Vancian? Why can't we let it go?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Previous editions, third being the most familiar to me, didn't handle this very well. By level 10, a wizard had a lot of spell slots, but mostly for lower level spells that the target would easily save against. When the wizard's effective spells ran out, he was no longer functional

Which is why, IME, Wizards were best served by saving their big spells for those situations when they were called for, and generally not casting unless they really need to.

It drives Hussar nuts when I talk about the way our "specialist" plays mages, but it's actually pretty common for him to have spells left at the end of the day, even when we hit 6+ encounters.

And his mages are routinely seen using daggers, staves or ranged weapons depending on what particular Mage he's playing. (Weapon choices are about the only variation between his wizardly PCs over the years except 4Ed.)

So too would increasing a wizard's martial prowess, not to that of a Fighter, but enough to be effective.

Again, I don't see a need for a wizard to be any more effective a melee combatant- sans the spells we all know that ramp that all up enormously- than he already is.

A 10th level mage is as skilled with his weapon as a 5th level warrior type (sans stat & feats, of course). Going by the campaign world demographics that people like to cite all the time around here, that makes him a pretty impressive warrior in a bog-standard campaign world.

 

[pemerton]

They're not competent enough to defend themselves using weapon in a level equivalent fight at mid to higher levels

I personally don't see a reason for a wizard to be that good a melee combatant.

The question is, what does good/bad mean?

In AD&D, a wizard's base attack at first level is one less than a fighter's. A fighter is likely also to have better stats for fighting, but won't have a bonus to hit in melee with a STR of less than 17, and STR needs to be 18/51 to give a bonus to hit of +2.

As levels are gained, the wizard's bse attack increases at 2 or 3 every 5 levels, while the fighter increases by 2 every 2 levels (with an option for 1 every level). The "worseness" of the wizard therefore increases over time, but (i) the absolute difference that opens up is not going to be bigger than the contribution of the d20 roll, and (ii) except for demons, devils and some dragons, high level monsters don't have noticeably higher ACs than do low level monsters - most of their defence is in hit points.

3E's base attack bonuses superficially look similar to AD&D's, or even more generous to the wizard (+1 to hit per 2 levels), but the difference made by stats is a lot greater - most fighter's will have a stat bonus +3 or more ahead of the wizard's at first level, and only growing from their as levels and items are gained. And monster ACs grow at a much faster rate than they do in AD&D, so the wizard's failure to keep up with the fighter dooms him/her to an inability to hit in melee.

In 4e, at first level the difference between the wizard and the fighter in melee is similar to 3E: the fighter gets a +1 bonus, and has the stat advantage. As levels are gained, the level bonus of the two is the same, but the stat advantage runs the fighter's way, and monster defences still scale very steeply compared to AD&D.

My thoughts: if defences are expected to scale in a linear fashion with level, than every class needs to have attacks that scale similarly, unless you want certain tactics to be completely unviable at higher levels, in which case some alternative needs to be provided.

Even at paragon tier in 4e (my game is currently 15th level), mundane attacks are completely unviable for a wizard PC, whose STR started with a +0 bonus and has not shifted from that baseline for 14 levels. The fighter, who was +4 better at first level (16 STR plus class bonus), is now +6 better (20 STR plus class bonus) and has the powers (especially encounter and daily powers) to make melee a viable strategy at that level. If the wizard were to try to engage in melee (or use mundane missiles, for that matter) the contribution would be almost literally irrelevant - even if he hit, his damage, without stat bonuses on mere basic attacks, would be negligible, and he would have no capacity to impose effects.

4e more or less copes with this because (i) it gives the wizard a lot of viable non-melee strategies, and (ii) for those who want to play melee-viable wizards it has a range of other options like Swordmages, Battledancers, melee Warlocks and Bards, etc.

But for a simple game, as D&Dnext is meant to be (at least at its core), then these other options are less likely to be available. In which case, I think that the melee/magic gap for wizards probably should be kept closer, at all levels, to what it is at first level, and at first level should probably be brought closer to AD&D than to 3E/4e. The fact that a fighter is a skilled combatant who only improves with levels can be reflected in other ways - like manoeuvres, for example, or doing close bursts with weapons - rather than in sheer bonuses to hit.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

...But for a simple game, as D&Dnext is meant to be (at least at its core), then these other options are less likely to be available. In which case, I think that the melee/magic gap for wizards probably should be kept closer, at all levels, to what it is at first level, and at first level should probably be brought closer to AD&D than to 3E/4e. The fact that a fighter is a skilled combatant who only improves with levels can be reflected in other ways - like manoeuvres, for example, or doing close bursts with weapons - rather than in sheer bonuses to hit.

I don't have a strong preference on what the exact gap should be for D&D Next. I'd probably have a preference for how I want it to be at my table, but ... Whatever the gap, it should be relatively consistent across levels in the sheer bonuses. Whereas, I'd expect the other, more interesting stuff to diverge steadily as a character went higher and higher in a chosen niche.

Then, let's say for sake of illustration only that the gap is set at 8 for attack bonus. That is, unless you just totally go off the reservation (not just a 10 in Str but a nasty negative, or usiing a weapon that you aren't proficient in, and thus get some kind of penalty, or whatever) then you'll be within 8 points of some character fairly dedicated to a weapon, like the typical fighter with his longsword and shield. (There might be some problems with ability mods in this part, but then I'm assuming a new system here that can work those out.)

This is not including conditional buffs on the fighter from the cleric or anything like that. It's what the fighter uses when he is smashing level-equivalent or slightly lower creatures. If the fighter is after something tougher than that, then the wizard should be using magic or finding himself at a severe disadvantage if for some reason that isn't an option--though not as severe as, say, a 5th level 1E wizard out of spells.

Magic items and choice of weapons might also cause more of a divergence, but that's on the wizard. If he has a a better Dex than Str, goes for a short bow, and then tries to have a magic shortbow handed down from the other characters when they get something better, he can keep in the range. If he makes no efforts, he probably can't.

Namely, the wizard has bothered to do the kind of minimal but serious effort that you'd expect out of a guy who mainly uses magic for tough stuff, but runs around with adventurers all the time. Then say the same kind of calculations can be done for damage output with these weapon (using normal attacks) and so forth.

My conclusion is that the wizard should have some minimal magic available--if he bothers--to temporarily buff his own weapon usage into maybe as much as half the difference (but certainly no more)--i.e. 4 points of attack bonus in this example. This doesn't make him as good as the fighter. It probably makes him dish it out about as good as a cleric, and take hits like the rogue. This magic should not, typically, give him anything else--such as fighter like powers.

Because the point of such magic should not be to turn the wizard into a fighter and fight the tough battles that way, but to give him a viable way to turn into a minor but decent support fighter in mop up or other oddball situations.

The cleric would have similar magic, albeit more limited, because he has less of a gap to cross. An alternate form of a paladin might have similar magic that makes him conditionally better than the fighter in certain narrow situations (assuming he was conditionally worse in other such situations by default, which might not be a good assumption).

And if that is the range, it should be the same at 1st level as it as 10, 20, or 30 or whatever the max is. Again, assuming that the wizard makes that minimal effort to keep up. Also, the wizard should more or less be stuck with one weapon that has this "decent support" characteristic, unless he puts considerably more effort into it. Exactly what weapon-- crossbow, bow, staff, sword--should be up to the wizard.

This makes such support magic flavorful, but not overpowered, and serves the explicit purpose of keeping the wizard player engaged during those relatively tedious times for him or her when using powerful magic is not a good answer--and presumably items are either not available or also overkill.

Finally, setting the range explicitly this way means that hybrid casters (however built), such as a fighter/wizard multiclass or "bladesinger" type can follow more of the cleric or paladin style, but using some of this same magic. That is, if a wizard can get up 4 points with this conditional and not entirely reliable magic, then a fighter/wizard starts about the middle of the range, uses the same magic almost assuredly, and can just match the fighter on the raw numbers for a time. But not, however, the sheer magic power of the wizard in pure wizard mode, or sheer martial prowess of the fighter in pure fighter mode.

It is indeed starting at the +0/+1 BAB and similar numbers in each edition, then divergent scaling, that has set the foundation for busted buff magic in the first place. 4E went a little too far in normalizing this, IMHO, and thus didn't leave enough room for such buff magic to really fit in this manner. (Of course, given that 4E was designed to avoid mop up and minor fights for the most part, this wouldn't matter as much. Or wouldn't if the design had been fully realized.)

 

[pemerton]

Whatever the gap, it should be relatively consistent across levels in the sheer bonuses.

<snip>

Magic items and choice of weapons might also cause more of a divergence, but that's on the wizard. If he has a a better Dex than Str, goes for a short bow, and then tries to have a magic shortbow handed down from the other characters when they get something better, he can keep in the range. If he makes no efforts, he probably can't.

Namely, the wizard has bothered to do the kind of minimal but serious effort that you'd expect out of a guy who mainly uses magic for tough stuff, but runs around with adventurers all the time.

<snip>

And if that is the range, it should be the same at 1st level as it as 10, 20, or 30 or whatever the max is. Again, assuming that the wizard makes that minimal effort to keep up.

Agreed. Although - judging from your tone - my expectations as to "minimal effort" might be a bit slacker than yours. But that's a point of detail (important detail when it comes to rules and advice for pacing item acquistion, but detail).

I'd expect the other, more interesting stuff to diverge steadily as a character went higher and higher in a chosen niche.

<snip>

Also, the wizard should more or less be stuck with one weapon that has this "decent support" characteristic, unless he puts considerably more effort into it. Exactly what weapon-- crossbow, bow, staff, sword--should be up to the wizard.

Agreed.

My conclusion is that the wizard should have some minimal magic available--if he bothers--to temporarily buff his own weapon usage into maybe as much as half the difference (but certainly no more)

<snip>

Because the point of such magic should not be to turn the wizard into a fighter and fight the tough battles that way, but to give him a viable way to turn into a minor but decent support fighter in mop up or other oddball situations.

<snip>

This makes such support magic flavorful, but not overpowered, and serves the explicit purpose of keeping the wizard player engaged during those relatively tedious times for him or her when using powerful magic is not a good answer--and presumably items are either not available or also overkill.

I like the maths of this, but would be signficicantly (perhaps irrationally) moved by the flavour. And that makes me a bit tense - when I think of Gandalf "powering up", for example, I think of him hacking through the goblins in The Hobbit, or declaring to the Balrog that he is "A wielder of the Secret Fire", or (in the movie) leading the charge down the hill to Helm's Deep. But these aren't mopping up operations - they're just the opposite!

setting the range explicitly this way means that hybrid casters (however built), such as a fighter/wizard multiclass or "bladesinger" type can follow more of the cleric or paladin style, but using some of this same magic. That is, if a wizard can get up 4 points with this conditional and not entirely reliable magic, then a fighter/wizard starts about the middle of the range, uses the same magic almost assuredly, and can just match the fighter on the raw numbers for a time.

That's interesting, but - based on my own experience GMing warrior-mage PCs built a little like this in Rolemaster - the player is (or, at least, some players are) going to want the buffs on all the time. Which can push towards 15 minute day problems, etc, etc. Those experiences make me very wary of a system where any part of a PC's base prowess is expected to dervie from durational buffing.

Then, let's say for sake of illustration only that the gap is set at 8 for attack bonus. That is, unless you just totally go off the reservation (not just a 10 in Str but a nasty negative, or usiing a weapon that you aren't proficient in, and thus get some kind of penalty, or whatever) then you'll be within 8 points of some character fairly dedicated to a weapon, like the typical fighter with his longsword and shield.

I'm going to take a stab and say that 8 is too big: what the fighter hits on a roll of 9 (60%), the wizard hits only on a roll of 17 (20%). A gap of 6, assuming again that the fighter needs 9, gives the wizard a 30% chance to hit - and I don't think I would want less than half odds, given that the wizard is likely also (in any D&D-ish system) to be doing less damage. Even a gap of 4 will be noticable in play - hitting on a 13 (40%) and doing less damage.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The question is, what does good/bad mean?

I thought I was pretty clear when I said:

Again, I don't see a need for a wizard to be any more effective a melee combatant- sans the spells we all know that ramp that all up enormously- than he already is.

IOW, if the Wizard is going to retain spells that let him equal or surpass the warrior classes' combat ability, then he has no need to be anything but a weak martial combatant relative to level.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

IOW, if the Wizard is going to retain spells that let him equal or surpass the warrior classes' combat ability, then he has no need to be anything but a weak martial combatant relative to level.

A wizard that is really cool four times a day, and sucks for the rest of the session isn't as much fun as a wizard that is really cool four times a day and competent the rest of the time. Not just in setting terms, but in game terms.

The goal is to give him something he has a reasonable chance to succeed at during every round of a level appropriate combat. If you don't like the idea of him being more capable with weapons, fine, but at least address the problem we're actually discussing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A wizard that is really cool four times a day, and sucks for the rest of the session isn't as much fun as a wizard that is really cool four times a day and competent the rest of the time. Not just in setting terms, but in game terms.

To you, perhaps, but that sentiment isn't universal. I get great joy out of playing 3.X spellcasters as written.

The goal is to give him something he has a reasonable chance to succeed at during every round of a level appropriate combat.

In every edition of the game, even a simple fighter might not do something cool/do something with "a reasonable chance of success" every round of combat.

Don't get me wrong- I thought the alternative class features and reserve feats were pretty cool, and I would have liked to see them continue into 4Ed. But even though they let mages do magic more often, they also had their limitations, so were not usable 100% of the time. Even with those features, a 3.X mage might still find himself reaching for his dagger, staff or crossbow.

And I'm 100% OK with that.

 

[pemerton]

I thought I was pretty clear when I said:

IOW, if the Wizard is going to retain spells that let him equal or surpass the warrior classes' combat ability, then he has no need to be anything but a weak martial combatant relative to level.

Sorry, not clear enough. Because what both a first and a tenth level wizard are weak martial combatants relative to level, but a tenth level wizard is a weaker one, because of the way the scaling works in every version of D&D (but this is more pronounced, I think, in 3E and 4e than in AD&D).

As Crazy Jerome and I have been discussing in a couple of recent posts on this thread, we prefer that the "gap" between wizard and fighter remain constant across levels, so that a wizard hits (let's say) half as often, for half as much damage, at both 1st and 10th level. Whereas at present, this is probably true in 3E or 4e at first level, it is not true at 10th level, where a wizard's chance to hit is probably no greater than a third that of a fighter.

I don't see how this accelerating relative degradation of a wizard's martial ability contributes anything to the game.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Previous editions, third being the most familiar to me, didn't handle this very well. By level 10, a wizard had a lot of spell slots, but mostly for lower level spells that the target would easily save against. When the wizard's effective spells ran out, he was no longer functional.

Pre 3e, the save against a 1at level spell and a 9th level spell was no different. So wizards had a lot of options. 3e went awry with the scaling dcs imo.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sorry, not clear enough. Because what both a first and a tenth level wizard are weak martial combatants relative to level, but a tenth level wizard is a weaker one, because of the way the scaling works in every version of D&D (but this is more pronounced, I think, in 3E and 4e than in AD&D).

Yes, 100% aware of that...and stand by my original statement.

...we prefer that the "gap" between wizard and fighter remain constant across levels,

And I respectfully disagree that that should be the case. Again, I like it the way it is, especially in light of the availability of spells that let the wizard outshine the fighter types in melee.

I don't see how this accelerating relative degradation of a wizard's martial ability contributes anything to the game.

How do you defeat an aircraft carrier? Despite being the most powerful ships at sea, they have a weakness in that they do not have a strong inherent ability to defend themselves from foes that get past their planes and the more conventionally armed ships in the naval strike group. Their defensive armament is negligible compared to their offensive strike capability.

And the wizard is the Nimitz class carrier of D&D.

In a game in which spell disruption has become virtually non-existent, the Wizard's main weakness is exposed when he is forced to tangle with that warrior he failed to kill at a distance.

You know, like in the Conan stories...or the Fafhrd & Grey Mouser stories...or in the stories set in Niven's world of fading magic...and so on.

Long story short- the wizard who is extremely outclassed by the warrior who closes on him is a very common trope in fantasy. Make that melee proficiency gap too small and you lose that from the game.