D&D 5E Should we let the 'Wierd Wizard Show' begin in 5e?

[Tony Vargas]

Keeping the two (fluff & crunch) separated doesn't always help to encourage more playstyles though.

It doesn't encourage any play style, it also doesn't discourage any. Thus 'supporting' (working for) any.

It is my opinion that there would be less of a disconnect between what the rules say is going on and what the fluff says the story is if the two aspects of the game had a relationship which did a better job of complimenting each other.

Nod. What's really aweful is when a game does lay down a very clear world, voluminous flavor text and 'fluff,' and then delivers mechanics that not only 'don't encourage' that, but outright contradict it.

Demons being 'scourges of the land' but meat for 18th level PCs, for instance, isn't much of a problem, if most of the land isn't even 5th level, and only the PCs have a shot at reaching 18th. OTOH, if every town constable is 19th level or higher, it's an issue. Or, if demons /aren't even modeled in the game/, that's a problem.

I am not familiar with HERO, but I do play GURPS, so I totally understanding the idea of allowing groups to use mechanics in a variety of ways without hardwired fluff getting in the way.

Hero and GURPS have some similarities, but Hero just drops the whole set of genre-neutral mechanics on you and says 'have fun, maybe we'll do a sourcebook someday,' while GURPS lays some basic mechanics on you, and then comes up with a /very/ detailed & well-researched source book that supports a genre or setting quite specifically, including adding and changing rules as needed to really support /just/ that genre/setting as the guy doing the sourcebook sees it.

GURPS & Hero are two things that are the same, yet completely different.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am all for the Weird Wizard Show if it means Fleshwarpers, 2e Wild Mages, and a Oozemasters become core classes!

Don't see why it wouldn't...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'll agree with others who've said that there's no option in the poll that reflects my opinion.

Casters and non-casters should be balanced at ALL LEVELS in my opinion,

OK, so maybe not the last choice then. Though that's only one example of situational balance...

and furthermore I believe this can be done without having to give non-casters pseudo-magic daily powers.

That kills the third choice.

Look at the martial classes from Heroes of the Fallen Lands onward; no dailies, but plenty of balance in my experience so far (through mid-paragon). That's the way I'd like to see things in the future.

While 4e made dailies somewhat less powerful and numerous than old vancian casting, a class still can't consistently keep up accross a range of play styles if it doesn't have dailies in 4e. Maybe you've stayed in a range where they're OK, I can't really comment on your experiences. They are your own, and I have no way to revue, confirm or refute them.

But, that does put you back to the last choice, though. Classes with dailies get to outperform when there are few encounters and they can really dominate with a daily or few in each, and they get to languish when they've used up all their dailies and the encounters keep relentlessly coming. That's situational balance. That it's from day to day rather than level to level as in the extreme Wish/kitty balance example is just a matter of degree.

 

[Aramax]

I love love love Vancian wizards as a DM and as a player.
I can NEVER get anybody to play one.Ever.Why? you ask.
I play very low leval where your going to see MAYBE 4th L spells.
I spend a lot of time 1-3rd Level.
The only time I got someone to play a wizard is in 4th and only because we were going to go to 30th(I ran though 25th)

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't like any of the options presented in the poll. What I prefer is the balance that exists in 0e, B/X, 1e, and early 2e, before we decided that play beyond 12th level was a desirable activity.

That's the last option. The house-cat killing a 1st level wizard is an exaple right out of older D&D. The balance formula back then was to have wizards start out very, very weak at 1st, become viable somewhere between 3rd and 5th, and take off around 9th or 12th and just go crazy, culminating in Wish.

And, there was certainly play beyond 12th even back in OD&D.

I clearly remember running AD&D pick up games. Run a low level game, get lots of non/demi-human multiclass characters and fighters (especially specialized TWFers and Archers post UA/2e). Run a high level game, get lots of casters and maybe a guildmaster assassin with psionics.

3e edition got rid of nearly every limitation that magic had, while adding several to non magic classes. The problem isn't wizards in D&D, it's Wizards in 3rd edition.

Heh. Not /every/. You still had to hold onto your spellbook. You still needed components.

But, yes, each ed has made it easier and easier to cast spells. 2e was even a bit less restrictive than 1e (though, I rarely saw anyone use /all/ the limitations heaped on 1e magic-users, just like a rarely saw weapon vs AC adjustments used). And 4e makes basically no ods between casting a spell and using bow.

The problem, as you say, is that 3e removed limitations from casting without bringing the power of casting down to a comparable degree. 4e at least brought both down.

We're playing a fantasy game. When magic happens, it needs to be magic. It needs to impress. But that's also why it needs to be of much more limited use, and characters who use magic need to get a whole lot less of other things (like skills and physical advantages).

Yep, last option. Situational balance. Some of the time your magic is awesome, some of the time it's borked and you're a commoner in a pointy hat.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This poll lacks a sensible answer...

wizards and fighters should be balanced against each other, but in an interesting way. Look at essentials. I like that...

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm gonna go on record as saying I am not personally a fan of balance over the course of 20 levels (e.g: fighters start stronger, wizards become stronger).

The reason for this is practical: it takes about a year to play 10 levels. I don't want to suck for a year, and I don't want my friend to suck for a year. Or six months. Or one month. Or even two weeks. That level of balance is too distant. It demands too much patience from Sucky McGee.

I prefer a level of balance that is consistent within the session. It's OK if I suck in one scene, or my friend sucks in one scene, as long as we both get to rock during the four-hour session at some point.

Which is why I like the idea of separating out the three main prongs of D&D (exploration, roleplaying, and combat). I'm fine sucking in combat if I rock exploration, or sucking in exploration if I can kick but in roleplaying, or sucking in roleplaying if I can annihilate my enemies in combat.

That doesn't sound like the way 5e is going, which is fine -- my understanding is that it is trying to give everyone a way to contribute to all three elements in different ways. As long as those contributions are really very different, I'll be pretty happy. I can rock combat with my buddy, as long as we do it in remarkably different ways. Maybe my buddy deals consistent damage over the long term, while I'm all spike and lull, spike and lull. Maybe our other buddy deals with recharge rates. Another one rolls to see if anything happens. Whatever. Point being, balance isn't a micro-managed, every-single-round kind of thing.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Weird wizards. Are they made of water?

 

[Tony Vargas]

This poll lacks a sensible answer...

wizards and fighters should be balanced against each other, but in an interesting way. Look at essentials. I like that...

Again, I'm sorry if the last choice sounds flippant, but it's the 'situational balance' choice.

Situational balance was it for most of D&Ds history, and expect a lot of folks on any D&D board will be good with it. Don't feel embarrased to click it just because I couched it in flipplant terms.

 

[Hassassin]

Again, I'm sorry if the last choice sounds flippant, but it's the 'situational balance' choice.

Situational balance was it for most of D&Ds history, and expect a lot of folks on any D&D board will be good with it. Don't feel embarrased to click it just because I couched it in flipplant terms.

Situational balance is only one part of pre-3e spellcaster balance. Other important aspects include at least spell interruption and side effects (system shock etc.). Even within "situational balance", there is balance across levels vs. balance across encounters.

Personally, I would like to see all other balancing factors return, except balance across levels, which was the only one mentioned in the poll.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Situational balance is only one part of pre-3e spellcaster balance. Other important aspects include at least spell interruption and side effects (system shock etc.).

That's still 'situational.' If you're hanging back and casting from comparative safety because the situation permits, you're not being interrupted.

Though what 'side effects' you mean, I don't know - D&D has never had anything like Shadowrun 'Drain' that I'm aware of.

Personally, I would like to see all other balancing factors return, except balance across levels, which was the only one mentioned in the poll.

It's just an example of 'traditional balance,' which included the things you mentioned, as well as balance across levels.

 

[Hassassin]

Though what 'side effects' you mean, I don't know - D&D has never had anything like Shadowrun 'Drain' that I'm aware of.

I mentioned system shock in the post, trying to allude to polymorph. There is also teleport miss chance, resurrection survival, expanding fireballs, that I can remember now. Even wish, which you mention in the poll, has heavy side effects, because the DM can twist your wish any way he can think of.

 

[Elf Witch]

Since I found the poll to very slanted and more than a little biased I went for the snark answer and voted number 1.

As someone who still plays 3E and feels that for the most part it is balanced I don't want to see major changes. For example the old way of a caster getting hit loses the spell no save is a bad design. I like the caster having to make a save.

Also having 1 hit point and being able to cast one or two spells and then you hide for the rest of the day was not a lot of fun and I am glad they got rid of it.

The things I don't like in 3E are metamagic which has the ability to over power spells and how easy it is to make items that get you around the daily limits of spells.

 

[Ahnehnois]

A definitive none of the above. Casters should be able to do things that non-casters can't, but non-casters should be interesting and playable and casters should have real limitations.

 

[WheresMyD20]

It's not about each class being balanced against the others in combat. The important thing is that each class plays an important role in the party as a whole.

Traditionally:

Fighters (and fighter-ish classes like barbarians and paladins) hold the front line and dish out consistent damage. They also provide muscle during dungeon exploration.

Wizards (and similar) stay out of the fray and drop the artillery when needed. They also provide useful utility spells during dungeon exploration.

Clerics (and druids, etc) provide healing and buffing/defensive magic, generally outside of combat. In combat, they act as secondary fighters.

Rogues (and such) play a relatively minor role in combat, but have great value in dungeon exploration.

They each play an important role in the party. Arguing how they should be balanced against each other is like arguing the balance between quarterbacks, wide receivers, running backs, and linebackers. You could say that one position is more important than another (salary differences would indicate that), but you need all of those positions filled in order to have an effective team.

*That* is the real balance issue in D&D. As long as each class plays an important role in the party, the game is balanced. If a class gets crowded out due to other classes encroaching on its turf, that's a balance problem.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A definitive none of the above. Casters should be able to do things that non-casters can't, but non-casters should be interesting and playable and casters should have real limitations.

Well, casting Wish is something non-casters can't do, and being vulnerable to kitty attack at first level is a pretty serious limitation (because, those 1-4 hps can be lost to anything, not /just/ an irate garfield).

 

[Mokona]

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax

Good quote and true for me. This is why I play low-magic Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well, casting Wish is something non-casters can't do, and being vulnerable to kitty attack at first level is a pretty serious limitation (because, those 1-4 hps can be lost to anything, not /just/ an irate garfield).

I might have voted in the poll if the options were not this ridiculously extreme. It is entirely possible for there to be drawbacks to spellcasting outside of the remarkable fragility of the early D&D wizard. There are many spells other than wish that can't be duplicated by nonmagical characters.

What I'm getting at is that the poll implies a false dichotomy, one in which the AEDU power system is "balanced" (which I doubt) and that any other viable option is not. It also ignores the deeper conceptual issues with trying to homogenize D&D characters and the balance and verisimilitude sacrifices associated with use-limited abilities. In other words, as [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] noted, it seems to present a biased view, a paradigm in which my conception of magic does not fit.

 

[Elf Witch]

Ahnehnois and WheresMyD20 I wanted to give you XP because you both summed up perfectly how I feel the game runs best.

I don't want to see mundane and magically be the same thing fighters should be different then casters. Each class should be good with what they do and allow the players playing the classes to have fun.

One of the things I have noticed that instead of improving the fighter the answer is to some how penalize the casters and a lot of what people seem to want would make the casters not very much fun to play.

Take magic being dangerous to casters I can see some spells being dangerous but not all of them otherwise it becomes a burden to play.

I had one DM try and balance magic in 3E so that every level I had to roll to get new spells in theory it sounds good well the dice gods hated me and for levels one, two, three and five I didn't get any new spells and since he was stingy about finding scrolls I started the game with nothing but cantrips and stayed that way until fourth when I got one spell.

The rest of the players began to hate my character as well because she could not do much she was a drain on the party.

I don't think you make another class more fun by making another class unfun to play that is not balance.

 

[Ahnehnois]

One of the things I have noticed that instead of improving the fighter the answer is to some how penalize the casters and a lot of what people seem to want would make the casters not very much fun to play.

I think that's fair to say. My answer to the issue posits both.

I think the 3e wizard becomes both overpowered and hard to play at high levels due to the sheer number of spells he has and the almost unlimited flexibility he has in using them. There's no reason he needs 4 spells per day of each spell level. I also think that spell use tiring or draining the caster can be implemented without being crippling, and that it could stand to be easier to disrupt spellcasting.

I would also like to see, however, martial characters with better options; proficiency with a broader array of weapons, better expertise with their weapon of choice, some fun high-level abilities, an advantage in the action economy, an advantage in saving throws, and the advantage of a more lethal health system. There are a lot of ways to make fighters better without resorting to per-day abilities or giving them powers that should be reserved for magicians.