D&D 5E (2014) Should we let the 'Wierd Wizard Show' begin in 5e?

[Oni]

Giving everyone the same sorts of powers is like giving everyone a bag full of hammers, each hammer might look a little different, but they all essentially do the same thing.

 

[dangerous jack]

The balance between martial and magical classes doesn't hinge entirely on the existence of "dailies."

Personally, I think the charming rogue should get abilities that are like unto Charm Person, and that the trailblazing ranger should get abilities that are not dissimilar from Teleport and that the heavily armored fighter should get abilities that aren't dramatically different from Cure Wounds.

I guess I find a lot of the criticisms about "overpowered wizards" to be kind of overblown, to boot, but then I don't play with a lot of twinks or munchkins, so perhaps I just haven't seen the ugliest head of the beast.

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]

Is it time to just be honest, and make this a game about wizards, clerics and druids, and put the poor non-casting fighting men and theives out of their misery?

Well that would certainly create design and conceptual space that no other edition can claim!

...Intentionally.

 

[hanez]

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.

 

[Gundark]

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

Is it time to just be honest, and make this a game about wizards, clerics and druids, and put the poor non-casting fighting men and theives out of their misery?

Wasn't that game called Ars Magica ?

 

[Argyle King]

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.

 

[malkav666]

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

 

[Tony Vargas]

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"

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.

There is no option in your poll that accurately present my opinions on wizards.

They're all a tad flippant, I'll admit.

Just pick the one closest to your own.

Wizards have always had balancing mechanics in every edition. 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.

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 do not want the weird wizard show. However, I do not feel the poll options represent answers I would choose.

Please, elaborate upon your opinions in your response.

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 know how you feel, that's one reason I finally decided to start my own slanted survey.

 

[the Jester]

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Wasn't that game called Ars Magica ?

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.