Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[L&L] Balancing the Wizards in D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5911523" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>The problem being that the L&L article doesn't imply this will be an option, it implies that <em>this is the way Wizards work</em>.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>wrong</em>. </p><p></p><p>That's not really at issue, here. Even if some folks detest it as an option, that's something they're free to do. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>It's a playtest, so we can certainly tell them that and see them change it. But it's a legit beef to have.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Anyway, folks need to calm the frig down. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 5911523, member: 2067"] The problem being that the L&L article doesn't imply this will be an option, it implies that [I]this is the way Wizards work[/I]. 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 [I]wrong[/I]. 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. 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. ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[L&L] Balancing the Wizards in D&D
Top