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.
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 hate the whole wizard carrying a crossbow thing. I don't mind vancian spellcasting, but there needs to be magic that the wizard can always do. For me if you rolled rituals back into their spell lists the 4e model isnt a bad model.
With occasional encounter and only a few daily powers, the "alternate concept of the past 3 years" remains fundamentally the same as what was described. At-will powers were practically weapon skills. There's no need to beat around the bush with trying to malign 4E though.Completely agree. That has been the concept of Wizard in D&D for more than 30 years, let's relegate the alternate concept of the past 3 years to a modular option, and we're fine. Keeping the current concept on the forefront will make it impossible to heal the fractured D&D gamers base.
I think I agree with those that said 3rd was pretty good, but the scrolls/wand availability was too easy, and therefore they got out of control.
So maybe something like 3rd, with a ritual component, and less creation/purchase of items?
Too much of a player character's "build" hinges on equipment these days. If you take Weapon Focus (Longsword), you really want o find a Longsword +3, not a Greataxe +3.I feel the same. One of my pet peeve has always been that "magic shopping" is the cause of a lot of problems. The problem is not in the spellcasting rules. But take away magic shopping and a lot of players will hate you.
I don't think I want to go back to a wizard that doesn't have at-will spells. Unless the Wizard has enough "martial "abilities that he's actually decent with a staff or a sword.
I would also prefer to keep at-wills, encounters and dailies in general for Wizardry. But I could see re-envisioning them into something more... "Vancian".
You prepare a spell, say "Fireball". Having this spell prepared, gives you a set of spellcasting option.
1) As a Standard At-Will Action , you cast something like Scorching Burst. (Area Burst 1, 1d6+STAT fire damage)
2) As an Heroic Standard Action (= ENcounter Power), you can cast Flame Burst (Area Burst 1, 2d6+STAT fire damage, MIss Half Damage)
3) As a Decisive Standard Action (= Daily Power), you can cast Fireball itself. (Area Burst 3, 3d6+STAT fire damage, 5 ongoing damage (save ends), Miss Half Damage)
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.
I feel the same. One of my pet peeve has always been that "magic shopping" is the cause of a lot of problems. The problem is not in the spellcasting rules. But take away magic shopping and a lot of players will hate you.
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?