D&D 5E The 5E Magic User

[MarkChevallier]

Ok, what should they do with Magic Users, Wizards, Mages, call them what you will in 5E? This is a pretty basic, and very divisive question.

I very much liked how wizards were in editions prior to fourth edition, but 4E fans I imagine will strongly disagree. And between the two of us, there's unlikely to be much common ground.

I will say this, I think the notion of 4E Rituals, taking historically troublesome spells and making them arduous and costly, as well as time consuming, is a good idea. But implemented poorly. And it definitely shouldn't be a dumping ground for all (or most) non-combat magic.

My "vision" of a 5E magic user is someone who has limited power but can bring it to bear with awesome effect. Who makes a big difference when they cast their spells, but can't do that to solve every problem. Who has to make tough decisions about when to use their power. Whose magic is flexible and useful for many different kinds of things, provided they have the right spell prepared. Yes, I prefer Vancian magic.

I think 3E got it wrong in the following ways:

Too many spells in one wizard's hands at higher levels.
Too many spells that did what other classes could do, without any drawbacks or inherent limitations.
Spells which fundamentally changed the game (Teleport) without appropriate costing/casting time/limitations to prevent their "spamming".
Too much buffing (more the cleric's domain, but wizards could be guilty of the multibuff too).

I think these flaws could largely be overcome by limiting a wizard's spells dramatically, but making each spell count for a lot.

This is obviously my own opinion: what does everyone else think?

 

[Halivar]

I think magic could be componetized. Check this out: a simple, either vancian or power-based wizard in a starter box, with hardcover modules for magic:

• Vancian Magic
• Power Magic
• Points-Based Magic (a la 3E psionics)

And everyone just buys the module of their choice. You could even balance them against each other, so that two wizards in the same game use different mechanics.

 

[hanez]

I would argue for two types of spellcasters in the core rules. Something like a traditional 3e wizard, and something simpler like the 3e warlock or a sorceror or a wizard that mostly does ranged attacks like an archer but without a lot of spells.

There needs to be choice, some people like simple mechanics some don't. I am always suprised at the players who were totally content with the 3e fighter that had basically one ability... but they were content with it and why shouldn't it be an option. Just dont take my Vance from me in exchage.

I would also plug the arcana unearthed spellcaster as the ultimate custimizable spellcaster.

 

[Elf Witch]

I hate hate hate with a passion what 4E did to magic. Rituals being so costly to do something mundane like open a door makes no sense to me. Basically it says doing something that does not requires as much force like say a fireball that kill and injure multiple targets is less arduous then oping a door. That just breaks any believability to me and just reminds I am playing a game.

The main reason knock can be bad is not because a wizard or a sorcerer can do it. It would be a waste for a sorcerer to take unless they were in a party with no rogue and a wizard who memorizes a lot of knocks with a rogue in the party is giving up a lot of other better spells to do that. It is bad because magic items are so cheap and easy to come by in 3E so a wand of knock is cheap and then the magic user no longer has the penalty of taking the spell.

I like the idea of rituals for some spells like teleport, polymorph, fly and other spells like those.

I don't think wands should be as cheap as they are it would be better if single action scrolls and potions were more common.

 

[nnms]

My biggest issue with 4E Rituals is that they were tied to an already silly gold piece system. Money in 4E is essentially a form of XP you can spend on powers and abilities in the form of items. So basically Rituals cost you a form of XP.

And given the harsh game mode changes from combat to non-combat, ritual use was often not practical because of time constraints.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I like the idea of magic being something scaleable and flexible. Rather than having huge spell lists, Wizards and other spellcasters should have limited lists of spells that have lots of different options. Something like 3E metamagic, except without the feat dependancy and better scaling of effects unique to each spell. Ideally, this scaling will be extensive enough that you could scale a simple Magic Missile spell all the way from its classic, low-level state to an impressive, high-level state where you get giants swarms of magic missiles that themselves fire magic missiles (like a Touhou Spell Card, if you know that reference).

I also like the idea someone mentioned in the 5E Fighter thread, which suggested that spells have long multi-round casting times, but the act of casting let the Wizard throw around minor effects while the true spell is charging up. A similar, but not quite identical, idea is to let spells take effect over several rounds, during which time the Wizard can access a pool of sub-spells related to the primary spell.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Frankly I think the biggest improvement would be to dissociate the magic from the class.

A fighter gets a base attack bonus (or THAC0 or some modifier of some sort) that makes him better at combat, but being a fighter is not inherently necessary to be able to swing a sword or make any particular combat choice. Being a fighter just makes you good enough to succeed.

If the mage had some kind of "base magic bonus" that determined everything-not just how effective spells are but learning them and how often they can be cast-it would be much easier to build separate magic systems around one class. It would also be easy to exclude non-casters, or to fix caster multiclassing with this approach.

Then it would be easier to say "I'm a words of power wizard with BMB +5" and "You're a vancian wizard with BMB +5" and determine what they can do from there, since clearly one magic system doesn't work for everyone.

Rethinking the magic system is a whole other ballgame.

 

[SkidAce]

Frankly I think the biggest improvement would be to dissociate the magic from the class.

A fighter gets a base attack bonus (or THAC0 or some modifier of some sort) that makes him better at combat, but being a fighter is not inherently necessary to be able to swing a sword or make any particular combat choice. Being a fighter just makes you good enough to succeed.

If the mage had some kind of "base magic bonus" that determined everything-not just how effective spells are but learning them and how often they can be cast-it would be much easier to build separate magic systems around one class. It would also be easy to exclude non-casters, or to fix caster multiclassing with this approach.

Then it would be easier to say "I'm a words of power wizard with BMB +5" and "You're a vancian wizard with BMB +5" and determine what they can do from there, since clearly one magic system doesn't work for everyone.

Rethinking the magic system is a whole other ballgame.

Not a bad idea....(can't xp you again...must spread around)

 

[OnlineDM]

I like 4e and generally have not liked Vancian magic. That said, when I really think about that dislike, my only real complaint is the Wizard being reduced to throwing darts ineffectually when it's not time for a blow-the-doors-off spell. Vancian magic + Magic Missile at-will would be fine by me. Just make it so the Wizard can always fight using magic rather than physical weapons, even if it's minor magic, and I'd be happy.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Rituals and spells need to be folded into one another back again.
I once was for siloing utility and attak powers... but for a magic user, it just makes no sense. Why can i cast destructive magic in seconds, but need 10 min to open a door?

Heroic tier rituals - from rob schwalb - shows how it should work:
All spells are rituals, you have the option to make fast cast scrolls with lesser effects.

Transition it to 5e: Wizards can cast as many spells as they like, when they have time and resources. Some spells can be memorized in the morning and cast nearly instantly. Spells like fireball are usually memorized, divinations mostly cast out of the book. Feather fall... usually cast out of the book... true story!

 

[Minigiant]

I think what 4e did with the idea of rituals and attack powers was close to what is needed. The problem was how they did it.

Each spell should be split up by resource.

Weak spells: Cantrips, Ray of Frost, Feather Fall

Time consuming spells (minor communication exploration spells. Usable outside of battle when time permits) Water Breathing. Remove Poison. Hide from X,Magic Circle against X, Detect X

Slot consuming spells (bigger effects. 5 a day or so) Fireball. Sleep, Heal, Summon X

Gold (via components) consuming spells: Magical Crafting, Wishes, Raise Dead, Permanency

 

[FireLance]

I like 4e and generally have not liked Vancian magic. That said, when I really think about that dislike, my only real complaint is the Wizard being reduced to throwing darts ineffectually when it's not time for a blow-the-doors-off spell. Vancian magic + Magic Missile at-will would be fine by me. Just make it so the Wizard can always fight using magic rather than physical weapons, even if it's minor magic, and I'd be happy.

Just floating this idea out for discussion: would you be okay if the wizard requires an implement of some kind to use his at-will attacks? In other words, if someone takes away his wand or his staff, he can't cast magic missile.

 

[jefgorbach]

Personally, I'm hoping part of the reason Monte Cook was hired shortly before the 5e announcement has todo with the excellent component-point-based alt/n magic system he developed for his World of Darkness conversion. His free-form spellcasting method preserved the Vancian concept by limiting how much a mage may cast daily, while allowing the PC to determine whether his daily resource limit is used sparingly throughout the day or in one single grandstand spell.

Likewise, I'd like to see -ALL- magic unified in a single system (mechanically) wherein a spell is a spell regardless of whether its cast by an item, person, rod, spell, supernatural ability, wand, or whatnot; with the incidence's fluff determining if the PC's a cleric, druid, psion, sorcerer, wizard or whatnot.

On a related note, proficiency feats (armor, weaponry, spellcasting, thieving, etc) should be changed to skills which can be learned by ANYONE regardless of class; providing increases bonuses every # ranks. While anyone can casually learn any skill, only someone truly devoted to studying a given skill (by allocating the points) truly masters it, gaining the progressive bonus. IE: fighters are better with armor/weapons because they devote more points on the related skills than rogues/spellcasters.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I just hope they rein in things like wands and scrolls. Scribe scroll was one of the most broken feats in the hands of a 3e caster. And no, the xp cost was negligible for most spells, so that was not a real balancing factor.

Admittedly, part of this problem was that there was a spell for everything. I still remember the time when the party wizard was attacked by demons and whipped out a scroll he had prepared for just such an occasion, that automatically stunned demons. It wasn't even that he was regularly under attack by demons; in fact, I believe this was the first instance of demons in the campaign. Needless to say the encounter was somewhat... anticlimactic.

Regardless, scrolls and charged items can completely circumvent the balancing limits placed on most types of spellcasters (usually that they can only use their spells x times per day). As such, I hope this is an issue they carefully examine and address.

 

[Kaodi]

I think the basic 5e " magic user " should be called a mage and be more like the Pathfinder magus in terms of abilities (and I think the cleric should be the divine equivalent of said magus). I like the idea of the most basic spellcasting classes being what we ordinarily call " hybrids " and the " specialists " (priests and wizards) be saved for higher complexity games).

I could get behind a system that combined at-will powers with Vancian casting, or one that used some sort of stamina system to determine how much power could be brought to bear without resting (which might incidentally work for non-spellcasters as well).

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think the basic 5e " magic user " should be called a mage and be more like the Pathfinder magus in terms of abilities (and I think the cleric should be the divine equivalent of said magus). I like the idea of the most basic spellcasting classes being what we ordinarily call " hybrids " and the " specialists " (priests and wizards) be saved for higher complexity games).

Interesting. It'll never happen because the casters are so iconic, but the idea that you have to train for a while to be a "real" mage or that hybrid mages are the default is interesting.

I just hope they rein in things like wands and scrolls. Scribe scroll was one of the most broken feats in the hands of a 3e caster. And no, the xp cost was negligible for most spells, so that was not a real balancing factor.

I never had any of those problems in my campaigns, but I can see them. Crafting (magical especially) needs to make sense and be balanced, but be at least somewhat accessible to PCs (which was a problem in earlier editions). This isn't really specific to the wizard, but they do need to fix crafting as a whole. I don't think it's ever (in D&D) been done really well.

 

[trancejeremy]

The idea of a magic user being able to constantly zap someone seems too video-gameish for me, even if it is mechanically the same as using a crossbow.

Really though I think part of the problem is exactly what someone brought up in the To Vance thread - Vancian MUs (in the books) were probably more akin to the 3E bard than traditional D&D MU. They only knew a relatively few spells but were generally very capable people beyond their magical ability.

Of course, part of this is mostly due to AD&D. In BECMI, there were basically only 3 tiers of combat ability, but in AD&D there were 4.

Like a Fighter had a d10 hit point in AD&D, Cleric d8, Thief d6, MU d4

But in BECMI, it was d8 for Fighter, d6 for Cleric, and d4 for Thief/MUs

Similarly, there were only 3 charts, not 4. A 10th level fighter, in AD&D had a THAC0 of 12, and an MU had one of 19.

By contrast, in BECMI, a 10th level fighter had a THAC0 of 13, and an MU had one of 17.

Still a noticeable difference, but the BECMI MU was not nearly as hopeless at low levels than the AD&D one (and to compensate, he had a slower spell progression)

3.x pretty much split the difference.

But I guess to answer the question, I'd like to see the 5E MU more like the BECMI one or 3e bard - not hopeless in combat (or other situations) but the spell progress dialed back a bit.

 

[Kaodi]

If I am not mistaken, [MENTION=924]trancejeremy[/MENTION], this must be the first you back been back to EN World in a long time, given your post count compared to your level? Good to have you back. Just the other day I was thinking about the explanation of your musical tastes in your signature.

 

[OnlineDM]

Just floating this idea out for discussion: would you be okay if the wizard requires an implement of some kind to use his at-will attacks? In other words, if someone takes away his wand or his staff, he can't cast magic missile.

I could probably be fine with that, sure. I'm flexible. But I'd like this to be a game where disarming is very, very rare if it happens at all, so it will in effect be the case that the wizard always has at-will magic.

 

[Simplicity]

If I am not mistaken, [MENTION=924]trancejeremy[/MENTION], this must be the first you back been back to EN World in a long time, given your post count compared to your level? Good to have you back. Just the other day I was thinking about the explanation of your musical tastes in your signature.

I suspect 5th edition will bring a lot of us back.