versa.

 

[wrecan]

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.

I was offering three options.
Crossbow wizards only; cantrip wizards banned from table
Cantrip and crossbow wizards sitting at table together
Cantrip wizards only; crossbow wizards banned from table.

The group still decides which of these three options to take. It baffles me that there are people who can't abide there being all three options, even though they don't have to take them.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Hard caps limit the high-level wizard, but don't do anything to lift up the lower level one.

It's not necessary, mechanically, to lift up the lower level one, either.

It's entirely reasonable to chafe under the restrictions of a limited number of spells per day and somewhere out there, you should absolutely have the option of having common, easy magic that you can apply, maybe to ANY character, from the Wizard to the Fighter to the Barbarian. As a series of feats, it seems to make a great theme. Even if not a theme, it's exactly what the Warlock was originally designed to do in 3e, so it seems like a great fit for that class.

As [MENTION=6678082]DMKastmaria[/MENTION] said above: "It's ok that it was your problem. I only take issue with your claiming it was mine."

It's not something you need to hard-code into the Wizard class.

But you need to make the wizard more robust.

Need? No.

Might want? Sure. That's why the option should be there, just not hard-coded into the Wizard's DNA.

The problem with the low level B/X or AD&D wizard is that they have almost no physical prowess, and almost no offence.

Flatter math helps this problem immeasurably. Everyone's got some basic contribution to make.

Examples of meaningful contributions given upthread include lurking in doorways looking out for reinforcement, dragging fallen allies out of the fray, etc. What does this add to play that another fighter or rogue would not?

What does your ranger contribute to a fancy court dinner to impress the king that your druid or barbarian does not?

That is, the class need not be a crutch you lean on at all times. Someone who wants this play experience is looking to have the wizard they play occasionally be no more than a clever normal person.

I agree that the mostly functionally incapable wizard is something of an established D&D trope. It also seems that those who like it won't just implement it via roleplay. It seems they want it to be mechanically mandated. But those mechanics cause notorious and well known problems for a large group of players.

Which is why modularity solves the problem...if it's implemented. If all wizards have at-will cantrips, that's not modular, and it doesn't address the needs of that first group of players.