D&D 5E The 5E Magic User

[mlund]

The "Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard" paradigm should never be revisited in the core of D&D. If they want to include an optional rules module for it, all the more power to them but I never want to sit down at such a table again. If you really want to play a game where your high-level wizard (or cleric) needs to be that much better than everyone else in the party then I don't think your play-style fits the "cooperation" and "no spotlight hogs" play-experience goals that modern D&D has been aiming for.

I don't strictly object to a Vancian Model of expanding a stable of memorized spells and spell-books - it's another fine rules option. The problem is with the mathematically model of power that came with it.

- Marty Lund

 

[Wormwood]

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

Nothing kills innovation more than absolutism.

 

[Falling Icicle]

My problems with the magic in 4e isn't as much that they nerfed wizards, it's that they took all of the cool stuff away. Some of the spells I liked in past editions were made into costly rituals, but that just meant i could never use them in combat and rarely used them at all, considering their cost.

I don't mind wizards that are balanced with other classes throughout all levels of play, what I mind are wizards that have basically the same, boring spells "I do X damage and push it 1 square" or "I do X damage and do some minor annoying as hell to keep track of status debuff for 1 round." Other than their utility spells, which they got far too few of, wizards in 4e were just like every other class but with different flavor text on their powers. 4e homogenized the classes and made everything repetitive, simplified and boring, IMO. No longer did spells have V,S or M components. No longer could you disrupt spells by hitting the caster. You couldn't dispel someone else's spell unless it was a "conjuration." Magic wasn't really distinguishable from any other "power" in any way, aside from a couple keywords. Bleh.

I want wizards and other spellcasters to be MAGICAL again! I'm fine with balancing things like long range teleportation or getting rid of save-or-die spells. But, for the love of the gods, let me play a wizard that can charm things again, or a real necromancer, or a wizard that has lots of fun utility to play around with instead of all of my spells being "I do X damage, [insert minor additional effect here]". The most fun I had playing wizards in pre 4e and pathfinder games was always finding fun and creative uses of non-damaging spells, like stone shape or transmute rock to mud. If 5e doesn't let me do things like that in combat as a spellcaster, I am simply not interested in ever playing it.

 

[Aldarc]

I would prefer a compromise solution: the spell system in Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. Most of us know it well enough. The caster prepares a limited number of spells from their spell list, and then they can spontaneously cast any of those spells in those spell slots a certain number of times per day. Three spells of one level can be sacrificed for another spell slot of higher level, or a spell slot of one level can be sacrificed for two spell slots of a lower level. Each prepared spell can either be heigtened as a spell slot higher or diminished as a spell slot lower. Spells can be further customized and personalized with templates. The spell list is broken down into three tiers: simple, complex, and exotic. Every 'mage' has access to simple spells. Feats are required for exotic spells. And it varies between classes as to the extent they have access to complex spells (e.g. the wizard-like 'magisters' have access to all complex spells, while the shamanistic 'greenbond' has access only to complex spells with the 'plant' and 'healing' descriptors.) Furthermore, the spell level to which classes have access also varies. It's a subtle mix of Vancian and the mana point system. The magic classes play like mages: not as a wizard or as a sorcerer, but a nice mix of the two. The primary issue would be to cut back on the spell list such that the flexibility and power of mages was brought in line with linear fighters.

 

[hanez]

I would prefer a compromise solution: the spell system in Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. Most of us know it well enough. The caster prepares a limited number of spells from their spell list, and then they can spontaneously cast any of those spells in those spell slots a certain number of times per day. Three spells of one level can be sacrificed for another spell slot of higher level, or a spell slot of one level can be sacrificed for two spell slots of a lower level. Each prepared spell can either be heigtened as a spell slot higher or diminished as a spell slot lower. Spells can be further customized and personalized with templates. The spell list is broken down into three tiers: simple, complex, and exotic. Every 'mage' has access to simple spells. Feats are required for exotic spells. And it varies between classes as to the extent they have access to complex spells (e.g. the wizard-like 'magisters' have access to all complex spells, while the shamanistic 'greenbond' has access only to complex spells with the 'plant' and 'healing' descriptors.) Furthermore, the spell level to which classes have access also varies. It's a subtle mix of Vancian and the mana point system. The magic classes play like mages: not as a wizard or as a sorcerer, but a nice mix of the two. The primary issue would be to cut back on the spell list such that the flexibility and power of mages was brought in line with linear fighters.

Seconded, I think the spell system in Arcana Unearthed (or rather Arcana Evolved the complete system), is the best spell system I have ever encountered. It really is a gem.

 

[Gadget]

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.

I found this strange. If I understand your argument, things done by magic should be done virtually instantaneously... because it's magic. To me this makes no more sense than any other arbitrary time to perform the task. Obviously, if the time to cast the spell is to long compared to the benefit granted, it would be a poor choice. The point I was trying to make above is the combat magic is more the unleashing of raw magical force that is (largely) undirected, where more subtle effects, such as knock require much tighter focus and direction of magical energies into specified formula with stricter control, etc. It works for me, though I agree that 10 minutes is probably to excessive in this particular case. One minute would be enough.

This brings me to another issue I've had with earlier spell systems. There are huge lists of spells in existence, many of them very flavorful like say, Illusory Script. A very flavorful spell but, I know my experience runs counter to many of you who run intrigue laden campaigns where Illusory Script saves the day, but I have rarely seen the need to take it in daily spell preparation, especially since it has to compete with the likes of Fireball; yet it's nice to know I have it in my spell book and can use it, if the need arises. Therefore, IME, Illusory script is largely a world building, or fantasy world simulating spell. This is great, it draws me into the fiction and helps the game come alive a little more. Unfortunately (you knew there was an unfortunately coming, didn't you?), this breaks down for me when you realize that a lot of your spells ( though certainly not all, like the above mentioned Illusory Script) are conveniently able to be cast in one round or less, because they were really designed to fit into a combative adventure's arsenal of quick fixes that could be pulled out of a hat (or wand or scroll, etc) in a moments notice. And while they may be relatively balanced in that context, it really messes up the immersion factor when you give even a cursory thought to what world changing effects would be wrought by any moderate talent wizard who spammed these spells out of the combat / adventure scenario. So it gave me a good simulation at first blush, indeed it practically forces one into a fantasy world simulation mode, then kind of ruins it me at the same time.

Now there are many ways to put in limits (there are only so many wizards of any talent in the world and they don't work for free, etc.) or rationalize your way around this, but at least 4e, for all its flaws (and there are many), tried to address this somewhat and make some of that world changing magic less accessible through the Ritual system. Did it work well? No, not really, but I think it was an admirable attempt at the problem.

Then there is the ever escalating magical 'arms race' of spell/magic resistance, spell turning, various globes of invulnerably, and not to mention the 'nuke' of dispel magic that gets thrown into the mix to counter the ever increasing potency and convenience of spells in play. Once again, this can be great from a verisimilitude perspective, but it does get rather cumbersome in play for the actual gamers trying to, well...play the game.

 

[Someone]

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.

I feel a bit strawmanned there; I neved advocated making every class equal, though I can understand that 4e's power structure may make people feel that way. I maintain that making classes different by giving them vastly different resources to handle, resources that may make one of them stay still doing nothing for rounds is not the best idea.

(Not to mention that a spellcaster of high enough level to cast meteor shower has little reason to envy a fighter's ability to charge into danger or damage output.)

 

[Li Shenron]

I feel that magic shopping, while problematic, is the lesser issue when compared to the 3e magic item creation feats. A possible solution for shopping might be to allow it, but strictly limit the availability of what magic items are on the market. In any case, 5e should support both shopping and "no magic shop" styles of play.

The problem with the crafting feats is that they allow you to circumvent the gold limit (and potentially limited availability) of shopping. It costs 1/2 gold and a (usually) marginal amount of xp. Now granted, some players were turned off by the idea of spending xp and simply didn't craft, but those who wanted to could break the system pretty fast...

If you are thinking about scrolls and wands, then I agree. Crafting them is a way to easily circumvent the limitations of spell preparation (by making 1-2 scrolls for every rarely used spell so that you never use a slot for it) and spells per day (by making wands for very frequently used spells, in case you run out of them). It was totally worth the gp/xp cost. I didn't hate these strategies that much tho...

But I tend to disagree on permanent magic items. Their requirements (in the form of known spells) prevented to be able to create many different items. Of course these requirements were often circumvented by buying scrolls or wands of the needed spells, but again this becomes a problem of market availability.

I have no idea how 5e can support both scenarios... at least I hope they don't make adventures require magic items (like giving DR/+X to all monsters beyond a certain level...). But characters in a campaign where there is plenty of magic items in every village store are always going to be significantly more powerful than those in a no-magic-for-sale campaign, so at least the game should provide a simple formula to estimate what is the party level difference in these cases.

 

[TheFindus]

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.

I agree with this 100%. This is one of the things that will make it hard to create a "universal" edition.
My hope is that WotC will try to satisfy the loyal customers they have with 4E, like me.
Maybe they can satisfy your taste and mine. I would appreciate that a lot.

 

[Fanaelialae]

If you are thinking about scrolls and wands, then I agree. Crafting them is a way to easily circumvent the limitations of spell preparation (by making 1-2 scrolls for every rarely used spell so that you never use a slot for it) and spells per day (by making wands for very frequently used spells, in case you run out of them). It was totally worth the gp/xp cost. I didn't hate these strategies that much tho...

But I tend to disagree on permanent magic items. Their requirements (in the form of known spells) prevented to be able to create many different items. Of course these requirements were often circumvented by buying scrolls or wands of the needed spells, but again this becomes a problem of market availability.

I have no idea how 5e can support both scenarios... at least I hope they don't make adventures require magic items (like giving DR/+X to all monsters beyond a certain level...). But characters in a campaign where there is plenty of magic items in every village store are always going to be significantly more powerful than those in a no-magic-for-sale campaign, so at least the game should provide a simple formula to estimate what is the party level difference in these cases.

Scrolls and wands are a big part of that, yes. There's not a huge difference between a fighter who can craft and stock up on full heal potions, and a caster who could stock up on 2 of every spell and a few wands on top. It allows the class to completely circumvent their innate limitations, which in my experience is one of the most gamebreaking elements you can introduce into the game. The main difference being, I just made up full heal potions.

Don't get me wrong, one or two scrolls does not a game break. However, I did see 3e broken utterly by just such a mage, and I haven't played it since as a result. I don't necessarily think that everything has to be balanced to within one percent of variation, but this was at the complete opposite of the spectrum. I don't want a game that can be gamed to that degree. What's the point of vancian limitations if a mage can simply craft himself nearly infinite additional spell slots?

Permanent items were also an issue, though to a lesser extent. Yes, there were limitations, but you could nonetheless cherry pick anything you wanted as long as you had the right spells. Too bad if the DM thinks that a Flaming Frosting Shocking Corrosive Longsword + 1 is silly conceptually, you've got the spells and you're going to start cranking out your Swords of Nonsensical Damage (at half the cost, no less).

I believe I know how to retain item crafting without opening the floodgates of brokeness, but I doubt it would be a popular option. Make crafting hard, like it was in 2e. Require items that the players have to adventure for, such as kraken blood for a scroll, or dragon bone for a staff. Perhaps even bring back esoteric components, such as the smile of a virtuous man. This way players can craft items, but they certainly cannot mass produce them, and moreover, the wizard cannot have a scroll for every occasion because then all he would ever do is adventure searching for scroll writing components. But as I said, I don't see this being too popular.

I'll be happy as long as there's an option for preserving class limitations. However, I nonetheless believe it would be wise for them to excise the scroll option from the game completely (something like the 4e ritual scrolls, on the other hand, is harmless). Wands aren't quite as bad, since they aren't a solution to every conceivable problem. I think many people didn't see issues with it because the xp costs (marginal though they were) scared a lot of players off. That was the case for a very long time in my group, who used crafting feats sparingly or not at all. In the hands of a canny player though, I can attest to just how broken an option they really were.

 

[malkav666]

I am not really sure what would be good for the 5e wizard class. I know I really like how 3e/PF handle casters, but even though its my preferred method of dealing with magic (out of the D&D flavors) even I must admit that if a player wants to, they can abuse the system and have better options than others. My first gut instinct in this case is to assume an adversarial relationship between the DM and the offending mage or perhaps a similar status between the other players and the caster. Or perhaps a game pace that allows the caster the regain their resources at such a quick rate that they never really have to deal with the power balancing aspect of Vancian casting (ie. the 15 minute work day). But that is just based on my own groups. I know there are many different folks who game and do so in different environments than my own group.

So while Vancian works just fine for my group, even we have problems every so often with a caster being too good, but TBH we sometimes run into the same scenario with other class/item/power combos that have nothing to do with casters. We just handle balance issues on a case by case basis, and usually if the group has a good relationship with one another it can be settled by pulling the player aside and letting them know that while they have designed a baddass combo that really works, could they please not use it EVERY scene, to add some more enjoyment to the session across the group. I usually don't even have to adjust the rules or take away/nerf the ability/combo. Its kind of fun to be a badass. And some of my players really enjoy pouring over rules looking for new ways to do just that. As long as everyone realizes we are playing a game TOGETHER and everybody in the group is given access to that "I am a badass" feeling then it all works out for us.

I do not mind 4e wizards. I don't think the AEDU system is perfect but it could of worked for me. My main gripe about 4e Wizards is really about the AEDU system itself. Its not a bad system, and I definitely could envision a good class designed on that principle. But all of the classes in 4e used it and they all seemed a bit too similar in scope to really be different classes to me. This made me feel like I was playing one class regardless of which one I chose. In the end it is this idea that drove my group away from 4e more than any other. There was a strong consensus in my gaming circles that class choice did not really matter. And when we played different classes they played so similarly to other classes that the choice had less reward than in previous iterations of the game.

I guess my main wish for the 5e wizard is for it to feel different. I think there is more room in the class design for other systems aside from AEDU. I would like to play a Wizard that feels very different then playing a fighter and to be able to make different developmental choices when playing one. But I guess this applies to other classes as well. I would like thief characters to feel different than fighters as well for example.

But as far as Vancian vs ADEU for wizard? I don't really care as long as multiple play styles can easily be supported by whatever they choose, and that when I play another class, that creating the toon and managing its resources aren't so similar that they feel the same. I am willing to take a look at whatever they design with an open mind as far as the framework. I just want more variety in class design, and for it to be fun.

But those are just my own wishes, it should not be read as an argument trying to prove my views. I know what works for me and my groups. It was posted in the hopes that if the designers are in fact reading these threads that I could weigh in with them.

love,

malkav

 

[GMforPowergamers]

my perfect 5e wizard looks like this:

choose 5 cantrips usable at will +1 per 5 levels
Detect magic, Magic missle, Ray of frost, Mage hand, Suggestion, Prestdigatation, true strike (use Int for melee basic attack instead of str), Cload of daggers, ghost sound, and scare (use arcna instead of Intimadate)

gain identfy rituel + # of rituels of 1st level equal to int mod +2 rituels every 5 levels.

Spells per day. Start with Int mod per day 1st level spells. then at level 2 gain 1 second and 1 first level spell, at 3rd gain 1 1st 1 second 1 third. at 4th level gain no new spells at 5th level gain 1 2nd 1 3rd 1 5th, at 6th level gain 1 3rd 1 5th 1 6th, at 7th gain 1 5th 1 6th and 1 7th level gain none at 8th at 9th gain 1 6th 1 7th 1 9th, at 10th gain 1 7th 1 9th 1 10th.

so a wizard with a 20 int at level 10 would have
7 at will cantrips, 8 rituels
7 1st level spells per day
3 2nd level spells per day
3 5th level spells per day
3 6th level spells per day
3 7th level spells per day
2 9th level spells per day
1 10th level spell per day
so 22 daily spell slots.

spell book: You would start with 2+Int mod 1st level spells, and every level you could add 2 new spells to your spell book.
so that wizard would have 24 spells known in his book. (like 2 and 3e there are other ways to add spells like treasure but that is base)

starting at level 11 you can trade slots up for higher level ones, so at level 11 instead of getting more slots, you can trade 1 1st level slot for an 11th level one.

Like 4e spells of level 1,3,5,7,and 9 are attack spells 2,6,and 10 are utility ones. 4,8,14,18,24,and 28 don't have spells, but you learn new ones in your book, and you can at 14,18,24,28 still trade one slot.


I would also prefer for the base rule not be int or dex to AC, but instead classes like mage get a class feature "Mage armor" when in no armor (or cloth armor) a magemay add his Int instead of his dex to AC.


edit: note the lack of encounter powers, and yes he could prep the same spell multi times, and yes you could prep a lower level spell in a higher level slot. This should keep 33 daily powers on par with 4 encoutner 4 daily 7 utilites (that can be d or e) just fine

 

[Hassassin]

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.

I think knock is a perfect example of how that thing was designed around in the past. You don't need a rogue (though he helps), since if you see a locked door your wizard can knock, the fighter can bash it or whatever. OTOH, if the rogue is there he'll do it, since he is better at it: no resources consumed, no sound, you can still close the door.

 

[Frostmarrow]

To me the most important thing about being a magic-user is certainty A wizard need not roll dice to use his stuff. Magic works and hits unerringly.To me it's not as important that spells are memorized and forgotten when cast.

I like the idea of spellcasting either be physically taxing (in literature) or require a build up. Say, for instance that a wizard need to generate power first and then use it to cast spells. Different spells have different costs and effects and maybe they also generate different amounts of residual power. A wizard player would need to balance a budget of spell points in combat. Power can be generated by force of will, by expending moon stones, or maybe even by draining the surroundings. It's important it is a slow process to generate power (so mages are vulnerable for awhile) and where magic is unerring in execution it is unreliable in the time it takes to execute it. So in order to cast fireball a wizard must first survive a few rounds using less costly spells before he can unleash his best attack.

 

[Incenjucar]

To me the most important thing about being a magic-user is certainty A wizard need not roll dice to use his stuff. Magic works and hits unerringly.

I'm not sure I understand this position. In what fiction are wizards incapable of failure? Heck, prior to 4th edition, there is Spell Resistance.

 

[Stalker0]

Seconded, I think the spell system in Arcana Unearthed (or rather Arcana Evolved the complete system), is the best spell system I have ever encountered. It really is a gem.

I ran an AE campaign and I also really loved the magic system.

But that said, I also found it the most unbalancing spell system in dnd I have played to date Casters there have a crazy ton of power and flexibility.

So if that system were implemented a lot of would have to be taken out if you still wanted wizard/fighter balance.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I'm not sure I understand this position. In what fiction are wizards incapable of failure? Heck, prior to 4th edition, there is Spell Resistance.

In D&D spells are cast with no chance of error. Other games require a check to cast spells but that sucks (which incidentally works well in Call of Cthulhu). Spell Resistance is a defense on part of the target. My position is that no failure chance to cast spells is the part of Vancian magic worth keeping.

 

[Incenjucar]

In D&D spells are cast with no chance of error. Other games require a check to cast spells but that sucks (which incidentally works well in Call of Cthulhu). Spell Resistance is a defense on part of the target. My position is that no failure chance to cast spells is the part of Vancian magic worth keeping.

With non-casters and all classes in pre-4E, you have a variable attack vs. a static defense.

With non-4E casters, you have a static offense vs. a variable defense.

The main significant difference is that there's no critical hit or critical miss.

Otherwise you just have 1d20 vs. DC 10 instead of DC 10 vs. 1d20.

 

[avin]

Being a Fighter infiltrated here I just wish we don't move back to a D&D where melee classes are nothing on higher levels.

On a side note, I'm fond of old WW Mage's system, but it's too alien for D&D

 

[Hassassin]

The main significant difference is that there's no critical hit or critical miss.

Kinda. In 3e at least there is critical fail in save, where your items may break.