D&D 5E Should we let the 'Wierd Wizard Show' begin in 5e?
- Thread starter Tony Vargas
- Start date
dangerous jack
First Post
Gotta spread the XP around, but yeah... I agree with all that.
Essentials and the Psionic classes proved the AEDU could be balanced with different models. And Iron Heroes proved you could have a great game with only a bunch of really interesting martial classes without daily powers.
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
Well that would certainly create design and conceptual space that no other edition can claim!
...Intentionally.
Lame Poll. Wheres the option for "the game is sufficiently balanced as is, and if you notice something that disturbing balancewise, you and your dm are doing it wrong"
A 1st level wizard can't hold a candle to a 1st level fighter, either one to one or against encounters.
At 11th level, the wizard is just begining to gain some power with 3 fifth level spells, a few fourths and some fireballs. While the fighter at the same level has 3 attacks a ton of feats and 3 times the hitpoints. Put two average build wizards and fighters against some strong monsters and the wizard will have to run if he doesnt have anyone protecting him, but then again if he goes nova he might do better, if he has remembered the right spells for the job. Also if we are judging the game by amount of time playing (e.g. the spotlight), the fighter gets three attacks for every one time the wizard does, he easily occupies twice the amount of game time, not to mention wizards having to conserve spells, memorizing the wrong spell, and failing concentration checks due to smart DMs. Overall its inconclusive whose better at 10th, unless that is someone has run some tests to show some huge difference?
At 20th level, the wizards has some pretty crazy spells, sure the fighters a beast with 4 attacks and god knows how many hitpoints, but the wizards power quickly grows after 14th level. But then again who actually plays in this level area anyways? Most campaigns lose there steam around here, and many modules end at around 15th level. The system pretty much admits it breaks down at this level AND polls show a HUUUGE amount of players never make it this high.
So, whats the problem again? Is it optimized gotcha characters made by people trying to "win" at a game you can't "win", is it bad DMs who don't know many monsters target big flashing wizards?
WOTC tried equal at all levels with 4e and we wound up playing a game with only one class. Actually many of us stopped playing it if you hadn't noticed and we werent "angry wizard players", we were players of all classes who were not interested in an RPG with only one type of character. Some people liked that and thats fine, but many D&D players like a range of power in a range of situations, over different levels, its whats needed to make classes soo amazingly DIFFERENT from eachother.
I think traditional D&D (e.g D&D, AD&D and 3e) could be made better by adding a vancian/4e style fighter to the core, something like Montes Ritual Warrior, or Iron heroes. But the regular fighter with mostly at wills is something MANY players love playing, and it shouldnt be removed because some char optimizers who spend more time on forums then playing the game.
A 1st level wizard can't hold a candle to a 1st level fighter, either one to one or against encounters.
At 11th level, the wizard is just begining to gain some power with 3 fifth level spells, a few fourths and some fireballs. While the fighter at the same level has 3 attacks a ton of feats and 3 times the hitpoints. Put two average build wizards and fighters against some strong monsters and the wizard will have to run if he doesnt have anyone protecting him, but then again if he goes nova he might do better, if he has remembered the right spells for the job. Also if we are judging the game by amount of time playing (e.g. the spotlight), the fighter gets three attacks for every one time the wizard does, he easily occupies twice the amount of game time, not to mention wizards having to conserve spells, memorizing the wrong spell, and failing concentration checks due to smart DMs. Overall its inconclusive whose better at 10th, unless that is someone has run some tests to show some huge difference?
At 20th level, the wizards has some pretty crazy spells, sure the fighters a beast with 4 attacks and god knows how many hitpoints, but the wizards power quickly grows after 14th level. But then again who actually plays in this level area anyways? Most campaigns lose there steam around here, and many modules end at around 15th level. The system pretty much admits it breaks down at this level AND polls show a HUUUGE amount of players never make it this high.
So, whats the problem again? Is it optimized gotcha characters made by people trying to "win" at a game you can't "win", is it bad DMs who don't know many monsters target big flashing wizards?
WOTC tried equal at all levels with 4e and we wound up playing a game with only one class. Actually many of us stopped playing it if you hadn't noticed and we werent "angry wizard players", we were players of all classes who were not interested in an RPG with only one type of character. Some people liked that and thats fine, but many D&D players like a range of power in a range of situations, over different levels, its whats needed to make classes soo amazingly DIFFERENT from eachother.
I think traditional D&D (e.g D&D, AD&D and 3e) could be made better by adding a vancian/4e style fighter to the core, something like Montes Ritual Warrior, or Iron heroes. But the regular fighter with mostly at wills is something MANY players love playing, and it shouldnt be removed because some char optimizers who spend more time on forums then playing the game.
Last edited:
Gundark
Explorer
Wasn't that game called Ars Magica ?
Argyle King
Legend
I do not want the weird wizard show. However, I do not feel the poll options represent answers I would choose.
I hate that; I feel as though that's an answer I'm typing a lot lately. I must have some pretty weird interests compared to the general community.
I hate that; I feel as though that's an answer I'm typing a lot lately. I must have some pretty weird interests compared to the general community.
malkav666
First Post
There is no option in your poll that accurately present my opinions on wizards. Wizards have always had balancing mechanics in every edition. If they don't work for you thats fine. But your poll does not present an option for players like me, who have no problem with the balancing mechanics for wizards present in previous editions of D&D. You can break any game if you try to.
I think the major problem with previous editions has nothing to do with wizards in and of them selves but rather a lack of metagame and pacing advice in books like the DMG to equip new DMs with realistic expectation and the proper tools to pace their game in such a way where the casters drawbacks are not entirely ignored.
So my answer to your poll is "none of the above".
love,
malkav
I think the major problem with previous editions has nothing to do with wizards in and of them selves but rather a lack of metagame and pacing advice in books like the DMG to equip new DMs with realistic expectation and the proper tools to pace their game in such a way where the casters drawbacks are not entirely ignored.
So my answer to your poll is "none of the above".
love,
malkav
Tony Vargas
Legend
It's the last one. I almost didn't include it, since that sort of balance had always failed in the past, but it's there if you believe in it.
They're all a tad flippant, I'll admit.
Just pick the one closest to your own.
No problem, that'd the Wish vs House Cat choice. Go ahead, click it, it's just one of many examples of how past eds balanced casters.
I know how you feel, that's one reason I finally decided to start my own slanted survey.
Last edited:
the Jester
Legend
None of the above.
No, non-casters should be balanced with casters.
Vancian/non-Vanican/some of us are Vancian doesn't matter so much.
No, non-casters should be balanced with casters.
Vancian/non-Vanican/some of us are Vancian doesn't matter so much.
Tony Vargas
Legend
And Mage: the Ascension (now 'Awakening'), yes, but in very different settings. Ars Magica was renaisance, MtA modern.
There might be another FRPG doing the all-caster thing.
If that's not the niche we want for D&D, the alternative is to include co-equal non-casters as PC classes.
Though, there is certainly no reason NPCs couldn't fill the non-caster niche, or even PC companions, that work like Animal Companions or Familiars, under the control of a player who also plays a real character.
Similar Threads
