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.