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

[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.