D&D 5E The 5E Magic User

hanez

First Post
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.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

TheFindus

First Post
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

First Post
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

Adventurer
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.
 

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

First Post
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

First Post
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

First Post
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

Legend
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

First Post
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".
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top