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

[Elf Witch]

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.

It really depends on which legend you are reading. Mallory romanticized a lot of earlier versions including adding the whole Lancelot, Gwen and Arthur triangle as being one of the downfalls of Camelot.

In earlier versions and later versions after Mallory, Merlin is more of a sage. It was Arthur who untied the warring kingdoms under one king. If Merlin was so uber powerful he and Arthur would not have needed an army of knights to force the capitulation of the other kings.

And it is this version Merlin I was talking about when describing wizards. The things Merlin did in the uber magic version was done without a spellbound so that would make either a powerful sorcerer with some levels in druid.

 

[Eric Tolle]

Playing a low level MU in AD&D is supposed to be a challenge. And since I don't think with my character sheet, I'm able to contribute just fine!

I'll see the 1-2 spell mage and raise you. The best mage I ran was a commoner pretending to be a mage. And he was always useful; he threw darts and used crossbows- and missed. He threw burning oil- and set the forest on fire. He did all kind of stuff, and every so often he wiggled his fingers and said some nonsense words and "Oh dear, we're in a no magic zone" or "someone countermagicked me".

See, you don't need magic at all to have an effective magic user. I support your making all wizards commoners, because nothing makes magic magical like not being able to do it at all.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Genuinely curious whether it is a "wizard" thing and those classes are OK or a "campaign" thing and those classes would be disallowed.

Doesn't matter to me in the slightest, since I'm one of those people for which the class "wizard" is just a label for a game mechanic, and bears only a tenuous relation to "wizards" in the game world.

So if it's a clean design (and thus not just done for this one flavor reason) to make wizards one type of caster and warlocks or sorcerers another, then I'm fine with that. If it's a clean design, it will have other benefits that I'll also appreciate. If it's not a clean design, then I'm not for it, no matter what side benefits it may possess.

 

[Cybit]

Relevant info from the chat a bit ago...


Comment From Andrew
Can you comment on adventure pacing versus the wonder of magic? In 3e, PCs were often required to rest after the cleric/wizard were out of spells, regardless of the state of the rest of the party. In 4e, everyone can keep going until out of surges, but there was less "magical pizazz" across the classes -- a sword being a magic missile being a druid's claw.
11:49

Jeremy Crawford:
We have been striving to connect pacing to concrete things in the game world: magical resources, such as spells; hit points; and various options that might rely on a character expending some of his or her vitality.

11:49

Mearls:
That's a great question. We want magical to feel magical yet rooted in the world. The cantrip thing ties into this. Cantrips aren't specifically made to blast people, but a cantrip you use to create a small amount of acid as part of an alchemy experiment can also be a useful weapon. Spells should feel magical and maybe even mysterious in some way.

11:49

Mearls:
For instance, going back to cantrips, we specifically didn't want to just make a spell that was the same as a crossbow but it did fire damage. That sells magic short, IMO.



11:49

Comment From Somnambulant gamer
You mentioned all casters have at-will spell "options" now. Are these class features, or tied into the themes or backgrounds?

11:50

Jeremy Crawford:
Both!

11:50

Jeremy Crawford:
The cleric and the wizard get them, and some backgrounds and themes offer them.

11:51

Mearls:
Yes, both. At-will spells come with classes. Rogues and fighters can opt into that if they want. I'd also like to at some point offer an option for a non-at-will magic game, but we received overwhelming feedback in favor of at-will magic. That feedback was largely edition independent.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yes, both. At-will spells come with classes. Rogues and fighters can opt into that if they want. I'd also like to at some point offer an option for a non-at-will magic game, but we received overwhelming feedback in favor of at-will magic. That feedback was largely edition independent.

So right there is the reason for anyone who doesn't want at-will wizard magic to get involved in the playtest and make your voices heard. Up until this point... apparently its overwhelming in its lean towards including it. Mike would like to possibly have it, but it has to seem like its wanted... so make sure you get in there and let them know. Tip the scales back the other way.

 

[Elf Witch]

I wonder if the issue here could be resolved by considering wizards, sorcerers and warlocks not in terms of the flavour of the magical source, but the style in which they cast?

Limited spells but some big show stoppers? You're a wizard. Cast magic all the time! You're a warlock. Something in between? You're a sorcerer.

In other words, could frequency of casting be a job demarcation thing

Also, I wonder how people here who will find a wizard casting magic spells "at will" bad, feel about a sorcerer or warlock?

Genuinely curious whether it is a "wizard" thing and those classes are OK or a "campaign" thing and those classes would be disallowed.

Cheers

I like the idea of them being different. Once you start giving wizards combat at will spells why bother to have a sorcerer. One of the big differences I have always liked was the whole wizards must memorize spells but have a huge variety to choose from. Sorcerers know a limited amount of spells but can cast them without preparation.

If we give wizards at will spells what about sorcerers shouldn't they get them too? After all sorcerers literally have magic flowing through them.

I like that both can run out of spells wizards because they don't have anymore memorized and sorcerers because they are out of energy. That is how I have always rationalized when sorcerers run out of energy.

Now warlocks are fueled by a different magic and cast bolts every round but they are limited in being able to do a variety of things.

If you are going to get rid of these differences than I have to wonder why bother to have separate classes have one magic class with themes.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, it's an inextricable part of the class, but Mearls is hypothetically interested in something that doesn't do that. It's been made an inextricable part of the class thanks to overwhelming feedback.

So I guess, if you don't like that, the answer is to give them feedback about it. Looks like the squeaky wheels will get the grease here, and they DO have ideas bouncing around somewhere in at least Mearls's brain about how to do it otherwise.

ed: Ninja'd!

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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.

If I'm playing chess, I don't want the other player to suddenly move his pawn across the board to take my queen because he thinks it's okay for pawns to move at will. And I certainly don't want that to become an official rule. Thank you very much.

 

[Cybit]

So right there is the reason for anyone who doesn't want at-will wizard magic to get involved in the playtest and make your voices heard. Up until this point... apparently its overwhelming in its lean towards including it. Mike would like to possibly have it, but it has to seem like its wanted... so make sure you get in there and let them know. Tip the scales back the other way.

I remember there being a poll about it and it was overwhelmingly in favor of at-will options, like 80/20, or even more skewed. Can't seem to find it on their blog though.

 

[Janaxstrus]

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.

Too bad it's not an option. It's the default right now.
This is one of those things that if it is assumed in core that all wizards can blast all day, will be a huge strike against the system for me.