D&D 5E The 5E Magic User

[hanez]

The image of the wizard, holding back before unleashing an earth shattering spell is dramatic and works well in literature, but not that well at the table, IMO. The average of a bored mage player one fight and a frustrated fighter player the second fight is not two happy players both fights.

Firmly disagree.

The attempt at making everyone equally usefull at all points in the game (in 4e) is what bored my players on all nights.

In 3E, my brother who often played a fighter or theif could do things that I could not and I was occasionally envious of his damage output and being able to charge into danger, but then later in the match I could shine with a fly spell or meteor swarm and I expect he found the same feelings. I think the attempt to make everything balanced and equal at all times will make all powers boring in practice, and I also believe we have seen that in the latest edition of the game.

I think classes should have opportunities where they shine, and these opportunities should be DIFFERENT, but players have the choice to choose what they want to be good at in character design. Making these powers spectacular and different when compared to other classes is what makes D&D fun.

 

[TheFindus]

Yeah! I mean, look at the real world, where it takes just as much time to toss a grenade as it does to pick a lock. 4E can be so unrealistic.

(I do in fact think rituals should be merged back into regular spells, but this line of argument doesn't hold up IMO.)

It was done because the ritual "Knock" imitates what is essentially the typical rogue ability (in 4E somebody who is trained in Thievery). In order to compensate for this, the ritual is cost-intensive.
This design was based on the fact that so many spells in 3e took away the role from archetypical characters like the rogue.

You are still left with the ability to destroy the door using force (including a mighty damage-spell), just as a fighter or a barbarian could do. But then again, destroying something is entirely different than being able to do something with magic for which another character would have to specialize. If the wizard can do everything, the other classes lack importance. Which is fine, if you are the wizard. But overall, it sucks. And many many people complained about this and stopped playing 3e because of it.

So this design is built for metagame reasons. Just as the fact that beginning characters only have 100 gold and cannot be super rich.
Narratively, you can explain both very well. And that is all that counts IMO.

 

[paladinm]

Personally I was soo glad when 3.0 introduced the Sorcerer.. that, to my mind, was how a magic-user should be. Even at the risk of knowing less spells, it's nice to have them always available.. at least until you run out.

I think there's a retro-clone (S&W?) that handles spellcasting differently.. subtracting from the caster's hit points on some conditions. Now That is an intriguing limitation!

 

[Wormwood]

Personally I was soo glad when 3.0 introduced the Sorcerer.. that, to my mind, was how a magic-user should be. Even at the risk of knowing less spells, it's nice to have them always available.. at least until you run out.

I think there's a retro-clone (S&W?) that handles spellcasting differently.. subtracting from the caster's hit points on some conditions. Now That is an intriguing limitation!

Microlite74 uses that system, and it's been working great all week here. Granted, I chose to have a separate track of 'Mana' (virtual hit points) and Hit points, but the result is still very fun.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah! I mean, look at the real world, where it takes just as much time to toss a grenade as it does to pick a lock. 4E can be so unrealistic.

(I do in fact think rituals should be merged back into regular spells, but this line of argument doesn't hold up IMO.)

I am very pro 4e... so don´t chop my head off...

It is just, that I believe rituals and normal spells could easily folded back up again into one source. Usually no one will memorize knock. Maybe even the memorized cast time could still be 1 minute. It is rather that I believe, you should be able to learn more spells and that you should be able to cast destructive magic using rituals. I believe it would not do the game any harm.
Also spells like cure serious wounds could be used with components and time. You would allow people to carry on by the expenditure of some rarce incenses, no need for any wands of cure light wounds etc.

Actually this is how i play 4e. It creates suspension of disbelieve, if you can´t make a simple fireball with a ritual.

Just my opinion.

As said: The heroic tier Rituals are hopefully a playtest of some sort. This is how they should have been done...

 

[Elf Witch]

Yeah! I mean, look at the real world, where it takes just as much time to toss a grenade as it does to pick a lock. 4E can be so unrealistic.

(I do in fact think rituals should be merged back into regular spells, but this line of argument doesn't hold up IMO.)

There is a big difference between magic and mundane it takes no skill what so ever to toss a grenade a monkey could do it. Picking a lock requires a skill in manipulating the tools.

I could buy it takes more time to open a lock then cast a fireball but what just blows my belief is that it takes more XP and a healing surge to do it which implies that it takes more effort.

Also it should not take 10 minutes that is way to long. I could see a couple of rounds.

A lot depends on how magic is doing it is magic picking the lock the way a rogue would or is it simply throwing the bolt. If it is simply throwing the bolt it should take next to no time.

 

[Elf Witch]

It was done because the ritual "Knock" imitates what is essentially the typical rogue ability (in 4E somebody who is trained in Thievery). In order to compensate for this, the ritual is cost-intensive.
This design was based on the fact that so many spells in 3e took away the role from archetypical characters like the rogue.

You are still left with the ability to destroy the door using force (including a mighty damage-spell), just as a fighter or a barbarian could do. But then again, destroying something is entirely different than being able to do something with magic for which another character would have to specialize. If the wizard can do everything, the other classes lack importance. Which is fine, if you are the wizard. But overall, it sucks. And many many people complained about this and stopped playing 3e because of it.

So this design is built for metagame reasons. Just as the fact that beginning characters only have 100 gold and cannot be super rich.
Narratively, you can explain both very well. And that is all that counts IMO.

In all the years I have been playing I have never seen anyone complain about the wizard being able to do things with magic that they do mundanely. But then I have never played with dicks who chose to walk all over other players.

When ever a wizard cast knock it was usually because we didn't have a rogue or because the wizard had a scroll of knock in case of emergency. And they were grateful the wizard had the spell the same when the cleric did stoneshape to get around the locked door.

As a DM I am grateful for spells like knock because if the party does not have a rogue then I can simply give them a wand of knock to be able to deal with locked doors.

I understand the need to put in rules and limitations for balance but when it so obvious like the knock ritual it sticks out like a sore thumb and I don't like that.

I think this is going to be a major issue with design how do you satisfy players like me who don't see an issue with the way spells were done before and players like you who do.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Picking a lock is not a ritual. Sacrificing 66 virgins at midnight during a full moon on the winter solstice to open a portal to Hell is a ritual.

 

[Aldarc]

In all the years I have been playing I have never seen anyone complain about the wizard being able to do things with magic that they do mundanely. But then I have never played with dicks who chose to walk all over other players.

Well if you haven't seen it, then it must never happen.

I think this is going to be a major issue with design how do you satisfy players like me who don't see an issue with the way spells were done before and players like you who do.

With which option does WotC run at the greatest chance of losing satisfied customers?

 

[Ahnehnois]

In all the years I have been playing I have never seen anyone complain about the wizard being able to do things with magic that they do mundanely. But then I have never played with dicks who chose to walk all over other players.

When ever a wizard cast knock it was usually because we didn't have a rogue or because the wizard had a scroll of knock in case of emergency. And they were grateful the wizard had the spell the same when the cleric did stoneshape to get around the locked door.

Wait, you mean your PCs just behave sensibly and use the tools in front of them? And don't complain that they're being infringed on every time someone else does something? And the game that results plays well?

I think you've articulated an important point. Trying to design the game to be idiot-proof is a fool's errand in itself. I wonder how many design decisions are made because of these sorts of complaints that amount to "In my game, someone abused this rule, therefore the rule is bad".

 

[Elf Witch]

Well if you haven't seen it, then it must never happen.

With which option does WotC run at the greatest chance of losing satisfied customers?

Not saying that it does not happen I have read people complaining about it here enough so it must happen. I am saying that in the 30 years I have been playing I have never seen it come up in a game as an issue.

I view it as a player issue not a design issue and the people I play with have the same view. A spell like knock is in the game so that the party can operate without a rogue and while it can be used to out shine the rogue that was not why it was put in the game.

I will not deny that certain spells can really make the wizard hard to deal with take fly and improved invisibility they can really ruin a DMs day. Which is why I think making those spells harder to cast is a great idea.

I think the direction they took in 4e was not the way to fix this issue. It is one of the main reasons we only played a few sessions of it before saying nope hate it not for us and went back to 3E and then to Pathfinder.

 

[Elf Witch]

Wait, you mean your PCs just behave sensibly and use the tools in front of them? And don't complain that they're being infringed on every time someone else does something? And the game that results plays well?

I think you've articulated an important point. Trying to design the game to be idiot-proof is a fool's errand in itself. I wonder how many design decisions are made because of these sorts of complaints that amount to "In my game, someone abused this rule, therefore the rule is bad".

I wonder that too sometimes. You can't make the game idiot proof nor can you put in rules to stop people being from being jerks at the table.

 

[Aldarc]

Not saying that it does not happen I have read people complaining about it here enough so it must happen. I am saying that in the 30 years I have been playing I have never seen it come up in a game as an issue.

I view it as a player issue not a design issue and the people I play with have the same view. A spell like knock is in the game so that the party can operate without a rogue and while it can be used to out shine the rogue that was not why it was put in the game.

I will not deny that certain spells can really make the wizard hard to deal with take fly and improved invisibility they can really ruin a DMs day. Which is why I think making those spells harder to cast is a great idea.

I think the direction they took in 4e was not the way to fix this issue. It is one of the main reasons we only played a few sessions of it before saying nope hate it not for us and went back to 3E and then to Pathfinder.

I see the bold as symptomatic of the larger problem: no class (or role, if you will) should be required for the functioning or well-being of the party. And that is a design issue.

 

[Gadget]

Not saying that it does not happen I have read people complaining about it here enough so it must happen. I am saying that in the 30 years I have been playing I have never seen it come up in a game as an issue.

I view it as a player issue not a design issue and the people I play with have the same view. A spell like knock is in the game so that the party can operate without a rogue and while it can be used to out shine the rogue that was not why it was put in the game.

I will not deny that certain spells can really make the wizard hard to deal with take fly and improved invisibility they can really ruin a DMs day. Which is why I think making those spells harder to cast is a great idea.

I think the direction they took in 4e was not the way to fix this issue. It is one of the main reasons we only played a few sessions of it before saying nope hate it not for us and went back to 3E and then to Pathfinder.

I'm sorry, but that has not been my experience, per se. While few people try to be a jerk on purpose, when the game is so predisposed to having the ultimate "I win" button (particularly at higher levels) for most situations, things do happen. The 3E wizard does not even have to waste one of his precious slots on knock, just have a scribed scroll handy. There a many things about 4e that are intentionally gamist and hard to swallow from a verisimilitude perspective, but I view rituals as far down on that list even if they serve as a balancing factor and have some implementation issues . Bashing someone's head with a golf club is quite quick, but performing brain surgery is not. Unleashing raw energy to quick destructive effect can happen rather fast, but more subtle and delicate manipulation takes a bit of time (and the results can be more wondrous if less immediately destructive). I sometimes wonder if the collective 30 (or insert your own number) years or so of playing many express has just had things so deeply impressed into our psyche that they are viewed as The Way Things Must Be tm.

But on the other hand, if it works for you, no reason to change it or re do it. I'm glad I'm not one that has to design the new edition.

 

[Elf Witch]

I'm sorry, but that has not been my experience, per se. While few people try to be a jerk on purpose, when the game is so predisposed to having the ultimate "I win" button (particularly at higher levels) for most situations, things do happen. The 3E wizard does not even have to waste one of his precious slots on knock, just have a scribed scroll handy. There a many things about 4e that are intentionally gamist and hard to swallow from a verisimilitude perspective, but I view rituals as far down on that list even if they serve as a balancing factor and have some implementation issues . Bashing someone's head with a golf club is quite quick, but performing brain surgery is not. Unleashing raw energy to quick destructive effect can happen rather fast, but more subtle and delicate manipulation takes a bit of time (and the results can be more wondrous if less immediately destructive). I sometimes wonder if the collective 30 (or insert your own number) years or so of playing many express has just had things so deeply impressed into our psyche that they are viewed as The Way Things Must Be tm.

But on the other hand, if it works for you, no reason to change it or re do it. I'm glad I'm not one that has to design the new edition.

I like the way magic worked in all the previous editions before 4E. I do recognize that each had flaws especially at higher levels. As much as I enjoy 3E I really dislike how easy it to scribe scrolls and make items.

In my games I handle it by not giving them enough time to accomplish a lot of this. So they really have to choose carefully what they want to scribe.

I can't speak for other people but my 30 years has given me the experience to see that no system will ever be perfect and that there are a lot of ways to do things. For example my favorite magic system is Shadowrun not the new edition but the older ones. I don't think there is one right way to make a RPG.

I am perfectly willing to try a completely new magical system but it has to make sense to me. .

Here again your example does not make sense to me unless you are saying the knock works like actually picking the lock the way a rogue does and that does take skill to manipulate the mechanism. Okay that can explain the ten minutes though like a rogue who gets better at picking a lock manually if that is how you view it then a wizard who uses it and uses it often should get better and then faster at it.

We all choose where to draw the line at what seems believable to us and what just blows that out of the water. For me the rituals and the various powers make the game not fun for me.

I would not want to be designing it either talk about a huge task ahead of them if their goal really is to try and please fans of editions.

 

[Aramax]

Under NO condition would I buy 5e without Vancian magic(its ok if they add other versions)and the wizard only casts spell,should have to have acsess to ALL spells.

 

[Aldarc]

Under NO condition would I buy 5e without Vancian magic(its ok if they add other versions)and the wizard only casts spell,should have to have acsess to ALL spells.

And thus the Vancianites dictate the all terms and conditions for what the magic system of 5e will be.

 

[Rex Blunder]

I can actually see the 3e and 4e wizards fitting in the page count of the 5e PHB.

1) You include a vancian wizard, very much like the 3e wizard, complete with a giant spell section in the back of the book. This guy is called a "wizard".

2) You include a class called "evoker", who gets 2 fire-based at-will attacks and maybe 2 encounter attacks. They scale with level, and there are no choices about what attacks to take. Also, the evoker can memorize a very small number of wizard spells. This evoker class only eats up like a page, pretty much the way the 3e sorcerer did.

The handy side effect is that WOTC can dole out the illusionist, necromancer, etc. in later sourcebooks.

The big obstacle I see: what level is the highest wizard spell? 9 or 30? I have a secret preference, and I will not buy 5e if WOTC guesses wrong!!

 

[Aramax]

And thus the Vancianites dictate the all terms and conditions for what the magic system of 5e will be.

I said it would be ok for other types also,but without vancian its not even D&D,and yes,I would be HAPPY to dictate!

 

[Lwaxy]

Rituals should be optional and only for some spells. Other than that, the way magic was done up to 4e worked fine, or better yet, look at what PF did.